Disenfranchising Florida and Michigan?

Commentary

Disenfranchising Florida and Michigan?

Steve Chapman
March 9, 2008



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0309chapmanmar09,1,153254.column

...

But then some people in those states had a better idea. They were sick of seeing Iowa and New Hampshire hog all the attention. So the legislatures and governors decided to flout the approved schedule and hold their primaries in January. They figured they were so big and important that the presidential candidates would show up to campaign anyway -- and that the party would ultimately cave in and seat their delegates.

Saulius Anuzis, head of the Michigan Republican Party, summed up the prevailing sentiment among politicians on both sides of the aisle: "We understand that this violates the rules of both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. We don't care."

...

It's true that if the DNC stands firm, the people of Florida and Michigan may have no role in choosing the nominee. But Crist and Granholm shouldn't blame the DNC for that -- they should blame themselves. The DNC apparently would be willing to let them have "do-over" caucuses or primaries. But those would cost millions of dollars, which neither the states nor the state parties want to spend. And the DNC says it won't pay them to do what they should have done in the first place.


Of course, the DNC could simply surrender and let those who broke the rules get away with it -- thus assuring that next time, there will be primaries in December or November or October instead of January.

Better to tell the state parties that they chose to forfeit their delegates and their choice will be respected. If losing out makes the politicians in Florida and Michigan unhappy, I can speak for most people in the rest of the country in saying: We don't care.

But it's looking like they might get away with it.

When will fucking people realize that disastrous consequences loom because a few people broke the rules yet millions are being punished for it.

Howard Dean...wake the fuck up!!!!

We're trying to *get rid of* the party that says rules are for chumps
and accountability for one's actions is a joke.

but how can anyone feel good about denying them the opportunity to help select the candidate. Whether it is Obama or Clinton, wouldn't you want to know that all people who wanted to have their say were able to do so?

should be held accountable by the voters. They are the ones responsible for losing the right
to have their constituents' voices heard in the primaries. They knew they were breaking the rules
and did so willingly.

Just as willingly, they have to suffer the consequences.

After 7 years of Bush, do we want to start allowing Democrats to get away with the same sort of disregard
and disrespect for the process that has allowed Bush to desecrate this country in so many ways?

This is the kind of behavior we want to escape from, not emulate!

How the hell did I have the ability to "select a candidate"? My candidate of choice was Kucinich but surprise surprise, he never made it to April.

The only way to solve this is to have one big primary on a single date - or even during a week period like other countries do. Otherwise there will ALWAYS be voters in states that are "disenfranchised" from being able to select a candidate in a primary. FL and MI voters are NOT the only ones who are supposedly being kept out of the selection process. I was too as were most of those who voted after the first 4 states had their say - e.g., the Edwards supporters when Edwards dropped out before Super Tuesday.

It has ever been thus for people in late primary states.

keep in mind - it was not the decision of the voters. It was the party leaders - at both the DNC and at the state-level.

But guess who is getting screwed? Not the DNC or the leaders at the state-level. It is the voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008


I am so tired of this HRC/DLC fairy tale.

The representatives of Florida(representing the people of Florida)changed the date of the primary. They deserve to get screwed the next time they are up for election if that is what the people of Florida want. If the people of Florida did not want them to change the date they should have been calling them last summer when the change was being made. It is not like it was not in the news when they were doing it.

I suppose people could come together in Florida and hold recall elections to replace the representatives that moved the date, but I have not heard of anyone proposing that, have you?

:shrug:

Who deliberately went along with the GOP legislature who decided they wanted to move the date. Dean warned Florida that by going along with the Repugs, we would loose our delegates. He also offered at the time, (given that the dates were being moved regardless because of the GOP being in the majority, to fund a caucus of to work with Florida to find another way for our votes to count. But- Bill Nelson (who is more of a Republican then a Democrat), Karen Thurman (head of the FL Dems), Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a host of others- ALL HILLARY SUPPORTERS- hedged their bets thinking that it would never really matter in the long run (assuming we'd have a candidate by now and it would be Hillary) and if it did come to become an issue, they would simply seat the delegates anyway and they knew at that early point, that name recognition alone would give Hillary the most votes.

This has nothing to do with Howard Dean. It was an inside manipulation of power by Hillary insiders and it sucks. I am outraged and disgusted frankly, with my local party who disenfranchised MY VOTE- it wasn't bad enough that they got stolen before by electronic machines- this hurts even more.

I can see the bumper stickers, "Dean don't want our vote now, don't need it in November", on millions of vehicles in florida and Michigan.

After all, I would have voted for Edwards and they didn't even have his name on the ballot. 5 candidates asked to have their names removed after DNC said primary was illegitimate (Kucinich's paperwork was wrong) and the ballot should never have been approved because it gave the people of Michigan NO CHOICE but Clinton of the top contenders.

I do not want my vote to go to Clinton's delegates. She slyly left her name on the ballot thinking (or knowing) the delegates would be counted. The other candidates believed in the sincerely of the DNC.

Naw, that's expecting a lot from the public.

Regardless, I don't think Dean is asleep.

He was very clear when he warned both states if they change the date and they will not be counted. I commend Dean for being very clear and consistant- you don't change the rule after the game is played. We need a re-vote- or a caucus or whatever it take so that our votes will count - and so that we all know in advance that our votes will be counted. Either that or they need to forget the delegates in both states which punishes the voters for decisions made by our local party and frankly, sucks but if that's the deal, we need to stick by it.

I live in Florida.

I had no say in the decision.

I am being disenfranchised.

and I am PISSED!

Democratic nominee? Who cares. Not I. I shall cast my GE vote for whomever I choose - not who the party chooses. If the GOP wins Florida - I will not feel guilty.

and guess what - I am not alone in this thinking.

Only 2 state senators voted against moving the date, so the odds are that your representative in the legislature voted to move the date.

I suggest you work for their opponent in the next election.

they certainly do not care a bit for the voters . . .

the states of Florida and Michigan were warned what would happen. Those are the people you should be directing your anger at. Not Dean.
Rules are rules, you dont change the rules in the middle of the game.

Clinton finds herself behind in delegates, now wants to poach delegates from illegal primaries.

All the candidates agreed and signed the rules. Those who are to blame for this mess are the parties within these states, not Dean.

the $25 million, from his donations, to pay for the re-vote. 1. The good will for him would be overwhelming. 2. HRC would have to offer to pay half.

BUT, what happens when other states do this? the people who made this decision should pay for it.

The Obama people are evasive.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/8/13403/55574

they should pay all of it. Why should Obama pay to help the Clinton camp? The Clinton's wanted these early primaries, it backfired, now they want a second chance. It's ridiculous, but it would be truly unfair to demand Obama pay for Cllinton's mistakes.

Normally, voters in the late state don't have a voice, but no one complained about those disenfranchised voters. Republicans now have no voice in the late states. It is the Party rules, the primaries should be moved to the same day to avoid all this unfairness.

:D

to fund an election that is largely already decided, and is a situation that Hillary agreed to in the first place?

pay for those state's feck-ups? The state Representatives fecked up. They should be the ones to pay for it.

......and equality of treatment rights guaranteed and secured by the US Constitution.

The process that nominates the top constitutional executive officers of the United States must be protected and secured by that Constitution.

That so called Democrats on these boards and elsewhere cannot see or understand that, is even more dangerous than what the Democratic National Committee did to those two states.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Parties control how their nominees will be selected. What you're saying about violation of Constitutional rights is plain untrue, as much as you may wish it to be otherwise.

My State could have it's Primary election whenever it wanted?

Interesting...

I say we ALL vote in January.

...must be guaranteed equal participation in all processes leading up to the election of the executive officers of the United States.

You seriously defend your positions by insisting that the USSC should have deciding power on how we, the people, participate in our self-governance?

That political parties can make any rules they want to keep millions of citizens from that participation?

I think you'll have a problem finding them.

The parties could say "Joe Sixpack is our nominee" and that would be legal.

Remember, the state parties in FL and MI violated rules that would have given their voters a say. Do a search and read all the threads. I don't have time to go into it all again.

...all citizens will be treated equally.

If Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina could primary early then any other state can also. Equal rights for all the citizens of every state.

"Joe-sixpack"? According to you, the Democratic National Committee could make a rule that only red-headed, freckled males could run for president and that would be all right because the USSC says that the political parties can make any rules they want ? Wrong!

The nominating process is the first step in electing a President and Vice-President of the United States. That MUST be protected and secured by the US Constitution in EVERY step of that process.

I cannot believe I am seeing or hearing that 4 million citizens can be denied their particpation in their self-governance on a Democratic forum board.

Third parties don't hold primaries or caucuses, they simply select their nominee and put him/her on the ballot. Are they disenfranchising voters because those voters didn't have a say in picking the candidate? And what about states that hold closed primaries? They wouldn't be allowed to "discriminate" against a voter because they have a different party affiliation or no party affiliation - the election would have to be open to everyone.

The fact is, primaries are nothing more than a party function. They allow the public to have their say, but ultimately, the party can ignore the primary votes and run the candidate of their choice. It sucks, but that's the way it is. That's why they created super-delegates. That's why they can have a brokered convention and choose Obama, Clinton ... or a third person, such as Gore (not likely, but it's nice to dream about).

There is no constitutional right to choose a political party's candidate.

and the primaries aren't governmental functions, so the Constitution only comes into play if the inequalities are directed against a protected class.

... A Texas Democratic Party requirement years ago for a huge filing fee to get a name on the ballot was ruled unconstitutional clearly intended to keep the "wrong people" off the ballot.

The primaries are the first step in electing a President and Vice-President, therefore they are "governmental functions".

The voting public is the largest "protected class" in the country. Check out the US Constitutional amendments regarding the right to vote.

Here is the first time the "right to vote" is mentioned in the US Constitution. Very rarely used but it is there:

i mentioned it as an exception.

Voting for everyone is a cornerstone of the party.

And everyone posting here is suppose to support and uphold Democratic ideals.

To have a rule that took away that right is absolutely wrong! That is why I place part of the blame with Howard Dean. This should have been corrected before it got this far.

by not holding their primaries within the rules. It isn't the DNC's fault when FL and MI refuse to vote within the rules.

kind of rule that would disenfranchise the voters.

That is unconscionable.

Voting equality is a fundamental that should never be put at risk.

but they KNEW what the outcome would be. it's like if you tell your kids "if you come home past your curfew, you'll be grounded"....then you let them come home late and do nothing.

What's the point of rules? I understand the people of Michigan and Florida are upset, I would be too. But, they should be upset at their elected officials, ultimately it is their fault. Lesson learned, no one else will try this stunt in 2012. If they let them get away with it--I say Ohio should be in January too! Or how about a National Primary Week?

I am livid- Nelson, Wasserman Schultz, Karen Thurman- all of them- they did this to us on purpose and it is unforgivable. My own party stole my vote. Not the national party- please remember that=- it's the local chapter of "Hillary must win so screw you all" that caused this mess.

WHAT were they thinking???

So the general consensus in your area is that it is the fault of your local party? I've heard different things here in Ohio.
Is there anything you guys can do (to them?) How can they lose their jobs?

THIS is a big shame on our voting process.

that HRC was going to have the primary sewn up on super Tuesday and that if FL and MI did not get their primary in before then that they would not matter.
They were actually thinking that their delegates would not matter because when they made this change last summer HRC was gonna walk away with the nomination.

Remember?

but what a way to screw up an election.

so, if they are allowed to revote--or even go with the vote they have, their votes will matter even MORE?
Yeah, I see a lot of states trying this in 2012....C'mon Ohio!

That statement right there gives you away. Who would believe it was the local officials when you make a statement like that. If you want to convince people it was the local officials you would be best doing it without that statement. Otherwise no one will take you serious.

You forget that many of us are politically active and know Hillary supporters IRL.

Are you open to the idea of a re-vote? The possibility of doing it by mail has been mentioned, so that would certainly cut the cost.

The argument against a re-vote seems to be "it would be unfair to those who voted," but I don't understand how it would be unfair because anyone who voted in the first primary could still cast their vote in the second primary. Those who stayed home because they were told their vote wouldn't count would also have a say in choosing the nominee. The state party leaders may not like it, but it's a win-win situation for the citizens of Florida ... and that's the most important issue.

when was the last time Ohio had a voice in determining the nominee? Ohio has been routinely deprived it's right, that's not fair!!!!

what's the big deal with Iowa anyhow?

Oh yeh, that's right, HRC doesn't like them because she LOSES in CAUCUSES.

I think there should be caucuses in BOTH states, so that they had a punishment (their votes were annuled) but they can still have a voice in who represents them at the convention.

How do you recount voters who raised their hand, or both hands, at the caucus, and the number of hands raised were the "ballots"?

There are other reasons why caucuses are bad. Some, perhaps many voters cannot physically attend those caucuses in the middle of winter whereas in ballot primaries they can mail in the printed ballot.

we need redo in all the caucus states too.

You sign in, and on the sign-in sheet you have to list who you are there supporting, or "undecided/undeclared" if you are neutral.

Your comment shows you don't know how caucuses work, and you are against them because you know Hilly will lose in FLA and MICH if they have caucuses - just like she has done in other states with caucuses.

Ironic you say caucuses don't have good balloting and records, but you support voting on electronic machines that didn't list Obama as a candidate and that didn't have a paper trail, and can be easily hacked.

If someone has Power of Attorney for an individual, they can act as a voting proxy at a caucus for those who can't attend, so your attempt to give an example is as lame as it is ignorant.

Try again... and try not to let your bias for Clinton show next time. (if you can even come up with anything) also, Google is your friend... you might wanna do what others do on the internet and read up on a subject before you speak on it. To not do so makes you look, well... you know.

The only "machines" I would support would be optical scanners that have printed ballots as the basis for their scans. so that recounts can be manually accomplished.

Caucuses are undemocratic because all voters cannot physically attend nor can there be a recount of hands raised as the "vote" for a candidate. There are no recounts possible.

Elections for President and Vice-President and for Congress must be the same in all 50 states and territories. The entire world is laughing at our failed democratic election process that remains in the grip of wealthy and powerful interests.

I watched several live caucuses on TV these past months. If my state had caucuses I would be fighting to remove them as undemocratic and voting rights violative.

Because Obama stupidly removed his name from the Michigan ballot. In Florida his name was on the ballot and Hillary trounced him.

Try again, and don't use your Obama bias to put words in my mouth. I repeat - quote my words where I support paperless voting.

Not on TV - IN REAL LIFE?

No.

STFU.

their vote will reflect a state that did not think they were going to be counted. Thus many did not even bother to vote so we still do not know who these states favor.

states where Republican turnout was higher than Democratic.

Obama wasn't on the ballot in Mi.

Anything other than Hilly winning will piss them off.

I don't see their jets being cooled, even if the message board reaches -273K.