If there aren't some real consequences against FL and MI won't that encourage future rule scoffing?

[alphafemale]

I can imagine states backward leapfrogging all over the place if there is no sting felt by FL and MI.

[cliffordu]

1. Yeah. I'm thinking it should be a ONE day primary, nationwide.

no more of this year long primary bullshit.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. what he said

[lligrd]

5. That Would favor Only Those Well Known

in this case Hillary. The primaries over time allow candidates to visit each state and get their view across. Can't count on the National media to do that any longer.

[KSinTX]

7. Not if the primary was held after a series of televised debates

on C-SPAN or conducted by a professional debate organization NOT the "press". It would allow ALL candidates from a party (not the "front runners") to engage each other on real issues and with real Q & As. Maybe a consortium of universities or something like that.

[lligrd]

8. Oh Yeah, How Many People Watch CSPAN

We have to keep some sense of the real world here.

[KSinTX]

24. The real world is a fluid place

Just because people don't watch something now does not mean they won't in future. That speaks to a static electorate which, if this campaign cycle has proven nothing else, it isn't. There is a new dynamic at work and a new form of politics in play.

Old school politics (and media coverage) has been stunned by new paradigms in fundraising, campaign strategies, YouTube coverage, voter registration, communications and yes, even peoples' willingness to turn to new forms of information sources. So, you see, C-SPAN as a possible medium is not as far fetched as you think. Interest in this election is too intense for such an idea not to be viable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. The league of women's voters ran then until fairly recently

and they did a good job

(And people watched them back then)

[lligrd]

19. You Mean Before The Republican Party Owned The Media?

Those were the good old days but they are history.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. You think things will remain as they are right now?

Once the republicans controlled all and they lost it

Robber Barons come to mind

Then there is the new deal

Things do NOT stay the same

[KSinTX]

25. I just said as much upthread. You are spot on!

All I can say is, like the old commercial: this is NOT your father's politics! Not any more.

[cliffordu]

44. The internet has lowered the bar to entry significantly -

Obama COULDNT be where he is without it. He'd have had to drop a year ago.

[Zachstar]

11. I 100 percent agree with this.

Tho due to logistics you may have to have 4 super Tuesdays.

[sandnsea]

15. No. Then money becomes everything

We need to shorten it for sure, but I think there has got to be some small states up front, we've got to have a chance for retail politics and movements.

[SoCalDem]

17. Quarter the country, and have 4 regional primaries

a month apart..Iowa & NH can still go first if they insist..but start them in Feb..and we'd be done in May, and with 4 super Tuesdays, we'd arrive at a winner sooner..

also set the proportional races differently...

while there are many candidates , give the winner 50%, 2nd 25%, and the rest share the remaining 25%....straight percentages by popular vote..not by districts ..no bonuses or add-ons..

after there are just two candidates, give the winner 70% & the runner-up 30%..

No caucuses..just primaries.. no two-steppers..

CLOSED primaries with 120 day cut off for "switchers"..
60 days for never-voted-befores

Have Independent ballots with ALL names on it..for BOTH parties..(for informational purposes only..if they want to BE independents, then they cannot pick OUR candidates)

and NO SUPER delegates...ever again...

if they need to pack a huge auditorium, they can have "invited guests"..but no added delegates..

[alphafemale]

42. It's really weird that PA got 6 weeks of attention this year.

Here in GA we never see anyone personally unless we go to SC or FL.

[lligrd]

3. No Duh

Funny how Hillary was all for the rules when she was projected to be the winner.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Yes.

Absolutely.

[Guava Jelly]

6. You can't tell your kid they can't do something because they were bad

Then cave in because they started to cry.
That would be shitty parenting

[ColbertWatcher]

13. But, but...

[sandnsea]

16. And none of us have ever been shitty parents

I think they've suffered enough. Seat them after Hillary concedes and releases all her delegates to vote for the winner.

[Guava Jelly]

20. If they are seated and nobody profits then I will be ok with it.

.

[alphafemale]

21. That scenario would also declare null and void any early power grab...

By their shifting the vote backward.

And would probably be OK.

[Zachstar]

9. They are being punished.

Their delegations will go down in history as being able to do so simply because of the close race and a "Deal" was made.

I do not think any state wants to take a chance in 2012.

[TexasObserver]

10. Yes. That's why I favor stripping the 2 states' superdelegates of voting at the convention.

You want to punish the Michigan and Florida Democrats who are culpable. You allow the state to have a delegation, with each side getting half those delegates. But the punishment is meted out on the state party officials who knowingly violated the DNC rules. You hang those people out to dry. You allow them convention credentials, but NO VOTE.

So Bill Nelson and Carl Levin, and others, lose their vote this convention.

Punish the perps.

[MaineDem]

41. I totally agree with you. n/t

[Missouri Girl]

43. I agree!

I said that myself yesterday. Don't allow those that stood by and allowed - or started this mess - to be able to have any voice at all. There has to be some punishment.

[The Magistrate]

12. A Better Course, Ma'am

Would be to re-draw the rules in order to remove the basic grievance, which is the outlandish degree of influence enjoyed by small and unrepresentative states in the nominating process.

The fact is, there is no means available to punish the actual violators of the rules, namely the officials of state parties. Disenfranchising the voting Democrats of a state is no real punishment to these officials, and damaging to the Party.

[alphafemale]

18. Punishing the officials? How creative are we allowed to get?

That is an idea worth exploring.

:evilgrin:

[The Magistrate]

28. Not Very, Ma'am, Unfortunately

The national committee has no authority to dismiss a state Party chairman, or to fine him or her.

It might be good to have a real Central Committee, with some teeth to show, but this is an unlikely development.

[alphafemale]

30. There's always public scorning. These people would "normally" be anonymous...right?

Well THAT at least could change.

:patriot:

[TexasObserver]

32. The authority comes from being in a position to dictate terms for the delegations.

If the DNC decides to make as a condition of seating the delegates the negating of the votes of the states' superdelegates, that is a term Michigan and Florida can accept or not. If they don't accept, they don't get seated as they wish.

The National party has both states dead to rights on these violations, and ANYTHING the national party gives them in settlement will be a gift. If the national party wants to make some examples by refusing to allow voting for certain perps, they can do it.

I believe a few heads need to roll in both states, at least in the national convention sense. They're merely being punished by not allowing their votes at the convention. A sanction of a dozen or so perps in each state is a fair trade off for allowing their delegates to be seated, in spite of their open rebellion.

As for changing the system which mandates the four states earlier, that's a question to be decided by the party leadership, on a democratic basis. It's an open argument as to who should go first, but it's clear that the national party can and does have its reasons for the schedule it favors. Could we really have it unregulated and expect anything but chaos?

[The Magistrate]

33. But It Does Not Hurt Them, Sir

The people who actually violated the rules receive no real punishment if a delegation goes unseated. They retain state party offices, and draw state party salaries if these exist, and otherwise exercise their various perquisites and powers locally. It is the voters in the state, the Democratic rank and file, who suffer, by going unrepresented at the national convention. There simply are no structures in place that give the national party means to really punish state party officials.

[TexasObserver]

34. Sure, it hurts them. They're politicians who answer to their constituencies.

They have to run for reelection as either elected officials or party officials. They have or lose power inside their state. If the perps are punished, that diminishes the role such persons can play at the convention.

The way to properly punish those who did this is to identify them and deny them convention voting rights. Part of that deal would be to allow each state a delegation, but even then, the make up of the delegation would be subject to oversight by the DNC.

You keep saying there are no structures in place that give the national party means to punish state party officials, but there is! I've described it. No one gets floor credentials unless the DNC issues them floor credentials. If the DNC decides the price for rebellion is denial of floor credentials to the Michigan and Florida state party officials who engaged in this rebellion, THAT is the structure by which it is done.

It is the power of the DNC to exact a punishment that gives them the authority to do it. The convention is their show, and they can bar any state official they wish, for any reason.

[The Magistrate]

36. My Ward Committeeman, Sir, Would Not Care

He would still have his local clouts, his alderman, his precinct workers, his zoning variances, and all the rest of it. The County chairman would care even less. None of these people are going to loose local party office over this, for they gain that by internal local party actions where the loyalties at play have little if anything to do with national questions. They are not being allowed to attend a gala bash, and that is all. It is not such a big deal, and not much of a deterrent.

[TexasObserver]

37. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

Politicians exist on their stroke, and if they are cut off or limited from access and influence at the levels above them, their ability to deliver and dispense patronage is limited.

If it didn't matter, people wouldn't be lined up to get credentials, and to use the voting power they have as delegates.

We disagree on how power is used in the DNC and the party.

[The Magistrate]

38. Fair Enough, Sir

Conditions may be different in our different locales.

Please understand, too, if I have failed to make it clear, that we do not disagree on the proposition that there should be punishment of those responsible for breaking the Party's primary schedule, only on whether the punishment proposed is sufficient, and whether it will fall mostly on the people who actually did the deed.

[TexasObserver]

39. We agree that the normal delegate number should be seated.

I want it split 50-50 because I don't think either state can be allowed to tip the nomination process, if you want to sanction to address the underlying concern.

Superdelegates, though, are actual people, and we know which ones were key in the early primary dates. You have to do something about those people, and some of them are ranking Democrats. You want them at the convention, but you can't let them walk around as if to say "see, we did what we wanted and paid no price."

You want people to know that next time, there will be a sanction which seeks out the actual rabble rousers at the state level.

I don't know how the DNC can effectively sanction the misconduct otherwise.

[davidpdx]

23. I think there has to be some consequence for Florida and Michigan

to set a precent for this kind of thing in the future. If it were up to me, seat the pledged delegates at 1/2 of the amount they were suppose to get for Florida and base it on the Jan 19th election. For Michigan, seat them at half and split the pledged delegates 50/50. Neither state should get super delegates. Let them sit at home and watch the convention like the rest of us.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. You presume

that states will always have the desire to break the rules. Why not fix the system so that states are happy?

It's so funny - a year ago NOBODY on this board defended the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire. It was universally viewed as a bad thing. Now people will defend it to the death in order to make a case for Obama to get the nomination.

[alphafemale]

29. Seating the delegates As Is would not change anything at this point.

As far as Obama winning. So that argument is now pointless.

But this election cycle was ridiculous so far as pedaling the dates backward.

If this idiocy were to continue the primaries soon could grow to be two years long. Or longer.

Hey! Why not start the primary for the NEXT presidential election IMMEDIATELY after the election.

Hell. Why should we even wait for the inauguration? That's for suckers.

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

35. Why not read my post

and answer that?

How about devising a system where the states aren't so pissed off they want to break the rules?

[alphafemale]

40. "Now people will defend it to the death in order to make a case for Obama to get the nomination."

FL and MI won't matter anymore. Obama still won. Even with the most fantastical Hillary counts imaginable.

Obama has won.

[boppers]

27. Why don't we have the GE state by state, over a few months?

Same question, same answers.

[leftofcool]

31. I hate to tell ya, but people are not only scoffing, they are

laughing their asses off. Both Dems and Repukes. It doesn't have anything to do with rules or breaking rules either. It is the pathetic way the entire process was set up by the DNC.