Log in

No account? Create an account
31 May 2008 @ 02:56 pm
Florida and Michigan  
Someone explain to me why Florida and Michigan's Democratic delegates should be counted at the convention. Florida and Michigan's Democratic parties were warned not to hold their primaries in January. The committees were warned that holding their primaries in January would invalidate their results and would mean that their delegates would not be seated nor counted at the national convention. Senator Obama had his name removed from the Michigan primary ballot in accordance with the rules. Neither candidate campaigned in either state.

Please explain to me why any compromise should be offered and why the state committees shouldn't have to live with the known consequences of their actions.
Current Mood: annoyedannoyed
Tikvah (not to be confused w/the fabulous "Tikva"): hot elephant - baseballchica03tikvah on May 31st, 2008 08:00 pm (UTC)
I agree that the votes should not be counted, and I'm a Florida Dem.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on May 31st, 2008 08:03 pm (UTC)
As a data point, and if I may ask? Did you vote in the state primary? If so, for which candidate did you vote?
Tikvah (not to be confused w/the fabulous "Tikva"): politicians-diaperstikvah on May 31st, 2008 08:36 pm (UTC)
I voted, primarily because there was a state referendum that I viewed as important that was also on the ballot. I suspect that the referendum was the primary (no pun intended) reason for the turnout. And as to which candidate I chose, I'd prefer not to comment.

I am pissed that the state legislature chose to move the primary, because I can assure you that I would have preferred to have my vote count, but I do understand that the party does have to discipline states that don't play by the rules.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on May 31st, 2008 09:42 pm (UTC)
(nod) It wasn't the only thing on the ballot, understood.

ETA: For what it's worth, I'm not questioning why the voters went to the polls in those states, even if the only thing on the ballot was the primary question. If you didn't vote when the state held the primary, you weren't going to get any say at all until it was time for the election. The rank and file didn't have a say in when the primary was held, and now, thanks to the legislators and local party officials, they're not getting to have a say in the nomination.

Edited at 2008-05-31 09:52 pm (UTC)
The Cajun Gypsythatcrazycajun on May 31st, 2008 08:50 pm (UTC)
I disagree with the decision to exclude these two states because the vast majority of primary voters therein had no say as to when the primaries would be held. They deserve to be allowed to participate in selecting their party's nominee and should not be penalized for a decision that the state committee took without consulting them.

If anyone should be punished, it's the state committee and the legislature; taking away the rank-and-file Democrats' votes because of their leaders' actions reeks of unfairness, both to them and to the candidates (both those on the ballot and not).
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on May 31st, 2008 09:48 pm (UTC)
It sucks to be those voters. You're right, they had no say in when the primary was held. The people who did have a say, however, moved the primaries up to try and grab headlines for their states, to be the first to get in on the nomination process. Those people were warned by the national committee of the consequences of their actions. Why should those consequences be ignored now? Why shouldn't the rank and file voters turn their wrath on the elected officials who were involved in moving the primaries forward in the year without better reason?

For that matter, Senator Obama complied with the national party's ruling and had his name removed from the Michigan ballot. Senator Clinton did not, and now wants to have those votes reinstated to bolster her own argument. How is that being fair to the Michigan voters who would have voted for Senator Obama? Aren't they being disenfranchised even moreso than Clinton's supporters would be? Their votes would essentially be stolen, should the Michigan results be reinstated.

The voters of both states can have their say during the actual election. The state legislators and party members who moved forward the primaries should be forced to accept the consequences of their actions, or else the lesson is that there ARE no consequences that cannot simply be argued aside down the line.
E. Steev Ramsdelltranscendant on May 31st, 2008 10:35 pm (UTC)
The biggest issue at hand is that the nomination hasn't been decided yet. Had either Obama or Clinton been far enough in the lead that they had enough delegates without those states, this wouldn't even be an issue. Neither candidate would be pushing to have those states votes count.

But since Clinton is behind, and she can gain ground, she's now pushing for them to be reinstated. Mind, she was one of the staunchest "don't count them" at the beginning of this whole fiasco, but now that it can benefit her, she wants them counted.

(Note: I'm not saying Obama wouldn't be doing the same thing, at least in Florida. If he could be gaining ground from having them reinstated, or somehow even walk away with the nomination, he'd be all for it.)

American Politics and vote counting has been a joke since the Florida recounts. And now, the clowns are honking their noses at the circus-goers.
Ace Lightning: flagacelightning on June 1st, 2008 12:16 am (UTC)
i think the election laws should state that all states have to hold primaries on the same day, no earlier than the Fourth of July, and that campaigning for the primaries may not start until April 1. we no longer need long, drawn-out campaigns in order to reach every voter. without months and months of overheated press attention, the candidates would be forced to state their positions succinctly and clearly. (hey, America, you're voting for your President, not who's going to get voted off the island on American Idol!)

Dendewhitton on June 1st, 2008 12:46 am (UTC)
Why do you have such a long campaign? Is there an historical reason for it?

The last Australian election went for less than 3 months, from announcement to final vote tally.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on June 1st, 2008 01:55 am (UTC)
The long campaign season, as far as I can tell, is mostly as long as it is to provide the longest feasible campaign donation period.
Naomiomimouse on June 1st, 2008 03:02 am (UTC)
My personal opinion as to the reason can be summed up as 'bread and circuses'.

Ace Lightning: flagacelightning on June 1st, 2008 04:12 am (UTC)
some of it goes back to the origins of this nation. in the late 1700s and early to mid 1800s, the United States was mostly agricultural and rural; the only means of communication was written messages carried by men on horseback, and the only way that politicians could campaign was to travel by horse-drawn carriage from town to town, making speeches at every stop. it took a long time for a candidate to make himself known to everyone, especially on a national basis. even when the railroads were built, later in the 1800s, it still took quite a while to get the message out to everyone. it really wasn't until the last quarter of the 20th century that instantaneous mass communication became widespread. now, in the 21st century, we're still using an 18th-century model, largely because it does allow for plenty of posturing and arguing and poo-flinging by all parties involved.