Florida & Michigan primary elections--count or no count?

pontius

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by digitydash
http:///forum/post/2600412
How does the media know but the election people don't.The larger media when it come to goverment have a ajenda if you ask me so I don't believe it.I surely never heard that here in florida on the news.
Bush was declared the winner, so I guess the election people do and did know. I distinctly remember that 2 of the media outlets that did their own studies were left-wing leaning media outlets, so I think they found the opposite of what they were hoping to find.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2600405
it's agreed to by the parties. the reason that NH, SC, Iowa, and Nevada all go first is because they are all somewhat small states. due to this, campaigning in those states are usually smaller functions and "up close and personal" campaigning. this allows unknown and underfunded candidates to have a better chance to become "known" before moving on to the bigger states where campaigning isn't nearly as personal. it is meant as fairness to the candidates, not the particular states. that was the rule agreed upon by the DNC. Florida and Michigan, both large states with a large number of delegates, broke the established rules.
I know what the rational is. It's just absurd. It's more about a tradition than anything. Having 4 or 5 primary dates with the states somewhat grouped together would make it affordable for the candidates and provide a better cross section of the country.
 
pontius

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2600429
The problem is a whole lot of the people in Florida and Michigan who voted for Clinton in the primaries are going to be plenty PO'ed that their votes don't count. As a McCain supporter I hope they don't seat the delegates but as political junkie I don't think the powers that be in the Democrat party can possibly be that stupid. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't at this point.
Unless a particularly nasty skelaton falls out of Obama's closet the Dems will lose nearly all the black vote and a lot of younger voters if they shaft him. That would hurt down the ballot in a lot of states. Not gonna happen. This is a classic no win situation unless Hillary conceeds and make an agreement that the delegates all get seated but she releases them to vote for Obama. Yep, I can just see that happening

it IS a classic no win situation and you are right. and while I don't blame the Florida/Michigan voters because they are innocent in the matter, it was their states that broke the established rule. I'm pretty sure both states sued and lost, and then went ahead and did their primaries early anyway.
they would have to do re-votes, because Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan. I personally don't see any way that Obama will lose. Clinton will win Florida, but Obama will probably win Michigan, so it would even out and he'd still end up winning the nomination.
 
pontius

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2600470
I know what the rational is. It's just absurd. It's more about a tradition than anything. Having 4 or 5 primary dates with the states somewhat grouped together would make it affordable for the candidates and provide a better cross section of the country.
well, absurd or not, the parties have a right to set their own rules in how the primaries are run. the rules were established and Florida and Michigan chose to break the rules. it would be completely unfair to Obama if they just said, "hey, let's go back now and give FL and Michigan to Hillary" after those 2 states clearly violated the rules.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2600473
well, absurd or not, the parties have a right to set their own rules in how the primaries are run. the rules were established and Florida and Michigan chose to break the rules. it would be completely unfair to Obama if they just said, "hey, let's go back now and give FL and Michigan to Hillary" after those 2 states clearly violated the rules.
Well here's the thing. The party's do have the right to set the rules they want BUT the states also have the right to tell them to go eat a booger. The states can set the primary dates and if the parties don't like it they can do their own election schedule at their cost. That is part of the problem with a revote. The Demcrat party will have to pay for it in Florida and I think Michigan both. I think the deadline has already passed for including the presidential candidates on Michigan's ballot. Both governors have already said they will not pay for any revotes but they will cooperate with the DNC if they want to pay for one.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by digitydash
http:///forum/post/2600392
Bush won the Electoral votes which is goverment.He didn't win the popular votes.If you as me why vote if the people voting can get vetoed and put who ever the goverment wants in their.As far as bush clealy winning Florida I think your wrong.Both had 49% and Nader had 2%.Scroll down to the bottom and you can get the voting tallies.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
The founding fathers did a good job setting the rules. Unfortunately over the years, we've messed with them. US Senators were picked by the states, and were meant to represent the state, while the US reps were representing the people directly. Them we went and screwed that up, now, we get senators running for election and power and not doing their job. We cannot ignore the wisdom of the popular vote/ electoral college.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html
 
skipperdz

skipperdz

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2600574
Well here's the thing. The party's do have the right to set the rules they want BUT the states also have the right to tell them to go eat a booger. The states can set the primary dates and if the parties don't like it they can do their own election schedule at their cost. That is part of the problem with a revote. The Demcrat party will have to pay for it in Florida and I think Michigan both. I think the deadline has already passed for including the presidential candidates on Michigan's ballot. Both governors have already said they will not pay for any revotes but they will cooperate with the DNC if they want to pay for one.
right....and in that way every state will want to be first. and every state will keep bumping up their date so they are first. if you think its a mess now.....
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by skipperdz
http:///forum/post/2601602
right....and in that way every state will want to be first. and every state will keep bumping up their date so they are first. if you think its a mess now.....

The states are doing that now
Only way to really fix the problem is with a constitutional amendment because it is up to each state how they conduct their elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top