Can the Democratic Party allow Florida voters to be disenfranchised yet again? Is it fair for a state like Michigan, so terribly wounded by Bush economic policies, to not have a seat at the table? These are questions Howard Dean and the DNC need to answer.Can anyone really blame states for wanting to move their primaries ahead? Heck, I'm firmly convinced that if the American People had their way, we would have held the general election LAST November. Everyone is so fed up with Bush Co. we just want it to be over NOW.
With the Democratic contest so evenly divided, who will ultimately decide?
It's looking more and more like the superdelegates will play a super role in the selection of the Democratic Party nominee. But at least one superdelegate is troubled by this.
Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's 2000 campaign and is herself a superdelegate, threatened to quit her leadership post in the party if the nomination were to be decided by insiders rather than the broader group of Democratic voters who have turned out in huge numbers.Florida and Michigan together account for 366 pledged delegates and superdelegates. With the delegate count so close, this has become a huge point of contention between the Clinton and Obama camps. Before the "Super Duper" Tuesday vote, Senator Clinton supported letting the delegates be seated at the convention.
Brazile, while pleased that the competitive race has invigorated the party, said Friday she was "deeply worried about our ability to ensure that this is a very smooth process."
There is talk of now holding caucuses in the state, but I think this would be a HUGE mistake, and so does Senator Bill Nelson who said:
"You can't undo an election with a caucus where you would be switching 1.7 million private ballots with maybe as many as 50,000 attending a caucus," said Nelson, who has endorsed Clinton. "That just is not going to work, especially in a state that is so sensitive about having the right to vote and having it count as intended."So how do YOU think this dilemma of riches should be resolved? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Another senior Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, issued a similar statement Friday, noting that 600,000 Democrats voted in that state's primary and that it "would not be practical or fair to throw out the results of that
election."
8 comments:
Party sanctioned primaries or caucases for the two states.
Both Clinton and Obama have previously agreed to respect the DNCs sanctions towards those two states.
With the delegate count close I think it would only be fair that they do produce a party-sanctioned way to hold a primary vote before they let SDs decide the thing.
I do not want the superdelegates to decide the nomination so whatever we need to do to keep this from happening is fine with me. But it does seem that the DNC is not going to allow the delegates from Florida or Michigan to be seated so maybe we need to have a caucus.
I truly do not know the solution.
Caucus leave people out. That would be a terrible solution. The people in these two states have spoken. There must be a way to divide the delegates based on the existing votes.
Neither Clinton or Obama campaigned in either state, so neither had an "advantage".
BAC
Changing the rules after the fact might be bad. Disenfranchising two states which, combined, have more than 10% of the national population would be far worse. The choice seems clear.
I don't believe caucuses leave people out; my mother-in-law hasn't been socially involved for years until she went to the Washington state caucuses yesterday, and volunteered to be a precinct delegate. Fewer people choose to participate because the feel the caucuses will be too confusing, and they do require more involvement than going into a booth and pushing a button.
However, having said all that, I believe that Florida and Michigan, if they want to, should be allowed to re-vote after both candidates have had a chance to truly campaign in the state. I don't believe it would be fair to go with the votes as they stand, because one candidate did much more to "campaign" there than the other did because of party rules.
Give them both a fair chance to prove their point to the voters and then lets see what happens.
John, of course caucuses leave people out. If you can't be at the caucus locate at the designated time you can't participate. A significant amount of Clinton's support comes from working-class people who cannot necessarily take the time off from work to take part in a caucus.
Primaries give people a longer amount of time to participate. Voters can go on their way to work, during their lunch hour, or on the way home from work. It's a much more fair process.
Why should Mich and Fla have to "re-vote" -- and all that will cost -- when they have already expressed their will?
And you are correct that Obama ran national television ads that went into Florida before the vote, but he should not pay a penalty for that. They didn't seem to have much impact on voters.
BAC
After all the complaining about earned media you have been doing, are you honestly saying paid media is more important?
That aside, these states broke the party rules knowing the consequences; if the party rules really mean so little, why should any state follow them? Paying to run a re-vote is a fair cost, imo.
I believe both candidates need to be given a fair chance to make their cases to the people of these states before we accept their votes. If you don't believe Clinton can make her case as well as Obama can, then there are bigger issues than whether or not FL's and MI's delegates can put in their votes.
John - you seem to have missed the point yet again. Obama paid for national ads that played in Florida, yet he still lost by a substantial margin. Clinton didn't advertise or campaign in the state. Clearly the voters in Fla preferred Sen. Clinton.
Hasn't Florida been disenfranchised enough? Do Democrats want to upset voters in a state critical to the November election? I would hope not.
Clinton clearly made her case in the same way Obama did, and voters in Fla and MI chose Clinton. People in those states more than likely watched the same national debates everyone else watched. Obama supplanted the debates with paid advertising that reached the state, and STILL couldn't beat Clinton in Fla.
It's clear Obama is not ready for prime time.
BAC
Post a Comment