Democrats in Florida - Your votes don't count

Post Reply New Topic

This article states that the Democratic National Committee won't count the votes of 1.7 million Floridians who voted in the primary or the votes in Michigan. Clinton won both states "but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules." They "stripped both states of all delegates for holding the primaries too early"

The article, referring to Florida, states "the contest's date was moved up by the REPUBLICAN-controlled state Legislature and the state's REPUBLICAN governor."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_ ... y_scramble

I'm having trouble believing this. It seems to state that the Republicans in Florida moved up the date of the Florida primary, earlier than allowed by the Democrat party, and the results of the Democrat primary are invalid and the delegates don't count because of it. Did I understand it correctly?

Howard Dean wants a re-do. Regardless of what happens, if the Democrats want to follow the rules, should the Republican party be allowed to outvote them and change the date in violation of the rules so the Democrat votes don't count?

Last edited by zendell on 08 Mar 2008, 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's how I see it too. Very stupid.

I think this country's politics are on a gradual downwards spiral...

Why bother to vote, if they are going to screw around with the rules whenever they feel like it?

I read somewhere that Howard Dean is trying to get those states re-done.

Well, if the state Democrats in those states had gone by the rules this wouldn't have been a problem. The Democratic National Committee is in charge, all the states agreed to the order of the primaries and what kind, and then those two states broke the rules. In fact, Obama isn't even on the ballot for Michigan and he'd be an idiot to not fight including that vote.

Hillary wants them included, because she won both, but really-at the very least, Michigan has to redo their primary to include Obama.

Howard Dean, chair of the DNC, has already warned Florida to get their act together before the August convention, and that the National Committee will not pay for it, though it sounds like there's some behind the scenes negotiating to get Obama or Clinton or both to pay for a mail in primary. The states' Democratic parties will appeal, and Dean said they could, but the party needs the money for the November election.

No-one changed the rules-Michigan and Florida shot themselves in the foot.

That aside, how the Democrats allocate theire delegates is ridiculous. It's a damn confusing mishmash. It should be a popular vote, and leave it at that.

The problem I have is that, according to the article, the REPUBLICANS decided to hold the Democrat primary earlier which resulted in the Democrat votes not being counted. Should the 1.7 million Democrat voters be punished by not having their votes counted because the Republicans decided to break the rules?

If the Republicans in charge don't like who the Democrats in their state support, should they be allowed to change the date of their primary so their votes won't count? What's stopping Democrat-controlled states from changing the Republican primaries in future elections to get rid of their votes? I'd be ticked if another party broke the rules so my vote wouldn't count.

Aye, now you know why Bush won in 2000

Anyway, it just go to show how the Consitution has been a piece of toilet paper lately.

I wonder if these "irregularities" are occuring in recently redrawn (read gerrymandered), districts that have mostly Republicans?

It seems it doesn't matter who gets the most votes anymore. It's now a matter of which votes count. He who decides which votes to count, decides who gets elected.

I read on cnn.com that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. That seems like incredible incompetence or incredible dishonesty. Either way, the results shouldn't count.

Both Obama and Clinton agreed that they would not campaign in FL and MI, and that the delegates would not count. The only fair thing is to abide by their agreement, or hold new elections in those state.

beyondtheinfinite, Obama wasn't on the ballot due to the above agreement, it was deliberate.

What is dishonest is that now Clinton wants those delegates to count.

The problem is that without those delegates, it's possible that neither candidate will get enough delegates to get the nomination.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if the whole country isn't on a "downward spiral"...

I thought they were going to have to re-do the election and have another election altogether? I don't think they could be allowed to just not count the votes? If they just void the results, that would mean once again that the Republican in charge in Florida's elections can somehow sway the results of yet another election? Hillary would be harder for McCain to beat I think... so the Republicans would have a motive to purposely hold the elections in violation of the Democratic rules in order that they would be voided??! That Can't be happening, right?

I'm thinking I might seriously like to live in Australia, regardless of who ends up winning.. I've never visited there before, but it seems like a better country in alot of ways and maybe they're more accepting of Aspies? I see alot of people here are from Australia and New Zealand also.. My uncle lives in New Zealand and has invited me to visit. I thought I would stop over in Australia there and back and check that country out too... Maybe it's just another case of "the grass always looks greener on the other side"?

No this one has nothing to do with the Republicans, it's all internal to the DNC. The two states in question moved their primaries earlier, in violation of DNC rules and therefore the results were considered invalid. The democratic candidates were not allowed to campaign in those states. Only Clinton and Kucinich were on ballot in Michigan.

Both states should have a revote, that's the only way to avoid disenfrancising voters and giving everyone on the democratic a fair shake. Considering how close this contest is, that seems to be the only way.

Remember, now:

Really though, you can't consider the Michigan primary to be a valid result when Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot. And both states knew in advance what the consequences of holding their primaries so early would be (which is why everyone except Hillary took their names off of Michigan's ballot and no one campaigned in either state). It is solely the fault of the Florida and Michigan Democratic parties, and if there's going to be a re-vote they should be the ones paying for it.

How is it their fault? The article seems to state that the Democrats wanted to follow the rules and have the primary at the correct time. It looks like the Republicans wanted to violate the rules and hold the Democrat primary earlier. Being the majority, they outvoted the Democrats and there was nothing they could do about it. The article states, "the contest's date was moved up by the REPUBLICAN-controlled state Legislature and the state's REPUBLICAN governor."

If this does happen, a new primary in Florida will cost the Democrat Party $18 million
and in Michigan $10 million just to give 1.4 million registered Democrats
in those two states a do-over.

This again?