Florida delegates fully seated with one-half votes each

[Ravi]

Wrong.

But I'm going to give you the opportunity to reconsider since I don't think you understood the point to begin with.

Perhaps I didn't. Want to give it another shot?

 

[manifold]

Perhaps I didn't. Want to give it another shot?

There are pledge delegates and there are super delegates. If the super delegates were given so many votes that they dictate the outcome, the pledge (primary driven) delegates would be effectively meaningless. i.e. the primary results would be meaningless. My understanding is that this would be perfectly legal.

 

[Steerpike]

There are pledge delegates and there are super delegates. If the super delegates were given so many votes that they dictate the outcome, the pledge (primary driven) delegates would be effectively meaningless. i.e. the primary results would be meaningless. My understanding is that this would be perfectly legal.

I imagine it would be. Parties are private entities. Do they have to even hold primaries to determine their nominees in the first place? No.

 

[Ravi]

There are pledge delegates and there are super delegates. If the super delegates were given so many votes that they dictate the outcome, the pledge (primary driven) delegates would be effectively meaningless. i.e. the primary results would be meaningless. My understanding is that this would be perfectly legal.

Yes it would be. In fact, they are within their rights to not have primaries at all and pick whomever they feel has the best chance of defeating the opposing party.

At least that's how I read it. I could be wrong.

BUT...they shouldn't be allowed to do what they've done, make different rules for different states. It may be legal, I don't know. But it isn't fair and it isn't democratic.

I'm not sure who they think they're punishing but in reality they are punishing voters.

 

[ReillyT]

Yes it would be. In fact, they are within their rights to not have primaries at all and pick whomever they feel has the best chance of defeating the opposing party.

At least that's how I read it. I could be wrong.

BUT...they shouldn't be allowed to do what they've done, make different rules for different states. It may be legal, I don't know. But it isn't fair and it isn't democratic.

I'm not sure who they think they're punishing but in reality they are punishing voters.

Stripping the states of delegates punishes the voters. Giving only half delegates to the states punishes the voters. Imputing support to the candidate who took his name off the ballot (as the contests weren't to count) punishes the voters. Apparently, the only thing that doesn't punish the voters is counting the votes as they were cast. Unfortunately, that is unfair to one of the candidates. It appears there was no good outcome.

 

[manifold]

Yes it would be. In fact, they are within their rights to not have primaries at all and pick whomever they feel has the best chance of defeating the opposing party.

At least that's how I read it. I could be wrong.

BUT...they shouldn't be allowed to do what they've done, make different rules for different states. It may be legal, I don't know. But it isn't fair and it isn't democratic.

I'm not sure who they think they're punishing but in reality they are punishing voters.

Methinks you wouldn't give a shit if Hills was going to be the nominee.

 

[jillian]

Stripping the states of delegates punishes the voters. Giving only half delegates to the states punishes the voters. Imputing support to the candidate who took his name off the ballot (as the contests weren't to count) punishes the voters. Apparently, the only thing that doesn't punish the voters is counting the votes as they were cast. Unfortunately, that is unfair to one of the candidates. It appears there was no good outcome.

Well, perhaps we need to ask for whom elections exist. Do they exist for the candidates or for the voters?

Given a choice between being punishing the voters and being allegedly unfair to one of the candidates, I think I'd err in favor of the voters.

 

[ReillyT]

Well, perhaps we need to ask for whom elections exist. Do they exist for the candidates or for the voters?

Given a choice between being punishing the voters and being allegedly unfair to one of the candidates, I think I'd err in favor of the voters.

These elections exist for the party to pick its candidate. The party is the entity of importance here.

Campaigns are run with the electoral system and structure in mind. Different rules at the outcome may produce different results. Thus, by changing the rules, you tamper with the expectations and strategies of the candidates and call into question the representativeness of the result. It calls the entire primary system into question. I don't know if I would characterize the results as unfair to any specific block of voters, but it is surely a bad thing.

 

[manifold]

Well, perhaps we need to ask for whom elections exist. Do they exist for the candidates or for the voters?

Given a choice between being punishing the voters and being allegedly unfair to one of the candidates, I think I'd err in favor of the voters.

I'm calling bullshit.

You don't care about what's fair to the voters. You're pissed because you think it's not fair to Hillary.

For Christ's sake at least be honest with yourself.

 

[Ravi]

Stripping the states of delegates punishes the voters. Giving only half delegates to the states punishes the voters. Imputing support to the candidate who took his name off the ballot (as the contests weren't to count) punishes the voters. Apparently, the only thing that doesn't punish the voters is counting the votes as they were cast. Unfortunately, that is unfair to one of the candidates. It appears there was no good outcome.

The good outcome, IMO, would have been to review their own rules and admit that there was no way they were going to unseat Florida and Michigan. None of us truly believed they would be stupid enough to blow off Florida and Michigan. If they had done this the day after the primary, it would have been fair. Or even before the primary. They stretched it out long enough that it actually affected the race.

 

[Larkinn]

Hillary can't sue. It's really got nothing to do with her.

Who the DNC awards delegates too has nothing to do with Hillary?

What?

 

[Ravi]

Methinks you wouldn't give a shit if Hills was going to be the nominee.

I know you do, and I admit it's possible, but I really think the voters are more important than Hillary or Obama winning.

You?

 

[Larkinn]

Stripping the states of delegates punishes the voters. Giving only half delegates to the states punishes the voters. Imputing support to the candidate who took his name off the ballot (as the contests weren't to count) punishes the voters. Apparently, the only thing that doesn't punish the voters is counting the votes as they were cast. Unfortunately, that is unfair to one of the candidates. It appears there was no good outcome.

I disagree. I think that counting the votes as they were cast punishes the voters as well, those who had the sense to elect competent individuals to their state governments who didn't fuck with the primary system.

 

[Larkinn]

The good outcome, IMO, would have been to review their own rules and admit that there was no way they were going to unseat Florida and Michigan. None of us truly believed they would be stupid enough to blow off Florida and Michigan. If they had done this the day after the primary, it would have been fair. Or even before the primary. They stretched it out long enough that it actually affected the race.

The Republicans blew off Florida and Michigan, and not a damned thing happened. Thats because they weren't important to their primary, while they were important to the Democratic Primary.

In essence you are blaming them for not forseeing that in this particular primary, FL and MI could be game-changing.

 

[jillian]

These elections exist for the party to pick its candidate. The party is the entity of importance here.

Campaigns are run with the electoral system and structure in mind. Different rules at the outcome may produce different results. Thus, by changing the rules, you tamper with the expectations and strategies of the candidates and call into question the representativeness of the result. It calls the entire primary system into question. I don't know if I would characterize the results as unfair to any specific block of voters, but it is surely a bad thing.

I see your point. But can the party be unfair to itself? And is any result inherantly unfair to the party? Yes, the results would be different. Does (and should) the party care about that? Or does (or should) the party care that its voters... the people who write donation checks, carry their petitions, go to the polls, etc., be represented properly.

It is a bad thing. And I guess whether one thinks it was unfair to a specific block of voters would depend on what block of voters one is part of. I don't think anyone would pretend that the position on this issue wouldn't vary depending on who we voted for.

Personally? I'd just like to see the dems win the presidential election in 2008. But I can tell you also that I'm not happy about how my vote is going to be used.

And I think our party has forgotten how to win elections.

 

[ReillyT]

The good outcome, IMO, would have been to review their own rules and admit that there was no way they were going to unseat Florida and Michigan. None of us truly believed they would be stupid enough to blow off Florida and Michigan. If they had done this the day after the primary, it would have been fair. Or even before the primary. They stretched it out long enough that it actually affected the race.

They were banking on a Clinton ride through the primaries. They doubted it would come to this. Reinstate the delegates of Florida and Michigan before the primary and they have forever lost any credibility in setting a primary timetable. Re-instate the results right after the primary and you have done the same thing, plus you have royally pissed off all Obama supporters who would feel that the Clinton party apparatus is changing the rules midstream. It doesn't matter when you do it, it affects the race and has negative implications for the party at any time.

Also, I am sure that they were hoping a nominee would be in place before this time, so they could then reinstate half of the votes, signal their displeasure with the states, and not be accused of tampering with the race. I fully understand why they waited.

 

[Ravi]

The Republicans blew off Florida and Michigan, and not a damned thing happened. Thats because they weren't important to their primary, while they were important to the Democratic Primary.

In essence you are blaming them for not forseeing that in this particular primary, FL and MI could be game-changing.

The Reps didn't blow them off. They took away half of their delegates. That outcome would have been acceptable if the Dems had done that to begin with. Everyone would have still voted. The popular vote would have counted.

Why didn't they do it that way? Is the DNC really that inept?

 

[Ravi]

They were banking on a Clinton ride through the primaries. They doubted it would come to this. Reinstate the delegates of Florida and Michigan before the primary and they have forever lost any credibility in setting a primary timetable. Re-instate the results right after the primary and you have done the same thing, plus you have royally pissed off all Obama supporters who would feel that the Clinton party apparatus is changing the rules midstream. It doesn't matter when you do it, it affects the race and has negative implications for the party at any time.

Also, I am sure that they were hoping a nominee would be in place before this time, so they could then reinstate half of the votes, signal their displeasure with the states, and not be accused of tampering with the race. I fully understand why they waited.

Whomever was the front runner at the time, they should have only taken away half the delegates. That was punishment enough. In fact, if what Care has posted is correct, that was what they were compelled to do under their own guidelines.

 

[Foxfyre]

If it wasn't for Texas's ridiculous two-tier primary plus caucus system that overrode the majority vote, Hillary would have won Texas. It is quite likely that she would have won Michigan even if Obama had been on th ballot.

If Obama is elected in November, he better be the best President this country has ever had, or he will be constantly plagued with if the shoulda, woulda, coulda syndrome of a tainted victory awarded by other than the people's choice.

 

[ReillyT]

I see your point. But can the party be unfair to itself? And is any result inherantly unfair to the party? Yes, the results would be different. Does (and should) the party care about that? Or does (or should) the party care that its voters... the people who write donation checks, carry their petitions, go to the polls, etc., be represented properly.

I don't think I would characterize it as the party being unfair to itself. I think I would characterize it as the party being unfair to the candidates. Elections are competitions, and when you change the rules midstream, it affects the people who have committed large amounts of time and money to win under the system that was devised. Should the party care about this kind of unfairness? I think it should, and one should also consider the political practicalities of the matter.

It is a bad thing. And I guess whether one thinks it was unfair to a specific block of voters would depend on what block of voters one is part of. I don't think anyone would pretend that the position on this issue would vary depending on who we voted for.

Personally? I'd just like to see the dems win the presidential election in 2008. But I can tell you also that I'm not happy about how my vote is going to be used.

And I think our party has forgotten how to win elections.

I am with you. I think that the important thing is for the Democrats to win elections, but it is important to take a long-term view as well as a short-term view. I think that is what the party is doing. Millions of voters who have not voted before have been drawn in by Barack Obama. If we can avoid alienating them and get them to the polls, I think they could help Democrats win both presidential and congressional elections for a while into the future.

I am not so pessimistic about what has occurred. I think Obama can still win this thing, and I hope that his coattails will allow us to capture additional Congressional seats now and in the future.