Regardless of who you support, should FL and MI get redos on primary?

Why or why not?

Just for the sake of being fair and for the nominee to be seen as legitimate.

Also to help in the GE but that is secondary at best.

Florida could either be redone or have their delegates halved. Personally I think the latter makes sense.

I am an Obama supporter but I don't like the fact that they seem reluctant to accept any solution on this. Clinton's press people were right to call him on that this morning. He has raised some very legitimate questions about logistics, but I get the sense that his campaign team wants to just sit on a lead and run out the clock and that's not right. He needs to agree to some solution.

One of the weird things about votes from a 6 month stretch (of decreasing # of candidates) being treated as though it's all the same election.

and make the candidates split the cost.

by paying for the re-dos.

The STATES should decide if that means doing a primary election or a caucus. That's the state's business
to decide, not the candidates'.

Rerunning the entire primary will be way too expensive.

The mail in vote idea is impractical (how do you check to make sure that it doesn't include people that already voted for the Repubican nominee?)

And Hillary needs the popular vote in Florida to be included to bolster her 'popular vote' claim.


my guess:
Florida delegates will probably be given 1/2 - same as Republicans. Either a caucus or a negotiated settlement to Michigan.

Citizens shouldn't pay twice for the arrogance of local politicians.

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




Those local politicians were acting as representatives of the people when they made the change. If the people did not want them to do it they should have stopped them, but they didn't.

No seating of the delegates and no do overs in MI or FL.

I was always with Gov. Dean and his decisions, but I am only one voice.

And I, a Michigander, am pissed that most of the state party leadership silenced us.

Winning against non-committed by only 10% is kinda embarrassing.

Can you explain how/why Michigan moved their date up? How did that come to happen? And was you state given a choice to move the date back or accept the consequences of not being counted?

I'm just curious... I've heard a lot about how it happened in FL but nothing on how it happened in MI.

Thanks!

but I think most of them figured the delegates would end up being seated.

Why did they move the primary up? Well, supposedly it was to boost our influence in the nominating process. :eyes:

on their own dime.

I'd like to think that this debacle is the first of what could be many steps to enforcing some tiny sense of discipline in the party....

they are the ones who royally screwed up
by breaking the rules in the first place

Yes it sucks, but the money that would be used for a revote, especially in Michigan, could be put to far better use.

In other words- Senator Clinton needs to stop saying that "she won FL and MI" because neither is true and we either need to have a re-vote of some type- and provided they do everything necessary to assure a verifiable and secure election process- then I'm all for a re-do. The problem is the funding (I suggest the campaigns split the cost 50/50) and the fact that we are running out of time. A mail in vote in FL sounded like a great idea- it works great in Oregon but they've been doing it this way for years and have a system already in place whereas in FL this is not the case. Between matching signatures, tracing down folks who have moved or relocated, transient residents who may vote in FL but live elsewhere, security of the ballots, the mail service, etc. - it's just not clear frankly, that we'll be able to make it happen. MI is another story - I'm sure they have similar challenges.

Plus, in FL, we are in the middle of changing over to new electronic machines (opti=scan) which was part of the legislation that moved the primary to January. So, a complete re-vote would probably not be realistic since we don't have the new machines in place yet and the old machines in many districts, may not be available any longer.

Therefore, a 50/50 split in delegates - at least in FL- may be the only answer. Not a great one to be sure since it disenfranchises millions of voters but it may be our only option.

But no matter what happens- if they count the delegates "as is" and simply award them to Hillary, the anger and outrage will be overwhelming. I have to assume the DNC would not want to take that risk.

MI yes, because Obama wasn't on the ballot there, as requested by the DNC.

FL no, because both were on the ballot there. FL should be counted as voted or 50/50.

I'm not so sure about the circumstances leading MI to move up their primary date, but in FL, the state Dem party was pretty much manipulated/forced into it by the FL Republican Party, who are the majority and who tied the Jan date to legislation requiring a paper trail to all ballots (something every Dem should support). Basically, I feel the DNC was wrong in attempting to "punish" FL because they were forced into a compromise vote. It seems to me that the DNC was trying to protect Iowa & NH, and ended up screwing the FL voters.

Why?

Being a new member of the RV snowbird crowd, I missed the Primary in Michigan. My wife and I decided against the absentee ballot because (1)we were going to cancel each others vote and(2)the DNP wasn't going to allow it. However, if we get another shot at it in May-June, I believe HRC will get 2 votes. My wife and I have a moratorium on discussing our candidate specifics, but my sense is that recent events have her questioning the elect-ability of BO.

So yes, I'm all 4 it.

They knew the rules and penalties when they decided to break them. Why should they get a do-over?
A do-over would not be a do-over because the dynamics of the whole race has changed. There are only two candidates left now. In the original there were more, so you can't call it a do-over at all.
Forget about it and move on. Anything different than moving on would be wrong.

I say redo Michigan and dock Florida 50%, which is what Florida Dems seem to be offering that.

1) Once the MI and FL plans are in place, the current pop. vote and delegate counts from those states go poof, leaving an even bigger hole from which Hillary must climb out of. Hillary at that point has no claim on anything from MI or FL, they are moot (until June).

2) Obama is bound to do better in MI (where he wasn't even on the ballot!) and in FL (where in Jan. there were more than two candidates on the ballot).

So, yes, bring it on!

:dem:

Why should either one get any sort of 're-vote'?

Florida, in particular, voted unanimously to keep with the Repug schedule. NO Democrats voted against it. Why should the rules be changed when ALL Democrats voted for an early primary?