Reply #59: A question, DrDan... [View All]

[PermanentRevolution]

Because, as a Florida resident, I knew full well when I voted in our primary that our delegates had already been stripped from us as a result of our state legislature refusing to follow the rules established by the DNC. I had absolutely no reasonable expectation that the situation would change. All of this had been well-publicized long before the date of the primary rolled around.

So I'm a little confused as to how you could possibly have "fully expected it to mean something." Surely you were aware of the situation? You may feel strongly, as I do, that the DNC's decision was overly-harsh. You may feel that the DNC's reaction was short-sighted and needlessly punitive, as I do. In short, I can understand how you could feel that you vote SHOULD mean something, but I can't possibly see how anyone could have voted in our primary with the slightest realistic expectation that it WOULD mean something.

My position has always been that our disenfranchisement happened long before the primary. It was well-known, well-publicized fact. To claim otherwise is ludicrous in the extreme. What would happen if the primary results were to stand as-is is selective re-enfranchisement, giving power back to those who cast votes in the primary but not to to the roughly 650,000 who voted down-ticket but left the presidential selection blank, or those who chose not to vote knowing that it wouldn't count. I have problems with retroactively re-enfranchising certain voters while not giving others in our state the same opportunity, even though I'm one of the ones who voted.