Florida and Michigan Democratic Delegates

[KPrice]

I am a Michigan resident and DO NOT want our delegates to count UNLESS we have a new primary with all candidates listed on the ballot (not just Clinton). Carl Levin, one of our senators, is really pushing hard to get the majority of MI delegates to go to Clinton.

Incidentally, if there are any Michigan folks out there, send a note to Senator Levin and tell him his stance is wrong. He says that the citizens of Michigan have a right to be heard and have their say in this primary. I say that an election with only one person listed on the ballot cannot represent the desires of the people. I know numerous Republicans that would have voted for Barrack (even a few that voted for Bush twice!), but since he wasn't on the ballot they voted for one of the Republican candidates. I also know many Democrates that didn't even go to the polls because they were told the result wouldn't matter. It was the DNC that told us this.

Arg! I am so frustrated that the media is not making a big enough fuss over this. Please tell me what I can do!

[akenaten]

I agree KPrice,

I understand the sentiment to have Mi and Fl count but Sen Levin needs to understand that they were states that had no campaigning and as you say in Mi only one name on the ballot. Back in the fall Sen Clinton was asked why she left her name on the ballot and she replied that Michigan would not count so it made little difference. At that time she felt that the nomination was hers for certain so wasn't worried about inclusion now that she needs those uncontested results her story changes, as usual.
I am all for hearing from Mi and Fl perhaps in a caucus or special primary but absent a do-over the delegations should be sent to cheer and hold placards but not decide the nomination since ALL of the candidates agreed to this months ago.

[sunken]

Florida didn't have the same problem that Michigan did in that respect. All names were on the ballot because that is Florida law. However, it is unclear who would have done better if there was more campaigning going on. Florida, like most southern states, has a lot of Obama supporters and it might have gone differently. There is talk that they want Florida to hold another primary, but thus far, it seems like it's all talk.

If there was only Hilary Clinton on the ballot in Michigan, then they should have another primary. I noticed a lot of the delegates were undecided, far too many to ignore.

[ilovejeff102]

I agree. It is unfair to everyone, especially the voters in Mi and FL, to seat their delegates without a fair primary or caucus in those states. Those voters were not give a fair chance to learn about the candidates. I happen to think that it's wrong that they weren't included in the first place, but I'll save that rant for another time. If the DNC chooses to seat those delegates without a new contest in those states, they will disenfranchise millions of people, including me.

[kerridoc]

ilovejeff102 Wrote:It is unfair to everyone, especially the voters in Mi and FL, to seat their delegates without a fair primary or caucus in those states. ... If the DNC chooses to seat those delegates without a new contest in those states, they will disenfranchise millions of people, including me.

Agreed, but there is a reasonable difference between MI and FL:

• In MI, voters were denied the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, unless you chose HRC. (Like Henry Ford, "any color you want...." Hmm, actually, this time, black was the color you could not choose!).
• In FL, voters could vote for any candidate, but they did not have state-specific campaigning. It would be a stretch, though, to say that they were denied "a fair chance to learn about the candidates." The amount of national media, including a record number of debate, provided everyone a reasonable opportunity to learn about the candidates. The "no campaigning" rule clearly hurt Obama, though, since he does not have the huge name recognition that HRC does.
  

Seating MI delegates without a new election would be criminal. Seating FL deletages without a new election would merely be the second time that the Democratic party was cheated in that state--only this time, it would be a self-inflicted wound.

[KPrice]

I just sent this to Carl Levin (the formatting capabilities on his website are limited):

So far my comment about the injustice of seating the Michigan delegates without a second primary has gone unanswered. I thought that you should see that other people are concerned about this as well. Please check out http://www.vqte.com/florida-and-michigan...ml#pid7204. I agree that Michigan should be able to have their primary whenever they choose and be counted, but this issue does not trump the need to carefully choose a democratic presidential candidate, and it certainly isn't more important than ensuring that the people of Michigan have an honest opportunity to be heard. A second primary should be held. Maybe in a few years we can try this again and try to go first. But ultimately, this issue is not important enough to pursue at such a large cost to the people of Michigan. Many people will be disenfranchised and yet again disappointed in the powers that be.

[sunken]

The whole thing is absurd and really says basically that the democratic electorate doesn't count at all. Sure they'll give the public the illusion that they matter, but in the end, they don't really. Between this craziness and the superdelegates, there is no doubt who the establishment wants and that's who we will get whether we like it or not. Why not just stop the charade if they don't plan to have a fair nomination and annoint Hilary the winner regardless of what states vote?

If this goes the way Levin wants and the superdelegates sway the election to opposite of the voting block, then the democrats can kiss the election goodbye.

[SDLinda]

I am not clear why some states that moved their primaries up didn't have a problem, but Michigan and Florida did. However, K's analysis is right on.

Here is where integrity will really kick in. If Hillary accepted the Michigan delegates it would be a clear indication of her lack of integrity, and a clear indication of what we could expect for the next four years in Washington if she won the Presidency. It would deal the death-blow to the democrats in November.

I would be happy to see both FL and MI run new primaries before the convention to promote fairness and equitable treatment of all citizens.

[sunken]

All the primaries should be the same day. This way all the states have the same fair chance. This spreading out of states really hurts candidates because if people see a trend for one winner, they will usually go with the winning team in later contests. I think the reason they were mad at Florida is because being a big state, they figured we would influence the vote too much at the start. But that is why Florida moved their primary because we were tired of the candidate already chosen by the time we got to vote. I would imagine Michigan felt the same way.

[soccercomplexity]

sunken Wrote:All the primaries should be the same day. This way all the states have the same fair chance. This spreading out of states really hurts candidates because if people see a trend for one winner, they will usually go with the winning team in later contests. I think the reason they were mad at Florida is because being a big state, they figured we would influence the vote too much at the start. But that is why Florida moved their primary because we were tired of the candidate already chosen by the time we got to vote. I would imagine Michigan felt the same way.

It seems to me that the issue is that the DNC constructed rules to attempt to accommodate what they saw as the likely outcome. Everything was stacked early to prevent any gain in significant popularity by "stray" candidates and thus ensuring a unified party early on. How's that working out?

Tis the engineer's folly to be hoisted by his own pitard, or something to that effect. Nonetheless, if you're the DNC you'd think running a democratic primary would be a good thing. The irony is that if they'd let MI and FL do what they wanted, it might have been too many states for an "alternate" candidate to effectively campaign.

Now, I fear the only thing to do is for the DNC to live with the fruits of its manipulation and recognize that its actions disenfranchised voters whether they stayed away or not.

Bad policy. You don't get do overs in the real world.

David