The DNC's idea of democracy: MI & FL primary voters = 1/2 a person
- Thread starter applesanity
- Start date
The Rep. party will surely thank the Dem. party for the votes
benign.neglect
Moderator
The "they" I referred to is, of course, the DNC, not voters in general. No one has the right to vote in a party's primary. Its completely up to the party.
toybox99615
New member
gigantic frustrating mess!
This entire primary fiasco is really getting me down. Both parties have a lot of stuff I don't agree with. But this decision to change the rules for the DNC is about as bad as it can be.
But for the voters to remember the issue they have to understand this is not an election where you are exercising your right to vote as provided for in the Constution. It is strictly a party issue where the parties will decide who is on the November ballot. Is the Florida and Michigan issue any more convoluted than counting the votes in Puerto Rico or Guam? The last I checked residents of either of those two places get to vote in the actual election.
And any one who points out how the DNC is dealing with this so much different than the RNC would have is basing their opinions on would have, could have might have since the RNC did not actually have to deal with the issue. IMHO the RNC would have been in the same predicament had they had two viable candidate actually running against one another till convention time.
This entire primary fiasco is really getting me down. Both parties have a lot of stuff I don't agree with. But this decision to change the rules for the DNC is about as bad as it can be.
But for the voters to remember the issue they have to understand this is not an election where you are exercising your right to vote as provided for in the Constution. It is strictly a party issue where the parties will decide who is on the November ballot. Is the Florida and Michigan issue any more convoluted than counting the votes in Puerto Rico or Guam? The last I checked residents of either of those two places get to vote in the actual election.
And any one who points out how the DNC is dealing with this so much different than the RNC would have is basing their opinions on would have, could have might have since the RNC did not actually have to deal with the issue. IMHO the RNC would have been in the same predicament had they had two viable candidate actually running against one another till convention time.
milemission
New member
Florida and Michigan were told specifically not to schedule their primaries ahead of a certain day (by the Democratic Party) and they went ahead and did it anyways. They reaped the repurcussions of that. In the meantime, this isn't fair to Obama because he had his name removed from the ballot in one of the states, so he had no chance of winning there. If he'd known ahead that they'd count as half a vote, I'm sure he would have done more campaigning in those locales.
Glen J
You may not know all the details of all this, especially if you haven't watched it from the inside.
Here's how it went down:
The Michigan and Florida legislatures decided to advance the dates of their primary elections ahead of the February 5th cut-off put forth by both the RNC and DNC.
Both parties punished both states for doing so. The Republicans cut their delegate votes to 1/2 vote per delegate, or maybe cut the number of delegates in half... I'm not sure. The practical result is the same. The Democrats said that they would not seat any delegation selected according to the results in either state. Representatives of all of the major campaigns were members of the DNC committee that made the decision. Nobody objected.
All of the Democratic candidates signed agreements with the DNC not to participate in Michigan, and not to campaign in Florida. All of the candidates except Senator Clinton and (I think) Representative Kucinich asked the Secretary of State to remove their names from the ballot. You could argue that having one's name on the ballot is, by itself, not "participating" in the election, but then, you could argue about the meaning of the word "is," too.
Senator Obama wins Iowa. Senator Clinton comes in third.
Clinton wins New Hampshire. Obama comes in 2nd.
Clinton wins NV, Obama wins SC. Somewhere in this period, MI and FL hold their primaries. Clinton wins them both. Talk of the unfairness of not seating the delegations begins to come from the Clinton campaign.
February 5th is a split decision. More talk about MI and FL.
More primares, more caucuses, Obama extends his lead. Clinton and company get louder about MI and FL. A pattern seems to be emerging here...
Saturday: The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee votes on proposals from the representatives of the MI and FL to seat their delegations with 1/2 votes. The committee agrees. Florida is unanimous, Michigan vote is 19-8.
Today: Obama clinches nomination.
The initial decision to completely reject any delegation chosen by primaries held ahead of party rules was stupid, IMHO, and I think the Republicans did it right. If you knew me, you'd know how infrequently I say that. The Dems ended up doing what they should have done to begin with, after four months of drama. Of course, had that been the initial decision, the Clintons wouldn't have done anything differently, because what they really considered to be unfair is that they were losing. It was always about them. Duh... they're the Clintons. As President Carter said about them, "They're always there when they need you."
The Clintons abandoned a promise when it got in the way of their path to power. And anyone's surprised by that?
--Shannon
You may not know all the details of all this, especially if you haven't watched it from the inside.
Here's how it went down:
The Michigan and Florida legislatures decided to advance the dates of their primary elections ahead of the February 5th cut-off put forth by both the RNC and DNC.
Both parties punished both states for doing so. The Republicans cut their delegate votes to 1/2 vote per delegate, or maybe cut the number of delegates in half... I'm not sure. The practical result is the same. The Democrats said that they would not seat any delegation selected according to the results in either state. Representatives of all of the major campaigns were members of the DNC committee that made the decision. Nobody objected.
All of the Democratic candidates signed agreements with the DNC not to participate in Michigan, and not to campaign in Florida. All of the candidates except Senator Clinton and (I think) Representative Kucinich asked the Secretary of State to remove their names from the ballot. You could argue that having one's name on the ballot is, by itself, not "participating" in the election, but then, you could argue about the meaning of the word "is," too.
Senator Obama wins Iowa. Senator Clinton comes in third.
Clinton wins New Hampshire. Obama comes in 2nd.
Clinton wins NV, Obama wins SC. Somewhere in this period, MI and FL hold their primaries. Clinton wins them both. Talk of the unfairness of not seating the delegations begins to come from the Clinton campaign.
February 5th is a split decision. More talk about MI and FL.
More primares, more caucuses, Obama extends his lead. Clinton and company get louder about MI and FL. A pattern seems to be emerging here...
Saturday: The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee votes on proposals from the representatives of the MI and FL to seat their delegations with 1/2 votes. The committee agrees. Florida is unanimous, Michigan vote is 19-8.
Today: Obama clinches nomination.
The initial decision to completely reject any delegation chosen by primaries held ahead of party rules was stupid, IMHO, and I think the Republicans did it right. If you knew me, you'd know how infrequently I say that. The Dems ended up doing what they should have done to begin with, after four months of drama. Of course, had that been the initial decision, the Clintons wouldn't have done anything differently, because what they really considered to be unfair is that they were losing. It was always about them. Duh... they're the Clintons. As President Carter said about them, "They're always there when they need you."
The Clintons abandoned a promise when it got in the way of their path to power. And anyone's surprised by that?
--Shannon
The point was, Obama had his name TAKEN off the ballot, while Clinton did not. I didn't see that happen anywhere. So, Clinton did not take her name off the ballot, she didn't behave. Obama could have done the same thing. His name was NOT taken off the ballot, he agreed to it, that was my point. But, that's history, as is Fred.
Misleading Thread Title!!!
This thread is titled to imply that we are living in a democracy! I also fear that the politico mass media is brainwashing my fellow americans into submitting to a life in a democracy!
America is not a democracy... it is a REPUBLIC!
To some they are the same but the difference is night and day. In a republic we citizens vote in elected officials to represent OUR desires. In a democracy the citizens also vote in officials but the officials hold the power.
Brent
This thread is titled to imply that we are living in a democracy! I also fear that the politico mass media is brainwashing my fellow americans into submitting to a life in a democracy!
America is not a democracy... it is a REPUBLIC!
To some they are the same but the difference is night and day. In a republic we citizens vote in elected officials to represent OUR desires. In a democracy the citizens also vote in officials but the officials hold the power.
Brent
Philo_Beddoe
Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
I really do not understand your point here.
The DNC stripped FL & Michgan of their delegates because they did not play by the rules by moving their primaries up.
What if every state just moved its primary to whenever they wanted. It would be a complete disaster.
All the candidates agreed to not campaign in FL or MI. Only when Hillary lost her front runner status did she make an issue out of this.
Obama was not even on the ballot in MI and did no campaigning in FL (Hillary sure did though), how can you say those votes should count full?
This is all just silly spin used by the Clintons in an attempt to force their way to the nomination.
Its all pretty much irrelevant now as Obama is the nominee.
The DNC stripped FL & Michgan of their delegates because they did not play by the rules by moving their primaries up.
What if every state just moved its primary to whenever they wanted. It would be a complete disaster.
All the candidates agreed to not campaign in FL or MI. Only when Hillary lost her front runner status did she make an issue out of this.
Obama was not even on the ballot in MI and did no campaigning in FL (Hillary sure did though), how can you say those votes should count full?
This is all just silly spin used by the Clintons in an attempt to force their way to the nomination.
Its all pretty much irrelevant now as Obama is the nominee.
It took a lot less than that. At the same time Gore was on TV arguing that "every" vote should be counted, his minions were in every county election office in Florida actively trying to disqualify the votes of military that voted absentee. The only class that was systematically and deliberately disenfranchised in the 2000 election was military voting absentee in Florida.