Florida delegates fully seated with one-half votes each

[Ravi]

Except apparently the rules have always been both that the superdelegates can vote for whom they please AND that the DNC was only authorized to take away half-votes. So, they basically lied to the voters in the very beginning by stating none of the votes would count.

 

[Care4all]

The party ulitmately gets to decide who they run. Simple as that. If you truly believe as you suggest, then to be consistent, you'd have to also believe that the superdelegates shouldn't get to vote at all.

partially true...but not completely.

The party, supplies the candidates, BUT THE STATE GOVERNMENT Rules the primary election by Law...

It is our primary election to nominate a President, it is not the democrats or the Republican party's, it is the citizen's primary.

We govern it, we pay for it, we legally certify the votes, we legally certify the delegates, all within each state's Constitution and each state's Election Rules and guidelines...

And the Democratic Party of the United States took Pledge to honor the constitution of the United States first and foremost.

 

[Jeepers]

partially true...but not completely.

The party, supplies the candidates, BUT THE STATE GOVERNMENT Rules the primary election by Law...

It is our primary election to nominate a President, it is not the democrats or the Republican party's, it is the citizen's primary.

We govern it, we pay for it, we legally certify the votes, we legally certify the delegates, all within each state's Constitution and each state's Election Rules and guidelines...

And the Democratic Party of the United States took Pledge to honor the constitution of the United States first and foremost.

Look of the definition of a representative republic..

 

[Larkinn]

Are you sure? It is the state, not the party, that sets the date and process for the primary election in Michigan and Florida, and the candidates for the general election chosen in that process across the land are the presumed candidates to be the next President of the United States. You don't see a problem with the Party presuming to change the results of such elections?

Yes, I'm sure. The states get to pick a date because they are paying for it. They pay for it because they feel its in their best interest to do so. That doesn't mean they get to dictate to the DNC what that election will mean or force the DNC to abide by the results of that election.

Then again there is no Constitutional provision for the primary system and there was a time when the Party got together at a convention meeting to choose their candidate to run.

Yeah, exactly. But they decided to have primaries instead. Care somehow thinks its a constitutional right.

Maybe that system produced better candidates? But once they turned it over to the people to choose the candidates, it bugs me that the Party would then presume to cancel out the vote of some voters.

They didn't cancel out anyones vote. They said that a future vote would have no effect. They did the opposite of canceling out voters, they allowed illegitimate results to stand and be counted.

 

[Larkinn]

Bulloney...even the DNC Charter states that the Convention CAN NOT BEGIN WITHOUT all 50 states seated with their delegates...

Well FL would be seated with all its delegates (all 0 of them).

The DNC rules and bylaws committee overstepped their own Charter, which overrules anything the committee has done....it is their Constitution.

The rules and bylaws committee had NO AUTHORITY to strip the citizens of their due representaion....no matter what the committee thinks...

They even broke their own Charter which does NOT allow for them to take any state's delegates from their certified vote, away from them completly, as they did so wrongly...

Bullshit. And you are a damned hypocrite. Tell me why you are only crying about this now, and not when it was declared last year? Could be because now its effecting your precious little idol?

 

[Larkinn]

Given that primaries are elections paid for by taxpayers, do you think that the state has the finally say in their validity?

Why or why not.

Sure, great idea. Then New York can claim that 400,000,000 people voted for Hillary. They certify it, and nobody can challenge it, gotta be valid.

Its not a state election. Its an election for a PRIVATE party. The State can put conditions on the money and say that if the DNC wants the money they have to abide by certain rules, but it can't pay for an election (that the DNC says is invalid), and then force the DNC to abide by its rules, just because they paid for something the DNC didn't want.

Maybe next the state can start electing cabinet positions. Or Supreme Court judges. I mean, why not? They can pay for it, that means they can put whoever they want in whatever position they want, right?

 

[Larkinn]

partially true...but not completely.

The party, supplies the candidates, BUT THE STATE GOVERNMENT Rules the primary election by Law...

Yes, and all that election does is send delegates to the DNC, which the DNC has power over, by law.

It is our primary election to nominate a President, it is not the democrats or the Republican party's, it is the citizen's primary.

Umm, no. First off, how can it be a "citizen's primary" when NOT all citizens can vote in that primary?

Secondly, if the primary elects a president, go and tell that to Gore and Kerry. They will be mighty surprised they could have been co-president for all this time.

We govern it, we pay for it, we legally certify the votes, we legally certify the delegates, all within each state's Constitution and each state's Election Rules and guidelines...

No, actually, you govern the state primary, not what the state primary means and how it effects the DNC.

And the Democratic Party of the United States took Pledge to honor the constitution of the United States first and foremost.

And the USSC has said that the parties can control their own conventions. I guess the DNC is going against the Constitution by thinking that it gives the USSC the power to interpret it, instead of you, right?

 

[Care4all]

Sure, great idea. Then New York can claim that 400,000,000 people voted for Hillary. They certify it, and nobody can challenge it, gotta be valid.

Its not a state election. Its an election for a PRIVATE party. The State can put conditions on the money and say that if the DNC wants the money they have to abide by certain rules, but it can't pay for an election (that the DNC says is invalid), and then force the DNC to abide by its rules, just because they paid for something the DNC didn't want.

Maybe next the state can start electing cabinet positions. Or Supreme Court judges. I mean, why not? They can pay for it, that means they can put whoever they want in whatever position they want, right?

no it is NOT...

it is a STATE PRIMARY paid for and governed by our state election laws as with every other election....the Parties participate and have a roll in our primaries, but as easily as they participate in them because our LAWS have been set up to do such, the Congress can take that away...........

NO PARTY RULES ANYONE in the united states of america or their elections,,,,those are gvt certified elections....the parties do not pay for them or produce them, the state gvts do...........

so ENOUGH OF THESE LIES that someone has told you that are spreading around about this....truely, do some research yourself on this....start with the DNC charter, even they pledge to abide by the usa laws and constitution....and to go out of their way to make every vote count .....and the law in florida/michigan was constitutional....?

don't let anyone tell you that your legal vote cast, doesn't count!!!!!

your vote is your only means to sovereignty over your gvt.
care

 

[dilloduck]

no it is NOT...

it is a STATE PRIMARY paid for and governed by our state election laws as with every other election....the Parties participate and have a roll in our primaries, but as easily as they participate in them because our LAWS have been set up to do such, the Congress can take that away...........

NO PARTY RULES ANYONE in the united states of america or their elections,,,,those are gvt certified elections....the parties do not pay for them or produce them, the state gvts do...........

so ENOUGH OF THESE LIES that someone has told you that are spreading around about this....truely, do some research yourself on this....start with the DNC charter, even they pledge to abide by the usa laws and constitution....and to go out of their way to make every vote count .....and the law in florida/michigan was constitutional....?

don't let anyone tell you that your legal vote cast, doesn't count!!!!!

your vote is your only means to sovereignty over your gvt.
care

Don't forget guns.

 

[Larkinn]

no it is NOT...

it is a STATE PRIMARY paid for and governed by our state election laws as with every other election....the Parties participate and have a roll in our primaries, but as easily as they participate in them because our LAWS have been set up to do such, the Congress can take that away...........

Which is why the parties CREATED these nominations, and states have only been involved until recently, right?

And Congress does NOT have the authority to take away the right to choose the Democratic Nominee from the Democratic Party.

NO PARTY RULES ANYONE in the united states of america or their elections,,,,those are gvt certified elections....the parties do not pay for them or produce them, the state gvts do...........

They rule themselves. And these ARE NOT ELECTIONS FOR A GOVERNMENT POSITION. How hard is that to understand?

so ENOUGH OF THESE LIES that someone has told you that are spreading around about this....truely, do some research yourself on this....start with the DNC charter

How about YOU do some research on it, starting with Supreme Court decisions on primary law, which trumps by FAR your asinine opinion.

, even they pledge to abide by the usa laws and constitution....and to go out of their way to make every vote count .....and the law in florida/michigan was constitutional....?

Jesus Christ. Learn the Constitution before invoking it.

don't let anyone tell you that your legal vote cast, doesn't count!!!!!

It wasn't a legal vote cast.

your vote is your only means to sovereignty over your gvt.
care

The DNC is NOT the government. Nor is anyone winning the primary a government official.

I notice you just skipped over your rampant stupidity about it being the "citizens primary" and we are "voting for a president".

 

[Larkinn]

States play a major role in structuring and monitoring the primary election process, but the processes by which political parties select their nominees are not wholly public affairs that States may regulate freely. To the contrary, States must act within limits imposed by the Constitution when regulating parties' internal processes.

In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in its candidate-selection process.

California Democratic Party v. Jones.

 

[Jon]

To the contrary, States must act within limits imposed by the Constitution when regulating parties' internal processes.

Strange...that's exactly what the States did NOT do with Michigan.

 

[Larkinn]

Strange...that's exactly what the States did NOT do with Michigan.

Act within limits? Sure they did. They are more than free to change the date, just as the DNC is more than free to ignore their delegates if they choose to change the date.

 

[Care4all]

Which is why the parties CREATED these nominations, and states have only been involved until recently, right?

And Congress does NOT have the authority to take away the right to choose the Democratic Nominee from the Democratic Party.



They rule themselves. And these ARE NOT ELECTIONS FOR A GOVERNMENT POSITION. How hard is that to understand?



How about YOU do some research on it, starting with Supreme Court decisions on primary law, which trumps by FAR your asinine opinion.



Jesus Christ. Learn the Constitution before invoking it.



It wasn't a legal vote cast.



The DNC is NOT the government. Nor is anyone winning the primary a government official.

I notice you just skipped over your rampant stupidity about it being the "citizens primary" and we are "voting for a president".

Larkin, please....I can tell you just love to argue for the SAKE of arguement....pretty much like me!!!! hahahahaha in case you haven't noticed?

Think about this for a second...you keep saying this election is not for a government office and this is why it is the DNC's private election for a nominee.... WELL, YOU SURELY can not THINK that we the voters are going to sit back and let someone else pick a candidate for us?

What good is voting for president if the Candidates for president are always going to be chosen for us? I don't think you can have a presidential election without a primary election selecting our candidates, they tie together.

As with all state elections, including the primaries for usa congressmen or Senator...we the people choose our candidates and every election in every state is governed by law, respecting the sanctity of our individual vote...now the two major parties do "put up" the candidates and so do Independents and Libertarians....but those from the two major parties who are in state legislatures and the federal gvt have legislated election laws to make it difficult for an outside or 3rd parties to participate in our elections securing more seats for themselves....I recognize this...(And that's another topic)

Anyway, I totally differ with you...the primary is OUR way of choosing our presidential candidate for our nominee for president....even the DNC Charter states such...

care

 

[Jon]

Act within limits? Sure they did. They are more than free to change the date, just as the DNC is more than free to ignore their delegates if they choose to change the date.

DNC broke their own rules by assigning Uncommitted delegates to a candidate, when they had sent out a letter stating that votes for uncommitted would send UNCOMMITTED delegates to the convention to vote their will.

 

[dilloduck]

Larkin, please....I can tell you just love to argue for the SAKE of arguement....pretty much like me!!!! hahahahaha in case you haven't noticed?

Think about this for a second...you keep saying this election is not for a government office and this is why it is the DNC's private election for a nominee.... WELL, YOU SURELY can not THINK that we the voters are going to sit back and let someone else pick a candidate for us?

What good is voting for president if the Candidates for president are always going to be chosen for us? I don't think you can have a presidential election without a primary election selecting our candidates, they tie together.

As with all state elections, including the primaries for usa congressmen or Senator...we the people choose our candidates and every election in every state is governed by law, respecting the sanctity of our individual vote...now the two major parties do "put up" the candidates and so do Independents and Libertarians....but those from the two major parties who are in state legislatures and the federal gvt have legislated election laws to make it difficult for an outside or 3rd parties to participate in our elections securing more seats for themselves....I recognize this...(And that's another topic)

Anyway, I totally differ with you...the primary is OUR way of choosing our presidential candidate for our nominee for president....even the DNC Charter states such...

care

§ 2. Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

COTUS


A state can send electors to vote for whomever they wish in November. Political parties would like for you to believe that you have to play by their rules but the state of Michigan or Florida can send all their electors to vote for Mickey Mouse in the general election.

 

[dilloduck]

Congress has enacted legislation requiring that presidential elections (the selection of electors) occur on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November every four years. Electors gather to vote on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The two houses of Congress convene to count the electoral ballots on the following January 6.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

States are NOT subject to political parties. It doesn't matter who in the hell the parties nominate. States can select electors to vote for who ever they wish. Electors are not even required to vote for who the state sent them to vote for. WAKE UP.

 

[Care4all]

Act within limits? Sure they did. They are more than free to change the date, just as the DNC is more than free to ignore their delegates if they choose to change the date.

so according to you the dnc and the rnc for their own orivate reasons ALWAYS GET TO DECIDE WHO OUR NOMINEES for president is...by meanhs of excluding states they don't WANT to count, purposely so they can eliminate one of their nominees that is favored in that state IF they JUST FEEL LIKE IT?

They can make rules so that 26 states can't participate in the primaries and we the people pay for these elections and have no say in any of it?

they can just disenfranchise who they please and do not have to abide by our state laws?

RICH, real rich....

you have been brainwashed to think you are worth nothing in your own country....

 

[Ravi]

COTUS


A state can send electors to vote for whomever they wish in November. Political parties would like for you to believe that you have to play by their rules but the state of Michigan or Florida can send all their electors to vote for Mickey Mouse in the general election.

Sort of like Florida sending their electoral college to vote for Bush in 2000 even though he didn't win the popular vote?

But of course Larkin will claim that the popular vote doesn't count since they are only choosing the electoral college and not an elected official.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkin, please....I can tell you just love to argue for the SAKE of arguement....pretty much like me!!!! hahahahaha in case you haven't noticed?

This isn't for the sake of argument, its because you are wrong and have a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of American politics and the primary system.

Think about this for a second...you keep saying this election is not for a government office and this is why it is the DNC's private election for a nominee.... WELL, YOU SURELY can not THINK that we the voters are going to sit back and let someone else pick a candidate for us?

This is EXACTLY what used to happen. Party elders in the DNC and RNC would get together and choose a candidate for their party.

What good is voting for president if the Candidates for president are always going to be chosen for us?

You mean like with superdelegates, who you are "praying" will overturn the will of the pledged delegates?

And is it troublesome? Yes. But thats why we need more than a 2 party system, the solution is not to force private parties to bend to whatever the states want.

I don't think you can have a presidential election without a primary election selecting our candidates, they tie together.

You are factually wrong. Presidential elections were held in the 1700's and almost all of the 1800's without ever having a primary election.

As with all state elections, including the primaries for usa congressmen or Senator...we the people choose our candidates and every election in every state is governed by law, respecting the sanctity of our individual vote

And UNLIKE all state elections, when you vote to NOMINATE someone, its not for government office, and hence treating it the same is absurd.

Anyway, I totally differ with you...the primary is OUR way of choosing our presidential candidate for our nominee for president....even the DNC Charter states such...

care

Yes it is. But guess what? The RBC is there, and so are superdelegates, so they can change the results of primaries and how they work.