The DNC needs to back down this week.

[Ravy]

They need to cut both delegations in half, and let the party officials in each state decide how those votes are apportioned.

It was ill-advised for the DNC to expand the penalty from the specified 50% cut in the delegation to begin with. They can't fully make amends to the voters of these two states by backing down now, but they can begin the process by being adult about it.

[MercutioATC]

1. Again, Ravi, 50% is the MINIMUM penalty, not the "specified" penalty.

The DNC did nothing wrong by originally declaring a 100% penalty.

[Ravy]

5. I understand that. Why have a minimum when you don't use it?

Florida moved only one week early, and after the voting of the annointed four.

At this point in time, can you *really* say it was in the party's best interest to go after the maximum penalty in this case?

[MercutioATC]

9. FL Dems put up no resistance to the date change...

...and then mocked the DNC rules.

MI, at least, has had the decency so be semi-contrite. FL has not.


As things stand, both FL and MI are probably going to get 50% seating anyway, and I think the strong response from the DNC sent the right message.

[Ravy]

18. To vote against it would be to vote against a paper trail for voting machines...

at least that is my understanding.

They couldn't have stopped it, and their constituencies mostly favored it, and they are supposed to represent their constituencies, not the DNC. I can't fault them for their vote.

Mocking the rules was childish, but so was the additional penalties the DNC imposed.

[Teaser]

23. That's not what you said.

You said "specified". You did not say "minimum specified."

[Ravy]

27. Yes, why don't you look up the word "specify" in the dictionary,

and then you will see why I didn't say "mandated".

[Teaser]

52. Oh Please.

We all know what you said. We all know your intent. Back down or don't, but everyone knows you were wrong.

[Teaser]

53. EPIC FAIL

"to expand the penalty from the specified 50%"

no, you're not retconning your story at all.

[dave29]

2. The DNC has done nothing wrong

read the rules. All of them.

[Ravy]

6. I bet they back down. nt

[Orangepeel]

3. begin to make amends?

If the DNC restores 1/2 the delegates on Saturday, why will Florida voters be any worse off than if the DNC had assessed a 50% penalty originally like the GOP did?

That *is* what they will do. I really hope they strip the supers, too. THAT will be a deterrent against states jumping the gun in other primaries.

[Ravy]

7. Because the voters have been unnecessarily trashed for what, 8 months now?

You don't hear much about the RNC penalty. The DNC gets the ire here in Florida.

Given that I believe they will back down, they a) made a hot divisive issue in the primaries for no apparent reason and b) will end up having to admit their mistake by restoring half the delegations.

So what purpose did it serve?

[PretzelWarrior]

10. maybe making states FOLLOW THE F***ING RULES

ever think of that? it's already gotten ridiculous this year, so I'm glad the DNC made something out of it.

[Ravy]

13. First of all, they didn't make the states follow the F***ing rules.

So their first goal, if that was one, is out the window as just a plain stupid idea.

Secondly, they could have made their point by cutting the delegations in half, as the rules seem to indicate was an appropriate penalty, and not suffered the ire of the voters of those states.

[iconicgnom]

34. Bullshit. The DNC didn't make a mistake, it made a ruling.

And now it's meeting to decide what to do. Simple as that. The Repub scream machine wants to make it something hugely divisive. Of course. I say bullshit - there's no division, there's just a pragmatic problem. Anyway, that's how I see it.

I've a question, tho', that may be answered by anyone that knows. I mean, it's truly bipartisan :)
Question is: do the Dem primary contests have to take place at the same time as the Repub's contests? If so, why? I mean, if so, then it must be forced to be so by some federal law. But if it *is*, then how is it that the Dems have some ruling that these few and not others have their primaries before Feb. 5? That doesn't make sense since in that case it wouldn't be a Dem ruling, it'd be by federal law.

So you see, I'm confused. I don't know if it makes matters worse to explain that I'm Canadian and the whole US process is exotic to me. Our Prime Minister doesn't play the same role as does your President, and our Prime Minister isn't chosen by anything remotely like your primary -> GE process.

[Ravy]

37. The Dem and repug primaries do not always take place at the same time,

nor in the same manner. It is not federal law, but state law may make it to where they have to be at the same time. I imagine they do it to save expenses and so as not to confuse the voters.

I think the ruling was in poor judgement, and in that regard, I call it a mistake. The very fact that they have to have another meeting to "decide" what to do is evidence enough of that.

[cali]

44. they will "back down", and probably to cutting the delegates in half

They will not let the states decide how to apportion the delegates/votes.

It'll have served the purpose of sending a serious warning to other states that it's not worth going against the legal DNC schedule.

[anigbrowl]

4. 50% isn't good enough. Didn't you get the memo?

Lanny dvis thinks Clinton should get 100% of MI's delegates and a bunch of the cunommitted delegates as well. Why? Because he really wants to have his old SG job back I suppose.

[Ravy]

11. It is good enough for me.

I don't get memos, and I hang up on the DNC when they call now.

[Donkey_Punch_Dubya]

14. 50% reduction and Obama getting all the Uncommitted votes in MI seems reasonable

to me. Then they can assign the delegates as they normally would. It seems to me a maximum penalty would be better if they moved up to before New Hampshire or something like that. I've here that they only moved up by a week, and didn't pass over many states, so it seems like the kind of violation that the minimum penalty is meant for. Besides, the minimum here is not trivial, 50% is punative.

They also could announce at that time that in 2012 violating states will get a more severe penalty. This would provide greater deterrent. Also, I don't remember any state moving their election up in previous election years, so it's not like there was a ton of recent precendent with big consequences for FL and MI to look to before the change.

I just think it's predictably partisan that almost every Obama supporter wants a 100% reduction or a 50/50 split, and almost every Clinton supporter wants no punishment. I'm pretty certain that if Obama had won those states and Clinton wasn't on the ballot in MI, the opinions would be the exact opposite.

[Ravy]

16. If it was me, I would split the uncommitteds, but

I think the DNC should stay out of that mess and let the party leaders of each state figure out how their delegations are to vote. There is no reason for the DNC to be involved in that.

[my3boyz]

31. Why would you split uncommitteds? Those people had an opportunity to vote for Hillary

but chose not to. Obviously they wanted someone other than Hillary. Why should she benefit from that. Yeah, they could have preferred the other candidates but they are not in the race anymore. I don't think they should count any of it since they broke the rules and the candidates agreed to that punishment before the campaign really started. However, it seems they are going to do it so Obama should at least get the uncommitteds.

[Ravy]

35. That is how *I* would do it.

I don't propose that Michigan does that. They probably have their own rules to handle it.

I certainly don't think the DNC should compound the mess by dictating what happens to them, but in their typical cut-off-your-nose fashion, I expect they will, further inflaming the issue.

[my3boyz]

36. I know you said that you would do that but I'm asking why if those people clearly wanted to vote for

someone other than Hillary?

[Ravy]

41. I don't know that they did.

Just like undeclared super delegates. We don't assume that those not specifying their vote yet like neither candidate. The best we can do is guess.

However, I imagine that the MI state party has their own rules for allocating those seats. The DNC does not need to get involved and the campaigns really should not have a say either. It doesn't mean that they can't have an opinion, it would just surprise me if they (state party) didn't have this already covered some way.

[my3boyz]

42. The MI state party did come up with a solution but Clinton rejected it. She said she wanted them

seat as voted in the primary (that was not legal per DNC).

[Ravy]

43. Clinton should have an opinion, nothing more.

If Michigan put an Uncomitted slot on the ballot, they should have (and it would greatly surprise me if they didn't) a rule of how to apportion delegates to those votes. There should be no debate other than whether the DNC backs down from the total ban of the delegations to a lesser penalty.

[PretzelWarrior]

8. DNC did right and they should stick to their guns

I remember being disgusted at Hillary when she and Kucinich kept their names on the ballot in Michigan. (I was disgusted at Kucinich too but I knew it wouldn't factor in the race). At the time I was thinking it would be some kind of underhanded thing she'd use against Edwards....but turns out I was wrong. It is something she'd use against Obama.

You should feel ashamed of yourself that you are defending a rule breaker like Hillary. You do know she's married to someone who lied under oath? What else would they do if they got back into power? Fortunately, we won't have to find out.

[Donkey_Punch_Dubya]

19. Do you think

if the situation were reversed, that you would still feel so strongly about the rules? Or would you be furious that "Republican" Hillary was trying to prevent votes from counting in the same state that Bush did in 2000? Do you think most Obama fans would also feel that way, and would Hillary fans be adamant about the rules?

I think we both know the answer.

[NotThisTime]

12. I'm curious about Repukes, were they allowed to campaign in the States w/penalties?

[Ravy]

15. The "no campaigning" was from the four state pledge.

The republicans did campaign here prior to their primary. On the Democratic side, the "no campaigning" was more or less followed by all candidates on the ballot, but it was due to the four state pledge.

I hear rumblings of a retaliation for that in upcoming elections if the death penalty stands.

[2rth2pwr]

17. The DNC will back down, the majority of DU will be pissed. They support the party fat cats

over the voices of millions of people from 2 important states.

[Ravy]

20. It is amazing to see how many strict authoritarians are here on DU.

I have a feeling that the political zealotry is overriding their sense of justice.

[shifting_sands]

21. Rules

What part of the "rules were already in place" don't the Clinton supporters understand. What part of ALLL the candidates signed off on those rules before the primaries started, what part of it was the Clinton people on the ethics committee including Harold Ickes and McCauliff (sp?) who made the rules in the first place. Hillary agreed to and signed off on them. What on earth is wrong with the people that continue to support the petulant spoiled behavior of one of the candidates. If she won't support what she created and signed off on, if she continually lies throughout this campaign what on earth makes people think she will support them even if she did get the nomination. She has proven over and over that for the Clinton's the end justifies the means, is that what we want for a president. Do you think she is going to work for you even if she won? Think again.

[Ravy]

22. It doesn't matter to me if candidates signed off on them or not.

It is about my ability to vote for my preference, which in this case was Edwards.

You seem to think, or want to think that this is about one camp or another. It isn't. It is about a party I have supported with my vote and my money for 30 years, worked on a presidential campaign, and ran for office as their representiative once upon a time. It is about that party going the extra mile to say I no longer count at all.

[TLM]

25. You seem to be confusing an election vote with a primary vote.

A primary is a party nomination process... they are competing for the party nomination, not any elected office.

The rules for an actual election, to elect a candidate to an office, are different.


In a primary, the rules are established by the party, and agreed to by the party and the members running for the nomination.


FL and MI moved their primary. You were not prevented from voting, and your vote was counted. The states are simply not going to have as many delegates as they would have had.

By the way, I'm still waiting to see a link to any clinton people ranting about FL and MI and how unfair that is, before super Tuesday.

[Ravy]

28. I am not confusing anything.

If the party does not want to recognize my vote, then they have that right.

But I think they are wrong in doing so, and I have the right of telling them so.

And, I bet they back down.

[kevinbgoode]

24. I have an idea. . .why don't they just strip the superdelegates/delegates

who were in the legislature voting to approve breaking the rules.

[Ravy]

30. First of all, the legislators were simply representing the voter's wishes.

Do you want the DNC telling your representative how to vote, or to take action against you if the legislator doesn't bow to their pressure?

The DNC had a remedy in their rules to punish states that moved ahead in the calendar. Five states moved ahead, two were given the "death penalty" and three were given no penalty at all.

[kevinbgoode]

33. Oh..was there a voter referendum asking the legislature to move

the date?

And what about the people who didn't vote, because they knew the primary wasn't going to count or their candidates didn't campaign or remain on the ballot?

[Ravy]

38. Those people that didn't vote missed out on a constitutional amendment or two.

At least, in Florida they did. We had record turnout.

Not all legislative action is based on voter referendum, but I truly believe, as a Florida resident, that the move was widely supported. It would take quite a legislator to withstand the pressure from the DNC AND their constituents.

[dbmk]

51. Because the three were rightly determined to move defensively

They moved to protect their position against the states breaking the rules to begin with.

[dbmk]

50. Because they wouldn't care

This was about publicity, not representation.

[quakerboy]

26. You almost had me

But for this part "and let the party officials in each state decide how those votes are apportioned"

That is probably the worst of all possible solutions. The people who caused this problem are now to be handed the keys to decide how to make use of their Misgotten gains? I have no problem apportioning the Pledged Delegates, with a 1/2 penalty due to the rules breakage.

But the SD's of the states should be penalized their SD status, for causing this problem, But more than that for compounding their error by, largely in the pursuit of helping one particular candidate, refusing to help fix it in a timely fashion.

[Ravy]

32. I think that in addition to the losing half, you lose the SDs, too.

I think that is what the rules specified. I don't have any problem with whatever the minimum penalty is.

The reason that I think that the party officials of the state should decide is because of concern against more backlash against the DNC. They don't dictate how other states apportion their delegates, so they shouldn't take it upon themselves to do so in this case. The state parties have rules about how they apportion delegates, and I don't think the DNC should attempt to take this problem upon themselves.

[quakerboy]

54. That would be interesting to know.

[hokies4ever]

29. I agree wholeheartedly

First, the 50% cut definitely seems fair. I also like making the state party leaders decide on the delegate apportionment. That's the best part of your proposal. It makes them the brunt of the criticism if their constituents are unhappy with the decision.

[Ravy]

39. I imagine both state parties have rules to handle the apportionment.

The DNC doesn't need any further grief from the campaigns or from the states affected.

[hokies4ever]

46. I know that Michigan legislators wanted it split 69-59

but Hillary protested about it. Hopefully the legislators' decisions can't be vetoed by the candidates.

[Ravy]

47. They shouldn't be.

It isn't something, IMHO, that should be negotiated. I don't think the legislature should determine it, either. I think the state party should.

[hokies4ever]

48. I think the state party should be able to determine it

with the DNC able to veto their decision. In other words, tell them to come up with a fair proposal and then convince the DNC that it is a fair proposal. This essentially makes the DNC 'The Decider' while making sure that the state legislators bare the brunt of the criticism.

[Ravy]

55. Yes, that is fair.

I know Florida's percentages were set by the vote, and I *assume* Michigan had some provision of how to apportion delegates who voted for uncommitted, but if they do not then they should have to get some okay from the DNC that what they propose is reasonable.

It is not going to matter in the final tally anyway, I don't think. If they somehow tried to screw Obama in the deal, that would just force super delegates to him more quickly. If they try to screw Hillary, then it plays into her hands and her message.

They just need to move past it with as little of drama as is possible, and remember not to try doing something like this death penalty again without being willing to suffer the consequences.

[DesEtoiles]

40. take it up with Harold Ickes

[JVS]

45. The party officials in each state are not to be trusted

[hokies4ever]

49. Have them make their proposals public

then give the DNC the final ruling. Michigan wanted a 69-59 split if they were seated at 100%, which did seem fair to me.