Honest opinion of the Florida/Michigan delegates

[hifigator]

What do you all think about the DNC stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates? I understand that breaking rules shouldn't be encouraged in general, but aside from the fact that I question the entire caucus/primary system that stretches out for 5 months, it seems to me that a Presidential nomination is too important to disenfranchise a couple of states altogether, much less states the size of Florida and Michigan.

If the delegate count ends up being such that the Florida and Michigan delegates would swing the balance to the other candidate, then I just don't see how the "right" thing to do would be to disallow them, essentially handing the nomination to the other candidate.

P.S. I understand that someone could easily argue that the Florida or Michigan votes might have been different had the candidates not skipped the states for the most part since the delegates were going to be stripped. But still, I just think this is too important of an issue to write off that many Americans and disregard their opinions.


I am sure that we would mostly all agree that the way it is being handled isn't ideal to say the least. But given where we are now, what do you think should be done?

[The Stig]

If they count them they'll have to re-run the elections. I just don't see it happening.

Yes it's undemocratic to disallow them, but the whole primary process is an undemocratic game anyways. Like any game, if you don't play by the rules you get punished.

You want my honest opinion? The whole system needs to go and be replaced with a one-day nationwide primary.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

Personally I think it would be completely unfair to allow those delegates to count at this point, based on how I understand the situation.

But i do have some questions that would slightly impact that position.

1) I assume they were warned that their delegates could be stripped if they went forward with plans to move their primaries and then went ahead with it anyway.

2) did the voters of the those states have a say in the moving up of the primaries, or was it the decision of one or a couple people that screwed their entire party within the state?

Even with those two thigns I think that it would be the right thing to do to disallow them.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

I respectfully disagree with HiFi. The rules were set by the party for a reason. One of the most important things for a party is keeping its members disciplined - that's honestly why the Republicans have been so successful in passing controversial legislation. If the state and local party affiliates aren't kept in line then the Democratic party could be easily embarrassed. Take for example the independent decision of the North Carolina Republican party in airing a borderline ad about Obama that their national presidential candidate doesn't like - not having disciplined state parties can create problems that turn into election issues (not that the Obama ad is an example of that necessarily, but it did get play in the first day of the pre-North Carolina Primary news cycle). The way to keep state parties in line is to discipline them. Florida and Michigan broke the party's rules - they should be punished. Its not the decision of either candidate to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida - it was the decision of state parties who gambled that they could set early primary dates, get off with a slap on the wrist, and then get their issues talked about. Moreover, if you voted in those primaries and didn't have candidates on the ballot or didn't have candidates campaigning for your vote, you were essentially voting despite knowing that your vote likely wouldn't count. This isn't like Florida in 2000 - two states essentially held straw polls because some party official was a little too self-important.

[Boz]

Apr 23, 2008 15:52:51 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

1) I assume they were warned that their delegates could be stripped if they went forward with plans to move their primaries and then went ahead with it anyway.

2) did the voters of the those states have a say in the moving up of the primaries, or was it the decision of one or a couple people that screwed their entire party within the state?

The answer to #1 is yes, they were warned. I believe the Republican party punished them by removing some, but not all delegates. The Democrats went whole hog and stripped all of the delegates.

The answer to #2 is neither. The state legislatures establish the primary date and the governor signs it into law, so there was opportunity for checks to this change. It wasn't just a couple of party officials who did it.

In the case of Florida, it is a Republican controlled legislature and a Republican governor, so I don't know if the Democrats in the state could have stopped it. But in Michigan, there is a Democrat governor and a split legislature (Democrat House, Republican Senate), so I don't think this was just Republican chicanery.....though I'm pretty sure Crist knew he was going to cause the Democrats problems and probably didn't mind that at all.

I think there was also a tax ballot issue in Florida, but I don't really know anything about that.

Personally, I agree with Stig. I like a national primary. Or maybe a compromise. Say, a national primary to determine the top two candidates, then individual races after that. That probably wouldn't work, but I say good for Florida & Michigan for saying screw you to the status quo (even if they are the ones that got screwed in the end this time around - I think they still made their point that changes have to be made).

I don't think there is any fix that will satisfy both Dem contenders this year, but they really should change this going forward on both sides.

And, as I have said many times, the Dems should fire Dean immediately and also do away with the proportional delegate system (in fairness to Dean, I don't think proportional delegates was his idea, it's been around longer than that, but he could have changed it, and he hasn't shown any leadership through this process).

It's not often that I agree with Paul Begala, but he had it right the other night when he said that this isn't 5-year-old T-ball. Everyone shouldn't get a trophy. It's an election. There should be a winner and a loser (or losers, as the case may be).

Don't even get me started on caucuses. How those serve as any sort of election is beyond me. And I REALLY don't like the Democrat causus system, where you get to vote once, a bunch of people lobby and cajole you and then there is a second vote. What the hell is up with that?

And just in case the system wasn't broken enough, throw in a few states with caucuses AND primaries. For God only knows whatever reason.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not advocating any kind of change for this year. Much as I applaud the chutzpah of Florida and Michigan, St. Pete is right. They knew the risks, they gambled and they lost. I don't think they should change those rules now (even if -- or perhaps because ;D -- it will hurt the Democrats in the fall). I just hope the debacle that this has become will spur some reform of the primaries in the future.

[The Stig]

I think the proportional split is a good thing. When it's winner take all you can get situations like you got in the 2000 election when one candidate gets more votes but still loses. You don't want to have that in your primaries.

I do think that the long drawn out process is stupid though. And caucuses need to go.

As far as why they changed the date in Florida and Michigan, I think the states thought that the parties were bluffing. Michigan and Florida thought they were too important to be left out of the picture, so they went ahead and changed the dates and in effect challenged the parties to do something about it. Unfortunately for them, the parties (especially the Dems) weren't bluffing.

[hifigator]

THanks for the input. There isn't really anything that anyone has said that I would strongly argue with. The "National Primary" aspect is generally discounted since the candidates would concentrate almost exclusively on the 6 to 8 major states. Something like 80% of the campaigning would take place in those states with the remaining 20% to be split among some forty plus states. Some states might not even get so much as one visit from the candidates in that case.

Don't get me wrong; I still think that would be an improvement to what we have now. Right now, New Hampshire and Iowa are way too featured for absolutely no reason in my mind.

As for punishment though, I think the DNC or the RNC should punish the states in another way, not penalized the citizens of the states. Maybe they could be fined several million dollars. Maybe the penalties could be enforced during the next election. I don't know. I just know that disregarding the votes of one of the 6 or 8 most populous states isn't right.

[hifigator]

As much as I hate government, maybe the solution would be for government to step in and establish the legislature governing the policies. Maybe states could be grouped in blocks of 10 and then we could have 5 primary dates, each 2 weeks apart. Then the order could rotate so that each group of states could go first once every five elections. This has obvious flaws as well, but again, I think it beats the crap out of what we have now. Ideas?

[hifigator]

Boz, as for Florida having a Republican governor you need to keep in mind that Crist is frequently called a "RhINO" -- "Republican In Name Only." I'm not sure that it is fair to suggest that he had ulterior motives to favor his party. He is well known to cross party lines quite a bit. Personally, I kind of like that. As much as I am a fiscal conservative, I am getting a little tired of the political party line bull sh!t, and am finding myself more and more drawn to true moderates like Crist, McCain Lieberman etc...

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Apr 24, 2008 15:35:36 GMT -5 hifigator said:

As much as I hate government, maybe the solution would be for government to step in and establish the legislature governing the policies. Maybe states could be grouped in blocks of 10 and then we could have 5 primary dates, each 2 weeks apart. Then the order could rotate so that each group of states could go first once every five elections. This has obvious flaws as well, but again, I think it beats the crap out of what we have now. Ideas?

This is not a good idea.

1. Its a state's right to select how it administers its elections under the 10th Amendment - the federal government can only regulate that right in specific ways relating to due process and other constitutional rights for example repealing the poll tax and passing the Help America Vote Act.

2. Primary elections and caucuses are run by the state parties themselves to determine how they seat their delegates. They could come up with any way that they wanted to do that really. There is no real grounds to regulate how political parties chose their candidates for office.

[Bando]

As a quick addition to all of this, I don't think the DNC or Florida and Michigan really thought the election would go on for this long. If someone had wrapped up the nomination months ago, the DNC would have probably let Florida and Michigan in. After all, it wouldn't have mattered. Now that Michigan or Florida could swing the nomination, the DNC has no choice but to stick to its guns.

[hifigator]

Apr 24, 2008 16:07:51 GMT -5 StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) said:

Apr 24, 2008 15:35:36 GMT -5 hifigator said:

As much as I hate government, maybe the solution would be for government to step in and establish the legislature governing the policies. Maybe states could be grouped in blocks of 10 and then we could have 5 primary dates, each 2 weeks apart. Then the order could rotate so that each group of states could go first once every five elections. This has obvious flaws as well, but again, I think it beats the crap out of what we have now. Ideas?

This is not a good idea.

1. Its a state's right to select how it administers its elections under the 10th Amendment - the federal government can only regulate that right in specific ways relating to due process and other constitutional rights for example repealing the poll tax and passing the Help America Vote Act.

2. Primary elections and caucuses are run by the state parties themselves to determine how they seat their delegates. They could come up with any way that they wanted to do that really. There is no real grounds to regulate how political parties chose their candidates for office.

You are 100% correct. That came out wrong. I am strong advocate of states rights. I didn't mean to suggest that the US Government should step in any run the elections. All I was saying is that with regard to time frame, since we are electing a National position, then it might make sense for the US Government to say when the elections/caucuses are to be held. How they are run though, should certainly be up to the individual parties and individual states. I certainly didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Bando's right: the DNC can't back down now or it loses credibility and the appearance of integrity. Nobody thought the primary would go on this long. It also wouldn't be as large an issue if Hillary had played by the rules in FL (and if FL and MI had played by the rules period).

(somwhat tongue-in-cheek) Question for hifi --- why does your state always screw up presidential elections??? You'd think CA would have a lock on wacky behavior, but noooooo,.....

In all seriousness, I'd like to see regional primaries as a compromise between the willy-nilly way it's done now and a single day. Rather than the four or six "super-regions" I'd break it down even further into regions related by culture, ecology, and economics to give the candidates a better chance at both exposure and messaging, then hold a regional once a week for, say, 10 weeks bouncing across the country to avoid one of the "super-regions" having too much influence.

[Boz]

Regional is a pretty good idea, but I think some might have a pretty tough time with your proposed breakdowns (not that you can't break down some regions that way, but it would require a lot less political correctness than exists, IMO).

[rosslynhoya]

The Florida House voted 118-0 and the Florida Senate voted 37-2 to move up the primary.

[hifigator]

I guess there are two questions, that are inextricably linked. One is what should happen to the delegates from the two states which violated policy -- Michigan and Florida? The second is a much broader, "what should be done to prevent this in the future?"

I just have a problem saying that two states voters don't caunt in such an important National election. I understand the argument that rules are made, contrary to popular belief, to be followed and that if rules are broken, then the offending party (pun intended) needs to be punished. But at the same time, I think we could easily be punishing the wrong people. By disregarding the delegates from those two states, we could be "punishing" the Florida or Michigan citizens who haven't done anything wrong. Even more, presuming that the Florida and/or Michigan delegates could change the outcome, then we could be punishing the entire US population as well. That just doesn't seem right.

[Boz]

If this doesn't get resolved, even if the Dems have a nominee before the convention, I think the delegations from Florida & Michigan should show up in Denver with full camo gear and paint, a la the Miami Hurricanes at the Orange Bowl (or Degeneration X in Atlanta, whichever you prefer).

Didn't work out so well for Miami, in retrospect, but I would laugh so hard that I'll vow right here and now to vote for the Dem candidate if they do that.

[SaxaCD]

Apr 25, 2008 14:32:26 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

Bando's right: the DNC can't back down now or it loses credibility and the appearance of integrity. Nobody thought the primary would go on this long. It also wouldn't be as large an issue if Hillary had played by the rules in FL (and if FL and MI had played by the rules period).

(somwhat tongue-in-cheek) Question for hifi --- why does your state always screw up presidential elections??? You'd think CA would have a lock on wacky behavior, but noooooo,.....

In all seriousness, I'd like to see regional primaries as a compromise between the willy-nilly way it's done now and a single day. Rather than the four or six "super-regions" I'd break it down even further into regions related by culture, ecology, and economics to give the candidates a better chance at both exposure and messaging, then hold a regional once a week for, say, 10 weeks bouncing across the country to avoid one of the "super-regions" having too much influence.

Hillary? Playing by the rules? That one gave me a good laugh!

[Deleted]

Primaries, caucauses and conventions are everything that's wrong with our Presidential election in that it perpetuates this ridiculous two-party system year after year after year after year...

The loser of the Democratic race - like any candidate who truly believes in his/her platform being best for America - should get back on the ballot with some other party. Might that split the vote allowing *GASP* a Republican to win? Perhaps. But if this were happening between, say, Huckabee and McCain and Romney, I'd say the same thing.

The way I see it, the more choices the electorate has the better. If they so choose, the Democratic loser, Huckabee, Romney, Biden, whomever should somehow find a way to continue to run if they believe they've got the best ideas for the nation going forward. If a candidate (this year, Hil-Rod or Ba-rock) isn't compelling enough to win the hearts and minds of all Democrats, and the continued campaigning of the other allows McCain to win, so be it.

EDIT: In the interests of full disclosure, I hate both the Democratic and Republican parties.

[Bando]

May 1, 2008 9:01:43 GMT -5 buffalohoya said:

Primaries, caucauses and conventions are everything that's wrong with our Presidential election in that it perpetuates this ridiculous two-party system year after year after year after year...

The loser of the Democratic race - like any candidate who truly believes in his/her platform being best for America - should get back on the ballot with some other party. Might that split the vote allowing *GASP* a Republican to win? Perhaps. But if this were happening between, say, Huckabee and McCain and Romney, I'd say the same thing.

The way I see it, the more choices the electorate has the better. If they so choose, the Democratic loser, Huckabee, Romney, Biden, whomever should somehow find a way to continue to run if they believe they've got the best ideas for the nation going forward. If a candidate (this year, Hil-Rod or Ba-rock) isn't compelling enough to win the hearts and minds of all Democrats, and the continued campaigning of the other allows McCain to win, so be it.

EDIT: In the interests of full disclosure, I hate both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Yeah! Alan Keyes all the way!