How many would agree to re-votes in FL and MI?

How many delegates would that involve? About 360? Whew! With the 63 in PR and the 48 in MT and SD, that's a big slice of the pie left. But do they have time for a re-vote in both states? Maybe let FL stand as is and do a re-vote in MI? Just suppose this were to happen? What would be Obama's lead after the re-votes? What is his lead at present? I know! The election is over. Obama is the nominee. Just suppose?

But if we can't have a re-vote, what is the most fair and democratic way to handle this problem? Please don't say "they broke the rules and their votes don't count". I don't think that is fair to the voters of either of those states. I suppose we will see in a few days what solution they will come up with? Everyone that thinks this is beating a dead horse may want to skip the comments and go to another thread?

You have my deepest sympathies.

:eyes:

Stop pulling numbers out of thin air. Even Hillary is as far off her rocker as you are right here.

Because I'm sure that Florida would end up going to Clinton, barely, and Michigan would heavily go towards Obama. I see no problem with a revote, nor do I see any problem with keeping it the way it is right now - no delegates.

and let the voters have their say, seat the delegates fairly...

but on the other hand, giving the states what they want mean in 2012, all states will put their primaries on August 2011.

But that's not really what she wants, is it?

Her efforts are entirely self-serving.

Enough bullshit already.

Oy!

I heard Donna Brazille say it is in the rules.

Who would pay for it?

The DNC has not raised a lot of money because of this PRIMARY FIGHT. Both states, MI and FL legislative houses, have said they aren't paying for it.

One thing I would like to know is say they did re-vote so that everyone who wanted to was able to do so, what would change about the original rule violation. Neither MI or FL have said that they were wrong to violate the rule in the first place.

They want to be the first in the nation. There are 47 other states who want to be first too. If they don't respect the rules, why should any other state?

They could print out ballots from the Clerk's office of all the voters that voted in the last election and they could pick them up at the Post Office. New voters would simple need to show an ID and sign for their ballot. They could have one week to mail them in. The states would not need to be involved. The Post Offices are Federal property.

So yes, 50-50 sounds good to me.

Give all delegates - pledged and supers - a .5 vote which I believe was in the rules passed. Use the vote percentages in both states with Obama getting the uncommitted in Michigan - or in Michigan take the deal the state and Obama camp both agreed would be acceptable - I think it would have been 69 C - 59 O.

Proportionality is maintained. Everyone gets to go to Denver and the 50% cut is followed.

Now that would be fun! :D

Uggggghhh.

Indeed, a situation might arise where a half-vote "punishment" could give a candidate a mathematical advantage. Seat the delegates 50/50 with a full vote (they're not to blame), which recognizes all the voters but doesn't give either candidate an advantage (they're not to blame, either). Then blame the superdelegates by not seating them--THAT will take away any incentive for other states to make history repeat itself.

:headbang:
rocknation

Do all Democrats get to vote? What about the ones who voted in the Republican race because they were told their Dem votes wouldn't count? What about all the people who didn't register Dem, or at all, because Hillary said "we all know Michigan won't count". How do you get a fair election?

I say 60/40 MI and let FL stand if need be... ... Not sure that will change the outcome...

And re-write the rules so that caucuses aren't allowed... and that Obama may not campaign in MI, FL, PA, OH, TX, CA, NY...

but in all seriousness, maybe we should... make gore our nominee and avoid this whole mess all together. ahh... in a perfect world.

fun and it's not over yet but if we started the whole thing over maybe it would never end! Yay! And hilary would love it since she doesn't have an exit strategy.

in fundraising because this thing is dragging out too long...

And I don't think the 50-state strategy (especially the plan for the mountain west) should suffer. In other words, I really don't want my contributions to pay for this re-vote. How about some money going to Colorado, where we truly stand a chance to gain 9 electoral votes this time?

What I'm getting at is that a re-vote in each state is a gigantic logistical undertaking and would cost MILLIONS of dollars, and the state parties can't afford it, and the DNC can't afford it and shouldn't have to pony up the dough either. They need to be focusing on targeting McCain and the RNC.

So again, who is paying for it? I've never had an issue with a fair re-vote - but this is a very pricey, dicey proposition.

Most years the nomination is decided by the time we get to New Hampshire or South Carolina.


There is no fair way to resolve this without a re-vote other than 50/50 because there is no way that we can know how the vote would have gone with everyone on the ballot and everyone campaigning.

Hillary probably won't even accept a 55-45 split in her favor though. So...

they can be seated, but they should count for nothing.

do caucuses or mail in votes. And I am not sure it would be fair by this time since Clinton has told them so many lies about Obama not wanting their votes to count.

They could pick up their ballots at their post offices, federal property. States would not be involved. They would have one week to cast their vote. They could match their names to their county clerk's voter rolls and, if first time voters, show ID and sign for a ballot. They could have it completed easily in a week to 10 days.

to implement. When everyone talked about this a month or so ago, they all gave up after seeing how easy fraud would be and how questionable the results would be viewed.

We count them as they voted or we don't count them at all? Or we divide them into percentages as a penalty for disobeying the rules?

Unfortunately.

that's Unfortunately the truth!

and the recount that was stopped.

they've already tried that, and the money isn't there.

the two states broke the DNC rules and jumped ahead a week. The canidates all knew the rules and the SuperDees know the candidates knew the rules.

The states knew they would be punished if they did it and yet they still went out of turn and now all these people come along who don't understand and want to reward them for breaking the rules and get this..Lying about it 'cause they had BlowBack. Sucks to be dino officials in Michigan and Florida.

Or had it set up already. Now it doesn't necessarily matter. Right now they probably just have to find a way to seat them.

I live in Michigan and would have really welcomed an opportunity to cast a real ballot. Unfortunately, my local politicians decided to play petty power games for months before getting even remotely serious about the consequences of their actions. Now it's too late. This race has gone on far too long and it's time to get to the general election.

since you are there, your perspective may be a little more valuable than my own?

There is no way to be fair because no matter which way this is decided someone will be disenfranchised.

Scenario #1: No votes count and Michigan is excluded from the process. If this happens then Michigan gets no say at the convention. It's like we never existed.

Scenario #2: Votes are counted EXACTLY by the original vote. This would silence every voter who did not vote for Clinton because there's no way of telling who each of the "uncommitted" votes were for.

Scenario #3: 50-50 split of delegates or any compromise split: This turns the Michigan delegation into little more than a heap of scraps for the dogs to fight over. The dog with the biggest teeth wins.

Scenario #4: Revote. It's far too late for a revote if the Democratic party wants to have even the slightest chance of winning the election. It would take at the very least a month to put everything in place and get the word out to the voters. Besides the physical logistics, there would be the time wasted in deciding exactly WHO gets to vote. Hillary wants only those people who voted in the original primary, ensuring her win, Obama wants a full vote letting everyone who didn't vote the first time a chance to vote. The DNC wants a caucus so that it can be done quickly and inexpensively. Realistically, it would be nearly impossible to hold a new primary or caucus before the convention due to the wrangling of each camp.

Personally, I'd suggest giving splitting the total delegates and SDs into a 55-45 split in Hillary's favor, or somewhere around there. This should give her the "moral" victory she claims to want without skewing the results enough to alter the dynamics of the race.

The one thing I'm most opposed to is Scenario #2 which would only serve to embolden rogue states in the next election to do the same thing Michigan has done. One of my greatest issues with the Hillary camp is that if she succeeds in breaking the DNC, she will have also broken the Democratic party. Can you imagine what would happen in 2012 if six or more states decided to push up the date of their primaries and used this election as precedent? No court in the land would be able to block them from deciding to hold their contests in December or earlier. We could literally be voting for our nominee two years before the election if things ran this way.

To every action there is a reaction. Anyone who supports the breaking of the DNC needs to remember that.

So a revote would be ok. Just as long as we hold strong on penalizing the FL Superdelegates. They made the problem, they pay the price.

Or work out a deal. Seat at 1/2 the way the Pubs did. Or seat as a whole. Or have a caucus. Or make a deal on how to count them in some other fashion. Just not the Superdelegates. Again, they made the problem, now they should deal with the consequences. And that is my say.