Comments on: What Do You Think Of The Notion That Florida Votes Dont Count In Us Primary, Thats Not What They Meant In 1776

By: Dentata

Dentata — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:19:58 +0000

The political parties are given wide latitude in determining how their candidates are selected. That’s why we end up with the confusing set of caucuses, and indirect elections to determine delegates. The superdelegates are also not very democratic.
I understand your objection, but the rules were set by the party, and are being enforced by the party. I think you are going to find, however, that they will end up being seated, and that it won’t matter, as Hillary will be effectively out of the race in the next few days.

By: Samwise

Samwise — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:19:40 +0000

There wasn’t a Presidential primary in 1776. There was, in fact, no election held in the colonies to select any public official whose constituency was any larger than a single colony.
The purpose of the primary is to determine delegates to a Party convention. That’s a party matter, not a government one. The parties are entitled to set their requirements.
To avoid problems with different rules for different parties, both the Democrats and the Republicans agreed that, with four exceptions for states with early-contest traditions, the rules would require that no selections be made before Feb. 5. Both parties’ national governing committees enacted that rule. Michigan and Florida have representatives on those committees, and they voted for the rule.
There is no comparison between primary voting and general elections. Many states don’t hold primaries; some hold them on different dates for different parties. But the need for some limits is clear; otherwise, my home town could have declared that its Presidential preference poll (held March, 2007) would control delegate allocations.
And that’s the point. It was obviously too early to produce sensible results then. The parties have a clear interest in making sure that there is enough campaign time to give the voters a clear choice, and that that campaigning be national in scope. A limit to the span of time during which delegates are selected is both appropriate and entirely legitimate.
The violation of voter rights, such as it is, was committed by the states of Michigan and Florida. They knew what they were doing.
The notion that delegate selection to a party convention, to select a party nominee, is anything but a party matter is either silly or totalitarian. Either way, there’s no excuse for proposing such a thing, from a logical standpoint.
Let’s put it another way: suppose that some state passed a rule saying that only pineapples, eskimos, or some other group (say, white people) could vote in their primary. Would you expect a party to knuckle under and seat their delegation?

By: elmjunbu

elmjunbu — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:19:31 +0000

Years ago Red Skelton has a skit in which he played the part of a little nasty kid . He would get ready to do something he knew was wrong , and would say , ” If I dood it I get a licking – - – I dood it ” .
That’s what happened with Florida and Michigan . They were told that if they moved their election ahead , the votes wouldn’t be counted . They did it anyway , then bellyached that their votes aren’t being counted .
The National Democrat Party is a club , and has rules that must be followed . If you know the rule , but decide to go against it . Pay the price .

By: crosssti

crosssti — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:19:20 +0000

Things worked a little differently in 1776–then, only the national party bosses picked the nominee in the first place. If Florida and Michigan had followed the rules, we wouldn’t be in this mess to start with. They were warned what would happen, and they went ahead and violated them anyway. And now, even though they were warned, they’re crying foul.
The National Democratic Party is trying to resolve the issue as best they can, but there are only so many options. Since Clinton and Obama both agreed not to campaign there, and Clinton broke the agreement and left her name on the ballot in Michigan, it wouldn’t be fair to just give her all the delegates, would it? And “other candidate” could be considered Obama, so if they apportioned delegates as they usually do, even if she won both Florida and Michigan by a fairly large margin, she wouldn’t have enough delegates to beat Obama.

By: spongewo

spongewo — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:19:09 +0000

Yeah, well if you knew anything about history you would know that a) the founding fathers put nothing in the Constitution about political parties and b) the founding fathers warned us about the dangers of forming political parties and letting them run the government. See if you can find the word “superdelegate” anywhere in the Constitution. Can’t do it, can you?
Further, if you knew anything, you would know that the parties run the primaries and the parties can make the rules as they see fit.
So if Florida and Michigan hadn’t broken the party’s rules, the votes of their primaries would have counted. But they didn’t, they broke the rules and now they’re being punished.
Get a grip and get over it.

By: CLIVE H

CLIVE H — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:18:54 +0000

It’s just a political game being played out by Hills and her team. They probably estimated that they were not going to gain in Florida, so just gave it the shove.
Back to the last Presidential election in USA – you may recall that thousands of votes were declared null & void by a Conservative woman in the State of Florida. These apparently were the votes cast by Senior Citizens who had made the grievious error of voting Democrat.
Could be wrong, but could be right in thinking that the Democrats have simply written Florida off as unwinnable – no matter what.
I do understand however that not allowing the folk of Florida to cast their vote for party candidate for the presidency is very undemocratic.
My view is that if only three people turn up on the village green, they should be allowed to cast their votes no matter what.
I think it’s going to cost Hills a lot.

By: areallth

areallth — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:18:43 +0000

All of the Democrats votes should not count.

By: Dr Hook!

Dr Hook! — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:18:30 +0000

Well, ask the broken party why they excluded them. They did it to themselves with their own rules……straight out comedy!

By: Huggy

Huggy — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:18:18 +0000

The Democrats shot themselves in the foot, AGAIN.

By: nickynin

nickynin — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:18:05 +0000

Party rules – Florida knew their votes wouldn’t count when they pushed up the voting date – they shouldn’t have done that if they wanted a voice.