The Only Fair Thing To Do With Regard To Florida and Michigan

Is to award one-third of the delegates to Clinton, one-third to Obama and one-third to Edwards, and let them sit at the convention in Colorado, regardless of what the outcomes of Today's primary are.

You can't make the results of those primaries count, since Edwards and Obama didn't campaign there. And you can't forbid them from being seated at the convention, because that's not fair to those who did come out to vote and participate in the process.

I think seating all equally is the only fair solution to this issue.

is the only fair way to handle this.

That would at least recognize (in a small way) the tone of the other primaries with Edwards running third.

Of course we all know Hillary thinks all the delegates from both states should be hers alone, and if she continues down that path I think the Party should tell her to go F herself and keep those delegates unseated.

Once we get to Denver, the losing candidates will release their delegates and the majority will declare for the winner. That's the way it has almost always worked. This is such a nothing issue as to be nonsensical.

Obama's little play resulted in several candidates not appearing in MI. Clinton should get all the delegates.

In Florida, they're all on the ballot, Obama has had ads there. The winner should get the delegates.

Seating them would be stupid; there was no campaigning, Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan, and voters in both states believed their votes would not count, suppressing turnout.

Not seating them would be "disenfranchisement."

The state parties have fucked this race up badly.

that's why I think seating them with virtually no power would be fair.

with the results.

but at least they'd be seated and 1/3 of them will count, which is semi-close to what the overall result would have been.

The DNC did not tell the candidates to chose to not represent themselves in MI, and by doing so they basically gave their votes to "uncommitted" which can be brokered potentially, at the convention. However, FL's delegates should be doled out proportionately.

you can't take the vote seriously if the candidates didn't try to campaign there. You can't retroactively change the rules. The only fair thing is to say, 'your votes will count, you will be seated at the convention, but you're nto going to give an advantage to any one candidate.'

Information can still get out, just not through "official" levels.

I don't see what your problem.

is that the DNC told the candidates not to campaign there, to treat the state like it doesn't matter, and tell them that the outcome there doesn't matter.

They can't just say 'nevermind' afterwards.

Don't you get that?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what your point is.

...is in the highly unlikely event the margins are so close and Obama choses not to seat them. Otherwise they are considered essentially states that "didn't affect the outcome." Is this clear enough for you?

Maybe I got you confused with some of the people who are advocating counting the delegates for the state, even if Clinton wins by 30 points.

Their punishment is well deserved.

MI and FL are having record turnouts.

That's what I say!! CHEATERS!!

Don't bother reply with the "how & why" they're getting away with it... I don't even care about it anymore! I voted, and so did 9 others in my family, but it was "just because" when it came to the candidates. Voted NO on the amendment!

All of us voted for Edwards! But guess what? Bet YOU'LL never hear about it!!

In Michigan, Hillary gets her actual voted delegates. Obama and Edwards can uh, split the rest based on latest polls - maybe even an exit poll that might have been taken showing how the "uncommitted" voted for candidates Obama and Edwards and the rest.

The primary vote in Michigan CANNOT COUNT!

I'm from Michigan and its very personal to me!

I voted uncommitted, but many that I know stayed home as they were under the impression that their vote would not count.

This is nothing more than dirty politics.

Which can potentially be brokered in favor of Obama and Edwards. Exit polling can be used as a persuasion in the brokering process.

is to change the rules again. That will be the last straw for me. I was po'd when they dreamed up this stupid arrangement in the first place, but to change course after the fact favors one candidate over another and is not fair. It seems apparent they're determined to crown Hillary one way or another.

And once they do, what's to keep every other state committee from just doing whatever the hell they want?

...posts.

...and I'm still waiting for an answer.

You seem to think that by their being seated some evil incarnate of satan will spew forth from Denver and kill us all or something. Geez.

I just don't understand why they would be seated, at all, and what's the point of dividing them up if they don't count? Lip service?

Bbelieve it or not, it's an honest question. If you can convince me otherwise, I'm all for it. If you can't answer without being insulting, then just ignore me.

So far Hillary hasn't gotten more than what 35% in a contested primary. It's hard to imagine the other candidates letting her get the additional 20% (or more/less who knows ) from the 55% she polled in Michigan.

Primaries serve a great purpose of having candidates come to the state and debate/discuss the issues, then you decide which one you like best. Heck, I live in Ohio and the people of Michigan saw and heard no more from the candidates than I did before their primary election.

The party did not tell Edwards or Obama to remove their names from the ballot in MI.

to all the trouble to get on in the first place?

and let the chips fall where they may. I wouldn't want to be a delegate and be told - "you're with blankety-blank".

But that's fairly undemocratic, too. Either way, the voters of MI & FL are the losers in this situation.

And see which asshole doesn't want them seated.

That is the fairest solution.

It's not fair to the candidates' supporters who stayed home, knowing that it didn't count.

If Michigan and Florida Dems don't like it, then I suggest they replace the local high-rollers who put them in this position in the first place.

They will be seated except in the unlikely event there is a contested nomination and Obama (or even more unlikely, Edwards) do not want them seated.

Why exactly should the DNC reverse their decision?

basically the same as not seating them at all? Different people will benefit from either, but essentially the DNC is telling the people of Florida the same thing, "We don't care how you voted, here's what we're going to do".

Aside from who benefits from what, I think this is a bad situation. The DNC set ground rules for the states and Florida and Michigan broke those rules. The punishment laid out was to be stripped of the delegates, and that candidates would not campaign there. To help the DNC enforce their rules, the candidates agreed. THIS WAS NOT THE CANDIDATES IDEA. The DNC even went to court for the right to strip the delegations of their vote at the convention (and won). Now, I see just recently, the DNC is essentially abdicating any responsibility for the situation and saying that seating the delegations is up to the as yet unnamed candidate, who now becomes personally responsible for the votes of millions even though they got into this situation by simply doing what their national party asked of them. This has got to create some trust issues within the DNC, as the DNC is now throwing the candidates under the bus for doing exactly what they asked them for in the first place.

While there is a case to be argued for seating or not seating delegates (the Credentials committee at the Convention recommends and the Convention delegates actually vote on the recommendation) there is nothing whatsoever in the party rules that allow for what you're suggesting.

Or did you think they just made it up as they went along? Jeez, have any of you people every actually been involved with the Democratic Party?

So 1/3 each seems fair

They were not coerced into doing this by the DNC as argued by some liars on these forums.

THAT DEMOCRATIC NON-CONTEST ...

Barack Obama and John Edwards withdrew from the ballot amid a dispute over seating Michigan's Democratic delegates. "Uncommitted" was an option on the ballot against Hillary Rodham Clinton and several lower-tier candidates. Younger voters, college graduates, blacks and voters in bigger cities were more likely than other groups to vote uncommitted.

And if Democrats had a full ballot to choose from, nearly three-quarters of those who voted uncommitted told exit pollsters they would have voted for Obama and many of the rest said Edwards. Of course those results are only among those who were motivated to go to the Democratic primary and vote uncommitted.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIfAwkkooVUzxAU-nYymJicF5kXwD8U6J15O0

THAT is a fair way to split the "uncommitted" vote......