Trailhead

Re: Michigan and Florida

hettie — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:53:55 GMT

I apologize, I thought I clicked a button that would allow me to post directly below the comment I was replying to. I was speaking to Lbutterfly and her comments about edwards and obama not being on the ticket in florida and michigan. my apologies for the confusion.

Re: Michigan and Florida

mercadia — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:52:26 GMT

Hettie: are you talking to me? Who you talking to?

Re: Michigan and Florida

hettie — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:50:03 GMT

they made the same promise hillary clinton made to skip participation in those states that were bucking the dnc. however, she's the one claiming she should now be rewarded for participating despite her promise. in an earlier thread you said you were worried about obama's ability to keep a promise about campaign funding and you said "It worries me when people say one thing and do another." perhaps you should be concerned about clinton doing just that in this situation.

Re: Michigan and Florida

mercadia — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:28:39 GMT

monap:
Hey why didn't the people of Florida and Michigan just vote PRESENT - that seems to work everytime!Mona

Which candidate was that meant to insult? Clinton on the Bankruptcy bill that she missed while her husband was in the hospital, or the Kyle-Lieberman Bill that Obama missed because he was campaigning in New Hampshire?

Both candidates have missed very important votes.

Re: Michigan and Florida

monap — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:10:35 GMT

Hey why didn't the people of Florida and Michigan just vote PRESENT - that seems to work everytime!

Mona

Re: Michigan and Florida

SalientMan — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:46:20 GMT

I suppose the DNC could agree to seat half...thus robbing the Republicans of the opportunity to say "We care and they don't!" I haven't checked to see what that does to the totals...anyone?

Lbutterfly, yes: because the candidates not on the ballot did not file paperwork to register as write-in possibilities, "uncommitted" was the only option to cast a vote for any of them.

Re: Michigan and Florida

mercadia — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:39:41 GMT

I think 10% of the delegates would be a fair solution, I still don't know why the DNC reacted so harshly to these states, where the Republicans seem much more pragmatic.

And how will the Republicans work this issue in the general election to their advantage, I can picture it now:

"The Democrats don't care about what you have to say, but we do!"

Re: Michigan and Florida

Sylva — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:16:31 GMT

I can not see a happy solution for the FL and MI delegates.

But I really don't like changing the rules in the middle of the game. I know that seating the delegates in accordance with the national numbers is meaningless, but that was the reason behind my proposal. Based on the rules that were in place before the voting started, these delegates should not be seated, so if DNC conceeds and seats them, than at least the outcome should be the same - i.e., seating them should not have any impact on the election. Anything else is changing the rules half into the game.

Re: Michigan and Florida

Lbutterfly — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:48:50 GMT

I honestly don't know what a good solution would be, but seating the delegates based on national percentages is meaningless.

Being from Michigan, I would like to add to the facts stated above:

Obama and Edwards removed their names from the Michigan ballot themselves.

There was a television campaign to get people to vote uncommitted in the primary. The ads seemed to say that the delegates would be seated from any uncommitted votes, but not from votes for individual candidates.

The MI DNC stated to the newspapers on several occasions that they believed their delegates would be seated in the end.

Re: Michigan and Florida

Sylva — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:16:09 GMT

I agree with your arguments as to why the delegates should not be seated according to the voting results. However, I don't think that these states should be allowed to vote twice either.

My suggestion is to seat the delegates in accordance with the percentage each candidate got on national level. Thus, both states would be represented, but would ultimately have no effect on the election results, which is what they bargained for when they moved their primaries.

Update: Further Searching Reveals...

SalientMan — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:59:26 GMT

While the bill passed the (120-seat) Florida legislature unopposed, it was a predominantly Republican bill. The three sponsors of the bill were Reps. Rivera and Hukill (both Republicans) and the Economic Expansion and Infrastructure Council (comprised of 14 Republicans and 5 Democrats). It therefore seems that my suggestion that the bill could have been killed in committee was erroneous: I doubt 5 Democrats could have overruled the 14 Republicans to prevent the bill from reaching the floor. I am also not sure if there were enough Democrats in the Florida House to launch a successful filibuster (if filibusters are allowed in Florida). There were 42 Democrats out of a 120-member House, so if a 2/3 majority were required to override a filibuster, they could have JUST squeaked one out. However, if only a simple majority or a 60% majority were required, they would have been unable to do so. Any Floridians out there who can speak on this point?

However, there were 24 co-sponsors of the bill: 17 Republicans and 7 Democrats! Only one of these 7 Democrats was a member of the EEIC. So it seems reasonable to suggest that the Florida Democrats (as a whole), were in favor of the bill: they co-sponsored it and voted for it. And now they're trying to deal with it.

Re: Michigan and Florida

SalientMan — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:30:15 GMT

Thanks, all, for your kind comments (so far...keep'em coming...and criticisms, too) regarding my post.

Mercadia, I have to disagree slightly. Yes, I'm sure Florida, at least, thought it wouldn't be stripped of ALL its delegates, but according to the Whip's brief on HB 537 (which is a pretty interesting document in light of what's happened since: read it here: <link>), they were well aware that the loss could be "up to 90%" of their delegates. The document even cites specific numbers: "This would reduce Florida's [Republican] delegation from 114 to 12," and STILL concludes it's worthwhile.

Which leads me to wonder...what if only 10% of the delegates from Florida were seated? Clearly it's what the legislature (both parties) voted in favor of...would they have any further recourse to complain?

Brownapril: I've been called worse than an idiot on this board. I'm actually surprised how positive the responses to this post have been. I completely concur with you that independents should be allowed to participate, even if they voted in the Republican primary...but that there may be legal issues preventing them from doing so. On the other hand, with the race still contested and the Republican race over, there would almost undoubtedly be suspicion that Republicans (who had voted in their primary) were voting for "the least-qualified candidate" (whoever that is) to sabotage the results. It's a quandary, I agree.

Re: Michigan and Florida

brownapril — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:07:51 GMT

How anyone could think you are an idiot, I don't know. This is one of my favorite posts so far!

My concern with a re-vote is with the open primaries. Voters are only allowed to have their vote counted in one primary. If some voters chose to vote in the Republican primary, their votes have already been counted. I don't think they can go back now and say that they would have voted in the Democratic primary if they thought they would be casting a meaningful vote, so now they want to vote again. Unless, of course, you want to ask the Republicans to set aside their results as well. I'm sure they won't mind.

Re: Michigan and Florida

pwoxby — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:13:41 GMT

If Barack Obama gets a majority of the delegates up for grabs on March 4, then the superdelegates should make it clear to Hillary Clinton that she'll just be hurting the party by staying in the race.

Re: Michigan and Florida

mercadia — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:05:48 GMT

Florida because it had no choice, Michigan because it is suffering serious problems right now. I think both states were under the impression that they would be treated like Republican states (stripped of half their deligates, not all). But of course, the Dems self-destruct by overplaying their hand.