http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/06/florida.michigan/index.html
It is absolutely ridiculous that the Democratic National Comittee and the States of Michigan and Florida have not reached a reasoned agreement on how to handle their delegations this summer. In such a tightly contested race, these delegations MUST be seated at the summer convention. They are two huge states that will figure prominently in the general election (as Florida always does being a swing state), but more than that it is about democracy. About giving the people a voice. The article cites that over 5 million voters will go unheard just because of some bullshit political game between the DNC and the state legislatures. So what if they wanted to move their primaries up to become a politically significant? Why are they being punished? I completely agree with the states.
The DNC should foot the bill if they decide it is imperative that Florida and Michigan hold second primaries. In all honesty, I am a little torn on the best course of action: a new primary, a new caucus, or counting the original votes. I believe that a new caucus will cost less, but a new primary is more realistic in that it follows the format the state has chosen for its nominating process. But then again, I think counting the original votes is a better indicator of the people's will, as it would be unfair to retabulate with a new vote, because minds could have changed in the last 45 days. We should freeze their vote at what it was when the primary was held.
Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The DNC represents 50 states and sets the rules. These two selfish, 'rogue' states disobeyed them and shouldn't be given special circumstances. It's about the Democratic party and not them. And now in one of the most important Democratic nomination processes this country has witnessed, these two states are left out and have completely embarrassed themselves, and history will record it.
Could this be karma for Florida's past election blunders?
Can someone explain why Iowa and New Hampshire going first matters to Florida and Michigan?
From my understanding, specifically in Michigan, Obama didn't campaign there and wasn't even on the ballot because he honoroed the DNCC ruling. So, in turn, she won that state with a 66% approval. Obama wasn't given a chance in that state and the other voters voted for candidates who are already out of the competition (obviously). Your right, they shouldn't have pushed themselves up. I'm curious to see what happens next.
It's not a matter of being a 'rogue' state. The State Legislature has the right to determine how they nominate and vote for President. That's the law. This measure passed in both states and they are being punished because of a backwards system. I believe that State Legislature policy should supercede the DNC, and the DNC should have to accomodate each state and voter as that state sees fit. For these voters of each state, it is just a shame. Their vote will not count, and that is highly unamerican and undemocratic no matter which way you look at it.
Obama was on the Florida ballot and Clinton won convincingly, roughly 50% to 33%. He was not on the Michigan ballot, where a new vote is more badly needed to give voice to Obama supporters.
So if the government, state legislature in this case, represents the people and the people want to have their vote count wouldn't it make sense for the state legislature to abide by the rules set by the DNC in order to avoid potentially nullifying their residents' votes? State legislatures do have the right to set how they vote and nominate a president but why wouldn't they go along with the rest of the nation. Isn't the idea of the whole nomination process to unify the Democratic party?
But again, why did they choose to not follow the rules set by the DNC? Is there an actual sensible reason?
I have to address jbevill's earlier query and wonder why Florida is always so troubled when it comes to elections. With regards to Michigan I would be more willing to consider a re-vote if I were heading the issue within the DNC but when it comes to Florida, a state infamous for it bumbling election processes, I would think twice before counting any of their votes if there was some kind of self-invoked discrepancy. Florida needs to get their act together and what better time to address it and punish them than in the primaries. Their vote IS important but I would rather them realize their mistakes and correct them before the general election. They need an incentive to do so and I believe the best incentive is to show them that they risk losing their vote if they cannot properly conduct themselves. Either way you look at it though, counting the votes now would be absurd because both candidates were affected in different ways once the DNC announced it would not be counting the votes of either state. It would be unfair to penalize the loser in a state where they might have campaigned harder if they knew the votes would be counted. You can surmise and speculate all you want on how representative these voter turnouts were but you will never know unless you re-vote. As for individuals having changed their opinions since the initial vote, I don't see that as a problem, especially since Florida and Michigan were scheduled to vote later in the primaries from the onset.
I think it ridiculous to punish a state and, more importantly its voters (who were not at fault for 2000's debacle), for an infraction from the past. I don't think stripping the voters of their vote is the proper way to handle this. It won't teach Florida anything it will only hurt the Democratic nominating process.
Not considering a punishment, it is STILL too late to consider counting those votes. The DNC made a decision and the resulting voter turnout was affected by it. How? No one knows for sure but we all know it surely was affected in some way. The only fair way would be to have a complete do over for both states.
So, essentially you just retracted your prior statement about punishing Florida by scratching their vote, or at least threatening that they could lose their vote?
I would like to stay away from making this an outright debate but perhaps next time you should read the ENTIRE posting before jumping on the attack. I went on to say, that any way you look at it, meaning ANY way you choose to look at it, punishment or not, it is still ridiculous to count the votes. This is all in the same statement that you assume I would like to retract.
Another problem is the fact that the DNCC would have to fund the re-count. That is a problem because the funds are low already, so I'm not sure that it's going to take place at all. It would take all the republican legislators to open the voting system back up which is also unlikely. It's unfair, but I'm curious as to see what the conclusion will be.
You guys are missing a key aspect of the Florida situation. That state's primary date was changed by a Republican legislature and governor. The Democratic Party of Florida was not in complete control of that situation and therefore their lack of official voice in the selection of the Democratic nominee for President is a joke. Just plain stupid on Howard Dean and the DNC's part.
It's a completely different situation in Michigan. Michigan knew what they were risking and did it anyway. I wouldn't let their delegates sit at the convention either.
Post a Comment