Do Over in Florida and Michigan

[lawrocket 3]

Howard Dean, head of the Democratic National Committee, is pushing for a "Do over" in Florida and Michigan.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble;_ylt=AoGeuNgIu5NHWczXU7RMli2s0NUE

As you may recall, Michigan and Florida moved their primaries to earlier in the year. The DNC didn't like it and stripped the states of their delegates.

So now there are pushes for a new election. From lots of people, including Florida's Republican governor.

Dean, however, I must give credit. He said, basically, that the rules were set up. Another activist said something has to be done, "the rules be damned." (I find this to be extremely irritating).

---

IN recent memory, the candidates for each party have been decided fairly early. So states wanted to get in on it early to have a better say. They gambled.

The DNC, wantign to do things its own way, punished those states (even those with Republican legislatures, punishing thos ewho really did no wrong).

Now it is blowing up.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

It's "their" party and the management can do whatever the heck they like.

That said, absolutely no tax money should be spent to do anything more with either state.

THAT said . . . I seriously doubt it would change the fundamental balance of delegates either way.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andrewwhyte 1]

It is very ironic that states wanted the power of being early, but this year the power is to those who are late (for the dems anyway).
I think the DNC was right with their actions; the nominating convention is a private affair within the party and none of the states' government's business. That said they have to do something to avoid pissing a lot of voters off. A new vote needs to be convened as soon as possible. The next thing they should do is change their constitution so that future disqualifications cannot be undone by the committee until after the next convention. This will entrench the power of the party over meddling state governments in the future.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

That said, absolutely no tax money should be spent to do anything more with either state.

Bingo.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

As you may recall, Michigan and Florida moved their primaries to earlier in the year. The DNC didn't like it and stripped the states of their delegates.

The DNC punished these states in the wrong way. Moving the primaries to earlier than the mandated date was a ploy by these states to get attention. The way to deal with people who are inappropriately trying to get attention is to ignore them.

The proper way to punish these states would have been to count their delegates but forbid the candidates to campaign there.

As it is, these states are now getting the very attention they sought inappropriately to get. This, unfortunately, is going to reinforce their anti-social behavior. Psychology 101.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I don't understand why tax dollars are involved in the first place. If the Rhinoseros Party decides to have primaries or caucuses next time are the taxpayers required to support them, or are the GOP and Dems considered special under the law?

[Channman 2]

> (I find this to be extremely irritating).

I find it to be intertaining. Obama and Hillary will have hopefully the opportunity to spend millions of dollars of their supporters money fighting it out to the end. And with any luck, they will fight it out in the courts as well as the convention.

The benefit for the Rep's. is that Hillary will be the only one putting light on Obama's past and will try to expose any weakness. The Press and John McCain for some reason feel that any critical questioning of Obama will be considered racist, or the politics of dirty tricks.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The proper way to punish these states would have been to count their delegates but forbid the candidates to campaign there.

You can't prevent people from going to two states for 6 months. You can ignore their results.

[PLFXpert 0]

Vote again.

Every person who wants to vote and does should have their vote counted.

Period.

The rest of the details are separate arguments altogether.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[quade 3]

Quote

I don't understand why tax dollars are involved in the first place. If the Rhinoseros Party decides to have primaries or caucuses next time are the taxpayers required to support them, or are the GOP and Dems considered special under the law?

Generally speaking, most states have other election issues that the primaries get rolled into. As long as a person is going to the polls to vote for bond issues and whatnot, it doesn't really cost anything to add in the the party primaries.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Vote again.

Every person who wants to vote and does should have their vote counted.

Period.

The rest of the details are separate arguments altogether.

What about using the previous vote?

And who should pay for the new vote?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

What about using the previous vote?

If I were a Dem, I'd have voted anyways as I'd have predicted a close race and thus this situation happening.

I'm assuming many Dems did not vote on the assumption their vote would not count either way, however.

Thus a do-over would be required "to be fair".

Quote

And who should pay for the new vote?

The idiots who ruled the votes wouldn't count in the first place.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[KelliJ 0]

A couple questions come to mind...
Are primaries and caucuses a matter of right? That is, do people have a right under law to participate in them the same as we have the right to vote?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

I don't understand why tax dollars are involved in the first place. If the Rhinoseros Party decides to have primaries or caucuses next time are the taxpayers required to support them, or are the GOP and Dems considered special under the law?

Generally speaking, most states have other election issues that the primaries get rolled into. As long as a person is going to the polls to vote for bond issues and whatnot, it doesn't really cost anything to add in the the party primaries.

Is that true for caucuses as well? It seems to me that each party has their own, increasing the cost with the number of parties.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't understand why tax dollars are involved in the first place. If the Rhinoseros Party decides to have primaries or caucuses next time are the taxpayers required to support them, or are the GOP and Dems considered special under the law?

Generally speaking, most states have other election issues that the primaries get rolled into. As long as a person is going to the polls to vote for bond issues and whatnot, it doesn't really cost anything to add in the the party primaries.

Is that true for caucuses as well? It seems to me that each party has their own, increasing the cost with the number of parties.

I said "generally" because, well, it's a state issue and not a federal issue. Each state is allowed to do whatever the heck it wants.

I don't care to debate the merits of all 50 of them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Vote again.

Every person who wants to vote and does should have their vote counted.

Period.

The rest of the details are separate arguments altogether.

So if Obama wins the second time, does Clinton have a right to a third, tie breaking election?

Doing it over is a mockery. I guess it's a joke no matter what at this point, but seems like we're at a point where they should stop digging a deeper hole.

The superdelegates are going to decide it anyway.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

So if Obama wins the second time, does Clinton have a right to a third, tie breaking election?

No.

Quote

Doing it over is a mockery.

Of whom? They should be mocked. It was a dumb ruling in the first place.

Quote

The superdelegates are going to decide it anyway.

Agreed.

But, I'd still be pissed if I voted and it absolutely did not count.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[kallend 1,673]

IF I understand correctly, in MI the dems wanted the early vote and went ahead despite the DNC's disapproval. They should not get a do-over.

OTOH I believe the Florida decision was made by the GOP controlled legislature and signed by the GOP governor, and the FL dems didn't have much say in the matter. They should get a do-over.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

IF I understand correctly, in MI the dems [add: Dem Party Leaders] wanted the early vote and went ahead despite the DNC's disapproval. They should not get a do-over.

Why should the voters duffer the consequences?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

IF I understand correctly, in MI the dems [add: Dem Party Leaders] wanted the early vote and went ahead despite the DNC's disapproval. They should not get a do-over.

Why should the voters duffer the consequences?

Because they are not actually voters; they are party members. If they don't like it they can become republicans.

[KelliJ 0]

Since the primary is to pick a party nominee and not an elected official, I think the party has the right to set down rules as to the method of choosing that nominee. MI and FLA broke those rules and are suffering the consequences for that. The voters are not being denied any rights since they have not been denied the chance to vote in an election of a public official. That comes later and they can vote for whomever they wish, even if they choose a write-in candidate. So I say what is done is done. Rules were made, then broken, and penalties handed out.

Professor, I may be wrong, but wasn't it the Dem party who decided that FLA delegates would not count? I can't see how the government there can tell the parties how they will choose a nominee.

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Since the primary is to pick a party nominee and not an elected official, I think the party has the right to set down rules as to the method of choosing that nominee. MI and FLA broke those rules and are suffering the consequences for that. The voters are not being denied any rights since they have not been denied the chance to vote in an election of a public official. That comes later and they can vote for whomever they wish, even if they choose a write-in candidate. So I say what is done is done. Rules were made, then broken, and penalties handed out.

Professor, I may be wrong, but wasn't it the Dem party who decided that FLA delegates would not count? I can't see how the government there can tell the parties how they will choose a nominee.

The GOP controlled state government in FL changed the date of the election. The FL dems didn't have much choice. Unlike in MI. Which is why I think MI shouldn't have a do-over, and FL should.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

The GOP controlled state government in FL changed the date of the election. The FL dems didn't have much choice. Unlike in MI. Which is why I think MI shouldn't have a do-over, and FL should.

You just begrudge the thought of giving Lions fans anything, don't you?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The FL dems didn't have much choice.

The DNC could have decided NOT to disenfranchise them. But, the DNC (like any governmental entity) will punish regardless of blame.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

The FL dems didn't have much choice.

The DNC could have decided NOT to disenfranchise them. But, the DNC (like any governmental entity) will punish regardless of blame.

I think it bears repeating the the RNC disenfranchised the voters delegate selectors in both Michigan and Florida as well. They chose to not seat half the delegates from those states. This more measured response seems wiser in retrospect, but if the Dems had done that would the controversy be any less intense given the closeness of the contest? I don't think so; every single delegate is precious in this race and both teams are going to use every tool at their disposal to get them.