OK, Solve the Michigan-Florida Dilemma

[frankfrank]

^ Thank you for explaining this better; this is another example of the media falling down on the job.

 

[bynm27]

if it's at all possible, i think those two states need to vote again so it would be fair

 

[lancelva]

The reason Rule 11 should be waived for IA, NH, NV, and SC but not MI and FL is that the issue was raised before the vote with respect to MI and FL but not with respect to the others. The result is that all the candidates were relying on IA, NH, NV, and SC primaries counting. By contrast, at most only one candidate was counting on MI and FL at the time the contests were held. (Was Sen. Clinton planning this ploy all along?) The argument for including them only arose after the fact and should be estopped.

The DNC recommended punishment for Michigan and Florida, which is why the candidates pledged not to campaign in those two states and not the other ones. The DNC gave a pass to the other states (and note that only three of the states violated the rule, Nevada didn't). So the question is why should Michigan and Florida be punished for breaking the rule and Iowa, New Hamphire, and South Carolina be treated to a different standard?

 

[khushibagh]

My understanding was that at the November 2007 DNC meeting, the Rules and Bylaws Committee approved waivers from Rule 11 for Iowa New Hampshire and South Carolina so it is misleading to simply quote Rule 11 as originally promulgated without mentioning the waivers. All the candidates knew by the beginning of December that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina would count and that Florida and Michigan would not. Now Hillary is trying to change the rules. Am I missing something? The article from RealClearBlogs below summarizes what I believe happened.


December 01, 2007
Democrats Finalize Primary Calendar
VIENNA, VIRGINIA - With Iowa's lead-off caucuses a scant 33 days away, the Democratic National Committee put finishing touches on the calendar under which it will nominate a presidential candidate. The chaos that has ruled the seemingly endless process of establishing delegate selection rules was finally laid to rest at today's DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, the last before the party's August convention.

Recent calendar shuffling required Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to seek waivers as states jockeyed for position. The three states, which have long held early primaries, had been given permission to hold their contests before an approved February 5 window in which other states can schedule their events. The waivers, necessary because all three had changed the dates on which their contests will be held in recent months, were granted with little dissent.

Still, the meeting was not without rigor or conflict. Many throughout the party have voiced frustration that Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that have traditionally held their nominating contests at the head of the pack, continue to dominate the process so completely. "It's unconscionable that we continue to grant special treatment" to the two early states, Michigan Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer told fellow committee members.

Brewer's home state faced the harshest sanctions of the day. Just weeks after Michigan's state legislature moved to establish a primary ahead of the February 5 window, "Michigan is coming to you today to request equal treatment," DNC member Debbie Dingell said. Early states have too much influence on the process, she argued, as Democrats hope to elect a president. "It is not a president of Iowa or New Hampshire. It is a president of all 50 states," she said.

Despite their pleas, the body stripped Michigan of its entire delegate slate. The move, along with four Democratic candidates' decisions to remove themselves from the primary ballot, makes Michigan's January 15 primary little more than a beauty contest. Michigan becomes the second state, along with Florida, to see its delegates removed for rule violations.

Ensuring that Michigan's contest is all but meaningless, the committee provided an eleven-day window between the New Hampshire primary and the Nevada caucuses, giving candidates a chance to reset messages and focus on the Silver State. Nevada Democrats are giddy at the prospect of increased influence in the process; state party Executive Director Travis Brock passed out stickers touting "the 11 Days of Caucus."

Nevada did not come by its position in the process easily, and its advance could signal a change in the way future calendars are formulated. Opening the meeting, RBC co-chairs James Roosevelt and Alexis Herman spent significant time reviewing the progress and decisions the committee has made. No matter the work put into the calendar this year, many committee members predicted an end to Iowa and New Hampshire's traditional supremacy.

Criticizing New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner's public adherence to a state law requiring him to set the primary a week ahead of other states, committee member Donna Brazile said she believed the "gentleman's agreement" between Iowa and New Hampshire was coming to a close. "I want to thank Mr. Gardner for making sure that it is history," Brazile said.

The final pre-February 5 window schedule:

January 3 - Iowa
January 5 - Wyoming (Republican caucuses only)
January 8 - New Hampshire
January 15 - Michigan (Only Republican delegates allocated)
January 19 - Nevada
January 19 - South Carolina (Republican primary only)
January 26 - South Carolina (Democratic primary only)
January 29 - Florida (Only Republican delegates allocated)
February 5 - Party-approved window opens

 

[White Eagle]

The Democratic Parties of Michigan and Florida violated DNC rules. You can obfuscate all you want - as a supporter of Sen. Clinton, I expect you to do so.

I found this thru google, does it help?

--snip--

The DNC, as it does every presidential cycle, voted in mid-2006 to give special permission to certain small states to hold early caucuses and primaries. This time around the winning states were the traditional Iowa and New Hampshire, plus South Carolina (first moved to the front row in 2004) and Nevada (the new state on the early calendar). The DNC's rationale was compelling: Small states require personal campaigning rather than airport rallies, and they prevent politics from totally degenerating into a contest of who has the most money for TV ads. With the exception of the kerfuffle over caucus locations in Nevada, the early states did their job well in giving a fair look to the Democratic field before narrowing it down to Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

--snip--

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/30/hillary/

 

[construct]

So the question is why should Michigan and Florida be punished for breaking the rule and Iowa, New Hamphire, and South Carolina be treated to a different standard?

I do believe that I provided an answer to that question even without khushibagh's better answer.

Oh, khushibagh, do you happen to have a link for your explanation of the waiver. I like that answer, and I want to have it handy.

 

[lancelva]

I found this thru google, does it help?

That's what Rule 11 did--created exceptions for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to hold their first determining step before the first Tuesday in February. The rule, however, provides the earliest dates on which they could conduct their primary or caucus. Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada held their contests earlier than the earliest date set by Rule 11. But since no voter should be disenfranchised in this important process, we should seat the delegates from Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina as well as the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

 

[lancelva]

My understanding was that at the November 2007 DNC meeting, the Rules and Bylaws Committee approved waivers from Rule 11 for Iowa New Hampshire and South Carolina so it is misleading to simply quote Rule 11 as originally promulgated without mentioning the waivers. All the candidates knew by the beginning of December that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina would count and that Florida and Michigan would not. Now Hillary is trying to change the rules. Am I missing something? The article from RealClearBlogs below summarizes what I believe happened.

The exceptions were contained within Rule 11. But since these states stepped outside even the exceptions, they required wiavers from the DNC. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is not appropiate to give these states waivers to Rule 11 but not Michigan and Florida. No one is trying to change the rules. We are saying that Michigan and Florida should be held to the same standards as the states that received a waiver from Rule 11.

 

[construct]

I'm saying that it is not appropiate to give these states waivers to Rule 11 but not Michigan and Florida. No one is trying to change the rules. We are saying that Michigan and Florida should be held to the same standards as the states that received a waiver from Rule 11.

Oh. . . . This long after the fact. Despite everyone relying on the previous decision right up through the night of the contests and weeks beyond. I see. Thank you.

 

[khushibagh]

I do believe that I provided an answer to that question even without khushibagh's better answer.

Oh, khushibagh, do you happen to have a link for your explanation of the waiver. I like that answer, and I want to have it handy.

You can find it under December 1, 2007 on the Realclearpolitics.com blog. I think this is the link. You have to scroll down quite a bit though.

www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2007/12/

The point Lance is that the DNC granted a waiver from original Rule 11 as per its procedures to those three states. So they are not in the same boat as Florida and Michigan and it is misleading for Hillary's people to suggest otherwise.

 

[lancelva]

The point Lance is that the DNC granted a waiver from original Rule 11 as per its procedures to those three states. So they are not in the same boat as Florida and Michigan and it is misleading for Hillary's people to suggest otherwise.

You're missing the point. The question is: why give those three states a waiver and not Michigan and Florida? All five violated Rule 11. So all five should get a waiver or all five should be punished. It is not fair to punish some but not others for violating the same rule.

 

[lancelva]

Oh. . . . This long after the fact. Despite everyone relying on the previous decision right up through the night of the contests and weeks beyond. I see. Thank you.

Senator Clinton called on Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated before their primaries.

 

[construct]

Senator Clinton called on Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated before their primaries.

And so I return to my parenthetical question: Was Sen. Clinton planning this ploy all along? If so, was that the reason she left her name on the Michigan ballot?

 

[khushibagh]

You're missing the point. The question is: why give those three states a waiver and not Michigan and Florida? All five violated Rule 11. So all five should get a waiver or all five should be punished. It is not fair to punish some but not others for violating the same rule.

I don't think so. Rule 11 always contemplated that IA, NH, SC and NV would go before Super Tuesday. MI and FL tried to muscle in and got slapped down. IA, NH and SC decided that they wanted to go a few days earlier than permitted by Rule 11 and the DNC ultimately decided to accomodate them by granting a waiver. It was not such a big change to the idea of having four showcase contests in four relatively small states in different regions pre-Super Tuesday to grant them a waiver of a few days. It would have been a much bigger deal to allow two fairly large states to jump the queue. The situations are not really comparable.

 

[MystikWizard]

I'm gonna go with "the rules are do not move your primary ahead or you lose your delegates". Something to that effect.
They made their bed now sleep in it, and hope it is a hunk you wake up with. Not Craig fer sure.
Smelter, you could have at least posted an eight ball that worked.

I'm with you. The rules were clear. Move up your Primaries and lose your delegates. Therefore, no delegates from these states should go to the Convention. Pretty simple solution. You don't reward bad behavior, otherwise it encourages more states to do it in the future.

 

[naked gent]

It seems to me the disenfranchisement argument which Clinton & co. are making cuts both ways. I think its safe to assume that when told their votes would not count before the election many potential voters stayed home.

That means that the results are tainted and should the results be counted you are effectively disenfranchising those who choose not to waste their time voting because they were told it would not count.

Its a good way to hold down turnout and intentional or not it results in a less than democratic election.

Either you do it over or you let it stand.......anything else is unfair and undemocratic.

You have to hand it to the republicans because their solution to this problem seems to avoid the problem the dems are having and I'd bet come next cycle the dems will adopt the same rules.

And lance nice try but it won't fly. Those who voted in the primaries before super tuesday believed their votes would count and in a democracy that makes all the difference.

Voters matter....candidates don't.

 

[White Eagle]

That's what Rule 11 did--created exceptions for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to hold their first determining step before the first Tuesday in February. The rule, however, provides the earliest dates on which they could conduct their primary or caucus. Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada held their contests earlier than the earliest date set by Rule 11. But since no voter should be disenfranchised in this important process, we should seat the delegates from Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina as well as the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Ok I'll accept what you say. My problem is apparently not knowing Rule 11. Where do I find it.

 

[iman]

It was a primary election, if people stayed home for whatever reason does not invalidate the election. Voters did not have to stay home and Obama did not have to take his name off the ballot. The Credentials Committee will have to work it out, that is their job.

 

[naked gent]

^^ IC even if the Rodhams won't admit it the underlying problem is that if she gains the nomination through the addition of disputed delegates the democrats lessen their chances of victory come November.

If democrats believe they got cheated in 2000 because their guy got the most votes and lost then their path is clear.

 

[lancelva]

This issue really comes down to those that think Rodham should get away with shitting the voters of this country, and those that don't---the latter saying that either a do-over primary should be held OR those states don't count as the DNC initially established. Even though the DNC was completely wrong in this matter from the beginning and the primary system needs to be fixed across the board, it doesn't rectify the situation by undemocratic primaries to now be sanctifed as counting.

The "voters of this country"? Apparently you don't realize that voters in Florida and Michigan are part of "this country" and but disenfranchising them and silencing their voice, you are in effect "shitting" them. A do-over primary is too expensive and the people have already expressed their voice. And how were they undemocratic? Voters had a chance to vote freely and openly. It was a tactical error on Obama's part to take his name off the ballot in Michigan. It is his fault that he didn't think the voice of the voters matters and he should suffer the consequences.