Why does Hillary want to disenfranchise NON-VOTERS in Florida and Michigan who knew the rules?

[jenmito]

"Sen. Hillary Clinton maintains that excluding Michigan and Florida from the Democrats’ national convention this summer disenfranchises 2.3 million people who voted in the two states’ Democratic primaries in January. But a new study suggests that counting the two states’ results would disenfranchise almost as many people who probably would have voted in a party-approved primary, but didn’t go to the polls because they figured their ballots wouldn’t be counted."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/19/disenfranchising-non-voters-in-florida-and-michigan/

She has been talking about counting every vote ever since she realized she had no chance of winning the delegate count-which is how our process works-but she obviously doesn't care about all the voters who stayed home knowing their votes weren't going to count. (Remember she said so herself.) So the "count every vote" campaign is, as most of her other desperate attempts to stay alive politically, bull.

Also, I hope voters representing every caucus state show up on Saturday to point out they they don't "count" in Hillary's calculation of having the popular vote lead. Maybe throw in an "uncommitted" voter for good measure. :)

[TheDoorbellRang]

1. I'm sorry, but you're trying to inject some logic here

Is that allowed?:D

[jenmito]

2. Only in the real world...

where Hillary, her surrogates, and her supporters apparently aren't living. :D

[Hugabear]

3. Why didn't Hillary fight this hard before the DNC made its decision?

Why did she wait until she started sliding after Super Tuesday to decide she needed to speak up?

[jenmito]

6. Because she planned on disenfranchizing every state that voted after Feb. 5th-

the date she planned on "wrapping it up." She's not fighting for voters. She's fighting for herself.

[Shae]

69. "She's not fighting for voters. She's fighting for herself."

But you have to admit it SOUNDS better to say you're fighting for voters.
And undoubtedly, there will be some that will swallow that lie.

And even some who don't believe it but are happy to perpetuate it, because their morals are equal to hers.

[jenmito]

79. Yes, it DOES sound better to say that, which is why she says that...

and sadly, there are MORE than some who swallow that lie. And yes, there are those in the MEDIA who don't believe it but keep perpetuating it for RATINGS sake.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. How do you disenfranchise people who DIDN'T vote?

FL has record turnout in its primary.

[jenmito]

5. You apparently didn't read the article. Read it and get back to me.

:hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. The article says that the people who chose not to vote would be disenfranchised.

The "logic" goes; they chose not to vote because they didn't think their votes would matter. If the rules are changed such that the votes in that state do matter, it has the effect of disenfranchising those who stayed on the couch.

In other words, tossing the votes from an entire state in the round file is okay, but retrieving them from the trash has the effect of disenfranchising those who might have been roused to action by enough tv cameras.

[jenmito]

27. Yup-my parents were two of those who were disenfranchised because they

didn't vote, knowing their votes wouldn't count. It's not fair to change the rules NOW that Hillary is desperate to get closer to Obama in the electoral count and popular vote (which is irrelevant).

[DanTex]

28. And the article is correct.

There needs to be a free and fair election. Everyone must know its a real election. Everyone has a chance to participate if they want.

If you tell everyone their votes aren't going to "count for anything", then it's not a free and fair election. You can't go back and say "actually that thing we had last week was the election -- sorry if you missed it". Because that's not fair to the people who acted according to the officially held and universally accepted assumption that there would be no point to voting since their vote wouldn't count.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. All votes count.

Call me old school, but when it is time to vote, for whatever purpose, I do so.

[DanTex]

41. Call me well-informed (or gullible) but I believed the DNC (and Hillary)

when they said the election won't count.

But see that's just the point. It's not a free and fair election unless EVERYONE understands that the election is going to count. Not just those who aren't paying attention or don't care about the rules.

You can vote in any election you want. I can print out some ballots and you can write Hillary on all of them. Knock yourself out.

But it doesn't count unless the vote is cast as part of a true free and fair election.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. And yet, it's Obama supporters who object most strenuously to a "real" revote. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. That is a fucking LIE.

The DNC offered to fund a re-vote. The FL Democratic party REFUSED. Obama had nothing to do with it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Who said Obama? I said his supporters.

Straw men are boring. One only has to do a very cursory search of DU to find plenty of Obama supporters who stridently oppose a revote. "The rules are the rules".

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. And you will find just as many who vigorously support a complete

and honest re-vote, as the ONLY way to really settle this - and STILL it was the DLC Florida Democratic establishment that REFUSED. Whether we like it or not.

So it is STILL a LIE.

Talk about strawmen.

[LisaM]

84. Find me ONE Obama supporter who supported a complete re-vote

in Michigan and Florida - back when they were trying to get one. And I don't mean a caucus; I mean a re-vote.

[RaleighNCDUer]

86. Well, there's ME.

And any number of supporters on this board who said the same thing. If the Clintonistas would look outside their echo chamber you'd find there are a great many, even a vast majority of Obama supporters who actually believe in the democratic process.

And again, it was the Florida DLC party leaders who refused a revote OR a caucus. It's either validate their cheating, or nothing.

[DanTex]

57. So I guess you've conceded that counting FL votes is unfair.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Why don't you go ahead and start another thread about the complications of having a revote, and about who objected more strenuously.

In fact, as long as we're bringing up unrelated topics ... I've always wondered ... How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? ... What do you think?

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. Four cords a day, assuming 10 hours of daylight.

As for the rest, conventional wisdom among Obama supporters seems quite fluid.

January: "Hillary was on the ballot but Obama wasn't?! An outrage! FL and MI should revote!"
March: "Obama's ahead! The rules are the rules! MI and FL don't count! - no revote!".
April: "Hillary needs to shut up about popular vote, because MI and FL don't count."
May: "Obama's ahead! Way ahead... err, how far ahead? Super-duper far? Well, I suppose they could revote."

[DevonRex]

61. You're are so right! nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Even when there is someone standing at the door saying

"This is not a legitimate election because it is in violation of the party rules. If you go inside and vote, your vote will not be applied to the selection of a primary candidate. It only applies to the referendums down ticket."

All votes count IN LEGITIMATE ELECTIONS. This was not a legitimate election, and EVERYONE knew it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. That is only half the story --

the Florida Democratic Party REFUSED any compromise re-vote, even if funded by the DNC or other entities. IOW, they WANT to disenfranchise those who stayed home upon being told their vote would not count. They want ONLY the DLC candidate to have a vote.

It has nothing to do with TV cameras - I don't know where the fuck that came from.

[DevonRex]

63. Yep. They only wanted a name recognition vote. nt

[Hola]

56. Exactly

You hit the nail on the head!

Imagine this was the Presidential or mid-term election. FL moves up it's vote to Oct 31st instead of Nov. The federal electoral commission says the vote will be invalid and will not count. Some people vote on that day regardless, others, heeding the rules, do not. Is the 31st result fair and accurate - I think not!

[Hugabear]

9. Since you live in Florida, you should know there was a very important issue on the ballot

Amendment One, which would reduce property taxes. That was a HUGE issue here in Florida, many people I know were going to vote simply because of that.

[yourguide]

23. And what about the 30+% of FL residents who dont own their own homes...

and who that property tax amendment would give them zero reason to go to the polls?

[Hugabear]

37. That amendment affects EVERYBODY in Florida - even if you don't own property

Less property tax revenue equals less money for education and social services. Since the amendment passed, we're already seeing drastic cuts in education, as school boards across the state are forced to lay off teachers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. And how many of them voted on the property tax issue

and left the primary choice blank?

And how many impoverished citizens, to whom a property tax issue is pure myth anyway, didn't bother to show up because the issue had no effect on them? (For that matter, that being on the ballot would tend to weigh the election toward the wealthy and middle-class Hillary supporters, while the economically disadvantaged Obama supporters stayed home - having no dog in that fight.)

Know what? You CAN'T answer those questions. Because it was NOT a legitimate election, insofar as the primary was concerned.

[Hugabear]

65. The property tax issue affects everyone, not just those who pay property taxes

The property tax issue affects EVERYONE. Even if you don't pay property taxes, it still affects you. Maybe you didn't know that education and social services in this state are ALREADY being slashed as a direct result of the passing of that amendment.

Like I said, I know a LOT of people who went to the polls simply to vote on that issue!

[DevonRex]

67. Those are the questions I want answered, too. nt

[gal]

75. Yes but who is to say they voted for the primary?

Why would they bother if it didn't count.

[DanTex]

22. You disenfranchise them by telling them their vote won't count.

So some people might decide not to show up. Some people might cast a "protest vote" or whatever, because they know that their vote won't count for anything. People behave differently when it's not the real thing.

It's like a preseason football game. Everyone knows it doesn't count so the teams play differently. They rest their star players to avoid injuries. They try out different plays and strategies to see how they might work. You can't then go back and count preseason games as part of the regular season just because you didn't make the playoffs.

What Hillary doesn't seem to understand is that it's not a valid vote unless it was cast in a true free and fair election. And one requirement for a free and fair election is that the people voting must be told that there vote is going to count. If the voters are told it won't count, it's not a free and fair election.

Is this really so complicated?

[Crunchy Frog]

60. Excellent post and welcome to DU.

Unfortunately, this really IS too complicated for a lot of people here to grasp. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[DevonRex]

7. Exactly. How many undervotes were there? How many people

simply did not vote on that portion of the ballot? How many people simply stayed home because the issues on the ballot did not affect them and they knew their presidential primary vote would not count?

How many people simply voted for Clinton because they recognized her name and for no other reason? How many retired New Yorkers in Florida voted for her simply for loyalty reaons and not because of issues?

How many of those who voted for Clinton would have voted for Barack if they had only had the opportunity to get to know him?

These are all questions that I would like to have answered.

It seems to me that the only way a primary like that could be counted is if all the candidates were equally new and unknown on the national scene OR all the candidates were equally famous and long on the national scene.

[Hugabear]

12. Even if you count both states, Hillary would NOT get all those delegates

Obama would receive some of the Florida ones, and there were quite a few "undecided" votes in Michigan whose delegates should be free to pledge to whomever they wanted to.

[DevonRex]

15. I say either 50/50 or none should be seated. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. There MUST be some penalty, however, or this little brouhaha

will become an epic clusterfuck in '12 as the remnants of the DLC try to re-establish dominance over the party and a half-dozen states move up their primaries in violation of the party rules.

[jenmito]

16. All of those questions are valid and point to the unfairness of Hillary trying

to count the result "as is" with no punishment. Obama had no name recognition compared to Hillary's. And people DID know the rules were broken and so their votes wouldn't count, and for those who DIDN'T know-that's not the fault of the more informed people. Hillary should be lucky to get ANY delegates out of this. If Obama campaigned there like he does everywhere ELSE, he would've closed the gap.

[mac2]

8. The "rules" to allow the small states to dominate who wins

the primary candidates. As we go further into this primary more party hurdles to jump and remove our voices?

[jenmito]

21. Why do you put rules in quotes? The rules are the rules and Hillary knew the rules when she started

the campaign. She just thought she'd win the nomination without having to campaign in all those caucus states. Poor planning from Hillary and her strategists.

[RaleighNCDUer]

68. You show an amazing lack of understanding of the "rules", bucko.

Let's see, NH contributes 30 delegates.

FL contributes 185 delegates.

HOW the fuck does NH DOMINATE?

All the small early primaries do is give less well funded and less well known candidates an even playing field. When there is only a handful of media outlets, the guy with 1 million $ can compete with the guy who has 20 million - but when there are scores of TV, radio, and newspaper venues the guy with 1 million will be swamped, no matter what his message. The person with the big bucks can BUY the vote in a big state, but in a small state that person has to actually campaign.

[liberalhistorian]

10. Why? Because it benefits

HER, that's why. To hell with the party, with anyone who would have voted for Obama. The Queen and only the Qeen should have the votes. Period.

[jenmito]

29. Exactly...

she couldn't care less about the party NOR the voters. It's only about HER.

[DevonRex]

11. Oh yeah. Rec'd. nt

[jenmito]

31. Thanks, Jennifer!

:hi:

[beachmom]

13. Exactly. My parents in Florida did not vote in the primaries. Had they known

all that would have happened later on, they would have come out and voted for Obama.

[jenmito]

33. I just said the same thing up-thread!

:hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. How exactly does someone disenfranchise people who choose to not vote?

"disenfranchise non-voters" is an oxymoron.

[DevonRex]

20. Sigh. If the buzzer sounded in a basketball game and one team

left the court, but the other team continued to shoot, and THEN the refs decided that they should extend the game 5 more minutes WITHOUT the other team being there, would that prevent the other team from getting more points or even from winning? Would they be disenfranchized? YES.

OR

If there was supposed to be a basketball game but the teams were told it was cancelled but then one team showed up anyway and shot baskets all night with no opponent. Then the league decided that all the baskets shot by the team that showed up would count and the game was valid. WOULD the team that followed the rules and did NOT play have been disenfranchized? YES.

[jenmito]

35. You asked the same thing up-thread. READ THE ARTICLE.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. No, that was someone else asking the same eminently reasonable question.

The logic is nonexistent.

[DevonRex]

44. I see you didn't answer my post. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. The one in which basketball teams get disenfranchised?

The language gap seemed insurmountable.

[jenmito]

52. Your inability to see the similarities in her examples and what's going on in FL and MI is

what seems insurmountable.

[DevonRex]

54. Thank you Jenmito. nt

[jenmito]

59. No problem! They were great examples/metaphors!

:hi:

[DevonRex]

53. Oh, snark. Never would have expected it from you. LOL. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. The analogies are so poor that it really is pointless to argue them.

Basketball games are just like elections. Except that the spectators walk in, look at the teams, pick their preferred winner and leave. No one shoots baskets.

Voting isn't about the candidates. It's about the citizens, and guaranteeing that their will is implemented.

Those who don't show up to vote? Elections should be conducted in such a way that they will.

Michigan should be revoted, otherwise there's a 100% rate of disenfranchisement.

[jenmito]

49. Then YOU didn't read the article, either.

[gal]

77. They didn't choose not to vote...they were told there was no election to participate in.

[jenmito]

80. That's right.

:hi:

[Scout]

81. funny how they held the election anyway

and many people showed up to vote

[jenmito]

83. They went against the rules knowingly, thinking the DNC would later cave.

Many people DIDN'T show up to vote. I know some of them. They were informed citizens and therefore didn't vote for what they thought would be in vain.

[D23MIURG23]

85. The same way you disenfranchise people by telling them the election

is on the wrong day.

[NJmaverick]

17. The thing to remember about Hillary, is she cares about being President

any claims about caring about the voters, is purely a comment of convenience.

[jenmito]

58. THAT'S for sure!

[DeschutesRiver]

18. This is exactly my concern

I can't believe that votes counted in an improperly conducted primary would even be considered legitimate counts, where many stayed home and thus will never get their votes counted. This is so fundamentally flawed that it can't be used. And I wouldn't care to whose advantage such a flawed vote ran - it isn't fair to those who stayed home.

I don't totally follow the position of people who say count my vote, but don't count the others in my state who didn't do as I did and show up when told it wouldn't count. Without fairness, we will become even more like those third world countries with corrupt election processes. I don't want to be heading in that direction faster than we already seem to be.

[jenmito]

82. I know what you mean. Contrary to what HILLARY wants, this isn't about her. It's

about DEMOCRACY. It's about punishing states that break rules and not changing the rules after many people FOLLOWED them.

[hendo]

24. because they didn't vote for her.

havent you been following, she doesn't care about the peopel who dont vote HRC.

[mopinko]

25. i have a colleague who lives in both illinois and michigan. registered in mi.

did not go home to vote because she assumed it did not count. she is very sorry now. she would have voted uncommitted, which, for her, and a lot of people meant- anybody but hillary.
she is a serious obama supporter.

[jenmito]

38. Similar stories have been told over and over. Hillary and her supporters don't care

about ANY of those people since they weren't going to vote for Hillary.

[TahitiNut]

26. I think it's remarkable so many here support Voter Suppression on a Grand Scale ...

... and call themselves "Democrats." Hell, I'm an independent liberal (small-'d') democrat and I can't countenance the charade of an 'election' that we'd condemn in an third-world country! I hear the intellectually fraudulent cry about "disenfranchisement" ... but it's Kabuki. It's more than four months TOO LATE!

Less than 600,000 voted in the so-called Democratic Primary in Michigan. Over 800,000 voted in the GOP Primary. To pretend that that FUBAR was anything close to legitimate is to claim Michigan is 33% MORE GOP than Democratic ... which would sure become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

No delegates! No superdelegates! That's the bed the DNC and state Democratic parties made. They can fucking sleep in it!

:puke:

[jenmito]

64. I agree...

I have a VERY hard time believing these people are Democrats.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

30. There is never an excuse to stay home on election day.

Never.

[jenmito]

36. Um, when it's known that the state broke the rules and the votes wouldn't count, it's not an excuse.

It's believing that the rules are the rules.

[mopinko]

42. it's believing that

it wasn't an ELECTION!

[beachmom]

76. My parents DID vote that day, but not in the primaries, since they knew it wouldn't count.

Florida was stripped of its delegates. Voters were told it would not count.

[samsingh]

32. that's an excellent question

[jenmito]

47. Thanks.

:hi:

[flpoljunkie]

46. What about those who did not vote in FL, MI knowing their vote "would not count?'

How much higher? Some 1.75 million Democratic voters cast ballots in Florida and 600,000 voted in Michigan, even though the national party had already stripped the two states of their convention delegates for voting out of turn. Based on record Democratic turnout in other states, the report says, Florida would have been expected to turn out an additional 1.15 (million) voters and Michigan would have turned out another 715,000 voters.

Those voters “did not participate in their primaries but likely would have had they expected their vote to count,” the study concluded.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/19/disenfranchising-non-voters-in-florida-and-michigan/

[Coexist]

50. and where was Hillary in 2000

[Crunchy Frog]

66. Oh, didn't you see her in the movie Recount?

Heroically going down to Florida, just like Joan of Arc, to rally the Floridians to fight for their enfranchisement.

[PoliticalAmazon]

70. Because Hillary knows her base: cheaters. n/t

[jenmito]

78. ...or ignoramuses.