Florida, Michigan may vote again

Florida, Michigan may vote again

www.news.com.au

The Democratic primaries in Florida and Michigan were held early this year despite warnings from party bosses that they would be punished for doing so. The votes were declared meaningless and were not to count towards any candidate's overall tally.

But with the party's nomination race locked in a war of attrition between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, those states' delegates could be crucial in selecting a winner.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Neither candidate is likely to reach the total of 2025 needed for the party's nomination, but the extra 350-odd on offer if Florida and Michigan were counted would help paint a clearer picture of overall support levels.

Well this is certainly interesting. Those 350 are certainly important and fighting over... AGAIN!

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

oh farout, I just read this in the Australian.

Florida, Michigan broke rules with early vote so may require a second poll...

How corrupt.

reply to post by Thurisaz

Originally posted by Thurisaz
oh farout, I just read this in the Australian.

Florida, Michigan broke rules with early vote so may require a second poll...

How corrupt.

I would modify your post to read


Florida, Michigan broke rules with early vote so may require a second poll as penalty, their delegates will not be counted, no matter how Hillary Clinton tries to cheat them into her column...

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Thurisaz

 

Originally posted by Thurisaz
oh farout, I just read this in the Australian.

Florida, Michigan broke rules with early vote so may require a second poll...

How corrupt.

I would modify your post to read


Florida, Michigan broke rules with early vote so may require a second poll as penalty, their delegates will not be counted, no matter how Hillary Clinton tries to cheat them into her column...

How is it just Hillary cheating them? Wouldn't the early vote have to have been accepted by both delegates (Hillary AND Obama)?

The candidates agreed that they would support the DNC's decision to punish Fla. and MI.


www.salon.com...

But then, after she got her butt handed to her in SC, Clinton all of a sudden found religion for Florida:



She only wants to follow the rules when they are in her favor.

Originally posted by jsobecky
She only wants to follow the rules when they are in her favor.

Well, it appears that way.

I just can't understand how a poll could be brought forward, the results handed in and then discover the poll is illegal because it was brought forward.

How incredibly convenient!

Either the votes cast the first time count, or they don't count at all.

If they count, then Obama is out of luck. If they don't count, that's a violation of a lot of peoples constitutional rights. By democrats, no less...personally, I'd be asking by what right does the DNC disenfranchize a group of people? Most of whom, if not all, are not currently in prison, or convicted felons...by what right does the DNC do this? None that I can think of...

I can't help but wonder though, if Ms. Clinton would be making such a fuss, if the votes had not gone her way? I doubt it...

Originally posted by seagull
Either the votes cast the first time count, or they don't count at all.

If they count, then Obama is out of luck. If they don't count, that's a violation of a lot of peoples constitutional rights. By democrats, no less...personally, I'd be asking by what right does the DNC disenfranchize a group of people? Most of whom, if not all, are not currently in prison, or convicted felons...by what right does the DNC do this? None that I can think of...

I can't help but wonder though, if Ms. Clinton would be making such a fuss, if the votes had not gone her way? I doubt it...

I don't know what legal footing the DNC has. But Fla. and MI. were warned beforehand that they would be sanctioned if they jumped in front of the line.

I agree that the real losers here are the voters. And as far as Hillary, she cheated by not removing her name from Michigan's ballots, as did Obama and Edwards.

The only possible solution, though imperfect, is a re-vote.

reply to post by jsobecky


Does the DNC even have the right to sanction a state? I don't know, I doubt it, personally.

Maybe someone who knows more about this can chime in? Obama and Edwards made a tactical mistake in thinking Clinton would agree to play by the same rules as everyone else.

I'm somewhat betwixt and between on allowing a revote.

reply to post by jsobecky


Yes, I 100% agree with you.

There NEEDS to be a revote. It's not fair that millions of people's voices are not heard, or that Hillary cheated and went against her PLEDGE.

A revote is, by far, the best solution.

Having given it a little thought, I'll have to agree it's the only equitable solution, rough though it is. Otherwise, Hillary gets rewarded for her cheating.

[edit on 9-3-2008 by seagull]

I cannot agree with some of you on this and say there should be a re vote.

All of the Democratic candidates knew that the delegates from those states would not be given out months ago, and none of them had a problem with it, especially Hillary Clinton. She said repeatedly that she would stand by the DNC's decision to not count the delegates. Now that she is getting beat however she wants to go back on her word and change the rules. It really goes to show what kind of a person she is.

The rules are the rules on this I'm afraid. Every party involved knew what the penalty for moving the primary up would be, and they went ahead anyway. Just because this is a tight race does not mean that the rules that were agreed upon should be changed.

It might suck for those citizens who want and deserve to have their voices heard for sure. But I suppose they can thank the DNC and their party for that can't they?

Oh, I totally agree with you, NYK. But the fact is, they wil compromise, and now it looks like a mail-in vote is the way they are leaning.

What good are rules if they can be broken without consequence?

Exactly.

And this should be a little lesson for all those undecided voters out there. This is how the Democrats operate these days. They will promise to do one thing when it looks like it benefits them, but if things turn sour, they are the first ones to back out on their word.

Is that really what you want in a President?

Makes you wonder if this was the plan when they originally not only did this but were permitted to do it. This way they have a fall back plan later on.

The only thing this proves is how certain Clinton was several months ago that she would walk into this nomination uncontested.

Back then, she was willing to throw away all those delegates and the voice of those people just because she "wouldn't need them". Now however, she is willing to go back on her promise to not count them.

If she would go back on her word on something like this, what's to say she wouldn't go back on everything she is promising to the American people.

Either way, I hope she crashes and burns like she deserves to. Being rid of the Clinton's will be one less thing this country has to worry about.