Why is it fair to strip 50% of the votes from the voters, not just the SDs in MI/FL

[Kittycat]

I'm sorry to have to say this, but yes your state leaders broke the rules. Those voters in the state (who elected those leaders), had time to lobby their leaders to do the right thing. Either they didn't lobby hard enough, didn't lobby at all, or their leaders fully ignored the will of their voters. In all cases, it's not the fault of the states that followed the rules. Allowing the states that cheated 100% would be punishing all those other states, and set a precedent for them to cheat in future contests.

It sucks, I agree - but it's just the way it is. That's the thing about rules and penalties for breaking them. I strongly urge you to stick it to your leaders next go around. You don't need people like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on TV teaching our kids that discussing or enforcing the penalty for breaking the rules after the fact is counterproductive. That's the equivalent of telling your child to not to leave the backyard, or they're going in time out - then they do it anyway.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. OR the DNC could take that stick out of their ass

...and equitably repair the damage they inflicted on our loyal Democratic base in order to punish the inept 'leadership' in these fucked up states.

[truebrit71]

3. The stick in the ass, as you so eloquently put it, is in the STATE DEM leadership's collective ass..

...the DNC merely followed through with their announced sanctions.

Or do you routinely NOT punish a child that disobeys you even AFTER you have outlined the consequences of bad behaviour?

[Cronus Protagonist]

6. This is not a disobedient child, this is life and death politics

Your metaphor is not only poor, it is insulting to the serious voters, and the nation, who are the ones being punished for something they did not do.

And the DNC has NOT followed through on their sanctions. Someone posted the DNC rules which were NOT applied to several other states, and in the case of the two in question today, the sanctions have also NOT been applied as stated in the rules.

In any case, punishing the nation and these states for something a few fuckwits 'leaders' did is not justice, it is not democratic and it is not fair.

[stillcool]

28. It's funny how "democratic" and "fair"...

are applied to those 2 states out of 50 that fuck with how the Democratic National Party selects our nominee. We all knew what the consequences would be for that 'fucking with' almost a year ago. Where do you get your "democratic" and "fair" ideas from? Florida 2000?

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.
They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date. They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------
Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her. “I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5. The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.
"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15.
"We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press
PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.
State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.
The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.
Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the
Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.
The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

[truebrit71]

33. Both the disobedient child and the State Party acted like petulant brats...

...and now they act all surprised when they actually DO get punished.

Too fucking bad.

Next time, have the State Party Leadership follow the fucking rules and there won't be sticks in anyone's ass...

[DrDan]

20. your analogy is flawed

the DNC wants to punish the children for the Father's disobeying the rules - the children did not disobey anything

[truebrit71]

32. The children should have spoken up then shouldn't they? Their silence then does not constitute...

..a right NOW to complain about what they knew would happen.

The analogy however is NOT wrong because the State Party leadership were elected as your representatives no? If that's the case you should direct your anger at them as they failed to "represent" you...

[DrDan]

45. and exactly how do you know who spoke up and who didn't

who made you so omniscient?

And yes - your analogy is fatally flawed.

As a Florida Dem, I did not break any rules. I simply voted. The leaders broke the rules. Punish them. Flog them. Do what you please and what pleasures you. But do not tinker with the voice of the voters.

[truebrit71]

47. The leaders are YOUR representatives, as such you are one and the same...

..The people YOU put in power broke the rules...you should have chosen more wisely then, yes?

They (the people you put in power) broke the rules, but now you want ONLY them to be punished, even though YOU out them on power to work for you.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways.

The voters had no voice because there was no legitimate election.

[DrDan]

48. using that line of reasoning

I am sure you support this Iraq war. After all, junior is your representative around the world. Perhaps you should have done more - are you accepting your share of the blame?

[truebrit71]

55. Your analogy is fatally flawed. I did not vote for junior, therefore he does not represent me.

His errors are his alone.

Nothing to do with me.

[DrDan]

61. I agree with your logic . . . but guess what

My district happens to be represented by republicans - and I certainly did not vote for them - so how can I be blamed for for the actions of the Dems from other districts?

[Cronus Protagonist]

63. You're arguing logic with one who eschews it

Not much point in that, really. :P

[madfloridian]

4. The other 48 states don't feel that kind toward Florida, trust me.

They tried to break the system.

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. States cannot feel... they are social constructs

And a state, as such, cannot try to break any system. Who are the PEOPLE involved?

[madfloridian]

14. Hillary has lost so much by acting this way. The Clinton reputation

is becoming a joke. It is sad.

[Cronus Protagonist]

18. 8 years of peace and prosperity is becoming a joke ?

Oh, sorry I was looking at Bill's legacy. Not Hillary's reputation which has been savaged by Obama supporters in collusion with the right wing media.

[madfloridian]

23. Yes. Their behavior now....

has a negative effect on their past successes.

[Cronus Protagonist]

51. Outside the DU anti=Clinton bubble, She's not doing so badly

Of course, she could be a reincarnation of Jesus Christ and the anti-Clinton team would still cry foul. I can hear it now... "She's moving the goalposts AGAIN"...

[Boz]

29. Would you consider yourself a Democratic Socialist or a Third Way Centrist

Just out of curiosity.

[Cronus Protagonist]

52. False dichotomy

Did you really think I would be dumb enough to choose from a logical fallacy? If so, what are you... a simpering idiot or a feeble dimwit? Inquiring minds want to know.... :P

[Boz]

62. They arent a logical fallacy they are the simple terms that are at the forefront of the discussion

You said that Bill Clintons years were 8 years of peace and prosperity.

I propose that is subjective dependent on which stance you take within the Democratic party.

I understand if you are defensive and don't want to answer given your broadstroke responses before and I even understand your reason for attacking me for asking such a simple basic party identity question.

There pretty much are two divisions within the Democratic party of the last 20 years, Bill Clinton represented one and the Clintons today are challenging the other, so for the sake of perspective I ask you once again which do you Identify with more, Democratic Socialist or Third Way Centrist, its not a trick question and neither is an insult, so your allusion to simpering and and feeble don't fit.

So which do you identify with Democratic Socialist or Third Way Centerist?

[LibGranny]

49. Bill's Legacy?

When I think of Slick Willy's legacy I think of Monica/cigars/and the blue dress! Now, when I think of HRC's legacy, I think of whining, crying, and cheating. I WAS a clinton supporter back in the day - but after the way they've both behaved during this primary season - I'd like to see them both retire to Arkansas and STFU.

[Cronus Protagonist]

53. You conveniently ignore the surplus, the high employment, the peace, the prosperity

In favor of a blue dress and a cum stain? Your mind is in the gutter.

[Labors of Hercules]

43. So, which people do you propose to benefit by finding the "PEOPLE involved"?

The Floridians who didn't get to see Obama campaign when Hillary was the frontrunner?

Or the Michiganers who didn't get to vote for Obama at all because he wasn't on the ballot?

Or the Caucusgoers in Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Washington, Nebraska, Maine and Wyoming?

Or the majority of voters in all the other States in the Union combined who voted for Obama?

Or just the people who voted for Hillary Clinton?

Or could it be really... just Hillary herself?

Which PEOPLE are you really concerned about??

[Fovea]

35. I have nothing against individual Floridians.

And I don't say this to rub this in, but after 2000, there was an onus on the state of Florida to clean up its act squeeky clean in the minds of a lot of non-Floridians.

As a Missourian who knows the history of Kansas City and political corruption, there is a limit to what the rest of the country will allow. Chicago and Los Vegas also reached this point.

It ain't pretty when your bosses to to Leavenworth. It takes a while to get back to normal, Kansas City never actually recovered politically and now has a twisted system run by and for real estate developers and road contractors.

I think most non Floridians think that Florida's government needs FBI intervention as soon as they get over the war on abstract nouns. This particular crisis seems to suggest to outsiders that it is not simply a partisan Republican problem. And why should it be, graft is like water spilled on a floor. And while the root of the larger problem seems to be a Miami-FtLauderdale kinda thing, the whole system will get the procto.

Like I say, I have a lot of sympathy. Boss Tom Pendergast went a long way to making the depression a more survivable thing in KC. He also bilked the people to pay his gambling debts and Jackson county dead always voted straight Democrat. BTW, voter ID cards would not have helped when the ballots get added downtown. He was also the patron of Harry Truman.

Our police commissioner sold get out of jail free cards to bank robbers.
It was so bad it caused the creation of the FBI.

So I feel like I can speak with a certain empathy for how things go off the tracks in a big way. Florida is harshing America's democratic buzz.

Then there is Texas and Ohio. If Florida needs a new broom, Texas and Ohio need a manure shovel. When you corrupt these states, you create a triumvirate of criminality that cannot easily be defeated in a system with the electoral college. In all three cases, the political process has been subverted to Karl Rove's ends.

Michigan is hard to me to figure out.

We need to extend RICO to the political sphere, obviously.

[Fovea]

5. They could.

But that would create a moral hazard. Like Bear Sterns all over again.

Or, in a more historical frame, be paying Danegeld.

While that sort of thing seems to fly with the DLC, the DNC cannot
afford to do that.

48 other states were punished for following the rules. What about them?
The Michigan primary alone represents the sort of bad faith I have seen over and over in this campaign.

[PassingFair]

11. It will have to be some sort of compromise, because the results of the...

"primaries" are TAINTED.

[Kittycat]

13. I find the entire clinton argument Ironic given that Ickes voted to impose the sanction & Terry McC

Used it when he was DNC Chair.

[DrDan]

here here - thank you - I agree with that completely

they should have fixed this weeks ago.

[Cronus Protagonist]

56. Thank you.

It seems most people on here are so partisan they've lost their sense of fairness.

[Independent-Voter]

19. Another HRC supporter who lacks the basic understanding of what a representative democracy is.

Those low-info idiots keep coming out of the woodwork!

[Cronus Protagonist]

57. You know, you're really poor at interpreting people's intellectual capacity

I think that's called projecting, in psych parlance. In any case, I have no time for that ...
*plonk*

[Boz]

22. 6 of the DNC members that stipped them work for Hillary Clintons campaign

They wont allow it to be fixed by the DNC now, it wont let her go to the convention.

I am all for seating 50% as originally proscribed, even with the non campaign issues not allowing Obama any of the Michigan votes.

I am not for a free ride for those states, or their will be no future protection bite to stop anything, there has to be a punishment and the voters can take up the rest with their vote for those representing them.

It wont change the outcome. It will result after all is said and done with the rest of the primaries a net gain of 9 delegates from michigan for Hillarys favor, which means she will still be over 150 behind or better. Obama will need 53 instead of 44 to cinch the nomination.

[dionysus]

31. Florida? loyal dem base? the state with a shitty Dem party that never delivers? that florida?

[truebrit71]

2. Shhh...don't remind the Hillbots that their Queen agreed to the rules she's trying to re-write now..

...that truthiness confuses the poor dears...

;-)

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. Are you just a sloganbot or a sock-puppet or what?

just wondering

[truebrit71]

30. Nope. Just someone that loves watching the Hillbots getting dizzy trying to follow the spin...

..of their Hive leader...

Oh, and 'Ignored'...you can go flock yourself....I can't hear you for a reason...:rofl:

[Cronus Protagonist]

58. Cool, that means one less sock puppet humping my leg n/t

[SeaLyons]

12. ...

:wtf:

[Lakerstan]

8. The LEADERS broke the rules, but the LEADERS were elected by the VOTERS!

If Florida voted for more Democrats, the Republicans couldn't have changed the date.

[Kittycat]

16. If the democrats hadn't voted in agreement...

Only one democrat voted against it. ONE! If they would have shown a little spine, then maybe the outcome would have been different or not as severe - or they could have held a caucus as recommended. However, given that the Dem leadership there (ie. Wasserman-Schultz) won't even help Dems campaign when a Republican is already in the seat - it doesn't surprise me.

[PassingFair]

10. In Michigan, I can tell you, that in Macomb County at least....

the leaders:

(c) fully ignored the will of their voters.


We (especially ME) spoke out VEHEMENTLY
against moving the primary up.

They didn't give A SHIT.

Florida gave them a piggyback to
push a point that Levin had been
pushing for YEARS, and the Clinton
supporters all around him lent their
weight in order to front-load the
invincible juggernaut that was to
have been the Clinton campaign.

As has happened to better candidates
before her, Clinton went down in Iowa
and couldn't get back up.

[Kittycat]

17. Then I fully expect the voters of Macomb Cty to hold their feet to the fire come

re-election time. If they so easily ignore their constituents, then who exactly do they represent?

[PassingFair]

25. Many of them were representing Hillary Clinton.

Some (Levin included and I'll give Debbie Dingell
the benefit of the doubt) have had a problem, especially
with New Hampshire (like its personal!!)going first
every time.

Florida's HORRIFIC disregard of the rules
emboldened them to do what they decided against
last cycle.

None of them will get money of help from
me this time around.

I love Levin, but I didn't even pass petitions
for his re-nomination, I was so angry.

[rocktivity]

15. The DNC MI/FL decision has to fulfill these "metrics"

- enfranchise the MI/FL voters (though they were warned that the votes would not count)
- punish the people responsible for moving the primary dates (because they were warned that the votes would not count)
- vindicate the states that DID obey their rules
- vindicate those who didn't vote because they believed the DNC when they were warned that the votes would not count
- preserve and command respect for their authority
- discourage other states from breaking their rules
- doesn't give any candidate an advantage (since they were warned that the votes would not count)

I think that anything other than splitting the pledged delegates down the middle (at full voting strength) and not seating the superdelegates completes the disenfranchisement the voters and declares open season on the DNC's authority.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Kittycat]

21. ..

"I think that anything other than splitting the pledged delegates down the middle (at full voting strength) and not seating the superdelegates completes the disenfranchisement the voters and declares open season on the DNC's authority."

I fully support this, provided Obama is given the undecided count in MI.

[rocktivity]

24. I mean that each candidate would get the same number of pledged delegates

Since Edwards was also on the FL ballot, perhaps those delegates should be split THREE ways.

Since technically no DNC-sanctioned primary took place in MI/FL, the delegate allotment should not be based on the vote, and no candidate should win or lose.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Kittycat]

26. In all fairness...

I disagree on the 3-way split, even as an obama supporter. JE has pledged support to Obama, which means that Obama would likely pick his delegates.

[rocktivity]

38. Here's what Demcomwatch has to say on the subject

...(P)ledged delegates can vote for anybody at any time. So, rules-wise, Edwards' endorsement is meaningless.

...By endorsing Obama, Edwards finally ended his campaign, which had been "suspended" up to now, and "released" his delegates to vote for the candidate of their choice...(T)hese delegates may decide to follow their original candidate and support Obama, and Edwards will of course...urge them to support Obama. But until these delegates...say who they will be supporting, they will essentially become uncommitted delegates. Which, essentially, makes them no different than superdelegates.

...Edwards also won 13 delegates in Florida, all at the CD level...(he)...fell short of getting any state-wide delegates...Whether he keeps them depends on 1) whether the Florida delegates get seated at all, and 2) under what rules they get seated. That will have to wait for the RBC meeting at the end of the month...
link

:headbang:
rocknation

[Kittycat]

40. Yes, however...

There is reason to believe if they don't use the delegates currently selected by the state, that the candidates would have a say (which is a discussion point in MI right now for the undecided vote). If the candidates have a say, then JE could select delegates that are certain to vote Obama.

[TahitiNut]

39. Just how does it "enfranchise" Michigan voters to seat ANY 'delegation'?

Unless there's a LEGITIMATE and VALID process by which the designated electorate (just Dems or Dems and indies) is able to EXPRESS ITS WILL and have that will proportionally represented at the national convention, there is no such thing as a 'delegation.' Period. That process has never taken place.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6159157

No matter how many times folks, either here or in the corporate media, use the term 'delegate' with respect to Michigan, it's a lie. It's a lie if said once and it's a lie if said 1,000,000,000 times. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

[rocktivity]

41. Not seating MI delegates at all disenfranchises them even more

which the DNC WOULD have every right to do because there WAS no "legitimate/valid primary process" in MI/FL. But that would punish the voters for what the people who moved the primary dates did--not good politicking at all, is it? What the DNC has to do on Saturday is figure out how to punish the people who moved the primary dates without also punishing the voters or making fools the states that did obey them.

When your choice is between bad and worse, ALWAYS CHOOSE BAD.

:headbang:
rocknation

[TahitiNut]

42. Nonsense. A FUBAR is a FUBAR. You don't unring a bell.

It has NEVER really been about a random collection of warm bodies (party insiders) filling chairs in Denver. It's about addressing the votes of Michigan directly and respecting their concnerns. It's about spending campaign money in the state. The Democratic Party fucked the dog (screwed the pooch) in this state and some concocted Kabuki don't change it. The GOP HAS campaigned. 'Delegates' aren't chosen by the DNC, party insiders, the candidates, or some collection of colonial masters from outside the state. 'Delegates' must be chosen by the designated electorate or they're NOT 'delegates.'

[rocktivity]

46. I agree with that--the DNC should NOT base the delegate seating on the votes IN ANY WAY

because that would legitimize them!

:headbang:
rocknation

[sybylla]

50. then thre's no "enfranchising"

as you were hoping for earlier. There is no possible solution to satisfy the Dem voters in either state without a re-vote or caucus. And that's already been squashed.

Not to mention that "enfranchising" is the wrong term in the first place. You can't be disenfranchised in a primary as the Supreme Court says you have no right to participate in a primary.

[seabeyond]

27. this is so basic. so simple. almost like talking loud and slow. for a person to not get it

they would have to work awfully hard. further, i have yet to have a single person who wants the vote count be honest enough about refusing the vote of all the people that didnt vote, knowing the primary was illigimate and didnt go out and vote

the very hieght of hypocrisy and yet work their ass off to deny that person their right for a vote to count

makes not a bit of sense

[The_Counsel]

34. The Point, Besides Counting The Will Of The People...

...is to make sure the rules aren't broken again.

If I were in charge, wanted my state to vote first, and knew that my delegates would eventually be seated (albeit after months of hand wringing), you bet my state would be voting first. We'd be voting December 28 if I could make it happen. What would be the penalty? The party chair slapping my wrists and saying "don't do it anymore?" So? The votes got counted, so what the hell, right?

That's why letting the results count as is would be a joke IMHO. No penalty. No incentive to follow the rules. What they should do is strip all the "superdelegates" and seat the Florida pledged delegates at 50%. Michigan is a little stickier because not all the candidates were on the ballot. Didn't they take polls in Michigan that named all the candidates? Okay, base the pledged delegates on the latest polls before the planned primary. If Hillary wins, she just wins. If Edwards wins, so what? If Obama wins, fine. But fair is fair, and that bastardized circus they called a primary wasn't fair.

I just think the Clinton people are being disingenuous when they talk about "fairness" and "civil rights" RE: FL and MI. That wouldn't even be the issue with them if Hillary was ahead. Juat sayin'...

[TahitiNut]

36. There are no legitimate 'delegates' from Michigan. None. Zip. Nada.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6159157

[hokies4ever]

37. This way the voters will hold their legislators accountable

If FL residents had been outraged at their legislators when they were thinking about moving the date up, we wouldn't be in this situation right now.

[lojasmo]

44. The voters voted....the votes were counted.

It is the delegates who will be at 50% not the voters.

[TexasObserver]

54. I'd like to see ALL the superdelegates removed from both states.

THEY are to blame for this mess, the party leaders in both states. In addition to cutting the regular delegates in half, the DNC should strike the superdelegates from both states.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. Is it fair to give Clinton all the delegates in MI? Obama wasn't on the ballot there.

[wowimthere]

60. Look... everyone agreed to honor the rules... Then when Clinton was losing... she wanted to

throw the rules out. Voters understood what was going on. They let their representatives speak for them. No protested then. Only Clinton supporters want o protest now but largely Florida and Michigan voters have decided to put this behind them. It's clinton who will spend anybody's dime and prop up specious arguments to stay in a game she's clearly lost. It's sad to see her and Bill act this way.