All the election scuttlebutt right now (other than more 'Obama is a closet terrorist' slander) centers around whether or not the fine folks of Florida and Michigan should have their primary votes counted. The big issue is the fact that both of these states subjugated the Democratic National Committee's dictate and tried to move their primaries up in date (thus making them more important). As a result, the DNC slapped sanctions on both states, making their delegates non-binding. This is nothing new, it's happened in Delaware, and even in DC back in 04'.
The question is, how should these votes be handled?
Political leaders on Sunday debated the idea of again holding votes in Michigan and Florida using a mail-in ballot to resolve the issue of delegates from those states being barred from participating in the nominating process. DNC Chairman Howard Dean says a mail-in ballot could be one way to deal with the delegate dilemma.Distancing myself from either candidate, I can see the merit on both sides of this argument. The actual citizens of MI and FL didn't vote to move up the date of their primaries, the state parties did. So, to punish millions of voters by basically tossing out their votes, when they never asked to have their primaries pushed is decidedly anti-democratic.
The Democratic National Committee stripped both states of their delegates for violating party rules by scheduling their primaries too early. Michigan and Florida held Democratic primaries, but the candidates agreed not to campaign in either state, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won both states, was the only top-tier candidate on the ballot in Michigan.
Also, some people chose not to vote because they knew their state's delegates wouldn't count. Democrats agree that new voting is needed to determine convention delegates for Florida and Michigan, but the question is how.
Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama are running such a tight race that it looks like neither candidate will get the 2,024 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. If Florida and Michigan count, they could put either candidate over the top. The states have 366 pledged delegates and superdelegates between them.
On the other hand, rules are rules, not mere suggestions. The states made the decisions to push the primaries up, knowing full well what the consequences were. Imagine you're trailing by 4 in an NBA game with 0.5 seconds to go, and one coach calls a timeout and tries to lobby the refs for a 5 point line. Again, rules are rules for a reason.
Were this election not potentially historically close, there would be no such calls for mail-in ballots, etc, which are obviously coming from the Clinton Camp. Some talking heads are saying Clinton has no mathematical chance of catching Obama before they both arrive in Denver and let the SuperDelegates decide, so asserting her desire for a re-vote is understandable. As she's repeatedly mentioned on the stump, she "won" bothy states. Never mind the mere fact that she was the only person on the ballot in Michigan, and many Florida voters didn't bother showing, knowing their votes wouldn't count.
One thing I know for sure is that I've lost whatever little respect I had remaining for Howard Dean. As head of the DNC, he could easily squelch this whole thing by simply saying "no", the states made their beds, now they must lay in them. But there he was yesterday, making the rounds on all the political talk shows, asking states "who's gonna fit the bill?", which is just ludicrous. And believe me, I'm not just saying that because my candidate of choice could potentially end up on the ass-end of the pyramid should votes be recast. I'm simply saying this because it's fair. Really. I've run through the whole "if the roles were reversed, how would you feel?" scenario in my head, and reality is, Obama would be just as wrong to call for a re-vote.
Question: How do you think the ballot situations in FL and MI should be resolved?
Mail-in ballot suggested as possible Florida-Michigan fix [CNN]
Steve King, Republican Congressman: Al-Qaida Will Be "Dancing In The Streets" If "Hussein" Obama Wins [Huffington Post]
Average Email
Average FAQ
Average Bio
AB @ AOL BlackVoices
AB @ NPR
AB @ WashingtonPost
Posts
13 AverageComments™:
I live in Florida, so I can tell you for a fact that for weeks before that primary the local news was all about the Republican race. When they mentioned the Democrats at all, it was "Your vote doesn't count, don't bother, it won't matter."
Everyone's all hyped up about disenfranchising the people who did cast votes, but does anyone give a thought to the people who DIDN'T vote that day because they were encouraged not to?
I say either leave Florida out OR have a do-over. Seating our delegates as is would be wrong.
(And Michigan? Get real. She was the only one on the ballot, fer Pete's sake. What is this? Cuba?)
The rules need to be enforced. Although it appears 'unfair' to the people of these states, it's not enough to 'modify/change' the rules now. It's the consequences that should be delivered as the leadership of these states 'knowingly' made this decision. I also think it's unwise to 'spend' money or to ask that the candidates now 'share' the costs of redoing this. Wasn't this primary carried out when John Edwards was still a candidate? Maybe he would have chosen a different path as well. The money needs to be saved to 'fight' against the Republican party. I think the important lesson to be learned is that states need to become unified as to how primaries/caucuses are held at least among the the states of the same policital party. And I wish that Senator Clinton would stop trying to 'box' Senator Obama into a joint ticket...especially with her @ the top...the media have embraced this idea as well but I hope that's not necessary. I prefer John Edwards to Senator Clinton or another woman Senator.
As another Floridian on this site, I want my vote to count but a do-over will be a nightmare. So pro-rate the election results to avoid a blood fight or not to lose the big election in November.
As for Michigan, the same as above. The only difference is to give the other election results (non committed and Kucinich's) over to Obama. Everybody wins.
I agree wholeheartedly rules are rules. But bottomline I do not want this hanging over Barack's head or people to try and put an asterik by his victory.
Do it again and when he wins - if not popular vote, likely the delegate vote - then he has won and everybody can shut up.
FYI... CNN is reporting that Senator Obama has spoken out against a VP spot. Good for him! It appears he was articulate in his response. He praises Senator Clinton for her 'nerve' in offering him second place; but questions where her authority in doing so lies as he's the 'front runner.' Even if he loses the nomination somehow; I don't feel he should settle for second.
Dear Florida and Michigan,
You're both boned. No re-vote, no counting delegates at the convention. The time for outrage was way back when you found out, not weeks after the fact when you realize that you could be casting the deciding vote in yet another election contest thrown into chaos because you can't read, poke a hole through a piece of paper, or follow the damned rules.
If you don't like it, then get rid of the people responsible and move your primary back for 2012.
Sincerely,
The Rest of the Country
I personally think that if your state disobeys rules, you have to be punished. Maybe next time the people of the state will vote for somebody more competent. I feel bad for them, but the state officials should have known better than that.
...and why is Florida always in some mess when voting for our presidents?
@spool32- well said!
At a time when many people
especially the youth want to vote and/or get involved- once again Florida can impact things- but why choose the negative approach? Again? What are the fine Floridians doing the 3 years between elections? They've had plenty of time to clear this mess up. The leadership should pull their heads out their asses and do the 'right' thing for a change!
Wow spool 32, not often that I agree with you, but on this issue you are dead on.
mari-djata makes a valid point as well. The prople of Florida and Michigan should take this issue up with their elected officials to prevent it happening again.
I heard today on the Randi Rhodes show that private citizens are now coming forward to say they are willing to fund a "do-over" if the DNC will not. One of these "private citizens" was Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Ain't that nothing? Now folks are willing to "buy" an election for Hillary? The whole thing stinks to high heaven. The only way to resolve this is to leave it as is.
ebw: w00t. Even political opposites know a scam when they see one. :) It's even more insidious than it looks, actually. Not reported anywhere so far:
The Clinton campaign already has a ground-level organization there, much of it still in place from the last time they fought a vote tally in Florida. Obama has no state apparatus in place to run a campaign right now in Florida or Michigan, and no media buy in either location. It will be much more expensive for him to make an assault on either state, and Hillary would get perhaps a week or even two worth of head start on him. You can bet she knows this... if she thought there was a chance she'd lose, she wouldn't be pushing for a re-vote or a count of the current delegates.
The only person for whom this is a do-over is Hillary Clinton. For Obama, it'll be his first time running in these states, and the result will be a much depressed outcome for him as compared to how he might have done had his campaign been able to incorporate the contest into a wider strategy.
Are ya'll sure you'd be saying the same things if the roles were reversed and it was Obama who needed the extra votes? Think long and hard [||] before you answer than one truthfully.
@ cube;
For me the answer is yes!!! These states knew the rules; even when they had their primary there wasn't an initial push to count their votes. It only became an issue when Senator Obama showed he was not only competition but that he could potentially win. What are we teaching about a democratic society if we can't follow the agreed upon rules? We've already had the political water dirtied when many votes didn't count; 'chads' were difficult to read; doors were closed...we don't need to waste the money or time.
But I never believed Senator Clinton could bow out gracefully if she needed to. The votes are stacking up against her...but she continues to try and disrupt the process. Apparently there's no one willing or powerful enough within the Democratic party to advise her to throw in the towel. But this is a Democratic society, and this priviledge allows her to continue until the end.
Post a Comment