Florida and Michigan's Delegates

The fair solution is for Florida and Michigan voters to take political revenge on their respective state Democratic leaders for their malfeasance. The only do-over is to "do" their incompetent leaders out of office. Florida and Michigan voters, you lost out this year. Get used to it.

All the votes should count. I want my vote to count - I am Fl resident.

However in a do over, republicans will have a say in Michigan (open primary).That's a problem regardless who you support. They are done picking their candidate and should not be allowed to sabotage the democrats' process. Nobody is talking about this but this is a serious issue.

The other problem with a do-over is for future elections. What would prevent other states from violating the rules if there are no consequences? Iowa will hold primaries a year ahead soon.

Mail-in ballots will be subject to major fraud. You will hear thousands of people saying they never got one on the mail. Worse you can go to a neighborhood and steal ballots. There is no way out of this mess and the only people to blame are the state officials.

"2: MI had an open primary -- some Democrats voted in the Republican primary because they knew their vote would not count. By the rules you can't allow them to vote in a re-vote which seems like a problem

Is it fair to disenfranchise them?"

This is a big problem indeed. Can those people vote twice? Arguments can be made that they should not. At the same time, how do you justify not to allow them? You told them their votes was not going to count.

Why not use the 50% delegate reduction and call it a day. Saves lots of money and every votes count.

I am skeptical of mail-in primaries, especially in Florida with their record of miscounting votes. Yet, I believe these voters have a right to be part of tehceision. It is especially critical because the Democratic nominee is going to have to carry Florida and probably Michigan to beat McCain. The party needs to see where the allegience of these state sit. If Obama wins them both, then he is a legitimate candidate. Most of his wins so far have been in caucuses, that is not how it will go in the general elections. If Clinton wins both, she demonstrates electability in the power states that will matter in the final election. If they split, it will be even more confusing.

I agree there is no fair solution. Which one does less harm?

half the delegates, then split them 55-45 Clinton-Obama. I don't either will like that.

Last solution: Seat all the delegates but not use it as the deciding factor. As of now seating the delegates does not change the outcome. Obama still leads.

1: congresswoman Wasserman stated "not campaigning in Florida was a pledge, not a rule".
She is mistaken (see page 20):
http://www.democrats.org/page/-/dem_convention/rules.pdf

2: MI had an open primary -- some Democrats voted in the Republican primary because they knew their vote would not count. By the rules you can't allow them to vote in a re-vote which seems like a problem

Is it fair to disenfranchise them?

3: at the beginning of the show someone stated that the rules allow for a 30% increase in delegates if the state moves their primary to a later time.
There is also a %50 reduction in pledged and 100% reduction is super delegates if a state jumps ahead -- around page 19 of the rule book) -- I do not see anything in the rules that allow for these to be given back.

congresswoman Wasserman stated the amendment (in Florida to move the primary date away from the Republican specified time) was not voted on because of some reform legislation.

Did it make sense for the Democrats to vote for that legislation when it, at the same time, it would definitely create disenfranchisement.

There wasn't a catch-22 -- the Democrats in Florida made a bad decision. We don't have to apply motive to this to understand they failed their constituents and this failure should be considered when their term comes up for a vote.

"Why not use the 50% delegate reduction and call it a day. Saves lots of money and every votes count. "

50% and then what? -- let the votes stand? split them?

Letting the votes stand seems like a problem (because people didn't vote because they were told it would not count), splitting them evenly seems like a wash (so it doesn't matter except MI gets to say they voted) -- as long as the the super delegates don't get to vote (or the at large delegates, that can (i believe), if they wish change their vote).

why not let all who vote, re-vote? because republicans will be able to sneak into the mix.

There is no "fair" solution except to not seat these delegates or force their vote (remove the super/at large delegates and split the pledged delegates).

There is no fair solution since there are so many variables - Republicans voting for Democrats, protest votes, the difference in time between January and June, the fact that it would be only two candidates whereas the original time had several candidates (including John Edwards, who was not inconsequential), the fact that 40% of the voters showed up to vote "uncommitted" in Michigan, the fact that many voters likely stayed home because they knew the vote would not count, the fact that only one major candidate name was on the ballot in Michigan, the fact that in states where no compaigning occurs it arbitrarily favors the better known candidate, etc.

If the DNC and each of the two states can come up with a reasonable way to re-vote (reasonable as in acceptable to both campaigns, and this might be different in the two states) then they can have do-overs. Otherwise it will disenfranchise one or the other.

Consider also the fact that the total delegate counts by June may mean that the expected split of delegates in both states would not change which candidate has the most pledged delegates. So it is likely that the expense and angst of re-voting will mean nothing to the final nominee selection.

Just follow the rules. Isn't what we were taught. Isn't we teach the young? Follow the rules, I thought that was simple.

At the end of the day, even with do-overs Obama will be ahead by about 100 delegates. Crunch so hypothetical situation where she wins 55-45 in both. It will not change the outcome. she will be closer than the 144 pledge delegates but not by much. So, why bother?

> How did we get to this point?? Being a FL resident, I'll be glad to tell you all
> how...Our REPUBLICAN dominated legislature and REPUBLICAN governor made the
> date change...AGAINST the outcry by the Democratic Party leaders, senators, and
> representatives in FL who knew it would go AGAINST the Democratic Party RULES!!
> Several of the Democratic representatives worked hard to stop it to no avail. Sen.
> Nelson has been fighting this since it happened last August.

This is simply not true.

1: Yes, republicans proposed a primary date that was against DNC rules
2: Florida democrats do not need to follow what a republican says (the supreme court affirmed this notion),
3: Democratic leaders in Florida worked in cahoots with Republican legislators to keep the date (this was the determination of the DNC after looking at the lack of effort in preventing the date change).
4: yes, there was an amendment to change the date to a legitimate date but it was not voted for by democratic legislators because "there was other legislation in the amendment that we wanted" -- they made their choice, it was bad.


> It was a political stand taken deliberately by the FL Republican party to
> disenfranchise Democratic voters...frankly, I'm P O'ed about it and have been.

It was a political stand by both sides to go against the DNC.

> Howard Dean needs to stop acting like the the KING and work with the rest of the
> people trying to come to a solution. I want my vote to COUNT!! It was already
> dismissed in the 2000 election and we have been paying for that debacle for 8
> years now.

Howard Dean mere is the messenger -- Your Democratic leaders are at fault and you should take them to task. Howard Dean is doing his job by insisting the rules (that your Democratic leaders agreed to 1 1/2 years ago) are followed.

It is unfortunate that these voters are not going to have their voices heard, however, they knew this would happen when the dates were changed. If we change the rules for them it teaches our children that if you cry hard enough the rules can be changed for you too.
The best thing now would be to try to change the rules in the DNC so that next time their votes will count. If you don't like a law work to change it don't break it.

Eclectic Bird - I agree. Everyone agreed to the rules, so what do we say if we then change the rules to benefit those who broke them? Hmm, and who is pushing the hardest to have new primaries? Makes you think.

Florida and Michigan can still vote in the general election, so their voices will be heard.

The Democrats have made a mess of this but I agree the democratic party made a rule now live with...besides the only thing you lose on is picking who represents your party and losing that may be a blessing. Neither one of these knuckleheads is worth spending another 5 million to get a couple of delegates closer.

Forget the mess, this was a campaign strategy; pump the Michigan Democrats think they will matter by being early, make the choice Clinton or non-committed (encourage cross over into the Republican voting], in any do over limit the voting to only those that committed to vote Democratic (proven supporting Clinton, she won the primary), and get the State of Michigan pay the bill for the voting.

In Michigan the campaign strategy makes Obama look like a rank amateur playing with the Pros. Even the Republicans look naive.

Changing the rules in midstream is not the solution. I can already tell, looking around at comments on Gather, that if Clinton gains the nomination against the wishes of the populace, using these primaries that were banned (Hillary was the only candidate in MI), or by the use of super delegate disenfranchisement of the voters, it will split the party unlike anything we have ever seen, and I, for one, will sit this one out and let you Clintonistas experience the next four years of McBush you will so richly deserve. I see very little difference between the two, actually.

There is no evidence FL will vote McCain if the delegates are not seated. Clintons made this up!

Ponhros: No country deserves another four years of Bush's disastrous policies. What is really sad is that if McCain hadn't sold out his soul to get the nomination by changing most of his positions on issues that matter, he might have made a decent president.

Cat,
I agree, but it is not about what is best for the Party, the members, the public, its about self interest. If you don;t like the results change the rules until you get what you want.

The Democratic Party made a rule that deprived their constituency of a vote. Three things should happen: 1) the delegates for those who voted should be seated, 2) both parties should agree this will not happen again AND push for either national or rotating regional primaries to end the confusion, and 3) democrats should push for a change in the leadership that caused this fiasco. The last thing the Dems need right now is divisiveness.

Debra,
It is a Democratic Party issue, GOP shouldn't have anyhting to do with it. Before all this started the Democratic leadership in both Florida and MIchgan knew the rules and knew the conseqeunces so let them stew in them.

It seems to me that this works great for Clinton, if Carville is involved thane it was part of the plan. She has the delegates because Obama didn;t campaign, if all or part are seated she wins.

Its just like Palm Beach, Florida in 2000. The Democrats ran the election and screwed it up (claiming their Democrtic voters didn;t get a fair chance to vote) so it would be out of the hands of the voters and in the hands of party leadership and their lawyers hands. This may even be practice for the general election in Novemeber.

First, we got to this, because Hillary and Co. thought they could get away with it. Thought they could cut a fat hog in the ass, and far fewer than has been reported would complain about it. That's how this came about.

How should it end? Simple. Michigan and Florida broke the rules they pledged to, and now are cryin' the blues? Too bad. Let's just count the delegates, average out the popular vote, hope we don't need the super delegates and get on with this stinking fish on ice!

Geoff,

It is a Democrat Party issue. They didn;t like the results, they rewrite the rules until they get one they want is up to the Democrat Party.

Whatever they come up with is what they want. Since it is a Democrat PArty I feel that that should be the new way they run their Presidential primary. And if they can pay for the re-do then they can pay for each future Party election.

IN the stat of Michigan (the one state recession going on for sevral years) Gov Granholm and the Democratic Legslators are willing to supplement their party's re-do with state taxpayer money. The fact that the Legislator has spend time crerating legislation, debating, and passing legislation to accomplish the re-do, tell me they don;t give a flip about the State and its economy, and are preoccupied with their own self importance.