...but in fact, the DNC has said quite clearly that the concept of a revote is fine.
I hadn't heard that. Thanks for replying. This thing is such a mess. If it didn't cause any issues in the next primary, I'm cool with a revote.
I honestly just wish both of these candidates would stop being so negative. This is really hurting our party.
I think actually, a revote is a GOOD result in terms of setting the right precedent for next time. Any outcome where the January election doesn't count would send the message that if you violate the rules, you're going to have an expensive election for nothing.
Good point!!!
This only works it the STATES pay for it. if the campaigns or rich supports foot the bill, well . . .
I stated this above but I will do it again.
the revote was fine because the party thought they would get the lists, and they NEED those lists becuase of this rule
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/ de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf
Rule 2.e. states:
"No person shall participate or vote in the nominating process for a Democratic presidential candidate who also participates in the nominating processes of any other party for thecorresponding elections."
no list, then there is no way for them to comply with this rule, then they won't do a re-vote because it would obviously be in violation once again of the DNC rules.
so why hold ANOTHER re-vote if it will only once again violate the rules. this is why a re-vote in MI is probably dead.
I don't agree that they need the lists because of the rule. The rule can be satisfied in a number of ways.
For example, if the state had a procedure that required voters to sign a pledge, under penalty of perjury, stating that they hadn't voted in the Republican primary in January, my educated guess is that the DNC would deem that to be a satisfactory procedure.
heh. well as the very diary we are commenting in seems to point out.
the Michigan democratic party disagrees and feels that they DO need those lists before they will do a re-vote.
and honestly how will they check the pledges? then EVERYONE would just vote because the judge just ruled that the lists of people who voted can't be released
so how do you actually prove who committed perjury? since the only way to prove it can't be released!
Well, perjury is a crime that's prosecuted by the state, and the state obviously has access to the lists.
I don't believe that most people would choose to engage in voter fraud, when the penalties are severe, and your vote has only a minute impact on the election.
I wouldn't necessarily take Brewer's statement as the final word on the subject. They may not have talked through these other options yet, or they may have decided a revote is dead regardless and it would behoove them to point the finger at a federal judge instead of taking the heat themselves. It's worth waiting to see how this shakes out.
honestly I think its that the state doesn't want to go through the hassle of a revote so they will point fingers at the judge and this rule and say see we can't do a revote.
I mean you have to then get the State and the DNC to agree on how they won't violate the rule
so then you basically have to get the lists released now, and I am not even sure of all the legal hassles but they just cant release it thats what this judgement states
so then we are talking about an appeal and what not
this is time and money that I doubt Michigan wants to go through (remember the polls they did show that only 33% want a re-vote) that is alot of time and money when only 33% of 1 of the parties in the state even want it.
...actually, as I re-read the article, I see Brewer pointing the finger of blame at the ACLU. Heh!
basically because of all this and that comment below mine
a re-vote is dead.
unless everyone in MI has no problem with their party preference being made public, but I do see this happening do you :-P
The DNC need to maintain this rule-- it is part of why they challenged the blanket primary in CA (CA v Jones 2000). If they concede about allowing people to vote in the other party's primary they could be ceding ground on this question.
also it should be noted that Obama's campaigns problem with the re-vote was this very rule!
they didn't think it should apply since so democrats crossed over and voted in the GOP primary since the democratic one wouldn't count
now if they did a revote THOSE people can't now vote in the re-vote and is that really fair to them?
the rules where changed after the fact had they known there would be a redo they wouldnt have voted.
THIS was the problem with the Michigan revote, and THIS is what they had been debating
Now that it looks like Michigan might need to let the Democratic Party use the list of Republican primary voters we come to the other problem. The DNC rule talks about excluding anyone who
participates in the nominating processes of any other party for the corresponding elections. [emphasis added]
But how does an election with Obama not on either ballot "correspond" to an election where he is on the ballot? You could make a case that since there will be different candidates on the ballot the Republican primary held at the same time as the first Democratic primary does not "correspond" with the new one.
That takes care of the people who voted in the Republican primary because their candidate was not on the Democratic ballot, but it opens up a much bigger problem. All of the ditto heads who are told that Good Republicans should game the Democratic primary so that Hillary can, in Rush's words, "bloody up" Obama would be able to come and support Hillary as they seem to have done to a significant extent in Texas and Ohio.
No wonder Hillary feels safe in challenging Obama to support this sort of a revote.
it doesn't go by people on the ballot it is what is it for.
and it would still be the primary to nominate the 2008 presidential election nominee
the exact same election that the Jan 15th republican primary was for, to elect the 2008 presidential election nominee
so no they are still the same and the rule still applies
and obvious since he wasn't on the ballot he knows he probably had alot of voters cross over and if there is a revote Obama wants them back.
and its not fair to them that they rules changed mid way through and they get screwed out of their vote counting where they want it to count.
