Is it really fair to add MI and FL at this point?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Do we tell we tell the 2 million plus people who voted in those two states they don't count because of a decision made by a few dozen party leaders?

Yes, that is exactly what we tell them.

And those two million people can then direct their anger at the people who made the decision by voting them out of office, thus discouraging this sort of BS from future elected officials.


Of course this is all just idealism in my head that requires 2 million people to be informed about something and conscious enough to do something reasonable, rather than be led by the talking points which will have them blaming Obama for their predicament..:confused: or worse still, completely lets everyone off the hook because, hey.. its nobody's fault..
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Do we tell we tell the 2 million plus people who voted in those two states they don't count because of a decision made by a few dozen party leaders?

Yes, that is exactly what we tell them.

And those two million people can then direct their anger at the people who made the decision by voting them out of office, thus discouraging this sort of BS from future elected officials.


Of course this is all just idealism in my head that requires 2 million people to be informed about something and conscious enough to do something reasonable, rather than be led by the talking points which will have them blaming Obama for their predicament..:confused: or worse still, completely lets everyone off the hook because, hey.. its nobody's fault..

Also, what do we tell the people who stayed home because the primary wouldn't count? 'Sorry, you should have predicted that we'd allow your state to get away with breaking the rules we agreed upon"
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry OP, it's only bad when Republicans disenfranchise voters, didn't you get the memo?

Who has been disenfranchised?
The 800,000 people in Florida who voted for Hillary...

And what of the 800,000 who voted for Obama and Edwards? By your own logic, are you saying they're not disenfranchised as well? Or are you saying that we should give preference to one of these groups over another just because it serves your purposes?
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: MBrown
The candidates were told these two states were out and as a result Obama didn't do anything in these states (AFAIK). His name wasn't even on the ballot in MI. Is it really fair to add them now? Especially in MI. I realize the people in the states feel left out but...

It's not merely that he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan but also that neither candidate really campaigned in either Michigan or Florida. Also, in Michigan, many of the potential voters believed that their votes wouldn't count so they didn't come out to vote. Also, if I remember correctly, some Michiganders felt that Obama didn't deserve their vote merely because he wasn't on the ballot and was dissing the state.

In order to "seat" the delegates from Michigan and Florida they should just split them up 50-50. That way the delegates can be seated and wear funny party hats without their having any real impact on the nomination.

I don't think the DNC has any choice other than to either split them down the middle or not count them at all. If Hillary gets the nomination as a result of bogus Michigan and Florida delegates then they'll have created a large rift in their voter base and they might as well just hand the presidency to McCain.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,650
132
106
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Do we tell we tell the 2 million plus people who voted in those two states they don't count because of a decision made by a few dozen party leaders?

Yes, that is exactly what we tell them.

And those two million people can then direct their anger at the people who made the decision by voting them out of office, thus discouraging this sort of BS from future elected officials.


Of course this is all just idealism in my head that requires 2 million people to be informed about something and conscious enough to do something reasonable, rather than be led by the talking points which will have them blaming Obama for their predicament..:confused: or worse still, completely lets everyone off the hook because, hey.. its nobody's fault..

QFMFT!
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,783
6,187
126
There is nothing sacred about DNC party rules, certainly not compared to the vote of the people. But if DNC wants to give Florida to McCain on a silver platter, I am sure he'll take it.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
There is nothing sacred about DNC party rules, certainly not compared to the vote of the people. But if DNC wants to give Florida to McCain on a silver platter, I am sure he'll take it.

WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY OF RULES!! WHY DO YOU THINK I TOOK YOU TO ALL THOSE POLICE ACADEMY MOVIES?! BECAUSE THEY WERE FUNNY?!?

:laugh: But really.. if we're just gonna throw away rules in favor of our personal preference then I say lets just give the nomination to Joe Biden. He was my favorite candidate anyway. Despite a penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth, he always seemed to have the most thought out and well reasoned plans.. atleast as far as Iraq was concerned which was the issue of the day back when he was actually still in the running..


Also, what about the people who, rightfully, abstained from voting in the (i wanna say "illegal," but thats too strong of a word.. just against party rules) election?? how is their will supposed to be represented fairly?

 

Unmoosical

Senior member
Feb 27, 2006
372
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Of course we have to seat MI and FL, it's the only way Hillary can win! [/sarcasm]

The only thing thats fair is for everyone to follow the same set of rules. MI and FL broke the rules and they have to face the consequences. THAT is as fair as it gets.
The voters didn't break the rules,the party leaders broke the rules.

Do we tell we tell the 2 million plus people who voted in those two states they don't count become of a decision made by a few dozen party leaders?

BTW I would NOT add Michigan, but I think Florida is fair game. They were all on the ballot and they all followed the same rules.

I have a hard time seeing this view since voters knew ahead of time that the voters wouldn't count. If they aren't going to count why bother to vote? I think it is more fair than Michigan for sure but not fair.

And while it was the party leaders that broke the rules I think voters need to now use their vote and let them know how they feel about that.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Also, what about the people who, rightfully, abstained from voting in the (i wanna say "illegal," but thats too strong of a word.. just against party rules) election?? how is their will supposed to be represented fairly?

That's what I've been saying all along, but no one in the media, or any politicians will come out and say "You told them the primary wouldn't count, counting it is not fair to the people who didn't vote"
 

gorobei

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,654
980
136
From what I remember of a TV news segment, the FL and MI party leaders weren't entirely responsible for losing their seating. The republican controlled state governments passed measures to move up the primary dates. The dem party leaders weren't able to override it and were legally and financially forced to hold the primaries. The DNC knew there was nothing the state party leaders could do about it, but weren't willing to make an exception. They held both states to the DNC rules and took away their delegates. Edwards and Obama respected the DNC decision and removed their names from the ballots. Clinton was the one who broke the rules. First on keeping her name on the ballots and secondly by campaigning in FL when there was a "gentleman's agreement between the candidates not to spend any time/money in FL. Obama iirc didn't campaign in FL.

I'm more curious about the MI proposal to split their delegates 69Cl/59Ob. How did they arrive at those numbers?

I agree that this will probably be settled by the Oregon and Kentucky primaries. It lets both candidates end the race with wins. The big question is what will the Dems offer Clinton not to go all the way to the nomination? Senate majority leader, cabinet position, VP, or some Clinton supporter on the Obama staff. Assuming she isn't positioning herself to run again in 2012 after sabotaging Obama for a McCain victory. I tend to doubt she'll take VP and try again for POTUS. Assuming a 2 term presidency for Obama, she would be almost 70 years old by then(2016), and McCain is facing a boatload of age issues dogging his campaign now at 71 years old.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry OP, it's only bad when Republicans disenfranchise voters, didn't you get the memo?

Who has been disenfranchised?
The 800,000 people in Florida who voted for Hillary...

I would have never thought ProfJohn a Hillary supporter. Oh what strange bedfellows a primary campaign makes :)

So here's a fun fact: because Barack Obama was not registered as a write-in candidate in Michigan, any ballot that had him written in was thrown out :Q