There can be no "fair" re-vote in MI and FL

One more time, from the top.

Aside from the fact that there is an excellent reason the DNC penalized MI and FL in the primary presidential race. Aside from the fact that both MI and FL were warned under no uncertain terms what would happen if they tried to "cut in line" without due process. Aside from the fact that both Obama and Clinton agreed, on film and on paper, to the DNC's decision to de-legitimize MI and FL's out-of-turn selection of the presidential nominee.

Aside from the fact that Clinton uttered not a squeak on behalf of us "disenfranchised" MI and FL voters back when she thought she had Super Tuesday all sewn up. Aside from the fact that a re-vote now would reward MI and FL's "cutting-in-line" with the most powerful voting position of all of the states, which would encourage countless other states to shove and jockey at will in upcoming contests. Aside from the fact that were any re-vote to happen, every GOP voter who was too dejected with the GOP choices to turn out in January would be recruited for Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos," since it worked so well in Texas and Ohio. Aside from the fact that the DNC has no legitimate business asking the CANDIDATES, who had no part in either the trespass or the punishment, to "work out a solution" to MI and FL as though they could be expected to do anything but seek their own best interest, and as though it's their mess to clean up. Aside from all that.

The objective of a re-vote in FL or MI (presumably) would be to determine the true will of the Democratic electorate regarding the presidential nominee.

The problem is, a huge number of us Democratic voters turned out in force in January to weigh in on down-ticket matters. We were told, no, assured--over and over--that this time around in our state, no primary vote for a Democratic presidential candidate would ever be counted (my guy wasn't even on the ticket).

So we sought to help the Democrats in a way that WOULD be counted, albeit more indirectly. We voted Romney, or Ron Paul, to at least weaken McCain's momentum.

Now, it turns out, in a re-vote scenario, those of us who voted to swing the GOP vote in a way that would favor Democrats would be prevented from voting for our true Democratic candidate of choice. Prevented AGAIN. Because the rules say nobody can vote for both a Democrat and a Republican in the same race. Or some damn thing. Of course, we were not warned about this.

This scenario amounts not only to disenfranchisment, but to trickery. We would feel absolutely bamboozled and manipulated if a new vote were suddenly held that excluded voices like mine. Think MI and FL voters are pissed now? Just wait what happens when folks like us are told the DNC is now pulling a bait-and-switch because otherwise Hillary's gonna "throw down."

The results would give as false a picture of the true will of the Democratic electorate as would evenly splitting the delegates down the middle. Might as well do that and save the money and trouble. Or flip a coin. Or leg-wrestle.

And I thank Barack Obama for recognizing the injustice to voters like us, if a "re-do" were to be enacted under present rules.



Display:


No more bait-and-switch. n/t (2.00 / 1)


by rhetoricus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:40:21 PM EST

No fair election without all states being counted (none / 0)

Why is Obama fighting to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/27/1949 47/250


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:43:45 PM EST

Did you even read this diary? (2.00 / 1)

Under current rules, there is no way to get an accurate read of the electorate. How is it "fair" if neither the initial vote nor a re-vote under current rules could accurately (or even semi-accurately) poll the electorate?


by rhetoricus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There can be no "fair" (2.00 / 1)

Life isn't fair. Glad to know Barack cares more about "fairness" to him rather than millions of votes


by rossinatl on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:09:55 PM EST

Excuse me.. (2.00 / 1)

the "fairness" would be to the massive numbers of people who crossed over to help the party, or who stayed home because they were told their votes would not count.

Neither would be permitted to vote in a "re-do" under current rules. Which means a "re-vote" would give no more accurate a picture of the electorate's wishes than the current scenario.

But it sounds like an "accurate" poll of the electorate is not at all your concern.

Don't blame this problem on Barack Obama. He did not create it.


by rhetoricus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There can be no "fair" (none / 0)

"Life isn't fair."

Then why are you all bitching about how the current situation in MI and FL is "unfair"?

"Glad to know Barack cares more about 'fairness'"

Actually, he just doesn't want a re-vote that's as bogus as the first one. Waste of time and money, you know.

"...to him rather than millions of votes"

Right, like how eager Hillary is to use the superdelegates invalidate the will of the actual voters. Let's see, each superdelegate has the power of ten thousand voters, and Obama is ahead by over a hundred pledged delegates (which is expected to hold), which would mean that Clinton superdelegates, to enact their coup, would have to disenfranchise--millions of voters!

Yeah, try again.


by rhetoricus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who told you this? (2.00 / 1)

"We were told, no, assured--over and over--that this time around in our state, no primary vote for a Democratic presidential candidate would ever be counted (my guy wasn't even on the ticket)." It seems quite the opposite from what I heard. I hear and read many people say things like ultimately, these votes will have to count and the party will have to find a way to seat delegeates from two states crucial to Democratic chances.
by Mayor McCheese on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:13:26 PM EST

Re: Who told you this? (2.00 / 1)

We were told the delegates would be seated, but that they would not participate in the selection process.

Which is the scenario BOTH candidates signed onto.


by rhetoricus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There can be no "fair" re-vote (2.00 / 1)

"The results would give as false a picture of the true will of the Democratic electorate as would evenly splitting the delegates down the middle."

Arguably, the picture would be more misleading.  Most of HRC's supporters voted for her in January and would presumably do so again.  The only Obama supporters who would get the chance to vote for their candidate are those who voted for other Democratic candidates (including HRC), voted for "Uncommitted," or did not vote in the presidential primary at all.  Given this scenario, HRC's share of the popular vote would undoubtedly be higher than it was in the initial primary, but it would mean nothing.


by KTinOhio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST

Re: There can be no "fair" re-vote (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, I'm hearing the ones who stayed home because they couldn't vote for their candidate would have to stay home again.

What utter bunk.


by rhetoricus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:31:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There can be no "fair" re-vote (none / 0)

Who forced them to stay home?
by Mayor McCheese on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There can be no "fair" re-vote (2.00 / 1)

Well, let's see--work, kids, university classes, weather (in MI), for starters. Some people just don't have the free time or impetus to come out to cast a vote for a Democratic candidate THAT WE WERE TOLD WOULD NOT BE COUNTED.

Not to mention, when your only choice besides Hillary is "Uncommitted," that isn't reassuring with people like Mike Gravel on the ticket.

Are you now blaming those voters for not anticipating Hillary's bait-and-switch? That IS cynical.


by rhetoricus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There can be no "fair" re-vote (none / 0)

I am blaming voters for not getting off their lazy asses.
by Mayor McCheese on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:13:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's worse than I thought... (none / 0)

I thought the only people who wouldn't be able to participate in a re-vote were those who voted in the GOP primary.

It would be difficult to explain HRC getting a greater share of the vote against Obama in April than she did against Uncommitted in January, but I'm sure someone would try.


by KTinOhio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's worse than I thought... (none / 0)

I am looking for more evidence of this. I am now hearing different stories.

It would be better obviously if the "stayed at home" folks got to vote, but could backfire in Florida, where there was a very low GOP turnout (who can blame them?), but where, as Limbaugh's ground zero, they could launch an unprecedented "Operation Chaos" GOTV among Republicans and screw up the vote even more.

Ideal would be a Democrat-only election with no penalty for earlier votes.

And it would help, of course, if it looked like Florida would get its new machines on line in time, or if it weren't illegal to vote via mail there, or if it looked like 2/3rds of Michigan's GOP-dominated legislature indicated it wants to champion the details of a Democratic re-vote rather than take their vacation, which is slated to start today.


by rhetoricus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:45:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Unless Obama could win FL, MI, it's not fair (none / 0)

Do we have that right?


by catfish1 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:47:54 PM EST

Re: Unless Obama could win FL, MI, it's not fair (2.00 / 1)

Not under clearly unfair, bait-and-switch circumstances. The voters would carry their very legitimate resentment into the general, which could hurt the nominee whoever it was.

It's one thing to throw a tantrum if your candidate doesn't win. It's another thing to lose faith in the process itself, which is far more dangerous to the party.

When Clinton and Obama agreed that neither MI nor FL's delegates would participate in the selection process (though they'd eventually be seated), neither candidate had a clear or meaningful lead.

Either candidate would have had a legitimate complaint BEFORE the bogus vote took place. To complain only because one is losing, and to argue for "re-do" circumstances that would disenfranchise the very voters whose voices were not heard from the first time is hardly a solution.


by rhetoricus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.