Does anybody know why Fla. can't just hold the Dem. Primary

[napi21]

sometime a little later in Feb?

I'm watching the meeting with the Fl. members and the DNC arguing their reasons for having to agree with the Jan. 29th date which violates the DNC rule. Their arguments certainly sound valid, and yet another Pub trick to force them to do this.

However I havent heard anyone explain why they couldn't just hold the Dem Primary on a different day than the Pub's are holding theirs. I know I've heard of at least one other State that's doing that!

BTW, I'ts on cspan1 "road to the white house".

[kdmorris]

1. Well, the DNC offered to pay for a caucus

But the Florida Democratic Party says that people won't show up and therefore, will be disenfranchised.

Of course, if they don't do that, all 4 million of us will get disenfranchised, but who cares about numbers?

[napi21]

3. Yes, but the Fla. folks explained why that wouldn't work very well.

I don't remember the numbers but there are a LOT of individual polling places now. With a caucus they could never have that many thus making it more difficult for voters to get to them. They also referenced that they have many disabled voters who would find it VERY difficult if not impossible to get to the caucuses. And last, they have a high % of voters who vote absentee...including many who would be out of the State or in the military. Obviously THEY wouldn't be able to attend a caucus. Their points make sense to me.

[LiberalFighter]

4. How will 4 million be disenfranchised?

In 2004 only about 750,000 voted in the Democratic Primary

[kdmorris]

5. Um, OK

750,000 will be disenfranchised. I was just going with 4 million REGISTERED Democrats. Did you miss the point that more people would be disenfranchised if the Florida Democratic Party refuses to have a later primary?

[napi21]

8. I think their theory is there are 4 mill. Dems in Fl. If their delegates

are not permitted to vote at the Dem. comvention, NONe of the Dem voters would have had any say in who was finally the candidate.

[djjimz]

2. Kos has a good peice on this.

Florida losing delegates? No way!

Florida losing delegates? No way
by kos
Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 05:14:09 PM PDT
Adam B notes that a DNC committee has voted to strip Florida of its delegates unless it moves its primary back within the next 30 days.

Any such decision will never stick. Never.

Does anyone really think that Democrats will disenfranchise the delegates of a large swing state, whether it's Florida or Michigan?

The DNC is powerless. All it has is bluster. And as soon as we have a nominee, the first thing that person will do is rescind any such decision.

http://www.dailykos.com/

[tkmorris]

6. But isn't that the point really?

The nominee may well rescind the decision removing Florida's delegates, but Florida will have played no part in determining who the nominee IS. So what's the use?

[KellyW]

10. the nuclear option

The Florida party can always use the nuclear option. The state party could always adopt rules that the Electoral College Electors can’t vote for a candidate that was nominated at a convention that didn’t seat their delegates-the state party selects the Electors. Or the state legislature could pass a law requiring the same.

[TahitiNut]

7. Cry me a river. Then let it flow through 46 other states.

Let the 'games' begin. Which way is the Emperor's thumb pointing today?

:puke:

[madeline_con]

9. We can. But given the Dems actions...

they'd have to grow a set first. So, no early primary on OUR horizon! :banghead: