Should Florida and Michigan Re-vote?

Hollyweird
Hollyweird Posts: 197
edited March 2008 in A Moving Train
Do we really have a national consensus it only 48 states are selecting a Democratic nominee? Re-vote would solve it. States Governors think so..

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/06/florida.michigan/index.html
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    I totally oppose the re-vote. Why would they even do that? Are they saying they'd take the count more seriously this time.

    Would people be required to vote the same or would they vote differently now that there are different circumstances?

    It's all a crock....
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Thecure
    Thecure Posts: 814
    why should the people who voted be screwed because their states fucked up. i wonder if both those states voted for Obama if people whold say say thing different
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    I say sure, it fits the already screwed up process and neither one will come out with a majority either way because it's not winner take all.

    Clinton wants Florida because Florida is full of Old decripid white people who identify with her..... I guess she want's Michgan because she thinks the Unions like her... for some reason I guess they don't know about her and Walmart... but maybe Obama will start pushing that now.

    In the end I just wonder why these two states who agreed to the process a year and a half ago... didn't just follow the freaking rules....
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    I have to admit, I didn't really notice the reason why they wanted to re-vote. Now that I've actually read the CNN article, I'm not as opposed to it anymore.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    I say no...

    the states agreed to the rules, the broke them, thus there's a consequence...

    isn't that how things work....?
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    inmytree wrote:
    I say no...

    the states agreed to the rules, the broke them, thus there's a consequence...

    isn't that how things work....?


    Are you saying that if you break the rules that you knew full well, you shouldn't have to deal with the consequences? That's a novel idea :)

    Yes, I totally agree... it sucks for the people in those states, but they tried to move their primaries up to make themselves more important and they should pay the price. Anyone know when they would normally hold their primaries? Chances are they would have had them by now and actually been relevant.

    From the article:
    "The Florida Democratic Party estimates that a new primary could cost as much as $18 million -- and Sen. Bill Nelson said the DNC should pick up the tab."

    riiiiiigggghhhhhtttttt.... not only should the DNC give you a pass on breaking the rules, but they should also pay for it?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Hollyweird wrote:
    Do we really have a national consensus it only 48 states are selecting a Democratic nominee? Re-vote would solve it. States Governors think so..

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/06/florida.michigan/index.html


    its doesnt matter florida is going to a republican.
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    I do not think it is fair to cry foul now. I do not believe there should be any re-voting. I believe that the original winner in these States should get the required delegates they would have gotten. I firmly believe the super delegates of these two States should be evenly split among the two candidates. These delegates were well aware of how the policy change would affect their State and still proceeded without any regard to the people of these States. It would be unfair to the rest of the American voters to rewarded these super delegates with any "influential" advantage when they knowingly violated the governing election policy.

    This would

    1) allow the original votes of these States to count
    2) it would allow the full delegate representation of these States at that DNC
    3. it would not rewarded these States with any influential advantage
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    puremagic wrote:
    I do not think it is fair to cry foul now. I do not believe there should be any re-voting. I believe that the original winner in these States should get the required delegates they would have gotten. I firmly believe the super delegates of these two States should be evenly split among the two candidates. These delegates were well aware of how the policy change would affect their State and still proceeded without any regard to the people of these States. It would be unfair to the rest of the American voters to rewarded these super delegates with any "influential" advantage when they knowingly violated the governing election policy.

    This would

    1) allow the original votes of these States to count
    2) it would allow the full delegate representation of these States at that DNC
    3. it would not rewarded these States with any influential advantage


    The problem is in Michigan though, only Clinton was on the ballot (and "uncommitted"). How do you count those?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    If the tables were turned, if Obama was in the position hillary is in now, if everything was the exact opposite of where it currently stands, does anyone, honestly believe we would be having this discussion? If it were Obama who desperately needed those delegates and stood to benefit from them being seated, do you think the DNC would even be considering this? Hell no they wouldn't! The fact of the matter is, the rules were set, cunton fully supported those rules when she was running as a virtual incumbent. Now she wants them changed. Its bullshit. Whats even more bullshit is that the DNC is considering it. That being said, if they revote, i don't think there is much question Hillary wins Florida. There's just to many old people there. (Although i guarantee you it would be closer). Michigan, on the other hand, i think she would lose. She lost something like 40% of the vote in Michigan to "other" when her name was the only name on the ballot! She should be embarrassed by the results in Michigan. Changing the rules now, would be, in my opinion, a stupid move. If hillary wis the nomination this way, look for there to be some serious civil unrest.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    blackredyellow wrote:
    Are you saying that if you break the rules that you knew full well, you shouldn't have to deal with the consequences? That's a novel idea :)

    Yes, I totally agree... it sucks for the people in those states, but they tried to move their primaries up to make themselves more important and they should pay the price. Anyone know when they would normally hold their primaries? Chances are they would have had them by now and actually been relevant.

    From the article:
    "The Florida Democratic Party estimates that a new primary could cost as much as $18 million -- and Sen. Bill Nelson said the DNC should pick up the tab."

    riiiiiigggghhhhhtttttt.... not only should the DNC give you a pass on breaking the rules, but they should also pay for it?

    Besides, i tend to think it would be a slap in the face to those states that DID follow the rules.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    blackredyellow wrote:
    The problem is in Michigan though, only Clinton was on the ballot (and "uncommitted"). How do you count those?

    Again, the only fair solution to this problem would be at the assignment of delegates. It would be unfair to the people of Michigan not to have their State represented, but it would also be unfair to the American voting process to allow for another primary. Michigan voters had the right to write in a candidate. Thus, the fair solution for the States of Michigan and the honorable representation of the overall American democracy process, would be to evenly divide the approximate number of delegates among the two candidates. The super delegates, who clearly knew the consequences of changing the primary, forfeit their right to vote for the candidate THEIR choice and must also be divided evenly among the two candidates.

    This would allow

    a) the people of Michigan equal representation as voters without compromising the American voting process with another primary.

    b) the super delegates of both Florida and Michigan would forfeit their right to vote for the candidate of THEIR choice and must also be divided evenly among the two candidates.

    c) the people and delegates of Michigan would not be rewarded with any influential advantages


    To some level the integrity of the election process must be preserved, even if both Florida and Michigan were permitted new primaries, the super delegates, who clearly understood the consequences of changing the primaries would remain untouched and rewarded with a greater level of influence over the two candidates because the Republican candidate has been decided.

    I just think a) and b) represents the people of the Michigan and the American public as a whole.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • Solat13
    Solat13 Posts: 6,996
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble
    - Busted down the pretext
    - 8/28/98
    - 9/2/00
    - 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
    - 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
    - 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
    - 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
    - 8/2/07, 8/5/07
    - 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
    - 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
    - 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
    - 9/11/11, 9/12/11
    - 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    Solat13 wrote:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble


    I think this is a serious mistake and will only serve to taint the democrat party.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • KDH12
    KDH12 Posts: 2,096
    I think that they will re-vote however they should not be allowed to..... if anything split their delegates evenly among the Obama and Hilary or split them based on the over all popular vote of the country... that way their delegates could still attend the convention....

    but those states broke the rules and should not be allowed to fully participate....

    they moved up their primaries in order to make their votes count more but that was before this crazy primary got started... so allowing them to re-vote would allow their votes to count even more than if the earlier votes had counted giving them exactly what they wanted times two.....
    **CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **
  • anotherclone
    anotherclone Posts: 1,688
    To me, it seems like a no brainer. Follow the rules you argreed to. If you don't, you will suffer some consequences of your actions. These are things I tell my 7 year old daughter and she understands.

    These states should issue some sort of statement that tells their populations that they fucked up and accept the responsiblity for what they did.

    If Obama was saying "we don't want to disenfranchise these voters. Lets do a do-over", Clinton would be all over his ass like a fat kid on a twinkie.

    To allow a do-over and make the DNC pay for it is insane. It would be setting a dangerous precedent for the future that basically says "don't follow the rules".
  • Skitch Patterson
    Skitch Patterson Posts: 642
    Hell yes they should.

    2 Relatively important states decided status quo was not working so they actually did something about it. Why should relatively insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire have so much power?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Skitch Patterson wrote:
    Hell yes they should.

    2 Relatively important states decided status quo was not working so they actually did something about it. Why should relatively insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire have so much power?


    question: what makes one state more "significant" that another....?
  • Thecure
    Thecure Posts: 814
    inmytree wrote:
    question: what makes one state more "significant" that another....?

    people would say population. of course i don't know what it means.
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Skitch Patterson wrote:
    Hell yes they should.

    2 Relatively important states decided status quo was not working so they actually did something about it. Why should relatively insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire have so much power?


    And why should the voters in these states have to pay and not have their voices heard? It seems like it's limiting their democracy to me. Has it gotten so bad that we only want people's votes being counted if they are for sure going to the guy we support?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde

Categories