Florida and Michigan were NOT legitimate elections

[McHatin]

I am really sick of Hillary and all of her backers claiming that voters are being disenfranchised in Michigan and Florida because the DP won't count the votes as is. The fact is, voters there have ALREADY been disenfranchised, and to seat the delegates as is would be the same as supporting illegitimate elections. When you tell voters that their vote will not count in the primaries, this will cause some people to stay home, and this is not a legitimate election. When you have one candidate who has a huge name recognition and another candidate who always improves his numbers by campaigning in a state and you forbid any campaigning, you have an illegitimate election. When you only have two candidates on your ballot and the rest of the candidates names have been pulled, you have an illegitimate election, as people may decide to vote for the person on the ballot rather than just uncommitted or otherwise. What about voters who wanted to vote for Obama or another candidate? If we seat the delegates as is, Hillary will be disenfranchising all those voters who would have voted for other candidates or would have not stayed at home. For Hillary to say that these elections were perfectly legitimate and ACCURATELY reflect the voter's wishes is complete, utter bullshit worthy of a third world dictator excusing his 100% election returns.

Now Hillary is parading through Florida, turning Florida democrats against their own party over this issue she is WRONG on. The fact that she is willing to change her position when it suits her and support totally ILLEGITIMATE elections even when she has no chance of winning should be a big sign to her supporters that Hillary is not presidential material.

[KittyWampus]

1. who cares what Hillary is doing. She is irrelevant. Why waste energy on her? That's what she WANTS

[DrDan]

7. you need to wake up to some realities

are you suggesting all the people who voted for her are irrelevant as well? I sure hope not.

I just cannot imagine anyone not giving her the respect she has earned through all of this - and I am not a HRC supporter. I have never voted for her, nor imagine doing so. Just a realist.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. She is no more relevant than Edwards or Kucinich. She just had more money than they did.

I think she needs to give them the respect they earned.

I'm very sad she just keeps dissing them.

The Clintons are always begging for respect from others yet never showing others any respect.

[closeupready]

45. Yes, the reality is, a lot people care, just not as many as Obama, and so whether we like it or not,

we have to focus on what she is doing, and respond. What IS irrelevant is whether it is or is not what she wants.

[crankychatter]

2. well said - k/r - nt

good morning

[VeraAgnes]

3. The DNC Delegate Committee will be

correcting their mistakes next week.

[DrDan]

6. I sure hope they get this resolved

this should never have happened in the first place - convinces me that Dean is not the leader he wants to be

[MaineDem]

11. Rules and Bylaws Committee - the same one that placed the penalty there in the first place

Why would they all now change their minds?

[PBS Poll-435]

43. They didn't think that punishing FL & MI would cost Hillary the nomination.

So they will fix it.

:P

[John Q. Citizen]

17. RBC Committee is going to correct FL and MI mistakes? Good, they need someone to correct them.

[DrDan]

4. well - McHatin - as a Florida resident I took my vote seriously

and fully expected it to mean something.

I am sorry if that makes you "really sick", but it is not only me that feels that way, but many many in the state of Florida as well.

Get a life - some of us may have a different opinion than you do.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. In America, election that don't allow campaigning are considered illegitimate. How long have you

been a US citizen?

What country are you originally from?

[DrDan]

20. ahem . . . .

since when

and for a long time

and here

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Did you take US Gov in high school? The ability to campaign is one of the basic

principles of fair elections.

There are other countries where the rulers prohibit campaigning by the opposition. We have never considered elections where all candidates or all sides couldn't make their case to the voters, couldn't campaign, to be fair and free elections.

Where have you been?

[DrDan]

28. you are talking about this like it was the law of the land

please provide a source that clearly states that a lack of a campaign deems an election to be "illigitimate" from a legal perspective.

Plus - welcome to the age of cable. Hillary and Barack prior to the Florida primary were ALL OVER cable news - as were the other candidates. There is no voter in Florida who does not know who they are - and an in-person visit would certainly not improve anyone's view of their particular stands.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. Then why in the world would a candidate campaign? If as you say it has no effect?

Freedom of expression, freedom to get your voters to the polls, freedom to allow the voters to actually see and meet one on one with the candidate you believe is of no value?

Then how do you explain the fact that before the campaigns ever began, Clinton was leading in almost every state in the polls by huge amounts, like 40%, but then after the campaign got underway, those polls tightened and often flipped.

Please enumerate the elections held in the US where there is no campaigning. All I can name are FL and MI this one particular primary season. Also, there are judicial elections where candidates are specifically prohibited from campaigning, in a political; sense.

Can you name any political elections where candidates are prohibited from campaigning?

The right to campaign is implicitly founded in the right of freedom of expression, freedom of association, basic constitutional freedoms.
Here's a ruling on the right to campaign. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E1D81F3EF93BA25751C1A960958260

[DrDan]

42. whoa there - your argument is taking a turn

It is your claim that the election is not legimate because they did not campaign. Please provide a source that says - from legal point of view - that the denial of the right to campaign leaves an election illegitimate.

They agreed to not campaign. I have not read that - from a legal point of view - that the election is tainted. If you have - please provide a source.

I am sure you can find it in your High School gov class. You seem to take a lot of pride in the bit of education. Just please provide the source.

You are skirting that issue with your freedom of expression argument. What does that have to do with your assertion???????? If they have the right to express themselves, why did they voluntarily agree to give it up?

As to the turnaround in Clintons lead - that is easy to understand. Obama is on cable for hours and hours each viewing day. I am not arguing his right to do so - or that he has more face-time than Hillary. Just that voters have become more comfortable with him as they see him speak. And voters have changed their minds based on what they are seeing. Just goes back to my point that in this day and age, the personal in-state visits are not as important as in the past.

I cannot name an election where campaigning has been suspended. I also cannot argue that to do so takes an election out of the "legitimate" column. You have done that - just please provide a source to substantiate your comment.

[John Q. Citizen]

51. A Florida Court refused to order the seating of the Florida delegation. It found that

under Florida party and national party rules, Florida couldn't expect it's delegates to be seated.

A judge in MI found their whole election scheme to be illegal under state law.

I'm sorry, the law isn't on your side in this. If your leaders had followed the rules, the law would have been on their side. You need to take it up with your state party officials, something I'm almost positive that you have done, since you are so upset about your vote not counting, and all.

Why not post the correspondence you have shared with your state party officials. I'd love to see that.

[DrDan]

54. well - don't hold your breath. I do not plan on sharing any correspondence

with you. I am comfortable with my efforts.

Did the Florida Court argue that the reason for their ruling was based on a lack of campaigning? Or have we officially shifted the argument?

Once again - you seem to be confusing your assertions and your own support of your position.

ok - the court ruled - they ruled the DNC could do what they did.

However - they did not say anything about the election being illegitimate. Only that the party could pull the delegates if they wanted. That does not mean that to do so did not violate THEIR OWN PARTY CHARTER- because that is exactly what they did.

Please provide a source that substantiates your assertion that to deny a candidate his right to campaign deems the election illegitimate - legally.

[DrDan]

31. and while we are on the subject of basic principles

I am sure you are familiar with the basic principles of your own party - right? I mean - you being the stellar student of politics.

One of the guiding principles of your own party states all members of the party are given an equal voice in candidate selection.

You knew that of course.

I am just interested in hearing how you resolve that with your hard stand of refusing the voters in Fl and Michigan their voice.

[McHatin]

35. It was not my decision

In all honesty, I would have hoped the Democrat Party could have come up with a better way to resolve the situation than to take away people's votes and potentially anger the electorate. But now that it has been done, it is important to realize that these elections were not legitimate now that Clinton has decided very recently that what the DNC did was unfair.

I am not advocating taking away your vote, but think of it this way. You took your vote very seriously, even though you were told it would not count. Isn't it possible that other voters in your state decided not to vote because of the fact that they were told it would not count? What about those voters?

According to your reasoning, an election where the electorate is told their vote will not count and where no campaigning is done should be viewed as a perfectly legitimate election that reflects the will of the people. That, or you think it is fine to respect illegitimate elections. Either way, your reasoning violates your own stated principle, that every member of the party should be given an equal voice. That was definitely not the case in these illegitimate elections.

[DrDan]

37. sure it was - over 1.7 million voted in Florida

that is 2 1/2 times the number that voted 4 years ago. So I am confident a representative sample has been reached.

In addition - there was a key property tax issue on the ballot. Anyone skipping that would not have voted regardless of how the primary was tainted.

I do not disagree with any punishment the DNC would like to proceed with - as long as the punishment is focussed on those that broke the rules. The voters did not do that - perhaps the state party leaders, but certainly not the voters. Their voice should not be taken away.

As I see it, Dean's leadership ability is in question having let this issue fester for so long.

[McHatin]

40. Well I guess that is where we disagree

You think 1.7 million is representative, so I guess you think the results would have been exactly the same if voters had been told their vote would count and if both candidates had campaigned there...

I think the vote count would have even been higher, and the dynamics would have been much different. For example, there were over 600,000 votes recently in Oregon for the Democrat Primary, or 16% of the population of Oregon. In Florida, it was about 9% of the population that voted. That's a huge difference, and I think can partially be explained by the fact that many people thought their vote would not count, and more importantly, because there was no campaigning done there.

Now can you honestly look at those numbers and say that you think the will of the voters was represented? And don't you pretty much have to concede that some voters were disenfranchised in your scenario?

[DrDan]

49. well - lets get the right set of numbers

9% of the population? But the population could not vote in this election. Only registered Democrats - it was a closed primary.

I think there are around 4.1 M registered Dems. So the 1.7 M would be over 41%. So yes - I think that would produce a representative sample.

Sure there were some voters disenfranchised. I wish that did not happen. But - to disenfranchise 1.7 M more does not lead toward an equitable solution.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. Sio if it's equitable to you, then it's better than if it's inequitable to someone else?

59% of the states Dem voters didn't vote by your figures.

So you would disenfranchise a majority of the voters so a minority that you belong to gets their pony?

[DrDan]

55. c'mon - lets not go out of control here

There is not primary ever ever ever where 100% of the registered voters voted. We both know that NEVER EVER happens.

So to assert that 59% stayed home because they thought there vote would not count is ludicrous.

And no - I am not arguing this because it is more equitable to me. In fact - my candidate did not win in Florida. I happen to believe that voters should vote - and their votes should be counted.

I am sorry if that takes away from the Obama victory lap.

and please note - I am NOT a Hillary supporter. I want the best candidate selected. I want the people's candidate selected. I also do not support super-delegates, and the votes of Puerto Rico and Guam.

[McHatin]

57. If you look at it that way, it only makes it worse

In Oregon, there are 750,000 registered Democrats, and only Democrats can vote in primaries. That means 81% of registered Democrats voted in Oregon. That is almost double the turnout percentage of Florida. Hmm...

Florida was an illegitimate election. I believe hundreds of thousands of more would have voted had there been a campaign and people actually thought their vote counted. It would have changed the minds of some of the people who voted as well.

[DrDan]

61. I don't think I ever claimed that Florida Dems turned out

in higher numbers than Oregon.

And I also do not think you can compare state-to-state comparisons. The demographics are just too different - as well as election-day circumstances.

Florida voters are obviously older. So 41% is DARNED HIGH. I hope 41% show up for the GE.

We will just have to disagree as to whether the election was illegitimate or not. We are not going to come to any agreement about that.


I will say - if you are from Oregon - that I like your state. I visited it last November and really enjoyed the drive along the Columbia as well as the northern beach areas. Had a great time there for a couple of days.

[McHatin]

64. I understand

that state to state comparisons cannot always be accurate. But when the numbers are 41% and 81%, it can't all be chalked up to demographics. Don't you think a whole lot more people would have voted if they were told their votes would count and if there had been campaigning?

I am not from Oregon though, I was just using it as an example because it is also a closed primary like Florida.

Anyways, the only real fair solution is to do a revote or to split it 50-50, as keeping the votes as is right now is just as worse to me as not having any votes count at all. I am sorry that your state leaders screwed up, it is no fault of your own, and that the Democrat leadership could not have come up with a better way to punish your state representatives than alienating Democrat voters.

[John Q. Citizen]

44. Yes, good leaders buy you a pony. Sorry, your leadership is your problem. You elected them

in the last election, you know the one where your vote counted.

You voted for delegates that you knew wouldn't be seated. It was all over cable news, the very news you watch and is the source of your information.

[gal]

63. A representative sample?

That is not the "every voter" you were argueing for a few post ago.

[DrDan]

68. every voter had an opportunity - had the votes been counted

right?

The way it is now - Dean has nothing better than an elitist 48-state plus Puerto Rico plus Guam plus super-delegate strategy. This needs to be compared with a 50-state GE. hmmmmmmmm. Even a conservative could figure out something is out-of-whack.

yes - a representative sample. 1.7 M out of 4.1 M registered Dems in Florida - A 40+% turnout for a primary. Not bad. And would result in a representative sample of the voters. AND most importantly - all 4.1 M had an opportunity to vote.

[John Q. Citizen]

41. Did 8 year olds get to vote? Why or why not? Yet there is no prohibition from an 8 year old joining

a political party.

I think you are confused. That's OK, a lot of people are. Especially about elections, in FL.

You can be as pissed off as you want. I'm still not giving you a pony.

[DrDan]

56. oh Good Lord - I think I have had enough

anyway - glad we resolved the "illegitimate election" issue

[gal]

62. Principles?

I am interesed in seeing why the voters in Fl and Micigan are allowed to do things the other 44 states are not allowed to do?
I live in Ohio and would have liked to been allowed to move my primary and have my vote count, what makes you better than I?

[DrDan]

69. uh - your vote is being counted.

I am not better than you - quite the contrary - my vote is not being counted.

I was not asked when to schedule the primary. I did not select something against the will of the DNC. Why should my vote not be counted - I just did what I could - and voted when appropriate - that is on the scheduled day.

[MichiganVote]

67. Actually Lincoln won several elections w/o campaigning at all

It was considered unfashionable in the early days to campaign.

[smiley_glad_hands]

25. You should learn how to vote for people that know how to follow directions. eom

[DrDan]

29. ah yes - hindsight-voting

forgive our backwardness. - I forgot how blessed the rest of the world is.

[PermanentRevolution]

59. A question, DrDan...

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.

[Epiphany4z]

5. can you imagine

Obama winning and His was the only name on the ballot in Michigan...

[DemGa]

8. Obama didn't have to take his name off the ballot

In his political maneuver, Obama sided with the DNC - and not the voters.

[MaineDem]

12. There wasn't a way for names to be removed in FL

Unlike Michigan.

[FredScuttle]

14. In other words, he played by the rules and abided by his pledge

n/t

[havocmom]

18. Ah, he honors the agreement re rules they all made, and she didn't

so, it's HIS fault he, and the others, honored the fact that they agreed the rules violation of moving up the primary would nullify the primary?

'his political maneuver' my ass!

She is a scavenger, picking over the bones of primaries past with NO REGARD to all the VOTERS who didn't participate because they were told it wouldn't count.

Hillary cares only for Hillary. That much is painfully obvious.

[kennetha]

23. Right

and when his stupid short term purely political miscalculation comes back to bite him in the butt, he's willing to disenfranchise the voters in the name of pure political self-serving expediency.

And this is our new "messiah." If he's the only option, I'll sit this one out.

[DemVet]

36. Yeah...that was kind of dumb, wasn't it?

And we want this guy manning the switch?

[haymakeragain]

47. Yeah, we do. He's got integrity, which is clearly lacking in the Hill campaign.

Why do you want to cheat? You know it is not fair by any stretch of the imagination yet you are willing to go along with it. How positively repubic.

[DemVet]

50. BO is unprepared to lead this country.

[haymakeragain]

58. Sorry, he won, she lost. Vote McSame.

He's well prepared and will be a great President. Just deal.

[OnionPatch]

9. Yep, lots of people will be disenfranchised, either way.

There has to be a compromise.

I personally know quite a few Obama supporters who did not go to the polls in Michigan because they were told their vote wouldn't count. If the situation were reversed, you can bet Hillary supporters would be screaming bloody murder.

[mystieus]

10. A lot of people didn't vote because they knew their vote wasn't going to count for anything.

[Iceburg]

22. Explain the record turnout in both states.

Obama was polling at less that 23% in MI just before the primary -- that IS the ONLY reason he pulled his name from the ballot.

[progressoid]

24. Record turnout is immaterial

There has been a record turnout in every state. So what?

I vote on online polls. They are meaningless but I do it anyway. So what?

People waste their time and money voting on American Idol. So what?


Sometimes people just like to voice their opinion even if it doesn't count for anything.

[rinsd]

38. MI tunrout was unspectacular and FL's turnout was more related to a property tax issue.

Obama may have been polling that low in Sept but he removed his name in Oct not just before the primary.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. There was record turnout all over the country this cycle

Here's some facts...

There were 6 states in this election cycle where Republican Primary turnout was higher than Democratic Primary turnout. They were... Utah, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida and Michigan. Utah, Alabama, and Alaska are all very red states and Utah was a pseudo home state for Mitt Romney. Arizona is McCain's home state. Other than those states, every single state in the country had more people vote in the Democratic Primary than in the Republican Primary except for Florida and Michigan. The only explanation is that many people figured their vote would not count and either stayed home or voted in the GOP Primary to try and influence the race. I know that many Democrats and Independents voted for Romney in the Michigan Primary to try and weaken McCain.

[2rth2pwr]

30. On both sides.

[Major Hogwash]

13. They didn't even campaign in those states!! There was no campaign in Florida or Michigan!!

Hillary is just grasping at straws. Where was she in 2000 when the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore? She was partying with Bubba about getting into the Senate, that's where she was!!!!

[2rth2pwr]

32. Obama disagrees with you he wants the majority of the delegates to be seated.

Why do you hate democracy?

[haymakeragain]

48. Why do you want to cheat?

Repubic-like?

[2rth2pwr]

66. Why do you hate the rules of this Primary? There are provisions for petition, and on the 31st

arguments will be heard.

[haymakeragain]

71. If you say MI should count, as is, you're a cheater and you know it.

Florida is less so, but still a flawed "election".

Petition all you want, that ain't what I'm talking about. Claiming you are ahead in the popular vote when it is patently untrue is cheating to win. They want to convince delegates and supers to choose Hillary based on illegitimate returns from illegitimate "elections".

They want to steal it, that's obvious. Why do they have to cheat to win?

[2rth2pwr]

72. Michigan is gonna count, with Obama's approval. The supers

know that the popular vote argument is not an official tally, they can consider it in their final decision any way they would like. How is that cheating?

[rocktivity]

15. That's why I believe the only fair solution is to seat the delegates 50/50 with no SDs

Giving out half a vote or dividing the delegates based on the vote backhandedly sanctions the illegitimate primaries, which in turns backhandedly invites other states to follow suit. Indeed, conditions might arise where a half vote could actually do a candidate more good than a full one.

The delegates should be seated because the people of FL and MI are owed recognition and representation. But they should not be seated in a way that either legitimizes their primaries or gives either candidate an advantage. And if the state's superdelegates get no vote at all, they'll think long and hard before they violate the DNC's rules again.

:headbang:
rocknation

[DanTex]

26. Exactly.

What you are saying really should be obvious to a 6-year-old.

You can't have a free and fair election unless the voters are told it's a real election. If you tell people "this election is not going to count", then it's not a free and fair election. The voters need to actually know that a real election is taking place.

Oh, and by the way, you have to tell the voters that the election is real BEFORE the election takes place. You can't just say "remember that thing that happened last week ... that was the election."

Now, I know that people went out and participated, that's fine. Maybe some people wanted to register some kind of protest. Maybe some people weren't paying attention and thought it was a "real" election. But the officials of the Democratic party, and Hillary Clinton herself, made it perfectly clear that the elections weren't going to count for anything.

So it's not a legitimate election. Period. The results don't count.

If I get 100,000 people together, give them ballots, and have them write "Obama" on them, that might be a lot of fun. But that wouldn't mean that 100,000 more "votes" were "cast" for Obama. If I go to the DNC and argue that they should "count" my 100,000 Obama votes otherwise people will be disenfranchised, I hope the DNC would laugh me out of the room. And, for the same reason, I hope the DNC laughs Hillary out of the room on this one.

[Lucky 13]

27. You can't tell people the election won't count, then later decide to count it.

I personally wouldn't have bothered voting if I was told it wouldn't matter. Getting time off work, standing in line at the polls, who would want to go through all that if you've been told your vote won't count.

The elections were illegitimate and they had better not count them as is. Those states knew the rules, the candidates knew the rules, and the rules should stand.

[Life Long Dem]

33. So what's going to happen

Are they going to vote for McSame because they say Obama did this to us? Anybody who thinks one candidate (Obama)in a primary is the cause of this, was never was going to vote for Obama in the first place.

[gal]

65. Let them, i'm tired of the threats.

The Democrats are not the only ones that have punished these two states, the Republicans did as well. They took 1/2 their delegates away. So if they don't like the idea of rules let them vote somewhere where there are no rules.

I'm sick of hearing them whine about it.

[Terran]

34. Several people in this thread

seem to believe that MI should count as-is because they perceive Obama's removing his name from that ballot as a cynical ploy. I have to ask: so what if it was? It was still the appropriate thing to do, regardless of additional motives, based on all the facts. Motive matters nothing here, actions and rules are what count. No reasonable person employing common sense would claim that Michigan held a viable election without having all the candidates' names on the ballot.

That said, I doubt it's going to matter. Why not just give her like 55% and him 45% of the delegates (given that she was "supposed" to have won that primary)? I think that's fair, and it's not going to change the picture substantially.

[pdx_prog]

52. The only fair resolution is a "do over"

and nobody wants to pay for it. It was agreed that their votes wouldn't count....end of story, done.

[CreekDog]

60. Folks, it's 2008 and that means (no, it's not what you think I'm going to say)

It means that rules and agreements only apply so long as both adherents to those things find them useful to suit their purposes. One of the adherents is no longer finding the rules and agreements useful. Thus, they are using their clout to press for new rules and agreements and they have enough clout to do just that.

And ummm :crazy:

[indimuse]

70. They WERE and THEY WERE CERTIFIED!!

Quit LYING!!!

[gristy]

73. I saw one MSM article that referred to them as "contests", in purposeful contrast to "elections"

It was a pretty good article. In the NY Times, I think.