Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.
The Michigan governor, along with top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign and Florida’s state party chair, are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That’s a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how the their delegates are allocated.
Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.
This just opens up too many problems. Clinton carried both of these states. What happens if they have another election, and then Obama wins?
The DNC needs to stop thinking that they know better than State Legislatures and/or Governors when they should have elections.
“Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules. ”
The results were meaningless also because only Senator Clinton was here on the ballot (Michigan — not sure about FL). I feel that I was denied a vote — and therefore would (will) protest LOUDLY should our delegates be seated as the primary called for.
It was a stupid, stupid mistake on the part of the legislature to hold the primary [i]after[/i] the national party said delegates would not be seated. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I’ve been disenfranchised.
As #1 points out, I would distinctly hold out the possibility that both states would turn to Obama. And that holds doubly for Michigan, as #2 has pointed out the inequity there.
[size=2][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
I can’t imagine the hierarchs in the Democratic Party would undermine their own authority by allowing Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated. I think the Convention would implode if some shady deal was made to seat them and Hillary won because of it. If they do it, that will virtually assure a Republican in the White House in 2009.
As a person with republican leanings, I hope that the DNC does nothing about Florida and Michigan. This would anger the democrats in both states and would make them less likely to vote, increasing the chances that McCain would carry both states.
As citizen who believes that votes should count, I think that a recall election should be held for each member of the legislature that voted to hold the primaries contrary to when the DNC said that delegates would not be seated. As PadreWayne said, that was a very stupid vote that disenfranchised the citizens of those states and cause a huge problem for them. After that is settled, then new primaries should be held.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
If new primaries were held — or caucus — or whatever the inequity over the campaigning opportunities would be insurmountable. In Florida, the democratic candidates did not campaign — not likely they could work it into their schedules. It should be left as it is — if the delegates are seated based on the primaries held it would also be inequitable as many did not vote in democratic primary because they knew it would not count. I think Ms. Clinton is getting nervous and is trying every option for insuring a nomination. Think re-dos would not help her.
this would really be telling if they recanted. MI and FL are in the situation they are because they broke the rules, i.e. through EVERY fault of their own. to suggest that they be let off the hook because the election is close would be just another case of no one (in this cae the DNC) actually meaning anything they say.
The presidential campaigning season now begins ridiculously early. We should keep it from slipping any further forward. Hence I support the Democratic and Republican party rules penalizing states that hold their primaries or caucuses earlier than the rules allow.
Note what’s going on here. Florida and Michigan calculated that super-early delegate selection would maximize their clout. They gambled and lost. Now those states’ Democratic leaders want a second chance under circumstances that would (surprise!) maximize their states’ clout. From a long-term standpoint, the best course of action would be enforce the current rules and demonstrate that you’re serious about them.
The Republican rule—that the state loses half its delegates—is milder, which helps national party leaders hold the line against caterwauling from the affected states.
If the Democratic National Committee lets Florida send a full complement of voting delegates, it will invite a renewed “hold your primary earlier” free-for-all.
But neither Clinton nor Obama has a strong self-interest in being the Grinch here.
I hope people hoot down self-interested Democratic whining (and Republican gibes) about how enforcing the rules would show contempt for Floridians and Michiganians. But I suspect it won’t be.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but to blame the respective legislatures is simply ludicrous. At least they are elected officials. Who elected the DNC? Granted it’s their Party (and they can cry if they want to), but why do they have more say in a national election than the state Legislatures? If Florida and Michagan wanted to have their elections held they day before the Convention, then so be it.
I love the mess the DNC, Florida and Michigan have created. It gives lie to Gore’s 2000 bleating that “every vote should count”.
Since this is a DNC thing, it should be resolved by the DNC. Were I a Floridian or Michiganian, I would object to publically financed elections. They ought to have caucuses if they really want every vote to count.
Irenaeus raises the good point about the GOP decision. Perhaps such a compromise works here too. Redo the vote by primary or caucus, but only permit the states a fraction of their delegates. This enfranchises the voters, while stating the party is serious about its rules. Of course, Florida and Michigan might not like the second part of that, and might not be willing to pay for a revote only to have half of their delegates accepted. The states blundered by trying to buck the system. The DNC blundered by not following the GOP’s more sensible solution.
It really is ironic that in moving up their primaries to have more impact these states ended up having less of a say. While Pennsylvania, which was concerned about being left out of the process, is not going to be the last pivotal contest (“Iowa on steroids”, as one pundit put it). No one expected the race to turn out this way. In 2004 Kerry ran away with it all based on just Iowa and New Hampshire, and everyone thought that this was how it was going to be hereafter. Who knew it would come to what we are seeing now? Pundits are debating what impact Guam is going to have!
Still, as I’ve said before revote or no revote, the evidence suggests that neither Hillary or Obama is going to gain the upper hand in the remaining contests. It’s going to Denver, and somebody’s going to get hurt.
That is to say, Pennyslvania is “now” going to be the last pivotal contest.
They interviewed Gov. Rounds of South Dakota a few months ago, about his state being the last to vote. He seemed content to be last, and stated that Pierre had no intention of moving it forward, and that few Dakotans cared that the election “might pass them by, and be well decided before it ever got to them”. Little did he suspect he might be Iowa in reverse.
Like the old saying, “The last shall be first.*
The DNC system baffles me. Why would they disenfranchise whole states? We also have a debate over super delegates and whether they should be independant or follow the results of the popular election. Why create super delegates if they have to follow the outcome anyway. The DNC has a big ol’ shotgun pointed at their foot! They need to go back to the drawing board.
Well, if FL and MI get to redo because of stupidity, maybe other states should get a redo because plenty of voters in other states voted for candidates who aren’t in the race any more. Why should those states be penalized for voting early?
The funny thing is that there are advantages and disadvantages to voting early – it’s just that in most years, the advantages of voting early are the most obvious. In rare years like this one, late voters have enormous power. It probably all balances out in the long run.
Here we go again – if we don’t like the results we shall just do them over!!!! Just what are we showing our children ? Let’s start all over again so we can get the result we want.
The two states are very different circumstances.
Michigan was scheduled by the Democratic Party in the state, in flagrant violation of party rules. They knew the rules, they violated them on purpose. Only one major candidate was on the ballot there as a result, and no one campaigned, so the election results are invalid. Sorry, no “do-over.” (A second reason for no do-over is that it is clear had all the candidates been on the ballot and campaigned there on the date, Clinton would have won. A do-over could be the equivilent of taking the win away from her if Obama were to win the do-over.)
Florida is very different – it was scheduled by the Republican led state government, and the state Democratic Party had no say in it. Also, all candidates were on the ballot, and none campaigned there. In short, FL was a fair, level playing field, and the date was not the fault of the state party. The Florida votes should stand as already cast. That’s clear.
Result — Michigan not seated, Florida goes for Clinton. Election 2000 is avenged.
Well I must say, it’s basically NEVER dull being a Florida voter! New Jersey elections were never this much fun! (At least during the years I’ve been a registered FL voter. I voted in NJ for 16 years. My first vote as a Floridian was the infamous 2000 Presidential election, and I voted, wait for it, in Palm Beach County, home of the infamous butterfly ballot! (Though I voted by Absentee ballot, so missed some of the fun!))
As a FL Republican, I of course have the advantage of not being disenfranchised by the crazy decision (which I disagreed with) to move the primary so early. Thus it’s easy to claim I support the enforcement of the decision to deny FL’s delegation a seat. But if I were a democratic voter, that would be pretty infuriating and I’d be angry.
It’s a real mess, that’s for sure, and the way the Dem. primary race is going there’s almost the sense that once again there could be the anger and division and almost an “asterisked” election — i.e. no matter what decision is made some will argue it was the wrong outcome. Not a good thing when our country is so bitterly divided and really needs some healing from the very difficult Bush presidency.
Karen B. — your are definitely right, never a dull moment. Actually, you and I were partially disenfranchised. We each had half-a-vote 🙂
Bill Melnyk — since neither candidate campaigned in Florida, how do you consider that a fair election? Surely it would be more fair to have each candidate express his/her ideas directly to the voting public; instead of having the voters rely on “name recognition” alone. Should we all just show up to our precints on election day, without knowing who’s running or what they stand for, and vote based on “name recognition” alone. That doesn’t sound too fair. (But it may account for how we in Florida have a Charles Bronson for our Secretary of Agriculture. I wouldn’t want to vote against him!)
But again I ask: why do the unelected Democratic Party officials have more say in the Florida election than the elected officials of the Florida Legislature?
Stevejax, there is a reason why the national party should make the rules rather than elected officials. The National Party is a private organization, and the elected legislature may not be all members of that organization. Why should elected Republican officials have a say in how Democrats select their national candidate. I’m a Republican (until I can find a more conservative and viable party) and I wouldn’t want the Maine democratic legislature and Governor dictating how my party selects its nominee. If we screw up, as I think we have, I want it to be OUR screw up.
But on the bright side, I couldn’t be happier at the train wreck the Democrats are laying down. It takes a bit of the sting away from having to vote for our guy in November.
I listened to the governor of Michigan on TV this evening. She said to the DNC “..if you wish to do a revoting process then fine. But she also asked who is going to pay the ~10,000,000 dollars needed for the recount process – certainly not the State of Michigan..” Oh and just to keep things on even keel – the governor of Michigan just happens to be a Democrat!!
Oh the Florida Republican controlled legislature and the mischief it wove.
1. It put FL in line to make a difference with its primary – [b]cool![/b]
2. The Democrats over reached in their punishment of bad old Florida – [b]ahhh the fly has hit the web![/b]
3. Clinton looses inevitability and a fight is on – [b]the fly struggles![/b]
4. Clinton & Obama need the Florida delegates – [b]Doh!![/b]
5. Gov. Crist (Rep) – offers a do over for $25 million – contest goes way into June and the Democrats are $25 mill poorer, or the Govenor gets to say that the Democrats don’t care about the voters in Florida and “counting all the votes” (we’ve known that since 2000) – [b]Spider eats fly![/b]
I hope the Democrats do get a do over – it will allow me to change party affiliation and mischief vote …. you know …. like Texas!
So who’s paying for these mulligans?
Shu,
That’s the direction for the Big Debate between Florida and the DNC.
“I hope the Democrats do get a do over – it will allow me to change party affiliation and mischief vote …. you know …. like Texas!”
Oh, cool. American democracy at work. Last time that got us George Bush.
I play by the rules as they write them …….. when ever they write them ; )
Now please, if it had worked in 2000 – Al Gore would have been the Prez! That nasty 14th Amendment just couldn’t be overcome.