I keep hearing how they are being jilted and their votes aren’t being counted but I don’t understand why or how.
I would search but…
They aren’t being seated because they held their primaries earlier than when the Democratic Party said they could. That’s it in a nutshell. They violated the rules set by the party, and are paying the price for that violation.
The Democratic National Convention said “4 states can hold their primaries before x date and no one else. If anyone else does it doesn’t count and they can’t come play at the convention.”
MI and FL said “Screw you, we’ll have our primary when we want to. Neener neener.”
The DNC said “Fine then. You messed with us and know your primaries don’t count. Bad states, no delegates for you!”
People are now throwing a hissy fit.
About what you expect when people behave like second graders. 
I can give you a very specific summary of the Florida sitch, but not one on MI.
- (Democratic) Florida state congressman suggests primary be moved forward.
- (Republican-held) state legislature agrees, idea goes to committee.
- DNC says, “we know what you’re up to, and we’re not having it. If you move your primary up, we will not recognise your delegation.”
- Legislature ignores DNC, moves up primary.
- Hilarity ensues. Well, unless you’re a Floridian who is registered as a Democrat. Then, possibly not so hilarious.
- Senator Bill Nelson, (D-FL) usually a fairly levelheaded guy, starts proposing all manner of crackpot solutions to problem once DNC realizes that the whole thing is not going to end well. Further hilarity ensues.
Forgot to add - I like to call the game that the DNC and Florida Democratic Party executive committee are playing “Disenfranchisement Chicken”.
Also forgotten are the comments by Hillary (beforehand) that FL and MI can do as they wish, but now that she’s looking in the rearview mirror, those poor disenfranchised delegates are looking mighty tasty.
Note that both the Republican and Democratic primaries were moved up, but the national party organizations reacted differently. The DNC banished Florida’s entire delegation, whereas the RNC cut the number of Republican delegates in half (same thing in Michigan). Since the Republican Floridians have only been half-disenfranchised, it’s not as big a clusterfuck as the Democratic situation.
Also, I propose that the English language officially recognize the word “halfenfranchised.”
Not covered here is WHY primaries were moved up.
Early primaries tend to have massive influence on who gets nominated to represent their party. Look at all the eyeballs on Iowa and CT at the start of primary season… two incredibly small states with a very small number of delegates.
Many larger states had primaries that were much later in the process.
In most years, the nominee is decided long before it gets to the end of the process, so larger and later voting states had their needs ignored by candidates who pandered to the early voting states to get a head start and build momentum.
So lots of states revolted this year and started moving up their primaries. But when one state moved up, others then said, “You want to go before me? I don’t think so.” And they moved THEIR primaries even EARLIER.
It was getting out of control, and the parties stepped in to control the process. Part of that was telling states not to go too early. IMO, FL and MI are getting exactly what they deserved. They were warned ahead of time and did it anyway, now they have to live with their (idiotic) decisions.
The only reason it’s become an issue is the incredibly close race between the two remaining democratic candidates. Had the vote been decided by now, FL and MI would just be out of the picture entirely.
This is an interesting article - Dems in the FL legislature tried to conform to their party’s requirements, but were basically outnumbered by the Republicans, who attached the bill changing the date to a bill mandating paper-trail voting.
That would be Iowa & New Hampshire, not CT.
Like I said. Small, irrelevant states that I can’t be bothered to memorize.
Of course, we couldn’t just have a single national primary election day, because there’s too much money to be made, and then we might not have political pundits yapping 24/7 about how things are progressing.
I used to feel that way, but having some smaller states go first gives a chance for lesser known candidates to get their hats into the ring.
A single primary would be bad. The drawn-out process and media coverage gets people to reflect on their views. The media pundits are annoying and stupid, but how would election improve if we didn’t even have them?
Everyone would just show up on Feb 1st or whenever [even more] ignorant.
During the 2004 election, Michigan threatened to have it’s primary on the same day as New Hampshire. Tired of two small states getting the lions share of the candidates time and having their issues ignored, Michigan was determined to break the unfair control Iowa and HN had over choosing the candidate.
The DNC said - Look Michigan if you promise not to blow up the primary calendar this year, we’ll appoint a commission to improve the nomination process for the next time.
DNC’s Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling
The commission decided to make a change. Two states would be pulled ahead in the calendar. After many meetings, discussion and voting, the four early (pre-feb 5th) states were set in this order.
1st Iowa
2nd Nevada
3rd New Hampshire
4th South Carolina
Michigan was not in the early list, but promised to abide by the calendar if everyone else did.
New Hampshire threw a fit and announced it’s intention to move it’s primary ahead of Nevada, no matter what the DNC said.
Michigan sent a letter to the DNC They got no response. That is why Michigan moved it’s primary up.
All the DNC had to do is follow their own rules when it came to New Hampshire, threaten to strip their delegates, and recommend that the candidates not campaign there.
Here is MI Senator Carl Levin explaining it in a youtube video.
However, the decision is not final, there is an appeal or two. The Rules Comm at the Dem Con can decide to seat them.
Also important to point out is that as part of the punishment, no candidates campaigned in either state, and in MI, only Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel were on the ballot. Anyone who wanted Edwards or Obama was told to vote uncommitted, and hope that the delegates would know how to vote. And that all the candidates agreed that the votes would not count.
Finally, there is the rumor going around that state party officials made it happen hoping to help their favored candidate. Specifically, that MI would be a big early win for Hillary, and this would propel her into the WH, where she could put Gov Granholm in the Cabinent.
IIRC the vote on the changes was unanimous. The Democrats were just as willing as the Republicans to make the date change.
This thread is very enlightening - I was wondering this myself.
Perhaps my question is naive, but what did MI and FL think would happen if they moved their primaries up? Didn’t they know that they would be penalized?