Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Regarding Michigan and Florida

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Kixel Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 04:39 AM
Original message
Regarding Michigan and Florida
As a member of the State Central Committee (SCC), I voted to move the date up in Minnesota. We, however, followed DNC regulations. The Republicans followed a similar process prior to the legislation to move the date forward.

I have been elected to a local leadership position twice by my local party. As a result, I am a member of the SCC. In addition to local leaders being on the SCC, delegates are elected at our Convention every two years. There are a few other ways to become a delegate, but the bulk of the members are elected locally. Though I don’t know for sure, I would assume that this process is quite similar in Michigan and in Florida.

Our SCC is a representative Democracy. If someone has an opinion about how I vote, I would think that it would be best that they talk to me. If they don’t like my views, they can run against me in the next election and bust ass for candidates up and down the ticket. I find it unfathomable that the members of the governing bodies of Michigan and Florida’s Democratic Party would be so selfish as to vote to disenfranchise all voters in their states.

Bottom line, the party leadership in each state made the choice. That choice was ratified by elected officials. They must now pay the price. Anyone who blames the DNC obviously has little knowledge on how the process actually works. Saying that it is undemocratic is saying that our nation’s representative democracy is undemocratic as well. You get a vote when you vote for those who represent you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you!
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 04:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. They must now pay the price.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. a issue of states rights vs DNC offhandedness
Michigan voters are sick of New Hampshire limiting our choices. Michigan has been dragged into the conflict by the Obama/ Hillary conflict. Up to that point, no Michigan ian was 'begging,' to please don't punish us. / Yes, in Michigan delegates are known as precinct delegates and attend the county convention and the basis of the Democratic party organization. / At the behest of the UAW don't be so sure , back in November of last year; that resentment of New Hampshire's primacy did not reflect the common will of grass roots Michigan Democrats. / Want to Punish us, then again punish us come next November. Its just 17 electoral votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kixel Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Actions have consequences
A lot of states would like to be one of the first. To change the current system would take an action by the DNC, not by states arbitrarily changing their dates.

Each state sends national delegates to the DNC as well-perhaps that would be a better way to implement chane? Is the system less than perfect? Of course. But going around the rules that exist to prevent possible chaos is not the way to do it. This is a horrible situation, but it is one that was brought on by the states themselves not by the DNC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. The irony of liberal Democrats using the "states' rights" argument is really something, when for
decades it was the subterfuge that Southern racists used to oppose racial integration being forced on them by the federal government.

If someone belongs to a voluntary organization, e.g. the Democratic party, and they don't like certain of its rules (like the order states vote in, primary vs. caucus processes, race/gender goals for delegations, etc.), they have options. They can work within the organization to change the rules they don't like or they can drop out and possibly form a new group with "better" rules.

Most of us join a group like a political party, because we think we can accomplish more together with others than we can individually. To succeed at this, however, the members of a group have to work together to achieve a shared goal rather than each going off in different directions which they perceive will benefit them individually.

Michigan and Florida (and many other states) are not happy with the way our primary schedule is set up. How do we fix this? By each state exercising its "right" to leapfrog the other states until the campaign starts even more absurdly early than it does now? Or do the members of our organization work to improve its rules for the future (since you can't improve them for the past), so that we more effectively achieve our common goals?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hola Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. It's not NH or Iowa
"Michigan voters are sick of New Hampshire limiting our choices."

That's not how it works out is it? It Mich had stuck to it's original election date it would have been far more pivotal in selecting the nominee this time around. Sometimes that's the way it goes.

Btw, when the DNC voted on IA, NH, SC and NV to go early, the MI delegation voted for that, and didn't lodge an objection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. It's not complicated. Your state officials screwed your state. Blame them.
Edited on Thu May-29-08 05:59 AM by TexasObserver
This issue is whether your state gets delegates to the national convention, how many you get, and who those delegates are pledged to support. Because your state and Florida, two of the 50 states, decided to violate DNC rules, your entire process is invalid.

You will get whatever the remaining 48 states' delegates, who did follow the rules, decide you will get. Michigan violated the rules, now it must be punished.

As for November, if Michigan, with its rampant unemployment, doesn't vote Democratic in the fall, it deserves to remain the bottom of the barrel for the economy of America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Since NH elimated our favorite choices
Edited on Thu May-29-08 06:19 AM by cyclezealot
I don't care if Michigan goes at all. Not as if we had a choice. Our primary vote's importance was eliminated by Iowa, New Hampshire. / Want to blame someone . Go after the UAW. They have been a central focus for the resentment of New Hampshire and others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I agree that Iowa and New Hampshire should be pushed out of going first.
But we do it by moving the DNC, not by states deciding they'll blow off the rules they've already agreed to follow.

I would love to see Michigan go before New Hampshire. I don't want to see Florida go early, because it is not Democratic state and stinks of the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Its not really about any state going first.
Edited on Thu May-29-08 06:51 AM by cyclezealot
Michigan Democratic action vs NH was not necessarily Michigan first. But, resentment of NH demanding the right to always go first. / Actually, if Mich went first, other states should feel peeved. / Its really about the elimination process. What candidate gets eliminated by whom. All states need an equal right at the elimination process. And that process need have all elements of the party an equal voice. that is not the case now.
Get a load of the Detroit Free Press' Democratic map of the United States. Reaction from today's Detroit newspapers. Pretty odd looking country. ? No Great Lakes or Gulf coast shoreline to delineate the outline of the USA.


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080529/OPINION04/805290340
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Never happen unless we have actions
Edited on Thu May-29-08 06:55 AM by cyclezealot
similiar to what MI or Fl did last Winter. Actually, I am afraid the UAW / MI/FL bold leadership will slither away because, we broke the rule mantra - whips one into line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
8. thank you. It's the state parties' fault for fucking with the primary calendar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC