home

How Would You Resolve FL and MI?

Assuming there will be no new primaries, how would you solve the problem with FL and MI?

The raw vote numbers:

Clinton 870,986 49.8%
Obama 576,214 32.9%
Edwards 248,604 14.4%

Clinton 328,309
Chris Dodd 3,845
Dennis Kucinich 21,715
Mike Gravel 2,361
Uncommitted 238,168

< Justice, Missouri Style | Obama Blocked The Michigan Revote >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Just count the votes as any other state (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by athyrio on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    would count them....the fact that Obama took his name off the ballet in Michigan is his own fault...His attempt to pander to Iowa....

    I would reduce their pledged delegates (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    by half, reinstate the superdelegates, and count the popular votes as-is.

    Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan, so he forfeited his right to argue for some of those votes.  But the (reduced) uncommitted delegates could vote for him if they so chose.

    My way serves the purpose of the DNC to control the primary schedule but doesn't disenfranchise two key states.  It gives Obama a small hit in the delegate lead, but counts the votes.

    As a compromise it gives everybody something and nobody everything.


    Nice one! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    Although, the "pledged"(ha!) Uncommitted Delegates could choose to vote for Edwards as well.

    But it would serve Obama right and mess with his Math to boot.

    Parent

    I agree with this plan. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    That was the original penalty, and the DNC should have stuck with it and avoided this entire mess. I've come to believe that the "Anyone but Hillary" faction pushed the punishment to 100% because they didn't want the narrative to be, "Hillary won four of the first six contests."

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:27:57 PM EST
    This is the fairest, assuming we have to have a punishment.

    And Obama should thank Hillary for reminding everyone that 'pledged' delegates can still change their minds.  He is free to go after some of her MI and FL delegates, as is she free to go after the uncommitted MI delegates.

    The superdelegates can consider the popular vote however they choose.  They have the numbers and know the situation.

    Parent

    Count Votes, Not Delegates (none / 0) (#61)
    by Athena on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM EST
    Give Hillary the 1.2 million votes from FL and MI that are being deducted from her total.  Those are real people voting, and no need to leave them out.

    Disconnect the popular vote and delegate count - just because there are no delegates does not mean the popular vote gets disregarded.

    The states could be "punished" by stripping delegates but the voters could be "rewarded" by having their votes counted.

    When Hillary gets her 1.2 million votes back, she is clearly ahead in the popular vote.

    Parent

    After reading the whole thread, (none / 0) (#104)
    by sander60tx on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:25:22 PM EST
    this idea seems to be the best of any that has been mentioned.  I think a re-vote would have been better, but think the chances of that happening are slim.

    Parent
    cutting the delegates in half (none / 0) (#101)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:37:42 PM EST
    This is what the rules say  also, they don't say take away all delegates. That is what was put in place as an alternative. I understand Donna Brazile was a strong advocate for it.

    Parent
    Wow! Look at Dennis in MI. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:06:49 AM EST
    How many votes do you need to net a delegate?  (Got a soft spot for my homie.)

    I doubt anyone who voted for Clinton(/Kucinihc/Dodd/Gravel) did it instead of voting for someone else - so she deserves hers.  The same for the others on the ballot in MI.

    The remaining Uncommitted should be split in some manner between Obama, Edwards and any others who pulled their names off the ballots.  Given Edwards respectable showing elsewhere, I think he deserves at least 5% of the Uncommitted.  Perhaps it could be argued Edwards could get even more based on polling in MI.

    REVOTES!!! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:06:57 AM EST
    They can STILL be done.

    They could be done (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:15:46 AM EST
    but they won't.

    Hillary will agree, but I expect that Obama will run out the clock finding reasons to not agree.

    But even more important, the people in MI/FL seem to think they already voted and don't need to do it again.

    My solution (see above) could be implemented by the DNC.

    Parent

    I'm still confused about why they have to agree (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by angie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    Demand revotes is right -- with primaries, as the caucus system has proven itself to be a bunch of hooey -- and before anyone jumps on me for that,  remember Texas.  Any candidate who doesn't like it (I'm looking at you Obama) can suck it.
    If no revotes -- then I like the first suggestion on this thread -- it's usually a fair compromise when no one gets everything they want .

    Parent
    this is first choice (none / 0) (#7)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:09:05 AM EST
    but it seems dead in the water

    Parent
    Only because Obama wants them dead (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:09:49 AM EST
    Demand REVOTES!!

    Parent
    Why the 50/50 split (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:11:50 AM EST
    proposal?  Does Team O think that they are going to be losing more of the delegate lead in upcoming contests?

    Raises an interesting question.

    I say give her the delegates she earned and the popular vote she earned.  He chose to take his name off the ballot in order to game the system.  He lost the game.  Get over it.

    Parent

    If revotes don't happen, then what do you suggest? (none / 0) (#25)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:40:19 AM EST
    Dean should give candidates the choice (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by katiebird on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:10:31 AM EST
    Accept Revotes for each state OR -- if both candidates can't agree -- accept the original primaries.

    By giving the candidates the power to block revotes without a default solution we've made NO progress.

    There must be an Either Or option.

    My way (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Saul on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:16:06 AM EST
    Let the Fl original votes stand as is since that was a even playing field. In Mi give Hillary 55 as she got and give Obama  40 percent uncommitted to Obama and that is being generous.

    actually, if you'll recall (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:35:36 AM EST
    it was more than an even playing field for sen. obama in FL,

    Let the Fl original votes stand as is since that was a even playing field.

    he was the only one of the candidates to have tv ads running in the state, as well as having rallies (clinton had meetings too, but no ads), so for sen. obama to now claim the high ground in FL borders on the absurd.

    it's conceivable, had sen. clinton actually campaigned in FL, she'd have trounced sen. obama in an even more lopsided manner than she did. sen. obama should take what he can get, and shut up about it.

    Parent

    similar to fabian (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Joe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:16:57 AM EST
    Seat FL per the voting.

    Seat MI per the voting.

    Allocate the remaining MI uncommitted, between Edwards, Obama, and nobody, by their respective weighting against each other in FL.

     

    Florida is obvious. (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:17:36 AM EST
    Assign pledged delegates proportionally according to the vote.  No "punishment" (either of voters or of party officials) is in order because the date was changed by the Republicans.  If a concession must be made to Obama (because his magical powers of persuasion would have changed the outcome if only he'd been allowed to campaign--an idea that his supporters hold as Gospel),then perhaps both their totals in delegates could be reduced by some mutually agreeable fraction.

    The popular vote totals are what they are, though.  No change there, because these are votes, and votes ought to be sacred.

    Michigan is truly the Gordian knot.  There is no perfectly fair solution because there is no way to know how many of those uncommitted voters would have belonged to Obama.  If I had the power to decide, I would use the exit polls and assign both delegates and popular vote counts to those who removed their names based on them.  

    The Obama supporters would scream their lungs out, but it's better for them and their candidate that his nomination is legitimate.  They should have suggested this and lived with it weeks ago.

    Democrats were complicit (none / 0) (#28)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:43:06 AM EST
    in changing the date, and in a statement on the floor in the legislature, mocked the DNC's ruling that the primary would go for naught. You m ust have seen the youtube clip of that by now.

    Parent
    I haven't seen that youtube clip, no. (none / 0) (#40)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:59:04 AM EST
    But it wouldn't change the fact that Democrats didn't control the situation.  Republicans did. Punishing the Democratic voters of Florida because there is a youtube clip of party leaders is --well, the sort of bizarre thing I expect to hear from Obama's supporters.

    Too often, it doesn't seem to matter what's right to them.

    Whether or not that quality also belongs to the candidate himself is still an open question to me.

    Parent

    The clip's been washed from youtube (none / 0) (#49)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:15:08 PM EST
    Markos had it in an April 1 story at DKos. You can read the relevant part of the transcript there. Did you know that it was a democrat who introduced the bill to move up the primary's date, incurring the penalty from the DNC?

    Here.

    Parent

    Votes belong to the voters (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by joc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:18:36 PM EST
    Disenfranchising an entire state because it's legislature did something is despicable, even if it helps Obama.

    Don't start walking down the road of Republicanism, where votes for any other candidate are fair game to discredit.

    Parent

    These states disenfranchised themselves (none / 0) (#89)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:06:30 PM EST
    through their elected representatives. At the time it happened it was AOK to Clinton, as well.

    Parent
    Votes belong to the voters, still (none / 0) (#90)
    by joc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    And as for Clinton being 'AOK' with it,
    stop lying
    .


    Parent
    I'm not alying and I'd appreciate it (none / 0) (#93)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:16:34 PM EST
    if you would stop with the personal insults.

    Check out Ezra Klein's column on April 3 and check the links included in that column.  Hillary could have objected to the disenfranchisement plan at the outset, and stopped it, but she didn't. In fact, one of her senior staffers, Harold Ickes, voted for the penalty. Obviously, if she didn't object to it back then, it was OK with her.

    Parent

    I did not insult you (none / 0) (#97)
    by joc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:43:43 PM EST
    To suggest that I did is simply another lie.

    Also, as highly as you may think of Mr. Klein he has a number of facts wrong. Not the least obvious of which is that Hillary Clinton was not the only name on the Michigan ballot. So please forgive me if I'm hugely skeptical of what he says on the rest of the subject. See when someone says something that is so easily refuted by the facts, it make it hard to believe that the surmising he does in other parts is factual.

    Another aspect that the Obama supporters, like Klein, conveniently overlook, is that at the time of the non-campaigning pledge, there was still ways for MI and FL to have their delegates counted. One of those was to change back their dates.

    Their decision is a blow to Florida, which had moved its primary to Jan. 29, and Michigan, where the legislature this week voted to push its primary to Jan. 15. Michigan acted despite the DNC's threat to punish Florida by stripping it of its 210 delegates unless it comes up with another plan in the next four weeks.

    The same articles states that the Clinton "reluctantly agreed" to abide by the pledge. Reluctant, not 'AOK.' You do understand the difference between the two, don't you?

    Parent

    Who's Markos? (none / 0) (#77)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:05:34 PM EST

    jk ~  I'm one of the old-timers from there who once trusted the front-pagers to be both fair and honest.  I think my last visit was on the night of super Tuesday, when one of them was called out for misrepresenting the facts and refused to admit the error.

    So now you want me to go take kos's word on a story that I know he's biased over?  :)  Not happening.  

    Your basic contention is false, no matter how you try to twist it.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#88)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:03:39 PM EST
    1. A democrat introduced the bill to move Florida's primary up in violation of DNC rules.

    2. Florida minority leader Steven Geller mockingly introduced an amendment opposing the date.  Here's the transcript:

       Geller: The chair of the Democratic National Committee has of coursed threatened that if we move the primary to before the first Tuesday in February that they will sanction us at the Democratic National Convention. So the Democratic leader and the Democratic leader pro-tem are jointly making this motion, which we will duly show to them later, that we tried not to have the election before the first Tuesday in March.

        Chair: And so Sen. Geller are you urging a negative vote or would you like us to pass this vote?

        Geller [laughing]: Oh no sir, we really really want this, don't we senator?

        Chair: I understand. Please don't throw me into the bramble bush.



    The democratic party in Florida was not victimized by a republican scheme. The democratic party was instrument and complicit in the legislation that lead to the loss of its delegates. Those are the undisputable facts.

    Parent
    and the voters? (none / 0) (#102)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:46:52 PM EST
    And were the Fl voters complicit in this 'scheme' also?  

    Will not counting and of their votes inspire them to vote Democratic in Nov.?


    Parent

    before or after (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:25:31 AM EST
    beating howard dean & donna brazille about the head and shoulders with a stout board? what prime examples of "the peter principle" on display!

    How Would You Resolve FL and MI?

    option 1: complete revotes, there's time.

    option 2: accept the results as is. uncommitted is, well..........uncommitted. they can decide come convention time. when you play drama queen (in this case, drama king), you run the risk of it backfiring.

    option 3: follow the "rules" and halve the delegates allowed for each at the convention. MI uncommitteds can decide who they support then.

    option 4: they get nothing, until after the nomination's been decided. of course, this practically guarantees the loss of both those states in nov., but them's the "roolz" you know! "roolz" is "roolz", must be followed no matter what.

    Count them as they are (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by scorbs on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM EST
    I'd count them as they are.  No one except Obama advertised or campaigned in Florida and everyone by the time of these two primaries was aware of the politicians and their stances.

    For Michigan, I'd split the Uncommitted between Obama and Edwards.  But the other votes should be allocated as voted.

    I'm argued out but. . . (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by RickTaylor on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:32:05 PM EST
    I think the question deserves a reply, so here's my best attempt at one. The position I'm going to take won't be popular here, and I've been very slow in coming to it. The thing that turned it for me was reading someone else remark that in a representative democracy, the citizens our responsible for the decisions their elected representatives make on their behalf. Our system of government does not work without this principle. As I remarked in another post, I am personally responsible for the Iraq war, even though I opposed it, even though I voted for Gore, because it was carried out by the government I had a part in electing. I cannot refuse to help pay for the consequences of this war just because it wasn't my choice. Our system of government presupposes that citizens are responsible for the decisions their elected representatives make. I know that's an oversimplification and there's a lot more to it, and this being a legal blog there are people who know a hell of a lot more about this than I do, and will probably inform me of shortcomings in my argument shortly, but that is my starting point.

    So to put it bluntly, my solution is no solution. Florida and Michigan were informed of the consequences of moving the primary dates back, they did it anyway. And as far as I've been able to find after researching it, neither government made any serious effort to seek a remedy in the form of a revote before March; I have quotes from February from officials and in the case of Florida even from Hillary Clinton saying they were not interested in any form of revote.

    So given all this, I think the process should go forward under the rules. If all but one candidate concedes, then of course that candidate will control the appropriate committee and arrange for the delegates to be seated. I believe that this is actually what everyone involved expected to happen when this began, including the two states involved, and I suspect this is what will actually happen; there are still plenty of states that are going to weigh in after all. But assuming a worst case scenario where that doesn't happen, it will go to the convention and the delegate committee will have to be formed and it will have to be hashed out according to the rules. I'm not happy about this, but I think that's the way it will have to be handled by this point, assuming the race remains extremely tight.

    Now as people have pointed out, this keeps voters in those states from having a direct effect on the election through the delegates they appointed (of course it can still have an effect on the decisions of the super delegates, they can use this information how ever they like). But again, the states involved freely chose this path, and did not seek any solution until March. Now that, against all expectations, the race is going on so long that those delegates might conceivably have an effect on the outcome, they might like to change that decision. If it was still possible to do a revote, that would still be the best solution.

    Now from here, there is a basic disagreement. I've read the arguments of people involved in the primaries, and from what I can gather, the fundamental reason revotes aren't happening is because the states involved simply waited to long in order to seek a solution. By March, there simply wasn't enough remaining time to craft a revote plan, putting it through a 30 day process of review, submitting it to the Department of Justice, studying it to see if it was racially discriminatory and met all legal requirements, especially if the plan involved a system of voting such as mail-in-ballots that had never been implemented in the given state before. This is why revotes are not happening, it is not because of Obama having simply pointed out some of these potential difficulties.

    Now I'm aware that even in voicing this opinion that the lack of revotes is not Obama's fault, it is possible that I will be given a reprimand, told I am wrong, told I am banned from the current thread, and told any further posts I make on the matter will be deleted. This has happened to me before and I've seen it happen to others. But I cannot fully explain my position without making this point, so I'm doing it for that purpose, and I will not attempt to argue the point further.

    So given this, I believe revotes are not practical The states involved waited too long before attempting this, and as one caucus goer put it, "Lack of planning on your part will not constitute an emergency on my part." And while I feel uncomfortable that people are being prevented from delegates they cast votes for from being seated before the nomineee is chosen, again, in a representative democracy, the elected officials are the representatives of the people, and the people are responsible for the decisions they make.

    Now, having made that point, I will now suppose that Obama is solely and completely responsible for the revotes in the two states not happening. I'm granting this point not because I believe it, but because it is considered established here, to the degree that a poster may be banned from a thread simply for arguing against it. So even though i do not believe this myself, my arguments here will not be considered satisfactory unless I take into account the possibility it is true.

    So assuming that, my answer of what's to be done doesn't change. Of course then we should try to influence Obama to see this is a mistake and to influence him to change his position. But assuming that's not successful, all the parties agreed to the procedures in advance, it still doesn't make sense to change them in the middle of the election, without an established procedure to do so. Of course people may be angry at Obama if he wins the nomination as a result. If I believed that Obama was the one responsible for the revotes not happening, I'd be angry with him too. In that case, People will have to decide for themselves if they can still support him after that. I'll just mention that the election is not over. It's also possible that Hillary will win a convention floor fight to seat the delegates from the unsanctioned primaries, including one in which her opponent was not even on the ballot. If that happens, I will be very angry; I will believe that she won the election through chicanery, and it will be difficult for me to vote for her. But I'll still do it, because she'd be an infinitely better president than McCain.

    One last thing. I sympathize with BTD when posters accuse him of being a Hillary supporter. It's basically accusing him not only of being wrong, but of having come to his conclusions in bad faith, not out of principle, however misguided, but out of devotion to a particular candidate. Similarly, in writing this, I suspect that I will be told I only came to these conclusions because I wanted Obama win. The reverse is actually true. I supported Hillary early on in the elections and voted for her in the primaries in my state. I still think she might make a better president than Obama; I certainly prefer her on economic matters, particularly health care. If my preference between the two candidates has shifted, it is only because I've been appalled by what appear to me to be to me her attempts to game the rules in her favor in the middle of an election. In general when I disagree with someone, even strongly, I attempt not to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they've come to their conclusions through reasoning, even if it is mistaken reasoning, and not simply dismiss them out of hand as partisans. I would appreciate it if others would do the same with me.

    Michigan can't count... (1.00 / 2) (#19)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:31:50 AM EST
    as is, because Obama removed his name from the ballot in accordance with the candidates' agreement not to "participate" in the primary.  Clinton is also on record before the primary, saying it "won't count for anything," so it shouldn't.  Sorry, Michigan.  Blame your state dems.  A re-do would be best - but Hillary has nixed caucuses, and Obama's raised objections about other suggested solutions.  If a re-do is really off the table, a 50/50 split seems like the best solution.

    Florida otoh had both names on the ballot.  How would Clinton backers feel about a compromise whereby Michigan delegation is split 50/50, and Florida seated as is?  Popular vote cannot count in MI, and is not a fair reflection of Fl either but might be counted there as part of a compromise.

    Deal or no deal?

    no deal thanks (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:37:39 AM EST
    sen. obama was not required to remove his name from the MI ballot, he made that (apparently really stupid) decision all by his own self. oh well, too bad.

    Parent
    How does accepting delegates (none / 0) (#45)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:06:19 PM EST
    selected by the early primary not constitute "participating," which Clinton pledged not to do? Hillary did't have to say the MI primary "wouldn't count for anything," but she did, more than once, back when she didn't think she'd need the votes. Why shouldn't she be held to that now?

    Parent
    Whether or not (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by badger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:19:32 PM EST
    Clinton, in your opinion,  "participated", Obama is still not entitled to any delegates or votes from a contest where his name wasn't on the ballot by his choice.

    Beyond that, this is about counting the votes of every voter in every state regardless of which candidate that benefits. A revote accomplishes that, or counting the votes from the original election accomplishes that. If Obama won't actively work for a revote, that's his problem, just like removing his name from the ballot is his problem.


    Parent

    What about the voters (none / 0) (#55)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:23:00 PM EST
    who didn't turn out, because they were told (by Clinton too) that their vote wouldn't count, or because they didn't buy into the idea of voting "uncommitted?" If the initial results from MI are counted, aren't they being disenfranchised?

    Parent
    Disenfranchised doesn't mean (none / 0) (#60)
    by badger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM EST
    "matt didn't like the outcome and can think of excuses for why it came out that way". Disenfranchisement also doens't mean "Obama loses".

    Disenfranchised means that voters were either prevented from voting by force or law, or their votes didn't count in the outcome.

    If you feel that what you're hypothesizing is actually real, then you can advocate for a recount, or back a candidate who does. But just because you can hypothesize it doesn't mean it's either real or significant.

    Parent

    So you don't think (none / 0) (#63)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:49:09 PM EST
    that when people in authority tell voters that their vote isn't going to count, then they count the election results anyway, it amounts to vote suppression? Interesting interpretation.

    Parent
    Vote suppression (none / 0) (#69)
    by badger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:20:26 PM EST
    is not the same as disenfranchisement.

    Sure, it's probably vote suppression. Lots of things suppress turnout - candidate appeal, weather, negative ads. But you have no real evidence that vote suppression occurred (that voters behaved that way) - just your hypothetical. And in fact millions of people turned out to vote in FL and MI.

    But if you think it's a serious matter, then I'd think you'd support a revote, as well as supporting a candidate who does. Otherwise you do support disenfranchisement, and that's a lot more serious than vote suppression.


    Parent

    I DO support a revote. (none / 0) (#70)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:23:29 PM EST
    The state party in MI says it can't happen. For that fact, there's plenty of blame to go around.

    Parent
    Then support people who are part of the solution (none / 0) (#73)
    by badger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:47:37 PM EST
    and not those who are part of the problem.

    Parent
    You mean... (none / 0) (#78)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:06:39 PM EST
    support the guy who suggested inexpensive caucuses in order to give the people of MI a voice? A backup plan that was backed by many in the state Dem party? OK, I will! Alternatively, the delegation could be split 50/50 to give MI a chance to participate in the convention. Once they're there, if Clinton's contention that "pledged" delegates are free to vote their conscience they can do whatever they want, right?

    Parent
    Oh, and (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by badger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:25:55 PM EST
    accepting the results of the original election does allow for a number of uncommitted delegates - in proportion to how many uncommitted votes were cast in the election.

    Parent
    If the MI Democratic Party (none / 0) (#80)
    by badger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:17:36 PM EST
    had decided to support caucuses, I wouldn't have an objection. They didn't, and in fact MI used to be a caucus state and rejected caucuses this year. Equal protection means that each state gets to decide for either primaries or caucuses (or both in two cases) just like every other state, and MI made their choice.

    But of course putting forward 50/50 means that your only serious interest is some solution where Obama wins votes he never got, which is hardly a democratic process.

    Post again when you have some principles to defend.


    Parent

    Michigan also made a choice (none / 0) (#87)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:54:13 PM EST
    to move up their primary, and butt heads with the DNC. But you seem more flexible on making them stand by that choice. Here's an article from Feb 10, with some earlier background. Interesting that at this time, when there might have been time enough to actually get something don, it was Obama backers who were calling for some kind of do-over.

    Parent
    Money was never an issue (none / 0) (#99)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:26:55 PM EST
    It has been stated repeatedly here that the cost of a primary would have been paid for by soft money... donors.  Please do not repeat as others have done that the money was from Clinton.  Obama was challenged to raise the same and even turned donors away.  Donors like me would have paid for it.

    Parent
    The removal from the ballot (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:37:40 AM EST
    was absolutely NOT in conformance with any agreement. That is false. We have tread this ground many times.

    The removal from the MI ballot was, in the words of Barack Obama, "an ADDITIONAL commitment" beyond the 4 state pledge.

    I personally am sick and tired of Obama supporters repeating this falsehood. Do not do it anymore here.  

    Parent

    In the earlier thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:49:04 AM EST
    and again here, Clinton advocates seem uninterested in the candidates' pledge not to "participate" in MI or FL. If you sign such a pledge and have the option of removing your name from the ballot, isn't that just the right thing to do? For those who weren't lurking during the earlier thread, here's the text of the 4 State Pledge. Scroll down to "Therefore:" Link

    Parent
    You refuse to accept that (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:53:32 AM EST
    taking ones name off of the ballot was not required and therefore not a rationale for your argument. According to the rules spelled out... Hillary did not participate.  What part of that do you not understand?

    Parent
    You refuse to accept (none / 0) (#39)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:58:23 AM EST
    that each candidate knew going into both Michigan and Florida that the DNC stated that their delegates were not going to count toward the nomination. Senator Clinton herself stated that the outcomes were meaningless.

    Counting those votes now is changing the rules in the middle of the game. That's Calvinball, not a presidential nominee selection.

    Parent

    Only in concrete thinking according to (none / 0) (#47)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:12:54 PM EST
    Piaget is it so.  As children grow and learn they begin with pure black and white thinking.  ex. "It is wrong to steal a loaf of bread, period." Later they learn to factor in other perspectives that impact such a decision, such as starvation, mental illness, etc.  It sounds like you are still in the concrete thinking stage of childhood.

    Parent
    It sounds more like (none / 0) (#53)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:19:37 PM EST
    you are still in the sensorimotor stage. You seem unable to grasp the notion that rules have object permanence.

    Parent
    You still reading Skinner? (none / 0) (#79)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    I bet you'd be (none / 0) (#84)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:41:13 PM EST
    an ideal subject for Milgram.

    Parent
    He's got company (none / 0) (#83)
    by joc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    Obama is stuck in that stage too, according to you. He's trying to get 50% of the delegates which you claim is against the rules. Why do you think Obama doesn't grasp what is so obvious to you? What mistake about the rules is he making?

    Parent
    Seating them 50-50 (none / 0) (#86)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:49:48 PM EST
    is the functional equivalent of giving them no voice in the nomination process. That is perfectly consistent with the rules at the beginning of the nomination process.

    Parent
    I see, (none / 0) (#91)
    by joc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:34:29 PM EST
    you think Obama is working hard trying to get this settled so as to give them no voice in the process. Hah! Thanks for the laugh.

    Parent
    I didn't intend (none / 0) (#42)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:02:09 PM EST
    to attack Hillary for leaving her name on the ballot, my comment was intended as a defense of Obama's decision, which I feel was - if not required - the more appropriate response. But Clinton did say more than once, before the primary, that the results "wouldn't count for anything." Surely those comments affected turnout on all sides. Why shouldn't she be held to that now?

    Parent
    See my response above. There were (none / 0) (#50)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    other statements made as well, such as "vote uncommitted, or vote for the Republican."  Those are also factors in this decision about turnout in Michigan.

    Parent
    Let me see if I understand... (none / 0) (#85)
    by joc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    Obama taking his name off the Michigan ballot and thereby affecting turnout was appropriate.
    While Clinton saying something about a DNC decision she disagreed with, on a radio call in show in NH, affected turnout and was very wrong of her.

    Also, I suggest you read her other quotes from the piece. She clearly knew we were going to have to count the votes, or suffer the consequences in November.

    I did not believe it was fair to just say, 'Goodbye Michigan' and not take into account the fact we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009," she said.


    Parent
    How would I feel about 50/50? (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by badger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:52:42 AM EST
    I definitely would not vote for Obama in the general election. I would have to think about whether I'd ever vote Democratic downticket or ever again - certainly not for anyone who supported that solution or the candidate who proposed it.

    I won't support any party that believes it has the right to re-allocate the distribution of votes after an election, especially where one of the the candidates voluntarily removed his name from the ballot.

    I know all the possible consequences of not supporting Democrats, so I don't need a lecture on that. I'm rarely a purist about politics, but there are some lines you don't cross, and this is one of them.


    Parent

    Blame your state party for scoffing (none / 0) (#35)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:54:31 AM EST
    at the DNC. But don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

    Parent
    My state party didn't have much to do with it (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by badger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    except how our DNC reps voted, if they even got to vote on it. I don't live in MI or FL.

    What you're suggesting is that there's no other game in town, so I should support the Democratic Party no matter what they choose to do. That seems pretty mindless to me.

    I don't accept that I have that obligation, and if they choose to do things that violate what few principles I actually have, I won't support them or even vote for them.

    Parent

    It is in your self interest (none / 0) (#54)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    to vote for the democratic nominee whoever it is. Or do you think you need to learn the lesson that the Nader voters learned in 2000? How many lives were forfeit to our irresponsible war in Iraq as a result of Nader's impact on the Florida election?

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by badger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    but that doesn't impress me. I wouldn't vote for Nader in 2008 and didn't vote for him in 2004 or 2000. I voted for Kerry and Gore, who were the fairly nominated candidates of the Democratic Party.

    I'll vote for the fairly nominated Democrat this year, but not for one who wins the nomination by disenfranchising voters, because whether or not voting rights are a core value of the Democratic Party (and it seems not), they're a core value I adopted in the early 1960s, and I'm not about to sacrifice those values for your candidate.

    I'm not obligated, morally or pragmatically, to vote for any candidate (which is how some Nader voters felt about Gore - their right IMO) - the candidate has to earn my vote through his character and positions on the issues.


    Parent

    Any action (none / 0) (#56)
    by mattt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:25:30 PM EST
    or inaction that improves the chances of John McCain becoming president would be the really mindless course. Unless you're in the top 1% by wealth, own a lot of Halliburton stock, are beyond fighting age and generally don't give a crap about your neighbors.

    Parent
    Actually (4.00 / 1) (#65)
    by badger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    I have been in the top 1%, but usually bounce around in the top 5%-10% right now, so McCain's tax cuts would probably still be in my personal interest.

    I don't own any Halliburton stock, and in fact have had the opportunity to sell to Halliburton, and told them to take a hike. My principles extend to how I earn a living, as well as how I vote.

    I'm way beyond draft age and was 4F the first time around anyway.

    I live in a fairly remote area, but we have a strong community here where we help each other when necessary. My wife and I do more than our share to help our neighbors and the larger community - your ignorant disapproval isn't going to cause me to lose any sleep.

    I do care about fair, progressive taxation, ending the war immediately, and improving the lives of all Americans through the economy or things like universal health care.

    It's far from clear to me that a vote for Obama would make any of those things more likely, and I don't think supporting a party that willingly subverts fundamental democratic values like voting rights is in anybody's interest.


    Parent

    to compromise (none / 0) (#5)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    I would count FL as is and seat the delegates. In MI I would give Obama his 50-50 delegate split, but give Clinton the popular vote total that she earned, and give Obama the Uncommitted vote total.  This seems like a fair compromise.  I am more interested in Clinton getting to count the votes she got than getting more than 50% of the delegates in MI.

    This is tough (none / 0) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:15:35 AM EST
    It will require all sides recognizing there is no perfect solution and both sides are doing what is best for them, not the voters.

    I'll go a step further and suggest many partisans on both sides would happily embrace their opponents arguments if the situation was reversed.

    Beyond that I am not going to suggest a solution, cause I don't feel like being tarred and feathered by the side that will inevitably be offended.

    I do doubt that my fellow Florida Democrats will vote for McCain in November, if their vote doesn't count. We are not stupid in Florida, we know the stakes.


    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:21:26 AM EST
    It is true that the pols are acting in their own selfish interests but it so happens that Clinton's interests coincide with those of the Dem Party and the voters of MI and FL - a REVOTE is needed.

    Parent
    You are not disagreeing with my (none / 0) (#26)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    point (Pols do what's in their best interest), and I didn't think you would. You are arguing for a revote (and I knew you would).

    Parent
    If a revote is needed in Michigan, (none / 0) (#66)
    by jsj20002 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:07:29 PM EST
    as BTD insists, BTD is admitting that the results of the January 15 Michigan primary, in Senator Clinton's words, "will not count for anything."  Sorry, but some facts on the ground in Michigan need to be taken into account. (1)It is highly doubtful that enough Michigan politicians, both Ds and Rs, are going come together to pass any new legislation this year, let alone a new election law.  (2) Even if they did, it is highly doubtful that a new election law would be constitutional given the problems encountered the first time around.  (3) Like it or not, Michigan has a Republican Senate, a Republican Secretary of State, a Republican Attorney General and a Republican Supreme Court. (4) In addition, the Democratic House is fractured and the Democratic Governor is a term-limited lame duck, not to mention that at least a third of each branch of the legislature are also term-limited lame ducks. Assuming this passle of characters could actually design an entirely new election law, they would start out, like BTD, saying all they wanted was swan but in the end we would all have to be satisfied with a platypus.  

    Parent
    I disagree to (none / 0) (#107)
    by onemanrules on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:06:50 AM EST
    Hillary's interest don't coincide with those of the Dem. party, the DNC who represents the Dem. party (poorly can't be argued)set the rules that the votes wouldn't count at all, they coincide with playing politics to get votes and delegates that she admitted wouldn't count. It's all about politics. If the shoe were on the other foot Obama supporters would be crying the same way. It's hard to argue about changing the rules when you agreed to them from the start.

    Parent
    I find it deeply offensive (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by katiebird on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    That in an election season where every vote is critical, we aren't giving everyone a chance to vote and have those votes count.

    And I'm offended at the implication that this is considered a partisan issue.  

    I was for resolving the FL & MI situation before and after Clinton won in those states.  Even though at the time, I was an Edwards supporter.  As an Edwards supporter, I was dismayed that he took his name off the ballot in Michigan.  

    At the time, I didn't consider revotes, I just thought we'd have to seat the delegations.

    That's what I thought as an Edwards supporter and that's what I think now as a Clinton supporter.

    In a year when every vote counts, we MUST count every vote.

    Parent

    Before Super Tuesday (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    EVERYONE thought that the delegates would eventually be seated on the basis of the existing contests. Only after it became clear that they would actually matter did anyone seriously argue otherwise.

    Parent
    Of course it is a partisan issue (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    Please don't be naive. You can argue as BTD does that it is in the best interest of the party to have a revote.

    Don't fool yourself. HRC would argue against a revote, if that was her path to the nomination. It just so happens it is not. She is a Pol and a very good one. That is one of the reasons she would make a good president. Unlike some I don't consider being a Pol to be an insult or a disqualifying.

    Parent

    so, if the situation was reversed (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ghost2 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:53:44 PM EST
    you think that HRC will act like Obama, and Obama will act as HRC does now???

    So, with that fact, wouldn't it be best to ignore both of them, and go for the fundamental principle of democracy, which is voter participation, and counting every vote?

    Now that you have agreed we have to ignore both candidates and their interest because they are pols, what is your solution?

    Parent

    My preference is for a revote (none / 0) (#94)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:17:11 PM EST
    Re-votes (none / 0) (#20)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:34:35 AM EST
    or seat as is.  I don't see how re-votes could be organized in a timely fashion.

    Obama supporters would be disappointed with re-votes or seating as is, but I think less voters would be lost with either of these options and would be best to resolve a party image problem (looking like you are willing to discount voters is never a good thing.)  Maybe the party and Obama already have their spin ready, but it really should be more than patting people on the head and saying we will take care of it, trust us.  

    Just me, but I think they can get away with anything they want because it is typical to switch parties in power and Dems are loyal.

    As the Washington Post correctly stated, (none / 0) (#32)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    without any campaigning in Florida or Michigan, the votes in these states were nothing more than beauty contests. This process is to select a presidential nominee, not Miss America.

    The vote in those states is too tainted to use for anything. I agree with BTD. The only way to seat delegates from either state is via revote. Otherwise, I would ignore them, and stop blaming either candidate for it. The fault lies with the state parties.

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:02:50 PM EST
    There was no real campaigning in California.  Not Iowa and New Hampshire style campaigning.
    Some visits.   Sure.

    But because it was on super tuesday, neither Obama nor Clinton had a chance to focus on that one state and campaign in that state the way they campaigned in say Iowa and New Hampshire.

    I didn't see more than one ad for Obama OR Clinton during the week running up to that primary.  My perception is Obama wrote it off and focussed on the states where his strategy was better suited.

    Was the California primary a beauty contest?  No.

    WAPO is basically making an argument.  There is a counter argument.  90% of America gets their info about the candidates through media.  To say voters in FL had nothing to go on at all, or to say they didn't know who Obama was (except to say a lot of people in states where he campaigns have a hard time figuring that out, sometimes) is also wrong.

    Parent

    Obama can be blamed (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:56:18 AM EST
    For blocking revotes.


    Parent
    So that makes it fair (none / 0) (#41)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:00:32 PM EST
    to count the original vote? Is that your argument? If not, what is the consequence of rightfully blaming Obama for blocking revotes?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:03:16 PM EST
    I'm just saying if revotes are the best option...

    Parent
    Please state your entire argument (none / 0) (#51)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST
    along with your conclusion. No need to leave any pregnant implications in the air.

    Parent
    Amen. (none / 0) (#68)
    by jsj20002 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:17:04 PM EST
    The fault lies entirely with the Michigan Democratic Party.  If the Michigan Supreme Court had enjoined the election, which the Federal court in Detroit now says was unconstitutional, the MDP was already prepared to have a caucus on February 9. That option is still on the table, whereas time has probably run out to have a lawful election.  

    Parent
    In football there's a small rule (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:55:28 AM EST
    The receiver can jump up to catch the ball near the sideline, if the defender then pushes him out of bounds before he lands on the ground, the umpire can say "Ok, it's obvious he would have landed inbounds," and call it a catch.

    Basically there's a way that reasonable people can figure what would have happened in MI and FL if it all never got screwed up from the start.

    Personally I think the states have already been disenfranchised.

    Revotes could right that wrong, but then even that's a politicized football.  It was funny how revotes become so much more unacceptable to the Obama campaign after Rev. Wright.  Whereas there was a week before Rev. Wright where the idea was being considered, Obama was deploying his ground game in FL and then it all fell apart.

    You see, if you do care about the sanctity of the vote team Obama has one valid point.  If I take off my partisan glasses, I have to admit that if there were some Obama supporters in FL or MI who did not vote (or did something stupid and irresponsible -- as in MI -- and voted in the repug primary)  because they believed it would not count, I'm not willing to say "tough luck" to those voters.

    If you say you care about voters, that has to be considered.  If I was told a vote wouldn't count, didn't vote, and then found out later it would count, I'd be angry about that.  That wouldn't be fair either.

    So BTD is correct in that the only true solution that takes into account the voters  -- and takes nothing else into account -- is revotes.  That is the ENFRANCHISEMENT solution to Dean's mess.

    That is one concern, enfranchising voters.

    The other concern is the legitimacy of the process.

    Who besides Obama supporters are going to recognize Obama as a LEGITIMATE winner of the primary if FL and MI are left out of the process or they are neutered by retro-active seating or 50/50 solutions?

    No one I can think of.  Except maybe Obama supporters.

    Just to put this another way (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:13:32 PM EST
    If there's a giant group of Obama supporters in FL and MI who didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count, I find it odd that Obama doesn't want to give them a chance to be heard in a vote that does count.


    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#103)
    by sander60tx on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:20:35 PM EST
    one thing that apparantly happened in Michigan is that some democrats voted republican because either they believed their vote on the democratic side wouldn't matter or their candidate was not on the ballot.  I think it was Kos who urged folks to cross over and vote for Romney in attempt to cause confusion the republican race.  Under the Michigan re-vote plan, those who voted in the republican race would not be able to vote again.  And so those folks who crossed over because they thought voting democratic wouldn't matter now would like to participate in a democratic re-vote.  I believe that this issue may be the basis of part of Obama's objection to the failed re-vote plan.

    Maybe the states should adopt the Texas system.  Count the primary votes as is and then let everyone vote again in a caucus.  Use the original vote to determine a certain percentage of the delegates and then use the caucus vote to determine the rest.  I live in Texas and I don't think it makes any sense, but I thought I'd throw that out there because folks seem unable to form a consensus around any other plan that has been proposed thus far.

    It's clear that a solution is needed and that there isn't one that most people can agree upon and perceive as fair.  I think all the major players ought to be locked in a room with a skilled arbitrator until they come to an agreement.  I am not going to donate any more money to the DNC until some resolution is reached.  

    Parent

    Remember (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ghost2 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:00:26 PM EST
    The original DNC sanction asked FLORIDA and MICHIGAN to come up with alternative dates.  So DNC always accepted that a revote WILL BE legitimate.  

    What they now say about both candidates accepting it, is a new, made-up rule.  

    Florida and MI should be able to schedule alternative primaries by themselves, and the DNC has to accept the outcome.

    Parent

    if I were in charge of the universe (none / 0) (#58)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    ooooh, I would, oh wait, never mind, this is only about the vote. OK, whew, OK, here's what I would do. I would count the votes just as they are. In the case of FL, that's pretty darn fair. And for that state, I'd count all the delegates. In the case of MI, that's not so fair. I agree that the pols who took their names off the ballot did so for calculated, triangulating reasons. Snark. Hmm, not so snark. Anyway, I'd give Obama a break there though, even though he doesn't deserve it, and I'd only count 1/2 those delegates. But keep in mind, those undecided delegates will of course get to vote anyway they like. And any delegates, if any, that the minor candidates got could vote anyway they like. So I'd guess Obama would get a nice share of all of those.

    Now how hard was that. And if the dems do that, they can still salvage the general election. If they don't count those states in some reasonably fair way, they can count on this election being a complete blow out for the repubs.

    Simple (none / 0) (#59)
    by fafnir on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:36:23 PM EST
    In light of the waivers other states (New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina) received from the DNC for moving their contests forward, the only legitimate solution is for the DNC to rescind its political decapitation of Florida and Michigan, and honor their votes and delegates -- as they stand -- before the nomination.

    Since Obama chose to remove his name from the Michigan ballot on his own volition, any apportionment of delegates he may receive from that state rests in the hands of its "uncommitted" delegates. Toying with unfair machinations to distort the clear intent of Michigan voters (i.e., splitting votes 50/50) is tantamount to vote stealing with the underhanded intent to award Obama votes he did not earn.

    If the DNC fails to legitimately enfranchise the votes cast by Michigan and Florida, Democrats won't get away with blaming Ralph Nader for their candidate's failure to win in November this time.

    A vote is a vote (none / 0) (#67)
    by mjames on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    Count the votes exactly as they were cast - no half votes, no giving Obama votes that weren't cast for him. A vote for uncommitted is not a vote for a candidate; it is a vote for uncommitted. And one person's vote should not count for half as much as someone else's.

    I do not agree with the idea of a revote. The date to vote has passed. The circumstances have changed. It cannot be redone. However, as a last resort, if the Michigan and Florida voters agreed, I would accede to their desires, provided that no one whose vote already counted (as in the Michigan Republican primary) can revote, because one person's vote should not count twice.


    dura lex sed lex (none / 0) (#71)
    by SAINTIXE56 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:25:22 PM EST
    michigan and florida behaved stupidly and should be punished otherwise it is fair game for anyone committing an offense to overrule ...the rules and the law.
    the delegates should be seated but their number reduce to 25%.
    respect the voters but punish the states
    tough
    well life is tough...
    and make sure this mess is not to be repeated in 2012
    a hard punishment will give food for thought to the pols and the DNC and the state dems commttee
    dura lex sed lex

    Do you support (none / 0) (#76)
    by badger on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    the death penalty for parking tickets? It would certainly deter parking violations, and as you say, life is tough. There is a principle that says punishment should be proportional to the crime.

    What happens if the primaries move back to December (or November or October or farther)? Does the Republic collapse? Will God visit plagues of locusts  or boils upon us? Will aliens destroy the planet if Iowa doesn't caucus first? Or does it just make Dean and Brazile unhappy?

    And in what democratic country are political parties sovereign to the elected state governments who set the primary dates?

    I can't think of any primary election related "offense" that justifies disenfranchising millions of voters. Subverting democratic process is never a solution to any problem, IMO. Especially when the offense is only making Dean and Brazile unhappy.

    You apparently believe we need to destroy the election in order to save it.

    Parent

    mutiny (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimbo on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:42:27 PM EST
    We can put a stop to the FL - MI problem. Take the pledge:
    "If MI and FL are not brought into the national picture immediately and their votes counted, and if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will vote in the presidential election in November only if HRC is the nominee. If MI and FL are returned to the national picture immediately and their votes counted, then I will vote for the Democratic nominee whomever it is".
    If enough of us take the pledge then Dean has few choices. If he makes the wrong choice then Obama will have no chance to be President. Period. The only choice for Dean is to bring FL and MI into the equation, now.

    Penalize the legislators (none / 0) (#92)
    by View from a broad on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    It was the legislators who erred, so the DNC should penalize those guys -- not the voters.  Take away their individual superdelegate vote, but keep the delegates that represent the voters.  I'm sure they will be royally pissed if they cannot go to Denver and party with everyone else, but if the buck has to stop somewhere, it should stop with them.

    I'm about argued out but (none / 0) (#96)
    by RickTaylor on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:47:25 PM EST
    the question deserves a reply. The position I'm going to take won't be popular here, and I've been very slow in coming to it. The thing that turned it for me was reading someone else on another blog remark that in a representative democracy, the citizens our responsible for the decisions their elected representatives make on their behalf. Our system of government does not work without this principle. As I remarked in another post, I am personally responsible for the Iraq war, even though I opposed it, because it was carried out by the government I had a part in electing. I cannot refuse to help pay for the consequences of this war just because it wasn't my choice. Our system of government presupposes that citizens are responsible for the decisions their elected representatives make. I know that's an oversimplification and there's a lot more to it, and this being a legal blog there are people here who know a hell of a lot more about this than I do, but that is my starting point.

    So to put it bluntly, my solution is no solution. Florida and Michigan were informed of the consequences of moving the primary dates back, they did it anyway. And as far as I've been able to find after researching it, neither government made any serious effort to seek a remedy in the form of a revote before March; I have quotes from February from officials and in the case of Florida even from Hillary Clinton saying they were not interested in any form of revote.

    So given all this, I think the process should go forward under the rules. If all but one candidate concedes, then of course that candidate will control the appropriate committee and arrange for the delegates to be seated. I believe that this is actually what everyone involved expected to happen when this began, including the two states involved, and I suspect this is what will actually happen. But if it doesn't, then it will go to the convention and the delegate committee will have to be formed and it will have to be hashed out according to the rules. I'm not happy about this, but I think that's the way it will have to be handled by this point, assuming the race remains extremely tight.

    Now as people have pointed out, this keeps voters in those states from having a direct effect on the election through the delegates they appointed (of course it can still have an effect on the decisions of the super delegates, they can use this information how ever they like). But again, the states involved chose this path, and did not seek any solution until March. Now that, against all expectations, the race is going on so long that those delegates might conceivably have an effect on the outcome, they might like to change that decision. And if it was still possible to do a revote, that would still be the best solution.

    Now from here, there is a basic disagreement. I've read the arguments of people involved in the primaries, and from what I can gather, the fundamental reason revotes aren't happening is because the states involved simply waited to long in order to seek a solution. By March, there simply wasn't enough remaining time to craft a revote plan, putting it through a 30 day process of review, submitting it to the Department of Justice, studying it to see if it was racially discriminatory and met all legal requirements, especially if the plan involved a system of voting such as mail-in-ballots that had never been implemented in the given state before. This is why revotes are not happening, it is not because of Obama having simply pointed out some of these potential difficulties.

    Now I'm aware that even in voicing this opinion that the lack of revotes is not Obama's fault, it is possible that I will be given a reprimand, told I am wrong, told I am banned from the current thread, and told any further posts I make on the matter will be deleted. This has happened to me before and I've seen it happen to others. But I cannot fully explain my position without making this point, so I'm doing it for that purpose, and I will not attempt to argue the point further.

    So given this, I believe revotes are not practical The states involved waited too long before attempting this, and as one caucus goer put it, "Lack of planning on your part will not constitute an emergency on my part." And while I feel uncomfortable that people are being prevented from having the delegates they cast votes for being seated before the nomineee is chosen, again, in a representative democracy, the elected officials are the representatives of the people, and the people are responsible for the decisions they make. That is the bottom line.

    Now, having made that point, I will now suppose that the problem isn't the delay of the states in seeking a solution, but that Obama is solely and completely responsible for the revotes in the two states not happening. I'm granting this point not because I believe it, but because it is considered established here, to the degree that a poster may be banned from a thread simply for arguing against it. So even though i do not believe this myself, my arguments here will not be considered satisfactory unless I at least take into account the possibility it is true.

    So assuming that, my answer of what's to be done doesn't change. Of course people are free to try to influence Obama to see this is a mistake and to influence him to change his position. But assuming that's not successful, all the parties agreed to the procedures in advance, it still doesn't make sense to change them in the middle of the election, without an established procedure to do so. Of course people may be angry at Obama if he wins the nomination as a result. If I believed that Obama was the one responsible for the revotes not happening, I'd be angry with him too. In that case, People will have to decide for themselves if they can still support him after that. I'll just mention that the election is not over. It's also possible that Hillary will win a convention floor fight to seat the delegates from the unsanctioned primaries, including one in which her opponent was not even on the ballot. If that happens, I will be very angry; I will believe that she won the election through chicanery, and it will be difficult for me to vote for her. But I'll still do it, because she'd be an infinitely better president than McCain. But again, everyone will have to make their own decision.

    One last thing. I sympathize with BTD when posters accuse him of being a Hillary supporter. It's basically accusing him not only of being wrong, but of having come to his conclusions in bad faith, not out of principle, but out of devotion to a particular candidate. Similarly, in writing this, I suspect that I will be told I only came to these conclusions because I wanted Obama win. The reverse is actually true. I supported Hillary early on in the elections and voted for her in the primaries in my state. I still think she might make a better president than Obama; I certainly prefer her on economic matters, particularly health care. If my preference between the two candidates has shifted, it is only because I've been appalled by what appear to be to me her attempts to game the rules in her favor in the middle of an election. In general when I disagree with someone, even strongly, I attempt not to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they've come to their conclusions through reasoning, if it is mistaken reasoning, and not simply dismiss them out of hand as partisans. I would appreciate it if others would do the same with me.


    I'm sorry for the double post (none / 0) (#105)
    by RickTaylor on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:44:03 PM EST
    of such a long message. I'm baffled; I don't know how it happened.

    Parent
    Split delegates - Record popular vote (none / 0) (#100)
    by DebzLogic on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:19:20 PM EST
    Simple...be done with it!

    Why should we have to do anything? (none / 0) (#106)
    by onemanrules on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:21:05 AM EST
    Fact of the matter is nobody complained at the time that these votes wouldn't count when they could have. Nobody got a chance to campaign in either of these states which most likely helped Hillary. You can't argue Obama pulls things much tighter when he gets a chance to get into a state. Rules are Rules. For everybody who says we can't disenfranchise these states, your candidate should have fought for them along time before it was clear that she would need them. If these delegates are going to count though, the only fair way is a full primary with the candidates have time in the states to campaign. Crying over spilt milk makes people look desperate. Have a nice day.