Well, it appears the Democrats are in a bit of a democratic pickle. The Democratic parties of Florida and Michigan, both delegate rich states, opted to defy the rules established by the DNC (rules they agreed to, and signed off on, mind you), and held their primaries early.... as a result of this rather boneheaded move, the DNC said "suckit, jerks!" and stripped these two states of their delegates.
Afterall, if you break the rules, you should suffer the consequences, right? Right.
Well, that was all well and good until we found out that the Democratic primaries were still going on this late in the game without a clear winner. Obama may be ahead, but at the end of the day, if Michigan and Florida could have resulted in a different nominee, it's going to undoubtedly turn into a political shit storm of embarassing proportions.
Now Michigan and Florida want a "do-over"... essentially a day to say "Haha! We kid! Now we will hold teh real electionz!"
The Pickle Part: This could cost somewhere in the range of $20 million dollars, and these two states don't want to pay for it; Or more accurately, don't want to ask their tax payers to pay for it... because you can bet your bottom dollar that if they do, their asses will get shit-canned the next time THEIR names appear on a ballet. And frankly, the taxpayers SHOULDN'T be asked to foot the bill for another caucus day. So naturally, they ask the DNC to help them out.
But Howard Dean says "ho there, little bear, this is your problem, not ours. We're not footing the bill for your asshattery. Besides, we can't afford it. 20 million means a LOT of TV/Radio spots for the Presidential Election"
If the democratic parties of Florida and Michigan can't afford to hold a re-do, and the DNC can't afford to help them out, that means several million voters are suddenly hung out to dry, and completely disenfranchised from the process.... which wasn't a big deal when we didn't think it was going to matter.
But now it just might, and I'm not really sure what the solution is.
1. Allowing a Re-Do is fine and dandy, and I think is perfectly reasonable.
2. Asking the state taxpayers to pay for it is out of the question
3. Asking the DNC to pay for it also seems to be out of the question
4. Saying "fuggit" and just not counting Florida and Michigan is increasingly looking like an option that is out of the question, given how close Obama and Clinton are in the running.
So what now? Seek private funding and donations? Whatever the case, it needs to be resolved, or it could potentially be a huge shadow over the rest of the election process.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't know the answer to this one honestly. On the one hand, it sucks to have that many voters disenfranchised. On the other hand, they all known before they voted that their votes wouldn't count (or at least should have been informed of such). And let's not forget a few key facts:
1. The only names on the ballot in Michigan were Clinton and D.K.
2. Neither of the candidates campaigned in either state.
3. Many, some might argue more intelligent voters, didn't bother to show up to vote knowing their votes didn't matter anyway. Heard this on NPR today.
4. Because of Florida moving their primary up, a lot of voters missed voting because they didn't know the date had been pushed forward so far. I heard a story on NPR about this right after the Florida primary.
5. The Clinton camp only started being upset about MI and FL since they have been trailing.
There are a few other possible solutions I have heard suggested. There has been some, not-so-well-received, talk about doing a mail-in ballot in FL. And for MI, it has been suggested that Clinton receive the delegates she won (about 55 %) and Obama receive the others (45 %). Neither of these is truly satisfying I know, but, nothing is going to be a perfect solution at this point.
I must say though, I don't think the states should be rewarded for breaking the rules, which is what it seems like many folks want to happen, especially with a "Do-Over". But... it would suck if my vote didn't count... ugh.
I don't know.
Well, it isn't so much a "reward" as it is a "ok, we won't force you to hang yourselves" issue, in my mind.
But a mail-in ballot? Yuck... that won't go very far. And just handing Obama 45% of the delegates when he wasn't on the ballot is just dumb.
Awarding the delegates on the basis of the current vote tallies just wouldn't work, especially because of the Michigan ballot, and for the reasons you pointed out. I think a do-over is just about the only viable way to do it.
What a mess. Rules are rules, and consenting to the rules, then choosing to abandon them, was a mind bogglingly stupid move on the part of the state's respective democratic parties, especially after the DNC warned them that their delegates would be flushed strait down the pooper if they did it.
But I think both sides assumed their postures based on the assumption that the nominee would have been decided by now. Oopsie!
Now, while I love to watch the democrats engage in astronomically retarded tomfoolery, when it comes down to it, millions of people are going to be shut out of the process if things stay as is, and that isn't funny.
And while I'd rather Obama win than Hillary, knowing that these two states would probably go to the latter doesn't particularly please me... but it still isn't right to completely shut out two states worth of voters because a handful of people in charge of organizing these things are dumbasses.
Ah, Florida... What would an election be without a fuckup from the Sunshine State!
By reward I meant that it puts them in the national spotlight and gives them a lot of electoral power that they don't deserve, especially after violating the rules. That is essentially what a "do-over" does.
You could do caucuses if you want to cut down on the $$$ aspect of it. But of course Obama wins every caucus, so Clinton's people wouldn't be up for that.
If they are going to have a "do-over", they should schedule it soon.
There is still a bad taste in my mouth about the whole thing honestly. Break the rules, get the attention and an over-inflated importance in the race. This really should have been dealt with earlier too. I wonder if the states had gone to Obama (or DK or Biden or someone else) if there would still be this issue. Maybe so, but then the people crying out for "fairness" would be singing a different tune.
Ah, I gotcha. And yeah, in that respect, the whole situation is even lamer.
Well, if the states had gone to Obama, it *wouldn't* really be an issue, because those votes wouldn't have had the opportunity to change the outcome. But the very fact that Hillary did well in both states does change the scenery a bit.
But yeah, it's funny how concern for fairness is directly proportionate to how badly one's ass in on the line. ;)
I don't want to see voter disenfranchised at all, but it is important to recall that it was the state party officials that bear responsibility. They moved the date of their primaries up in spite of warnings from the DNC because they wanted to be sure they got a say. So the DNC said you broke the rule, tough shit. I don't really know how I feel about that, but it seems that the state parties were wrong, and they need to explain to the voters that they fucked up.
Now, what to do: Again I don't want to see people not get to vote, but I don't know that there is a real way to allow them to participate. The votes already casts are not legit since so many people stayed home because they thought the vote wouldn't matter, b/c Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI, and neither candidate campaigned in either state. The only options, I think, are either say sorry, blame your state party folk, or to tentatively schedule them for after Puerto Rico. Who pays for it is a bigger question. I really think it has to be the DNC, bc it would be unfair to make the voters of the states (which are not all Democrats or voters) pay for the elections. A mail in ballot would not be ideal, but it is probably the cheaper option.
Post a Comment