The agreed upon-rule was based on the agreed upon primary calendar.
The DNC didn’t stick to it’s guns when New Hampshire jumped ahead of Nevada. It didn’t threaten to strip it’s delegates, and it didn’t recommend that the candidates avoid campaigning there. New Hampsire’s move is what prompted Michigan’s change.
They got a fucking waiver for breaking the calendar, and Michigan and Flordia got screwed when they responded with their moves.
A political party’s nomination process is not an election. There is no Constiututional right to vote in a Primary. A political party can choose a nominee however it feels like. It doesn’t have to be democratic. There’s no equivalence here.
There is no constitutional right to vote in a general election either. And you are right, a party can choose its nominee however it wants. We can also debate whether or not that system is fair or unfair like we are doing now.
Um…yes there is.
A party’s nomination process doesn’t have to be fair. An election does.
I think Florida and Michigan have much different cases. Florida had all the candidates on the ballot and the date was moved up by a Republican state governement (yes, I know the Dems voted for it, but that was because it was amended onto a bill that advocated a voting paper trail).
Michigan on the other hand only had Hillary on the ballot and was pushed up by a Democratic legislature and Governor. They did this despite knowing that there would be consequences. So I think there is absolutely no way the Michigan dlegates should count. Florida I don’t think should count either, but I don’t think I find it as egregious.
Te irony of course is that if they had had kept their primaries when they were they would have had a huge influence, like Ohio and Texas.
I’m of two minds about this. On one hand, I’m generally all for anything that increases the number of voices that were heard. If it’s a democracy (or some semblance thereof), then any decision which results in more sets of people getting to vote is a good one.
But, there’s also the issue that was already brought up that decisions have to have consequences. If the DNC is perceived as a toothless pushover, then all sorts of states can try to pull shenanigans in the future, then say “ok, fine, we couldn’t do that… but we’ll just have a makeup primary like Michigan and Florida did”.
More worrying, however, is that any primary or caucus that was organized starting right now would be designed in an atmosphere were we already know who the two candidates are, what their strengths and weaknesses are, etc. For instance, it might be the case that, in a vacuum, the best compromise solution would be to have caucuses instead of full primaries. But of course we all know that with these two candidates, Obama does better in caucuses. So any decision to have caucuses seems pro-Obama. It may be so late in the process now that any plans that we come up with now are, by the very nature of the situation, partial towards or against one candidate. If there was a pre-existing “here is how to have a fallback primary” plan that was written years ago that we could implement, that would be one thing, but how can we possibly come up with a fair process in the middle of the process?
It’s my understanding that if Florida held a primary prior to X. date it was understood it wouldn’t count. There’s nothing in the rules whatsoever that would prevent Florida from holding a second primary, so I don’t really get your complaining. I think even the DNC is fully accepting that a second vote in Florida or Michigan would be in line with the rules and they would seat the delegates. The only reason they didn’t seat them the first time is because the states held their primaries earlier than the DNC wanted.
Of course, the DNC isn’t going to pay for a do-over, and neither is the State of Florida–so I’m not sure why this is even up to debate. It genuinely looks like it’s simply not going to happen.
It won’t be a problem in the future if DNC dosen’t insist on continuing to protect and maintain the sacred early status of Iowa and New Hampshire. They need to change to a system of rotating regional primaries, or something equally fair to everyone.
Plus the DNC are not aganist any post Feb 5th re-do, they just don’t want to pay for it.
This doesn’t portray the DNC as toothless whatsoever. The DNC said, “you hold your primaries no earlier than this date, or we don’t seat your delegates.” They held their primary earlier than that date, and their delegates aren’t being seated. Florida or Michigan running a second primary later in the election calendar is, in fact, a direct capitulation on their part to the DNC–they’re essentially agreeing with the DNC that they shouldn’t hold their primaries before a certain date. The DNC is proving its authority in the case of a do-over.
It’s also establishing its authority by just not seating the delegates, too. But the DNC has no interest in prohibiting a do-over outright, at least not any that would make sense to me.
You’re right.
This is what portrays the DNC as toothless. When New Hampshire thumbs its nose at the negotiated primary calendar.
“The people” elected those who made the decisions to break the rules.
“The people” should have been outraged when their elected representatives made a decision that would result in their votes not counting.
What about the people who didn’t bother voting in the Florida and Michigan “opinion polls” because they didn’t think their votes would count? If those states’ results are counted as-is, then the “didn’t vote because it didn’t count” crowd gets screwed.
Cheating? It’s not cheating when you have to make adjustments due to unfair play by one team. So some magic number won’t be reached–who cares. The candidate with the most delegates wins.