Democrat do-over??

[ImnoMensa]

ABC News: DNC's Dean Hopeful on Delegate Do-Over

"The states have got to come before the DNC with a plan, or else decide to appeal their exclusion to the credentials committee.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somebody explain this to me please. By saying the States,does he mean the Democrat party in those states?

Because the States didnt make the rules the DNC did. Therefore IMO any new vote should be paid for by the DNC. Certainly not the citizens of these two states. If Hillary hadnt won Fla. and Mich this wouldnt even be being discussed IMO. After all the Democrats talk of disenfranchisement after the last election ,how could they have come up with such a really stupid idea in the first place?

 

[Ken King]

If you check the DNC Standing Committee for Rules you will find that the Michigan Governor is one of the chairs, so why didn't Michigan follow the rules?

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

If you check the DNC Standing Committee for Rules you will find that the Michigan Governor is one of the chairs, so why didn't Michigan follow the rules?

Prolly got into a pizzing contest with Dean. The DNC should pay for do-overs, not the citizens.

 

[Ken King]

Prolly got into a pizzing contest with Dean. The DNC should pay for do-overs, not the citizens.

Why would the MI governor, a chair member of the DNC rules committee, allow for the legislature to ammend the states primary election law to set a date in 2008 only for the early election? It isn't like they were moving the date permanently but only for 2008. Seems that the governor knew it was in violation of the DNC rules and as such she could have vetoed the legislation. Knowing this now I say Michigan should lose there delegates or pay for any re-vote themselves if they want their delegates counted.

 

[awpitt]

Why would the MI governor, a chair member of the DNC rules committee, allow for the legislature to ammend the states primary election law to set a date in 2008 only for the early election? It isn't like they were moving the date permanently but only for 2008. Seems that the governor knew it was in violation of the DNC rules and as such she could have vetoed the legislation. Knowing this now I say Michigan should lose there delegates or pay for any re-vote themselves if they want their delegates counted.

I don't know why the DNC came up with the "no earlier than 02/05" rule but that was the rule and everyone knew it. Two states chose to break the rule. Now they either have to live with it or pay for a recount.

 

[Larry Gude]

Why do...

If you check the DNC Standing Committee for Rules you will find that the Michigan Governor is one of the chairs, so why didn't Michigan follow the rules?

...you think?

Obviously, states that want to be part of the actual nominating process early on, know you need to be early or likely not matter. At least that has been the case for all of our lives.

The state RNC and DNC committees, with obvious support of their state legislatures and governors who must approve the date change as it is THEIR primary, saw other states move and wanted to move too. They were told their delegations would not be seated if they did this. They took their chances and here we are.

Dean says 'come before me and make your plea'.

Simple question; who is pre-eminent, the DNC or a given state? Obviously, the state. The states could boycott the convention and throw the whole thing back in the face of the person who screwed up; Dean.

 

[Larry Gude]

A recount...

I don't know why the DNC came up with the "no earlier than 02/05" rule but that was the rule and everyone knew it. Two states chose to break the rule. Now they either have to live with it or pay for a recount.

...is a farce. Everything has changed. The rest of the primaries went on with things the way they were. If you redo a vote in one state, you have to redo them all.

The DNC came up with the rule to impose their idea of order on their nominating process. I have no problem with them making their own rules. I have a problem with Dean, as DNC leader, not coming to an agreement with Florida and Michigan long before we got to this mess.

Now, Dean has NO choice. He must stick to his ruling or throw the whole thing into chaos.

ANY redoing of a vote, given all the rules were accepted and followed before hand, is inherently unfair to all voters.

 

[Ken King]

...you think?

Obviously, states that want to be part of the actual nominating process early on, know you need to be early or likely not matter. At least that has been the case for all of our lives.

The state RNC and DNC committees, with obvious support of their state legislatures and governors who must approve the date change as it is THEIR primary, saw other states move and wanted to move too. They were told their delegations would not be seated if they did this. They took their chances and here we are.

Dean says 'come before me and make your plea'.

Simple question; who is pre-eminent, the DNC or a given state? Obviously, the state. The states could boycott the convention and throw the whole thing back in the face of the person who screwed up; Dean.

Because they wanted to be of the "first" to voice their opinion, Michigan's earliest regular election date before they changed it was the forth Tuesday in February, which is still earlier than many other states, so wanting it to be "part of the actual nominating process early on" doesn't wash.

As to who is pre-eminent in a primary election to select the Party's choice I would say the Party.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

Because they wanted to be of the "first" to voice their opinion, Michigan's earliest regular election date before they changed it was the forth Tuesday in February, which is still earlier than many other states, so wanting it to be "part of the actual nominating process early on" doesn't wash.

As to who is pre-eminent in a primary election to select the Party's choice I would say the Party.

...if they didn't move up to be early in the primary process, what do you think the motivation was?

 

[Ken King]

...if they didn't move up to be early in the primary process, what do you think the motivation was?

What?

 

[ylexot]

I was in favor of letting the two states redo their primaries, but now I think they should have to live with the rules that were put in place by the DNC. If the states want to scream about disenfranchisement, they should be refered to their state party bosses.

Maybe next time they will make the rules such that if a state goes earlier than their appointed date, they get sent to the end of the line...for a century!

 

[Larry Gude]

That is the ONLY...

but now I think they should have to live with the rules that were put in place by the DNC.

...proper and fair answer. Anything else makes a circus of their process and brings rightful distrust and clouds the transparency necessary to be considered legitimate.