As a Floridian, I am content with Saturday's decision by the DNC and consider the matter closed.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Some of you may know that my only focus on this board has been in regard to the Florida primary vote. That as someone who is not involved in the campaigns of either of the two remaining Democratic candidates, I only wanted to see to the fact that my vote, along with 1.7 million others, counted something towards selecting the nominee of my party.

I was very upset with the DNC's initial decision to strike all the delegates from my state and effectively making my vote worthless. And while there were some who insisted ad nauseum that I should have just sat and taken my "punishment" (for voting?) and simply "be angry" at state officials (without further recompense for getting my vote counted), I knew that the DNC had overstepped its authority in ordering what was in effect a collective punishment on all Florida voters for something that was simply a dispute between national and state Democratic leaders over a primary date.

Saturday was the big day to correct the DNC's error in judgment. And when the dust had settled and all was said and done, I feel confident the right thing was done and that it was time to consider the matter closed and now to look forward to November.

Note, I don't necessarily think it was ideal. Ideally, I would have loved to have seen the delegates seated on my behalf been able to cast full votes, and leave the intraparty dispute between federal and state leaders out of the equation entirely. But this solution was good enough to assuage the situation. Face it, the delegate nomination process is not one-person-one-vote anyways. People living in larger states will be given a larger weight for their vote. All Florida really got was something of a downgrade in influence to a state the size of, say, North Carolina. And that's not enough to say I am being disenfrachised at this point. In the end, I'd like to see both the delegate system and the electoral college abolished in favor of a straight popular vote. But given that both systems are still the law of the party and law of the land, respectively, I've got to learn to live with them and accept the fact that we do not yet have a one-person-one-vote process in determining either the nomination or the general election.

I will say that I am very, very proud of my own congressman, Robert Wexler. I have no doubt that he was instrumental in getting the Obama campaign to endorse the 50% reduction solution as opposed to championing the inane 0% collective punishment or any sort of foolish 50/50 delegate split that was not proportional to the results or taking to mind any other candidates. This was not a concession by any means; this was the simply the right thing to do. Wexler's actions may have very well saved Florida for Senator Obama in November, and I personally think he should be considered when a President Obama is contemplating building a cabinet.

At this point, I still do not understand the logic of anyone who is still claiming the 0% delegate punishment foisted upon Florida was the right thing to do and should have never been reversed, but the fact of the matter the DNC did the right thing on Saturday renders their thinking moot and meaningless, and I give them no further credibility in pressing the issue.

Last but not least, I know that some here have made considerable hay about the actions of some in the audience on Saturday, some of which I personally did also find rather disruptive and counterproductive. However, personally I must say I still have seen much, much, much worse on this very board under the guise of anonymous posting. Regardless, I do not see any of this as a major issue. By the middle to end of this week, after all states have voted (and after all states' votes have been counted), I think we will have a single presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, that bygones will be made bygones, that the healing process will have started and we will all be looking forward to the race against Senator McCain in the general election.

As I said before, Saturday, I felt very proud to be a Floridian. Saturday, I felt very proud to be a Democrat.

To November and to electing a Democratic President!
:toast:

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. That settles it then. Better send this off to the press & we can all move on.

[Doityourself]

2. Well..that's that... Oh and I like Wexler.

[LiberalAndProud]

3. Wexler did a magnificent job on Saturday.

I can't tell how much he impressed me. He's a representative to be proud of.

[suston96]

4. As a Democrat I do NOT consider the matter closed and I want some serious ....

....discussions by Democrats at the convention regarding the serious deficiencies in the Democratic Charter and its rules and by-laws.

Especially regarding how that Charter and its precious guarantee of total participation in the nominating process by every member can be manipulated and trashed by just a handful of party hacks at both the national and state levels - resulting in the disenfranchisement or dilution of votes of many of its members and delegates.

1/2 a vote? Give me a break!

[stray cat]

5. are you in favor of a single day national primary then?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. Don't get me wrong. I think the DNC will have to amend its rules and charter.

And put in more clear mechanisms as to how to deal with a dispute over a primary date, so that we never, ever have to see the insitution of a 0% delegate punishment forced upon innocent voters ever again.

But I would be more upset about the 1/2 vote if we had a one-person-one-vote nominating process via the direct popular vote. But the delegate process goes against the grain of such a concept, so like I said, really all that does is bump Florida down a couple of notches and putting them on the same level of some smaller states. Not something I'm necessarily happy about, but not something that is really worth dwelling over at the time being.

Between now and 2012, I will expect some needed reform to the DNC charter and rules.

[suston96]

7. Actually, I would prefer the mechanics of two general primaries:

The first, early in the year - January, February would be an elimination round - with as many candidates willing to spend the time and money participating in a - pardon the expression - free for all.

Then, in May or June - a final elimination between the top 3 or more - where the voters - I repeat, the voters, nationwide, pick the top two as presidential and vice - presidential nominees.

[crispini]

8. A nationwide primary would mean that only the candidates

who could raise the most money would win.

Sounds like a recipie for continued corporate influence and BS to me. I'm not in favor of a nationwide primary.

[suston96]

10. They would still be state primaries but would all be on two separate dates....

Same states just like today, different dates.

This is something like newer democracies in the rest of the world - some of which we helped found. The way we do it now results in the control of the processes by party hacks. Instead of dimly lit, smoke filled, back rooms, there are dimly lit, smoke filled, front rooms.

Open primaries with as many candidates as want to participate, with an elimination round and a final selection round is the fairest and most visible way to nominate candidates for these high constitutional offices.

Nominees for congress and other high offices should be processed the same way, possibly at the same time.

And politics will always attract "money" no matter how it is processed. Campaign finance reform may be a good other topic.

[crispini]

14. Having all state primaries on one (or two) days would still be a national primary.

Get me campaign finance reform FIRST, then we'll talk about the idea of a national primary. Until then, I will definitely be against it. I am in favor of rotating regional primaries that will still allow "little guys" the chance of a seat at the table.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. Maybe not regional, but the same concept

A mix states (8-10 at a time) that are not all from the same region and that represent disparate interest groups.

It's a "National Primary" with regard to the demographics, but still small enough that an under-funded, grassroots candidate can still have a chance.

[crispini]

18. Yeah, that's better.

Me likey! :D

[suston96]

16. I don't get and never have gotten "the little guy" argument......

..but anyway, little guys and gals are what the first elimination round would be about.

Television and internet coverage would give ALL "little guys" and "little gals" plenty of free coverage depending on the appeal of those who are offering themselves as candidates. Such universal free coverage would do much to deflect the impact of big money and corporate interests.

Again, that is a discussion regarding campaign finance which certainly has an impact on any election process but not that much on scheduling those elections.

The present system makesd many states irrelevant unless there is a race like the present one where two candidates are virtually tied for the nomination.

And in the past, many states, late on the calendar, have indeed been irrelevant. My system guarantees the relevance of ALL the states.

[crispini]

19. Last I checked, TV wasn't free.

I think we have to make sure that we retain some of the Iowa-and-New-Hampshire spirit -- retail politics, at a presidential level. Otherwise, the far left (people like me) will have even less of a voice.

Rotating primaries would give every state a chance to be "first" which is good.

[Hugabear]

12. So then you're in favor of no rules, absolute anarchy?

Why even have rules?

You do realize this would have started a domino effect, as other states would then want to move their primaries up to be the first? There was one state that was even considering moving their primary to December.

How far would you allow that to go on? What if I wanted my state to hold its 2012 primary the day after the 2008 election?

[suston96]

17. You haven't read my posts......read them, all of them......nt

[Hugabear]

22. Doesn't matter much since that's not how it's currently set up

I'm talking about the current system - should states be free to set their primary whenever they want, in a never-ending battle to be first?

Even under your hypothetical system, what penalty would there be if a state decided "screw this" and wanted to move their primary up a few weeks so they could get all the attention?

[suston96]

23. My suggestion for (a) national primary day(s) would be a law by act of Congress.....

The Constitution says the states can determine the "times, places, and manner of elections." But it also says that the Congress can change or regulate what the states do.

What we have now is a system or systems resulting in independent actions that have ended up diluting the votes of citizens in two states by 50%!

That is an outrage! Even worse, done by the Democratic Party - the champion of voting rights.

[BlooInBloo]

9. The state parties of BOTH states are satisfied.

[Maribelle]

11. Had the DNC only left the sanctions at 50% back then ...

I'm having a truly difficult time digesting what happened May 31st.

I was long-convinced the DNC made a huge political blunder by slashing the throats of all Democrats in Florida. The night of January 29th, when MSNBC did not even carry the Florida Democratic results, and CNN kept crying over and over as they reported the results that it was 'only a beauty contest', and as I watched the celebration of Crist and McCain, I could not help but believe the DNC had slashed Hillary's throat as well as all Democrats in Florida.

On Saturday, one of the rules-committee members was bragging with a big smile on her face about how they had told the states under penalty that their votes 'would not count'. Sickening, that. You, as a Floridian, know just as well as I do, that there was a state-wide effort to instruct all the voters in Florida that their votes would count. And they did count.

The time for penalizing Floridians at 50% was before January 29th. I personally believe it is too late now to undo the significant damage that has been done. I hope I am wrong.

Anyone on the rules committee that told any Democrat that their vote would not count needs to be removed from the committee.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. Like I said, we need to amend the rules and charter in the future...

...to avoid any sort of collective punishment like this from ever being implemented again.

But at this point, I think we've worn the issue down to a nub, and while I would have liked 100% restoration, I was highly doubtful of that being the case. I guess I am just willing to split the difference and call it a night at this point, and hope we get our act together better in the future so this never happens again.

[cbayer]

20. I know this has been very important to you, PeterU.

If you are happy with it, that says a lot.

[JPZenger]

21. k and r. nt