Florida's Delegate Muddle

re: Florida's Delegate Muddle

jthies — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:10:54 GMT

There is a simple solution hold caucuses in Florida but make it a two day 6 hour event, on Saturday, June 14th and Tuesday, June 17th. On June 14th, hold it between 10A-4P and on June 17th, hold it between 4P-10P. Also, make that only the peole who voted during the January 29th Primary can participate. Similar to how they did it in Texas. So people who did not vote in the Primary would be eliminated from the caucus. Also, the person would not have to stay for the whole six hours. They could sign in, state their preference and leave. This way people who had to work could participate without fear of losing their job. Kind of similar to how they did it in New Mexico. Michigan could also do it this way. This would be a fair and just of redoing the vote and would not disenfranchise any one that did vote in the original primary.

re: Florida's Delegate Muddle

readytoblog — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:14:09 GMT

The DNC made a bad decision when they chose to disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida. The DNC and the states of Michigan and Florida had plenty of time to work this out– and should have – but for whatever reason they did NOT, it is still wrong to penalize voters in those states – voters who did not sign the law into effect, voters who don’t run the DNC or the RNC (who plans to penalize partially.) Bring back democracy, count their votes.

In fact, both parties should abandon the entire idea of oneupsmanship, and hold primaries and caucuses in every state on the same day. Big states with diverse populations can make a valid claim that its population should have a major impact on choosing the nominee because to win in November, a candidate must have a broad base of support; small states have a valid claim, too, since candidates without deep pockets must talk to voters one-on-one without sound-bites and expensive advertising. Get rid of divisive competition among the states. All states, both parties, same day with delegates apportioned by popular vote – statewide? by legislative district? by county?...well-that is another discussion.

(from Illinois)

re: Florida's Delegate Muddle

H. Aslan Aslani-Far — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:17:24 GMT

If there was every a time to re-cast ballots in an entire state it was in the midst of 2000 general election, where questions of validity truly existed and continue to persist to this day. The 2008 candidates, their respective managers, the states in question and the whole electorate were aware that the results in Florida and Michigan would not count, and that their delegates would not be seated. Why is this even being considered? The argument that the candidates are so close in the primary season is absurd, as illustrated by the example above. Sen. Obama has a clear, seemingly insurmountable delegate lead, has won more than 50% of the states thus far, and the chasm between his suport and Sen. Clinton's, in any manipulation, is far greater than the 526 votes that determined the presidency in 2000. If we were not inclined to re-cast ballots in Florida in 2000, we must not do so now.

re: Florida's Delegate Muddle

neophyte — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:41:13 GMT

while we are at it, why not revote every other state. I'm sure some people have changed their minds, some who supported edwards or others might want to repick now that we are down to two. This can be strung out ad absurdum.

re: Florida's Delegate Muddle

Karlene58 — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:45:22 GMT

No necessary to re vote because it's not fair for Hillary. We all know Hillary's delegates leads than Obama. So, no more vote over! Voted once time, but Hillary's delegates will be added . That's it! I strongly support Hillary should get it frtom Mich and Fla. Be more honest with Hillary. No more vote again.!!!!! Hillary gets more delegates from Mich and FLA so we will be glad to support Hillsary for President!

re: Florida's Delegate Muddle

Jaspermoon — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:49:04 GMT

Barack changed the rules when he ran campaign ads in Florida prior to the primary. The rules were already violated so let the vote stand!!!

re: Florida's Delegate Muddle

lbrillante — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:57:59 GMT

The DNC interfered with the primary election in Florida and had candidates sign a pledge that they would not compete there becuase the state had broken DNC rules when it moved up its primary. So the results of the primary election in Florida are skewed and it would not be fair to count them as they are.

The only way to count them is for Florida and Michigan to vote again. This could work to either candidates favor so I don't think that is an issue. I do think however that the DNC should split the cost of a primary with the states because the Clinton campaign will consider it unfair to have a caucus. I understand that caucuses are cheaper than primaries and since the DNC pays for it in my state...we have caucuses. It saves the state money. However Senator Obama seems to have an advantage with caucuses so a primary seems to be necessary. I think having Florida and Michigan vote last for having tried to move up their primaries in violation of the rules seems fair.

I am supporting Senator Obama all the way to the presidency and I hope that he really starts putting the Clinton's through some scrutiny and tests because he has been too nice to Hillary and she has been awful. I know that is she were to be on the ticket she the fractured republican party would rally together and the election would not be about electing McCain for them but instead they would do everything they can to keep the Clinton's out of the White House.

Truthfully I have lost all respect for Hillary and I can't vote for her so I don't want to see her on a ticket with anyone.

re: Florida's Delegate Muddle

michael51 — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:55:05 GMT

Obviously, as a Floridian I'd like my vote for Edwards counted, HOWEVER, I voted for him as a protest vote (sorry John), and I didn't know Obama very well, since he didn't campaign here! To change the rules now is absurd. If the positions were reversed, you know dang well

Clinton would be screaming bloody murder!

Michigan didn't even have everyone on the ballot, in addition to the above!

I thought it was stupid of the DNC to punish Florida Democrats for what a Republican legislature did anyway. Who is running this pathetic show?

BTW, tell Chris Matthews to quit kissing up to Macauliffe...speaking of pathetic. Try pointing out that HRC had a huge lead to begin that dwindled to where she barely won. That is just as plausible as Macauliffe's, if not more so.

re: Florida's Delegate Muddle

timrogers — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:19:37 GMT

Hillary will get her Florida and Michigan delegates because Hillary gets her way in the Democratic party. Obama and the other candidates were foolish to think Hillary would abide by the party decision if it worked against her. She will get the nomination and she will lose all the voters that Obama brought into the primaries and caucuses. Many of these voters will not vote for her or for McCain, so maybe she will still be competitive against him. I think McCain will beat her, but it might be close. As for Obama, he will have learned his lesson as he watches from the sidelines: "never trust a Clinton when it comes to politics."

re: Florida's Delegate Muddle

jasperelsa — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:36:51 GMT

The Florida and Michigan voters have voted once and shouldn't have to vote again. None of the candidates campaigned in either state, so they were on a level playing field. The votes should count. Since Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, give him the uncommitted votes; evidently he had told his supporters to vote that way anyhow. Levy big fines on the state democratic parties, but don't punish the voters. And speaking about fairness, there is nothing fair about a caucus. It disenfranchises a large group of people--older people who don't go out at night and workers whose nighttime jobs don't allow for leaving work for a couple of hours. The nature of a primary held throughout the day allows more people to participate in our democratic process. One could argue that Obama would not be leading in delegates if primaries had been held instead of caucuses in some states where constituencies supporting Hillary Clinton could not get to a caucus at night. In fact I was making calls to small towns in Texas and was told by many older voters that they had voted early and could not make it to a late night caucus. Also, in regard to super delegates, the rules are that the super delegates are supposed to vote for who they think can win the election and who is most qualified. Otherwise, why even have them if they are just going to parrot the delegate count. The Ohio governor said it best when he commented that superdelegates have an overall view at the end of a campaign that the voters didn't have when they voted. As I said earlier, I think caucuses are bogus anyway and disenfranchise a large group of voters, particularly older voters who tend to turn out in general elections where they can vote during the day.