Democratic Plan to Disenfranchise Voters!!!

[steven88]

From The Left Coaster (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012178.php) via The Sideshow (http://sideshow.me.uk/):

"The Michigan legislature adjourned without having voted on a proposed primary revote. The revote is likely dead. The DNC was on board. Clinton donors offered to fund it. Barack Obama was reported to have opposed it, and was piling on legal objections, to prevent it. The Obama camp had already made clear that they would prefer the delegates be split 50/50, and the campaign today repeated that they would consider such a split to be fair. Of course they would. Not because they're evil or bad people or don't think Michigan voters are relevant (as the dishonest bloggers at dishonest blogs would frame it, were Clinton playing this game), but because they're a political team playing politics-as-usual. And as is the case with most politicians, they will do anything to win.
In Florida, plans for a revote also collapsed, this week, and after the same basic dynamic had played out: Clinton was open to a revote, Obama was opposed, with Obama suggesting a 50/50 split of the delegates. Meanwhile, a St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 poll showed one in four Florida Democrats may abandon the Party, if the results of the already held primary are not counted. I'm guessing those wavering Democrats will not be convinced to support a candidate who even obstructed efforts for a fair revote"

How does a 50/50 split represent the voters of Florida and Michigan? Why is that not voter disenfranchisement, regardless of who you support? If this is the way to hold primaries, why hold primaries/caucuses at all? Someone committee (DNC?) can decide ahead who gets what percentage of each state's delagetes. Simpler all around.

If we are going to count Florida and Michigan delegates then it has to truly represent the voters of those states.

After all, we don't want to just be like the Rephblicans do we???

[shraby]

1. How come the only place I read about Obama

filing legal objections to the revote is just on du???

[polichick]

2. I heard Barack say on camera that...

Some Dem voters who thought their votes wouldn't count voted in the Republican primary instead and were looking into legal measures because the revote wouldn't allow them to vote. (paraphrased, of course)

[sam sarrha]

5. both states are RED, both changed to later fix the election by Rethug cross voting.. it's Roverian

[kerry-is-my-prez]

28. Michigan most certainly is not red, Florida is really more purple...

n/t

[sam sarrha]

4. Trolls here make up bullshit, Welcome new poster, FYI ..bullshit is a post without a valid link

[steven88]

8. The links work when I try them.

What exactly are you saying? That my post is bullshit?

[sam sarrha]

16. if you make accusations especially concerning the ethics/character when they aren't able to respond,

post a link.. you will quickly find out who the respectable sources are here by the responses..

and anything in GD-P is a sewer these says.. if I'd checked the source i wouldn't have responded.. i don't have a dog in this fight... i will just vote a party ticket... or for the loser that won the nomination.. they are both questionable at best, the "Only Adult in the Room" dropped out of the race, but i prize his sticker on my car and the sign in my yard.

i expect they will soon be replaced by a sticker that says

DON'T BLAME ME I VOTED FOR EDWARDS
"the only adult in the room"

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[steven88]

9. Why are you???

Apparently it isn't to listen to others with an open mind.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moochy]

10. Patriotic Handpuppetry

"Must Save Country From Obama bin Laden!"

Some are self-selected patriots. :patriot:

[steven88]

12. I'll talk to you for free

I see you are quick to judge. Too bad you don't know what you are talking about. I support the winner of the nomination. My regret is that it won't be Edwards. And we may all regret it.
Now tell me what is wrong with having primaries that accurately reflect voters wishes/

[stillcool]

7. I think it has something to do with this:

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is breaking the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.

The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
Rules in both parties say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for a few hand-picked states that hold elections in January.
--------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Even states that do not have favored status are trying to jump toward the front of the line. Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.

Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.

The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.

Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.

They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date.
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5.
The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.

"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC's move may have repercussions beyond Florida as other state legislatures consider disregarding the Feb. 5 cutoff. Last week, Michigan's state Senate voted to hold its primary on Jan. 15. The state's House is expected to approve the earlier date as well.

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.

State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.

The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.

Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

Michigan, in moving up its primary, faces a similar penalty from the Democratic National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.

But Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the pledge allows candidates' spouses to campaign in the state, allows the candidates to speak to groups of 200 or fewer and permits fundraising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar... Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

As it has become clear that the delegate race will be very close, politicians in the Democratic party are discussing the implications of the DNC pledge, and whether it would be wise to seat the delegates after all, rather than risk offending these important states that could be influential in the November election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[psychmommy]

14. you tell 'em still cool.

now where was all of the voter disenfranchisement talk back then. fl & mi voters didn't make a peep about voter disenfranchisement. now it is everybody else's fault that their votes don't count. bull. the dnc should not seat them. i betcha nobody will leapfrog next presidential cycle.

[stillcool]

15. Somehow I don't think the screaming..

and shouting is being done by the voters of those two states. Someone else is whipping up the outrage. Can't imagine who.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

11. AGreed that 50 / 50 is not representaion. However....

<<How does a 50/50 split represent the voters of Florida and Michigan? Why is that not voter disenfranchisement, regardless of who you support? If this is the way to hold primaries, why hold primaries/caucuses at all?>>

It is voter disenfranchisement. And it is a pity that the leaders of the state parties (and the Republican leadership in the case of Florida) opted to break the rules even though the consequences were clear: no delegates at the convention. Sticking to the rules is not disenfranchisement; breaking the rules is.

Maybe an ample slap on the wrist would be that these states' votes count as a half-vote. Or revote, as now there are only 2 candidates in the running.

[steven88]

13. I agree

But IF you want to seat delegates from those states, a 50/50 split is ridiculous.

[hell-bent]

17. But don't you get it?

The Obama crowd doesn't want to run a primary again in those two states. Why? Because they are behind in the polls in those states. They want the Messiah even though he may not be the choice of the Democratic voters. They believe He is is our only salvation. He makes men like Tweety and KO have thrills up their legs went He speaks. He can walk on water! He is the embodiment of the new Savior. GMAFB! He is another politician.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

22. A bit aggressive?

Savior? Nah. Obama is indeed another politician. However, Clinton is JUST another politician. He inspires citizens to be Americans, active citizens. Her talk suggests that she'll be another top-down president, another Bush with a modestly different agenda. And he is leading by all measures, including strength against McCain. I can't tell whether you're a Hillary fanatic with an angry and evangelical style or a Republican who thinks that an aggressive post on DU will win the White House for their corrupt party. Obama is no Messiah, but he is most likely to deliver us from the party that has controlled the executive branch (as well as the House,m the Senate, the courts, and the press) for too long and befouled everything great about this greatest country on Earth.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

18. I meant use the proportion according to the primary, but at half value vs. the other states

The 50 / 50 split is the kind of solution that might appease a dimwitted child, but it is not true representation.

[Debi]

20. I'm sorry, would you please explain what a 'dimwitted child' is

Unbelievable garbage being posted on DU these days.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

24. Uh, OK.

I guess I meant a person who hasn't the mental skills of most adults or your average child. Have you ever been in the position where a 3 year old asks you for something unreasonable, and you come up with something to make them happy but still stick with what is appropriate or reasonably healthy? They feel that one cookie is not enough and they demand two. You don't have the time to reason it out, so you break the single cookie in half and say, "here are two." A kid who is analytical says, "hey, that's two halves." A dimwitted child goes, "great, two!"

You can understand this scenario? Yes, there's unbelievable garbage on DU these days, but in the context of this discussion, my post doesn't belong in that category. To admit a state's delegates to the convention but say that their votes will have no bearing on the outcome is to hand them a pacifier and go "goo-goo." It's to assume that their understanding of what the vote was for is that of a way-below-average child, and is insulting to the voters and the state authorities. You could let them goo to the convention with 50/50 split or you could give them a rattle and go "goo goo."

[Debi]

25. I was trying to give you a polite out

as the mother of a young adult with mental retardation I am incredibly unimpressed with your use of the 'dimwitted' terminology and usage.

Truly disgusting.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

26. Was referring to a condescending attitude to the adults of the states in question.

Nothing about disability stated or implied. No need to get defensive or to sling insults. Here's the question: is it not beneath the aptitude of the average preschooler to see that sitting your state's delegates with a 50% split is the same as giving no representation at all? The kids I have been acquainted with would feel that this was a raw deal, except for the few whose minds are not nourished with reason and love or who have a developmental disorder. "Come to the convention so it doesn't look like you're excluded, even though you are. And here's a half of a cookie." You could say, "Great, I love a party!" or you could say, "This is a sham. Now I'm going to see where the problem lies in the system - at the state level or the national level."

Peace to you.

[Debi]

27. If it was your birthday I'd buy you a dictionary

Adjective: dim-witted dim 'witid
Lacking mental capacity.
- simple, simple-minded
See also: retarded

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[O.M.B.inOhio]

29. Again, the defensiveness is not necessary.

"Retarded" is not a definition or synonym. "See also" points you to a different term where there is an important distinction, a substantial difference in meaning and usage.

I has originally written that the 50/50 split would placate a child, but then it occurred to me that a typical child would not even think that this was fair. My 3 year old would understand that seating the delegates would be saying, "you don't get to change the outcome, but please come to the party so we can make it look good." So I added "dimwitted" to distinguish the ones who would be fooled from those who would not. "Slow" is sometimes used as a euphemism, so that was out. It is a term that is exaggerated abrasive enough to suggest that the 50/50 solution is insulting. It does not insult kids in general and does not refer to persons with developmental disorders.

I do volunteer work for a mental health advocacy organization, but if you say that a Bush supporter is crazy, I would not get all in a tizzy that you were demeaning persons with mental illness.

Perspective, please. There is insensitivity all around, some of it boorish, some deep and institutionalized. There is no need to invent an offense where none exists. This exchange about a word in a nasty post has taken more time than it's worth, but your feelings are certainly real, and it's no good to add more misunderstanding and hurt to the world..

[SoCalDem]

19. Rules have consequences

everyone knew the rules.. 48 states & a few territories managed to follow the rules..

[maryallen]

21. The STATE Democratic parties are to blame for this or

Rather, a FEW people in the state parties of Florida and Michigan jeopardized the votes of the people of their respective states.

These party honchos played their citizens for fools. Obviously, they expected a handsome reward for their clandestine activities and slippery shenanigans.

Now, I wonder what that reward would be? Hmmm ....

[PoliticalAmazon]

23. Only a simpleton would believe HRC cares about the votes

She didn't stand up for our votes in 2000 or 2004. Our votes meant nothing to her then.

So she can go get votes from the neocons and Republicans she has been kissing up to for the last 8 years, while she ignored the plight of the American citizens she swore she would serve.

[ecdab]

30. First - there is no constitutional right to vote in a primary,

primaries are based on rules established by the state parties. Millions of people are not permitted to vote in primaries every year - they are Independent voters living in closed primary states. Nobody has been all that concerned about them being "disenfranchised" since the current primary system was put in place - because they are not being "disenfranchised".

Second - "Barack Obama was reported to have opposed it", let's see a link to that. Your posting gives a link to a CNN article that really doesn't back that position up. Barack has repeatedly stated that he would follow the wishes of the DNC in regard to Michigan and Florida.

Third - "How does a 50/50 split represent the voters of Florida and Michigan" - it doesn't. Nor does a re-vote that excludes all the Democrats that crossed over to the GOP primary, nor does accepting the "as is" vote when voters were told that it wouldn't count and not all the candidates were even on the ballot. Hillary has been pushing for the later of those among other thing - so please do not try and push some line of crap about Hillary being interested in seeing the will of the Michigan and Florida voters being expressed. Given what has occurred, it is functionally impossible for the will of the voters in Florida and Michigan to be expressed - and the people of Michigan and Florida have nobody to thank for that screw job other than their state legislatures.

Fourth - "After all, we don't want to just be like the Republicans do we???" - it would seem you are well on your way to doing just that by trying to take advantage of an unfortunate situation to garner votes in an unrepresentative manner and distort a voting issue with transparent spin. Please stop.