PDA

View Full Version : So, when will the Dems re-vote in FL and MI?


Mr. Kotter
03-04-2008, 11:44 PM
Given the current state of affairs between Barrack and Hillary....I suspect it will come down to disputed delegates in the states of Florida and Michigan?

:hmmm:

IMO, there is no way Hillary can legitimately "claim" those delegates given the decision of the DNC to strip those states of their delegates....

So, when will those states schedule their "re-votes"??? What importance will those delegates play?

I say, they will schedule new votes in June; and that those votes WILL decide the Democratic nomination. In other words, the Democratic race won't end....until we are in the heat of summer.

Thoughts, questions, comments? :hmmm:

Reaper16
03-04-2008, 11:46 PM
I've heard that caucuses in those states have been a possibility for a few weeks now. I hope that they set them up; there needs to be an actual winner here.

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2008, 11:52 PM
I've heard that caucuses in those states have been a possibility for a few weeks now. I hope that they set them up; there needs to be an actual winner here.

Without a re-vote in those states, any attempt by Hillary to claim "victory" will ring hollow....VERY hollow.... :shake:

Reaper16
03-04-2008, 11:55 PM
Without a re-vote in those states, any attempt by Hillary to claim "victory" will ring hollow....VERY hollow.... :shake:
If there aren't going to be new caucuses or something to get delegates from FL and MI to count in a fair way, then they need to accordingly lessen the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination to accommodate for the absence of delegates from the two states. That seems like a common sense step that may help out the conundrum a lot.

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2008, 12:05 AM
If there aren't going to be new caucuses or something to get delegates from FL and MI to count in a fair way, then they need to accordingly lessen the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination to accommodate for the absence of delegates from the two states. That seems like a common sense step that may help out the conundrum a lot.

Except that Hillary will scream...."MISOGYNISTS!!!" from the mountain tops.... :)

RedDread
03-05-2008, 12:13 AM
Primary, Caucus, or remove them from the total. After today it's evident that this will become an issue, so it needs to be addressed now as opposed to later.

ClevelandBronco
03-05-2008, 12:50 AM
I wouldn't count on Sen. Clinton's cooperation with the idea of holding a second primary.

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2008, 08:52 AM
I wouldn't count on Sen. Clinton's cooperation with the idea of holding a second primary.

She will not have a choice.

DaKCMan AP
03-05-2008, 09:15 AM
Considering Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, they'd have to have a revote or caucus if they want to include their delegates.

Furthermore, no candidates were allowed to campaign in FL and Obama has always pulled closer once he campaigns someplace, which IMO could change the outcome in FL with a revote, even if slightly.

NewChief
03-05-2008, 09:44 AM
Remove their votes from the total. It's a screwed up system, but those were the rules going in. They broke the rules (I know it isn't the fault of the voters, but still) and made the stupid decision to insist on holding their primary early in order to gain some sort of benefit for their states. They knew the consequences going in when they made that decision. As such, they have to live with it.

Carlota69
03-05-2008, 12:20 PM
Considering Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, they'd have to have a revote or caucus if they want to include their delegates.

Furthermore, no candidates were allowed to campaign in FL and Obama has always pulled closer once he campaigns someplace, which IMO could change the outcome in FL with a revote, even if slightly.

Even though Obama chose not to be on the ballot in Michigan, they should re-do that state completely. But, I think it was a mistake for him not to put himself on the ballot.

Florida on the other hand, everyone was on the ballot, so I think they would just go with the results as is...

dirk digler
03-05-2008, 12:36 PM
With the way the results have been going in all the big states my plan would be to just divide up the delegates between the 2.

I would recommend:

1. Like the Republicans cut the delegates in half in both Michigan and Florida.
2. Split the Michigan delegates in half since Obama and Edwards weren't on the ticket
3. Split the Florida delegates with giving Clinton a slight 5-10% lead

The reason for this is neither candidate is going to run away with it so I don't see the whole point of re-voting

BucEyedPea
03-05-2008, 12:39 PM
Remove their votes from the total. It's a screwed up system, but those were the rules going in. They broke the rules (I know it isn't the fault of the voters, but still) and made the stupid decision to insist on holding their primary early in order to gain some sort of benefit for their states. They knew the consequences going in when they made that decision. As such, they have to live with it.

I agree. It also sets a bad precedent of changing rules in the middle of the game. Very bad imo.

Not only that but we Floridian taxpayers will have to pay the costs of this too.
And, it's possible some Pubs could crossover to see that Hillary get nominated helping McCain ultimately.

memyselfI
03-05-2008, 12:44 PM
I don't see how one man can decide that voters in two different states have no right to vote. Howard Dean made a boneheaded decision and boneheaded decisions should not be the threshold of whether we disenfranchise two of the largest states in the country and millions of voters.

If the rules were changed it was because Howard changed them. Did the residents of FL and MI agree to these changes? If not, then changing those rules was undemocratic and as such I think unconstitutional.

dirk digler
03-05-2008, 12:50 PM
I don't see how one man can decide that voters in two different states have no right to vote. Howard Dean made a boneheaded decision and boneheaded decisions should not be the threshold of whether we disenfranchise two of the largest states in the country and millions of voters.

If the rules were changed it was because Howard changed them. Did the residents of FL and MI agree to these changes? If not, then changing those rules was undemocratic and as such I think unconstitutional.

Howard Dean didn't change them the Party as a whole did and they all agreed to abide by the rules.

I agree it wasn't smart they should have did what the Republicans did and cut their delegates in half.

NewChief
03-05-2008, 12:54 PM
I don't see how one man can decide that voters in two different states have no right to vote. Howard Dean made a boneheaded decision and boneheaded decisions should not be the threshold of whether we disenfranchise two of the largest states in the country and millions of voters.


Actually, the boneheaded decision, IMO, was made by political parties in those two states who moved their primaries up in order to try to gain influence and make a statement. Dean, AFAIK, was just enforcing the rules that those States chose to break. They have to live with the consequences, now. If they want the rules changed, then petition to have the rules changed.

BucEyedPea
03-05-2008, 01:05 PM
Actually, the boneheaded decision, IMO, was made by political parties in those two states who moved their primaries up in order to try to gain influence and make a statement. Dean, AFAIK, was just enforcing the rules that those States chose to break. They have to live with the consequences, now. If they want the rules changed, then petition to have the rules changed.
I just went checked this. It was, at least in FL, the Republican controlled Fl Legislators did this. I don't know if true though. But if it is...wow!

Meme, I understand that disenfranchising voters over this is just that. However, I don't think it's unconstitutional. The parties are just parties that set their own rules. Where I think it could be a problem is if the above is true because if it is, then the FDP had no control over their own party's rules. It was HB537 written by a FL Pub to change change Florida's primary date.

I got the following from here (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/032)

• A state legislature has interfered with it's constituents National voting rights.( I think the states have power to decide how elections are run but I think there is some power to the Feds if there's mischief.)
• The Florida Democratic Party did NOT change this date, the legislature did.
• The Florida legislature has an overwhelming Republican majority.
• The House of Representatives in Florida have 41 Democrats; 71 Republicans.
• The Senate in Florida have 14 Democrats; 26 Republicans
• The state of Florida has a Republican Governor.
• The citizens of the state of Florida did NOT vote on this date change.
• HB537 was passed in May 2007 & legislatively changed the Florida primary date.

BucEyedPea
03-05-2008, 01:10 PM
BTW If there is one reform I could support, it would be to have all primaries/caucuses held on the same day. This way fighting over who is first, has the most influence ( and there is influence) would be done away with. I do think there is undue influence based on who is winning more than who people would really like to win.

Carlota69
03-05-2008, 01:14 PM
BTW If there is one reform I could support, it would be to have all primaries/caucuses held on the same day. This way fighting over who is first, has the most influence ( and there is influence) would be done away with. I do think there is undue influence based on who is winning more than who people would really like to win.

I agree. Primaries should be on the same day, or at least the same weekend. And do away with the caucuses. It was atrocious here and from what I have read, Texas blew too.

As far as FL blowing it for their voters, I heard it was the repub Gov, so you may have stumbled onto the truth.

noa
03-05-2008, 01:17 PM
BTW If there is one reform I could support, it would be to have all primaries/caucuses held on the same day. This way fighting over who is first, has the most influence ( and there is influence) would be done away with. I do think there is undue influence based on who is winning more than who people would really like to win.

I said this before in another thread a while back, but I would like to see a rotational calendar based on geographic regions. There is something nice about certain communities being featured in the primary process. It really engages the public in those areas (although the downside is saturation of political ads and other BS). But if we just rotated it so every four years a different region was featured, then the process would be spread out evenly over time and each state would get its moment in the spotlight.

memyselfI
03-05-2008, 01:28 PM
Yes, the CONS in the FL congress and apparently the GOV. were both part of arranging for this particular outcome to penalize Dems. I think that should have raised major red flags but apparently didn't. I think Howard Dean should be fed to sharks.

Clearly, the citizens of FL have a constitutional argument as to why they should be allowed to participate. And, I can't imagine the FL getting to vote and MI not.

I just went checked this. It was, at least in FL, the Republican controlled Fl Legislators did this. I don't know if true though. But if it is...wow!

Meme, I understand that disenfranchising voters over this is just that. However, I don't think it's unconstitutional. The parties are just parties that set their own rules. Where I think it could be a problem is if the above is true because if it is, then the FDP had no control over their own party's rules. It was HB537 written by a FL Pub to change change Florida's primary date.

I got the following from here (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/032)

• A state legislature has interfered with it's constituents National voting rights.( I think the states have power to decide how elections are run but I think there is some power to the Feds if there's mischief.)
• The Florida Democratic Party did NOT change this date, the legislature did.
• The Florida legislature has an overwhelming Republican majority.
• The House of Representatives in Florida have 41 Democrats; 71 Republicans.
• The Senate in Florida have 14 Democrats; 26 Republicans
• The state of Florida has a Republican Governor.
• The citizens of the state of Florida did NOT vote on this date change.
• HB537 was passed in May 2007 & legislatively changed the Florida primary date.

Carlota69
03-05-2008, 01:29 PM
I said this before in another thread a while back, but I would like to see a rotational calendar based on geographic regions. There is something nice about certain communities being featured in the primary process. It really engages the public in those areas (although the downside is saturation of political ads and other BS). But if we just rotated it so every four years a different region was featured, then the process would be spread out evenly over time and each state would get its moment in the spotlight.

And in a weather friendly time--like May--so Midwest and East coast people have a much easier time getting to the polls.

noa
03-05-2008, 01:33 PM
Clearly, the citizens of FL have a constitutional argument as to why they should be allowed to participate. And, I can't imagine the FL getting to vote and MI not.

I'm not so sure there's a constitutional argument to be made about the primaries. I'm no scholar, but I'm not sure that it counts as being disenfranchised when you technically aren't electing anyone, you're just nominating someone to be elected down the road. And there have been cases that held that voting for the president isn't even a right at all (although once you grant the right, you have to enforce it equally). So if an entire state is following the same method, there probably isn't an equal opportunity argument to be made. Here, FL followed a uniform method. It just so happens that the delegates aren't going to be counted by the national party. I'm not sure how the national party vs. the state dynamic plays into it, but I don't think its an equal opportunity thing.

patteeu
03-05-2008, 01:58 PM
Considering Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, they'd have to have a revote or caucus if they want to include their delegates.

Furthermore, no candidates were allowed to campaign in FL and Obama has always pulled closer once he campaigns someplace, which IMO could change the outcome in FL with a revote, even if slightly.

Correction: No candidates were supposed to campaign in FL. Obama ran ads in Florida during the week leading up to the primary and he still lost. The ads were part of a national ad campaign, but he could have avoided running them in Florida if he'd wanted to live up to the agreement.

noa
03-05-2008, 02:00 PM
Correction: No candidates were supposed to campaign in FL. Obama ran ads in Florida during the week leading up to the primary and he still lost. The ads were part of a national ad campaign, but he could have avoided running them in Florida if he'd wanted to live up to the agreement.

Hillary also held fundraisers in the state leading right up to the primary. Not sure what is considered "campaigning," but that probably counts, too.

Either way, the point is that if Obama had put on a full campaign there, he probably wouldn't have won, but he would have performed better (in keeping with trends in other states) and that has a very real impact on a process that awards delegates proportionally.

patteeu
03-05-2008, 02:03 PM
I don't see how one man can decide that voters in two different states have no right to vote. Howard Dean made a boneheaded decision and boneheaded decisions should not be the threshold of whether we disenfranchise two of the largest states in the country and millions of voters.

If the rules were changed it was because Howard changed them. Did the residents of FL and MI agree to these changes? If not, then changing those rules was undemocratic and as such I think unconstitutional.

The rules were in place before the fact, Howard Dean warned both states before they moved up and before any punitive action was taken by the party, they went forward anyway. They disenfranchised themselves.

chagrin
03-05-2008, 02:04 PM
I just went checked this. It was, at least in FL, the Republican controlled Fl Legislators did this. I don't know if true though. But if it is...wow!





If you "don't know it's true", whay start the shit? Oh yeah, nevermind.

Seriously, get a record of the vote to prove the point, from what I understand this was Howard Dean's decision, not Florida Legislature.

patteeu
03-05-2008, 02:05 PM
Hillary also held fundraisers in the state leading right up to the primary. Not sure what is considered "campaigning," but that probably counts, too.

Either way, the point is that if Obama had put on a full campaign there, he probably wouldn't have won, but he would have performed better (in keeping with trends in other states) and that has a very real impact on a process that awards delegates proportionally.

I'd count it as campaigning.

NewChief
03-05-2008, 02:07 PM
If you "don't know it's true", whay start the shit? Oh yeah, nevermind.

Seriously, get a record of the vote to prove the point, from what I understand this was Howard Dean's decision, not Florida Legislature.

It was Florida's decision to have their primary early against the wishes of both national parties. It was Dean's decision to penalize them by casting out any results from these early primaries.

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2008, 03:18 PM
I don't see how one man can decide that voters in two different states have no right to vote. Howard Dean made a boneheaded decision and boneheaded decisions should not be the threshold of whether we disenfranchise two of the largest states in the country and millions of voters.

If the rules were changed it was because Howard changed them. Did the residents of FL and MI agree to these changes? If not, then changing those rules was undemocratic and as such I think unconstitutional.

You need to research election laws, as the pertain to primaries....because you are wrong. The bottom-line is, it's left entirely to the discretion of states and the political parties. The party can basically do as it pleases.

To move the goal posts after the fact though....is fundamentally ludicrous.

dirk digler
03-05-2008, 03:42 PM
You need to research election laws, as the pertain to primaries....because you are wrong. The bottom-line is, it's left entirely to the discretion of states and the political parties. The party can basically do as it pleases.

To move the goal posts after the fact though....is fundamentally ludicrous.

That is correct IIRC last night they were saying that the Supreme Court ruled on this a few years ago and said it was up to the parties to decide.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-05-2008, 03:59 PM
I don't see how one man can decide that voters in two different states have no right to vote. Howard Dean made a boneheaded decision and boneheaded decisions should not be the threshold of whether we disenfranchise two of the largest states in the country and millions of voters.

If the rules were changed it was because Howard changed them. Did the residents of FL and MI agree to these changes? If not, then changing those rules was undemocratic and as such I think unconstitutional.

Jump in an industrial sized blender.

BucEyedPea
03-05-2008, 04:01 PM
'Er chagrin....my log in fell out so I saw you post. FTR I only stumbled upon the info about the FL legislature changing the time for the Dem primary, when checking for a Constitutional source for election laws because I thought the states had the right to set the time and conditions for the election of federal officers. But there was some federal aspect to it as well which I was unsure of.

Now to continue with this based on later posts. This is not from the web but from a book I use on the Constitution:

There is some right for Congress to intervene—if necessary. Congress stayed out of this until 1842 when some inequities developed. Then again in 1866 Congress compelled state legislatures to meet on a certain day and stay in session until they had elected Senators to rep them because some legislatures remained stubbornly deadlocked without any being elected.

There was the 1872 general election day for all the states for the Tuesday following the first Monday in November of even years set by Congress. Then another for voting machines in 1899. I don't know how or if this fits in there. I'd be interested to hear arguments on it but haven't seen much.

So if there are some inequities...congress can intervene and has. It is pretty much left up to states and then parties inside those states.

BucEyedPea
03-05-2008, 04:07 PM
The rules were in place before the fact, Howard Dean warned both states before they moved up and before any punitive action was taken by the party, they went forward anyway. They disenfranchised themselves.

Apparently not completely. I would think for a "truth, justice and the American way type" such as yourself you'd try to get all the facts first.

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2008, 04:13 PM
'Er chagrin....my log in fell out so I saw you post. FTR I only stumbled upon the info about the FL legislature changing the time for the Dem primary, when checking for a Constitutional source for election laws because I thought the states had the right to set the time and conditions for the election of federal officers. But there was some federal aspect to it as well which I was unsure of.

Now to continue with this based on later posts. This is not from the web but from a book I use on the Constitution:

There is some right for Congress to intervene—if necessary. Congress stayed out of this until 1842 when some inequities developed. Then again in 1866 Congress compelled state legislatures to meet on a certain day and stay in session until they had elected Senators to rep them because some legislatures remained stubbornly deadlocked without any being elected.

There was the 1872 general election day for all the states for the Tuesday following the first Monday in November of even years set by Congress. Then another for voting machines in 1899. I don't know how or if this fits in there. I'd be interested to hear arguments on it but haven't seen much.

So if there are some inequities...congress can intervene and has. It is pretty much left up to states and then parties inside those states.

Congress could pass laws to change future elections.

They could not, in expost facto fashion, change the rules and make them retroactively apply to FL or MI....now.

Logical
03-05-2008, 04:14 PM
You need to research election laws, as the pertain to primaries....because you are wrong. The bottom-line is, it's left entirely to the discretion of states and the political parties. The party can basically do as it pleases.

To move the goal posts after the fact though....is fundamentally ludicrous.

If this favored Obama do you really believe she would be outraged.ROFL

BucEyedPea
03-05-2008, 04:14 PM
Congress could pass laws to change future elections.

They could not, in expost facto fashion, change the rules and make them retroactively apply to FL or MI....now.

Good point. But I would think this equally applies to the Florida legislature already setting the time and conditions by law. Changing that after the fact I would think is ex post facto as well.

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2008, 04:18 PM
If this favored Obama do you really believe she would be outraged.ROFL

Of course not....

FWIW, did you catch Hamas' rant to her in her thread?ROFL

Logical
03-05-2008, 04:52 PM
Of course not....

FWIW, did you catch Hamas' rant to her in her thread?ROFL
No, I will have to find that.

ClevelandBronco
03-05-2008, 04:55 PM
No matter what happens in regard to these states' delegates, the party infighting will alienate some fraction of voters in Florida and Michigan and cause them not to pull the lever for the eventual democrat party candidate in the general election.

Mission accomplished.

patteeu
03-05-2008, 04:58 PM
Apparently not completely. I would think for a "truth, justice and the American way type" such as yourself you'd try to get all the facts first.

I've heard all the facts presented and I still think I'm right. The people of Florida and Michigan disenfranchised themselves. Do you have some secret facts you want to disclose?

Having said that, I hope Florida and Michigan democrats get their votes reinstated in the most painful and disruptive way possible.

alnorth
03-05-2008, 05:10 PM
'Er chagrin....my log in fell out so I saw you post. FTR I only stumbled upon the info about the FL legislature changing the time for the Dem primary, when checking for a Constitutional source for election laws because I thought the states had the right to set the time and conditions for the election of federal officers. But there was some federal aspect to it as well which I was unsure of.

Now to continue with this based on later posts. This is not from the web but from a book I use on the Constitution:

There is some right for Congress to intervene—if necessary. Congress stayed out of this until 1842 when some inequities developed. Then again in 1866 Congress compelled state legislatures to meet on a certain day and stay in session until they had elected Senators to rep them because some legislatures remained stubbornly deadlocked without any being elected.

There was the 1872 general election day for all the states for the Tuesday following the first Monday in November of even years set by Congress. Then another for voting machines in 1899. I don't know how or if this fits in there. I'd be interested to hear arguments on it but haven't seen much.

So if there are some inequities...congress can intervene and has. It is pretty much left up to states and then parties inside those states.

The problem is you are talking about state and federal elections, where the congress and the courts definitely have a duty to step in when things are completely F'd up.

This is not an election. There is no duty at all for the Congress to tell the parties what to do. (Aside from other constitutional issues like discrimination by race/gender/age/etc) The DNC and RNC are both private organizations with local affiliates in each state. They can do whatever the hell they want with their nominating process and can even decide not to hold an election or blatantly ignore an election result and arbitrarily nominate the loser if they want. Its like the government telling Microsoft who needs to be the new CEO, they simply cant do that.

Many states do force the parties to participate in state primaries on a local basis, but even then after fulfilling the obligation to poll public opinion, the state party can choose to ignore the election result, if the national party approves and lets them.

BucEyedPea
03-05-2008, 10:09 PM
The problem is you are talking about state and federal elections, where the congress and the courts definitely have a duty to step in when things are completely F'd up.

This is not an election. There is no duty at all for the Congress to tell the parties what to do. (Aside from other constitutional issues like discrimination by race/gender/age/etc) The DNC and RNC are both private organizations with local affiliates in each state. They can do whatever the hell they want with their nominating process and can even decide not to hold an election or blatantly ignore an election result and arbitrarily nominate the loser if they want. Its like the government telling Microsoft who needs to be the new CEO, they simply cant do that.

Many states do force the parties to participate in state primaries on a local basis, but even then after fulfilling the obligation to poll public opinion, the state party can choose to ignore the election result, if the national party approves and lets them.
I see what you're saying. I know the parties can make their own rules even ignoring results. Even in Federal elections the states still have a lot of latitude and the Feds can only intervene if there are inequities.

Apparently though, in this case, there was an act passed by the Florida legislature moving the date up. My question was regarding your mentioning the Dems voting unanimously in the Florida state legislature on this re-setting the date. I just wanted to know if they actually did vote unanimously.

BucEyedPea
03-05-2008, 10:10 PM
I've heard all the facts presented and I still think I'm right. The people of Florida and Michigan disenfranchised themselves. Do you have some secret facts you want to disclose?

No the people didn't do it.

patteeu
03-05-2008, 11:17 PM
No the people didn't do it.

Sorry, I disagree. Stop playing the victim.