How do you think the Florida/Michigan votes should be handled?

This is an issue I hear lots of opinions on. I was wondering what yours were. Do you think that Florida/Michigan votes should be counted since they are part of the U.S.? Do you think because they broke the rules they shouldn’t count? Do you think they should hold a re-vote and let those be counted? … My own opinion on this is…Yes they broke the rules. I think there should be some kind of recourse over it. Yet I also believe that everyone’s vote should be counted. I think they should do a re-vote and let that stand where it will. After all it wasn’t the fault of the people of those states. If history has taught me anything it is when votes are at stake, somewhere there will be coruption and someone trying to make them not count.

Answer #1

A couple of small points here that are important but not mentioned. The States of Florida and Michigan did nothing wrong, they simply held lawful elections in the proper manner and paid the cost of doing it.

The decision to move the primary earlier was made by each state’s Democratic party organization. They did this because in the past by the time their primaries were held the outcome had already been decided and they felt they didn’t get much input into the process. It was a strategic decision that backfired.

The cost of a revote is millions of dollars and neither state’s democratic party wants to pay for it. Rather, they want the Florida and Michigan government to pay for it and neither state sees it as a prudent use of public money. The national party also doesn’t want to pay for it because they think the money would be better spent in other ways.

Whether or not you agree with the rules, they have to stand for this election cycle. If the rules are not what is desired, they can be changed for the next time. That’s the way it works. It can’t be any other way without losing all semblance of fairness.

Looking at the national trend, a revote would probably result in a mere single digit difference between the major candidates. While Reps use the winner takes all, the dems have been proportional allocation since 1968. While arguably senator Clinton might prevail in a revote, it is unlikely that she would gain much in net delegates.

Finally, while the Republican party trusts its voters to make a sound decision, the Democratic party decided in 1968 that the voters couldn’t be trusted to make the correct decison and switched to the proportional allocation and added super delegates to the formula. This was to ensure that the final decison would be made by the party leadership by making it too tough for a challenger to defeat the chosen candidate–in this case, Senator Clinton. Amazing Obama did just that. The bottom line is that, for democrats, the primary vote really doesn’t mean anything, it’s just an opportunity to promote the cause. This is the real reason why a revote won’t happen.

As for the overall take, while Clinton might possibly defeat McCain, she can’t beat Obama who is probably unelectable. In the emails I get from the DNC, it looks like the party has given up on the presidential race and is refocusing on retaking the Senate. With continuing democratic control of the House, seizing control of the Senate looks like the best strategy to counter a nearly certain McCain presidency. Keep in mind that the Obama/Clinton race is been “gloves on” softball, after the convention, the gloves come off and the game becomes hardball. Obama has serious short comings that have been pretty much kept in the dark up to now.

The bottom line is simply this. It doesn’t matter whether or not Florida and Michigan are recognized. What matters is which candidate the superdelegates decide to go with. Unless she drops out, Clinton can get the nomination if she convinces the supers that its the right choice. What the superdelegates will be looking at will be the size of the “gap” voters, (that is, the gap between the candidates) compared with the relative defection rate (those who would vote mccain if their favorite deesnt get the nomination). At this writing, this figure favors Clinton over Obama as significantly greater number of her supporters have indicated they’d switch. This is the only statistic the supers will be looking at, in my opinion. What has to be vexing for Obama is that the harder he tries to win, the greater the Clinton switch voters are which could ultimately defeat him. In effect, he is is own worst enemy…

Answer #2

“Obama’s name was not taken off the ballot because he stopped campaigning there.”

Look, I don’t agree that Obama’s name should’ve been taken off the ballot. It’s a moot point, because this issue never should have come up in the first place. Moving the date of a primary should not cost a state its delegates or its representation, and stop candidates from campaigning there.

“The only real possibility she has of winning is what I showed. Counting FL & MI as is.”

Which is exactly what I support doing. And which is exactly what Obama supporters don’t want to happen, for obvious reasons.

“The party has to have some way to enforce its rules, or we would be starting the primary season in the prior year.”

Isn’t this supposed to be the DEMOCRATIC party? How can nullifying votes be justified when there is no voter fraud? It’s a primary date. Find some other way of enforcing it.

The only reason I’d be in favor of a recount is because in this case, I think voter turnout would be higher than before…usually, it’s lower. I don’t agree with what the Republicans did either, these states are both very populous and as I said, battleground states. Slashing their representation is inconceivable.

This is one of the worst blows to US democracy in recent years, as bad as the 2000 fiasco.

Answer #3

They should count all the original votes, as they were cast, no re-do, no alternative deals. Bottom line…

I can’t get it through my head why this is such a problem. We’re not talking about vote fraud here. The two states changed the dates of their primaries and causes. Oh, not that! God save our democracy, we should expel Michigan and Florida from the union!

This is the most important nomination in the party’s recent history, and why they would obsess about rules that matter about as much as a pile of horse dung is beyond me. Well, maybe not completely. After all, media darling Obama stands to possibly lose the nomination if Michigan and Florida send all their delegates to the convention. Maybe that’s why the party is so hell bent on exploiting this loophole.

On the other hand, I do have confidence that Florida and Michigan will be represented in one way or another. If not, the Democrats have foolishly, foolishly pissed off two crucial states that could easily swing toward McCain come November.

Answer #4

“Semi, How can you allow MI to count when Obama wasn’t even on the ballot?”

For one thing, Obama’s name was taken off the ballot when he stopped campaigning there. Second, that’s not a violation of the rules. Third, Obama still has millions of supporters in that state who would’ve written his name in. That’s a non-issue.

“And if you see my calculations, you will see it is still unlikely she could overtake Obama if they did.”

Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. Florida and Michigan are swing states. Not only would they probably have gone to Clinton in the primary, but they will be crucial to win in November, and if there are more Clinton supporters there than Obama supporters, the Democrats are doing themselves a disservice.

“Do you really think it is OK to change the rules half way through the game?”

Which do you think is more important: the date you hold your primary, or ensuring fairness for the voters, who did nothing wrong? It’s a stupid rule, but even if it was broken, the voters shouldn’t be made to go through this crap.

Answer #5

“All of Obama’s supporters would effectively be disenfranchised.”

I had not heard that write-ins for Obama had not been counted at all. Please provide some link to where you got that information, because doing something like that is flagrantly illegal.

“What other possible leverage could the DNC use to prevent states from breaking the rules they agreed on? “

Giving the party the power to not allow a state to send delegates is essentially disenfranchising people. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime, so to speak. I agree a new system is necessary. But doing this to a state simply for moving up its primary is not a proportionate response.

“But please don’t compare this to 2000. That was a true travesty that has no peer. We are not having SCOTUS step in and decide who the president is going to be. “

Maybe not, but this time we’re allowing the DNC, rather than the people, to step in and decide who the Democratic nominee will be. The DNC is not oblivious to what’s going on here. They know that a Clinton win in Michigan and Florida would be very bad for Obama, and would give Clinton further reason to continue campaigning. They want a nominee, and given the turn of events over the last couple months, they feel Obama should be the one.

I agree, it has been a good discussion.

Answer #6

Thanks for that link, I was really surprised. I guess I didn’t know that was legal. Seems wrong to me.

I’m not saying the MI and FL parties are blameless, they definately did break the rules. But my point is that it’s a stupid rule. The trend now is for states to move their primaries up. If the DNC doesn’t like that, then there needs to be some other arrangement. All I’m saying is that barring the delegates is not the answer.

And I respectfully disagree that losing MI and FL would not spell trouble for Obama. First, Clinton clearly won both states. Even before Obama’s name was taken off the ballot, Clinton had a strong lead in Michigan in all polls. Second, they are battleground states not just in the primary/caucus, but in the national election as well. What goes on in those two states is pivotal, and a Clinton victory, especially in Florida, is very significant. It would definately allow her a possibility of winning the nomination and the national election.

Answer #7

I agree Wright was very much like family to him, and Obama is not denying that. I also see absolutely nothing wrong with anything he said in his sermons. I may not have the same point of view as him, but with his life expirience, I understand where he is coming from. And I really could care less that he said god damn america. If I were black I’d be saying the same thing.

As far as getting only generalized answers, all politicians do that. They develop all these plans, some in a lot of detail, but 90% is BS. Once they get in office, they will never be able to deliver everything they promise. They never do. So how you judge them becomes more about overall ideology and likeability. It is not perfect, but that is how it usually goes. I really don’t think Obama’s words are crapola. I think he is an extremely articulte, thoughtful person. I also think the same thing of Hillary. Don’t let campaign rhetoric distract you from what is really important.

BTW, I think Hillary has been better lately with the Obama bashing. I think we would all be served better if both of them concetrated on bashing McCain, and there is plenty there to bash. I think they are both realizing that it will hurt the party if they were to keep up this infighting.

Answer #8

Oh definitely she lied. I was just meaning…Mr. Obama when he speaks has a way of drawing you in. He has a way of making you believe every word is from the heart. He has a way of making you believe he is different from a so called “regular” politician. He comes off as an admirable, yet kind individual. One that would in no way compromise his integrity. So I guess I just fell for the crapola and now I feel a bit bitter over it. Rev. Wright was and is more then just his church Rev. He is more like family to the Obama’s that is why I can’t see him not knowing and just I guess disregarding it so easily. I guess I would have preferred more of an acceptance and explaination to it then just a disregard. It’s not my only issue…So a long explaination shortened. I just now see him as all the other politicians. I want to see proof of what you have done, and show me how you plan on doing better for this nation. Don’t give me generalized answers anymore.

Answer #9

There are other issues besides just the Wright situation. I seen Obama in person speaking. The thing with the Wright issue is he made it perfectly clear here in SC that Rev. Wright was his mentor. That the man was like a saint. It was basically saying that the man influences and inspires himself and his family. How he loves to hear him preach. Now a mentor and inspiration that he holds so dear to his family. Yet turns around and says I never heard a speech like that. I was never present to hear anything like that. When a Reverand gives a speech he gives it from his heart. He puts his soul and visions into it. Now for Obama to disregard all of that now after putting Rev. Wright on a pedistool and saying I was never present and didn’t know he spoke like that, is like he is telling me I am ignorant and a simpleton. I know politicians ice the cake pretty and say what you want to hear. Yet this is something that I took to be close to his heart. So did a lot of people. I really don’t want to keep going on about it. I will just say it let me down very much. Along with a lot of other things. Maybe I seen him as a person of dignity and honor when I should have just seen the flat out politician. He is no different from any other one there.

Answer #10

Butterfly, I am sorry, but if I knew their votes wouldn’t count, how could they have no idea. The fact that Obama wasn’t on the ballot isn’t the only reason why the January vote can’t count. It is because the people were told that their votes wouldn’t count. I am sure there are many people who didn’t bother to vote because of it. And no one campaigned there. You just can’t pretend that is was a normal primary and count it. The only fair thing would be a new primary or caucus. I would be all for that, but it aint going to happen. And as I said, in the end, it doesn’t matter. Even with FL & MI included, Hillary still cant win. It would change the number a little, but not enough for her to win. She would still have to win the remaining races by a 60/40 margin.

This is how it breaks down with the pledged delegates:

Without FL & MI:

Obama - 1414 Hillary - 1252

Remaining delegates - 566

Hillary would have to win 368 of them, or 65%, to overtake Obama.

Including FL and MI:

Obama - 1414 Hillary - 1252

Remaining delegates - 879

Hillary would have to win 527 of them, or 60% in order to overtake Obama.

Do you think there is even a remote possibility of either of these scenarios.

Answer #11

jimahl…I’m not peeved, I was confused. I was not understanding how it went from the will of the people which is votes to delegates…I never said I voted for Clinton. I said I was seriously rethinking my vote. I am not sure I voted for the right candidate. I can honestly say that Obama has let me down tremendously. The speech I heard was about how Rev. Wright inspired him spiritually and he holds a high honor to this man. I heard how he is for the people no matter what the outcome he will always be by the side of the people. I heard how he is the right man to get the job done. How he will help the common man keep his job…Yet months later I see things that show me he lied to my face…To me what makes him any better then Hillary? She proved one important thing to me. She put a plan in motion that is still there today. Health care for lower income children. I am sorry but that one thing to me has an honor beside it. I deal with low income people daily. It breaks my heart. I don’t mean people who don’t work and try either. I mean low income.

Answer #12

There is no clear cut, correct answer. This is a major screw up that lays at a lot of peoples feet. But mostly the states themselves and the party. But even the people are to blame too. No one thought this through, and many thought that in the end they would allow the delagtes to be seated. The voters should have been up in arms with their state party leaders when the national party told them they would not seat their delegates if they broke the rules. And they did break the rules. Rules that every state agreed to.

The bottom line is, they can not seat the delegates based on the vote that already occured. No one campaigned, and who knows how many people stayed home thinkng their votes wouldn’t count. And a revote offers its own set of problem, but is the only viable solution. But that is not going to happen now.

At this point it is moot anyway. Even if you did revote, it would not change the ultimate outcome. Obama has already won. Hillary just hasn’t accepted that fact yet.

Answer #13

Let me get more into this…jimahl…you say the will of the people yet you turn around and tell me the people don’t count it’s the delegates that count. Okay. Now you say Hillary clearly lost. Yet she could pull ahead of Obama. It does not take 60% to do that. There is a fine margin whether you see it or not. Also jimahl Obama withdrew his own name. No one didn’t just put it on there. There were people that wrote it in. He did that because he knew he had already lost that state. It also made it harder for Michigan to count. This is not media hype either.
Now honestly is it the will of the people that count to you, or is it anyway it makes Obama ahead? Because you are really confusing. I promise you if you look at all the statistics Hillary is not that far behind Obama. As far as it not being likely for them to consider Florida and Michigan. It is more then likely they will. If not this complete primary could be a disaster. That my friend will divide the party. It will make a bigger problem come Nov. People are angry. As they should be.

Answer #14

Butterfly, I really don’t see anything wrong in what Wright said, so I don’t think Obama did or said anything wrong about his relationship with him. So we will just have to agree to disagree. But Obama did not lie about what he heard or saw. He said he was not present at the sermons of the youtube videos, but he had been at other sermons where he said inflamatory things that he disagreed with. Let me ask you, do you think Hillary lied when she said they landed in bosnia under sniper fire? Or do you think she just mis-spoke? Beleive me, I could care less. I think this issue is just as insignificant as the Wright issue. The point is, you shouldn’t get too hung up on these type of non-policy crap that goes on in campaigns. It is just fodder for the press, and they push it down people’s throats. It is their policy stances that count. Now health care is a real policy issue, and I know you admire Hillary for a health plan. So do I. I think hers is better than Obamas. But neither one’s plan, as they stand now, is going to be what is passed (if they pass anything at all). It is congress that has to pass it, and once they get a hold of it, it will not look anything like what the candidates are proposing now.

Semi, I don’t know if disalowing write-ins is illegal in a primary. They do not fall under the same guidlines as a general election. The rules are set by the party. In order for candidates to qualify for write-in votes, they needed to submit some kind of paperwork to the state democratic party. None of the candidates who withdrew their names did so because of their pledge not to participate.

Here is a link that reports on it:

Being that the voters were told not to write-in, I don’t see how you could possibly seat the delegates based on that primary vote.

I agree that disenfranchising people is never the right answer. Then what should they have done? If they just allow it to happen, then every state will be pushing to be among the first primaries. What do you think they should have done to punish them? The state party is just as much, if not more, to blame for this mess than the DNC. They were told what would happen. They had every chance to ensure the votes would count. If they really cared, they would have moved it to after Feb 5. I think they didn’t anticipate the candidates would actually withdraw, and that the DNC would follow through.

I think the DNC is doing what it can to rectify the situation. They are willing to allow a new primary or caucus. It is the state itself that can’t get its act together. I don’t think the party has it out for Clinton and is trying to prevent her from winning by denying Michgan delegates to be seated. They can’t be seated as is. It is just not fair.

Clinton wins in FL and MI would not be “very” bad for Obama. It would make it closer, but not nearly close enough for her to win. If the DNC feels Obama should be the nonminee, it is because he has an insurmountable lead, not because of some anti-hillary agenda.

Answer #15

Semi, First, just to explain how it happened. Obama name wasn’t removed. He withdrew as part of pledge all the candidates took.

I understand what you are saying, and I don’t completely disagree with you. It was stupid that Michigan and Florida ever came to this. But the reason this is even an issue is the perceived closeness of the race. If this was rapped up on Super Tuesday, this would be a moot point by now, and that is why the party did it. I think if the DNC had any idea this race would still be going on in April, and that those delegates would become such a big issue, they would have handled it differently. But we are where we are, and there is no easy solution. I really can’t see how counting Michigan when one candidate is not on the ballot is fair. All of Obama’s supporters would effectively be disenfranchised. The only way to correct this is to have a new primary or caucus. Florida I could live with as is, since they were all on the ballot, even though I am sure many stayed home because they thought it wouldn’t count.

What the republicans did was better, because after the fact if you want to restore their full delegates, at least a real campaign and election happened.

What other possible leverage could the DNC use to prevent states from breaking the rules they agreed on? They knew exactly what was going to happen and they called the DNC’s bluff. It was a stupid move on both sides, but this primary system is outdated and should be changed. They should do four or five rotating regional primaries. But please don’t compare this to 2000. That was a true travesty that has no peer. We are not having SCOTUS step in and decide who the president is going to be.

Butterfly, I have never said I think Obama was any better than Hillary. In fact I would have been glad to have either of them as my candidate. My preferred candidate was John Edwards and would have gotten my vote if he didn’t drop out. So my feelings about the current status of the campaigns has nothing to do with me favoring one over the other. If the positions were reversed, I would be asking for Obama to step down. My goal is to beat McCain in Nov.

Are you saying Obama has let you down because of his stance on Wright? I think he handled that situation very well. I think he did and said the right things, and actually I don’t even see anything wrong with what Wright said, especially coming from someone who lived throught the civil rights movement. How exactly did Obama lie to your face?

To me this discussion is not about who is better. Hillary has a great track record. She is my senator (I voted for her twice), and she has done a wonderful job. This about chosing a candidate before it starts to hurts the dems chances in Nov. And I think I have shown how that decision has already been made. Some people just won’t accept the inevitable though.

Good discussion, both of you.

Answer #16

Semi, Obama’s name was not taken off the ballot because he stopped campaigning there. After Michgan announced their primary date and broke the DNC rules, but before the DNC actually stripped Michigan of its delegates, all the candidates at the time made a pledge not to campaign, nor particiapte in the primary. Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden withdrew there names because of that pledge. Kusinich tried to get his removed, but was to late. Clinton, Dodd (he dropped out before the primary though), and Gravel stayed on even though they pledged not to participate. And write-ins for Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden were not counted in Michigan, and the state party warned voters of that. So there is no way one could determine any votes for Obama at this time.

The only real possibility she has of winning is what I showed. Counting FL & MI as is. And even then she has to win 56% of the remaining delegates. A revote in MI and/or FL would make it 60% she needs, and no FL or MI means she has to win 65%. These are big numbers that she cannot overcome, and it looks like FL and MI are not going to revote.

The party has every right to decide how the primaries are conducted. Every state has a voice in those rules, and agree to abide by them. The party has to have some way to enforce its rules, or we would be starting the primary season in the prior year. Both states were warned and told what the consequences would be. It was the republican controlled legislature in Fl that voted for it there.

I do agree that it is not fair that the voters are the ones getting screwed, and that is why I think they should re-vote both states. It is the fairest way to do it.

The Dems should have done the same thing as the Reps. Just strip half their delegates. Then it would diminish the intended impact of the move in date, but still allow for their votes to count, and to allow the candidates to campaign.

Answer #17

Butterfly, I am not sure what you are saying here? What does the 5,163,271 americans represent? Remember, the thing that matters is the delegates. Not the number of votes. Even though Obama leads the popular vote including FL and MI. Anyone in Mi and FL who didn’t know there delgates weren’t going to be seated wasn’t paying attention. It must have been all over their news, because it was in mine in NY. This is not the fault of the national party. It is the fault of the state commitee that broke the rules, and to a lesser extent the Democratic voters who allowed their party to do it.

I understand the correllation to FL in 2000. But this is not being decided by anyone but the party themselves. And as I said, I am all for a revote. But it is not going to happen, and the original voting can not be included. You can’t change the rules after the fact. That would even be more unfair.

It is not what I believe. Either I am wrong in my calculations, or I am right. Can you please demonstrate how my figures don’t add up?

Even if you let the current votes count in FL & MI, she still can’t win.

She won big in FL, 49% to 32%. That would give her an additional 91 delegates, and obama 59 leaving 35 uncommitted.

In Mi she got 55%, giving her 70 more delegates, with the remaining 58 uncommitted.

That would give Obama 1473 and Hillary 1413. Lets say they split the uncommitted, even though Obama is leading in national polls. that would give each another 46 delegates.

That would make it: Obama 1519 Clinton 1459

The remaining delegates are 566

Hillary would have to win 317 or 56% of the remaining delegates.

By far her best scenario, and the one she is fighting for, despite the unfairness of allowing MI to count when Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. But even with that, I still don’t think she will take the remaining races by a 12 point margin.

I know she is your candidate Butterfly, but there is no way she could win, unless the superdelegates go against the popular vote. And so far that seems highly unlikely.

Answer #18

“Let me get more into this…jimahl…you say the will of the people yet you turn around and tell me the people don’t count it’s the delegates that count. “

Butterfly, I know you know how this works. The delegates represent the people, and are awarded to candidates based on the voting in that state. Each state has its own rules on how that is done.

“Okay. Now you say Hillary clearly lost. Yet she could pull ahead of Obama. It does not take 60% to do that.”

Yes, Hillary has clearly lost as it stands today. As I already said, her best chance she has is if they allow the original MI and FL counts to stand.

“There is a fine margin whether you see it or not.”

Numbers don’t lie. 65-35 is not a fine margin. 51-49, 52-48 maybe. Not 60-40, or even 55-45 are fine margins.

“Also jimahl Obama withdrew his own name. No one didn’t just put it on there. There were people that wrote it in. He did that because he knew he had already lost that state. It also made it harder for Michigan to count. This is not media hype either.”

As I stated in my response to Semi, all the candidates pledged to not particiapte and the all withdrew except Hillary, Dodd, Gravel and Kusinich who tried to. While Obama was behind in polls at the time, I am sure he didn’t think he had lost the state back on October 7 when he withdrew his name, and even second place will get you delegates. Write-ins for Obama in Michigan were not counted.

“Now honestly is it the will of the people that count to you, or is it anyway it makes Obama ahead? Because you are really confusing. “

It is the will of the people that matter, and I never said otherwise. Is the will of Obama supporters in Michigan being heard? I think both states should get to revote. If you have a way of showing Hillary ahead, I am all ears.

“I promise you if you look at all the statistics Hillary is not that far behind Obama. “

I not only have looked, I provided the exact numbers to you. I believe it is you that need to look, or show me how I am wrong.

“As far as it not being likely for them to consider Florida and Michigan. It is more then likely they will. If not this complete primary could be a disaster. That my friend will divide the party. It will make a bigger problem come Nov. People are angry. As they should be.”

You might be right that it could be a major problem, and the only way to fix that is to let them re-vote. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like that is going to happen, but you never know. But no matter what scenario you use, Hillary can’t win, and her bashing Obama is not helping either.

Now that all being said, Butterfly I think you are very smart, and I have enjoyed jousting with you, but you seem to be getting a little peeved at me. Please do not take anything said on a public board to seriously. In the end, what we say here is meaningless.

I think we agree with each other more than either of us realize.

Answer #19

Semi, How can you allow MI to count when Obama wasn’t even on the ballot? And if you see my calculations, you will see it is still unlikely she could overtake Obama if they did.

Do you really think it is OK to change the rules half way through the game?

I do agree they should try to do something, but I don’t think it is likely.

Answer #20

The thing is that either way it is unfair. Some Michigan Democrats expecting their primary votes not to count voted in the Republican primary.

A re-vote is probably the best option but there is nothing we can do to entirely set things right.

Answer #21

Both candidates didnt campaign there so it wouldn’t be fair to count the votes. I think they should re-vote

Answer #22

jimahl…your figures do not add up there I am sorry. If you take the votes of 5,163,271 Americans and say it doesn’t change the outcome, something is wrong. I agree neither Obama or Clinton is going to take the win. It is going to go head to head. Yet to have the race be fair all votes need to be considered. Dispite what you believe or have up there it does drastically change the numbers. The party knew the votes would not count, because they broke the rules. They also knew that Clinton had a large lead in those states. Yes Obama withdrawling his name from the ballot made it even more of a problem to get a revote. That is why this is such a problem. Yet all the people voting themselves did not know. All that comes to mind with all of this is…remember the hanging chad?

Answer #23

jimahl…I was in Michigan this weekend. The people are up in arms. The people themselves did not do this. They were told it would be okay. They want either a re-vote or their original to count the way it is intended. None of the people I talked to were even thinking of changing the way they would vote. Dispite how you believe, most people in Michigan believe that Obama withdrew his name because it guaranteed Hillary’s win to not count. These people had no idea that their votes would not count. It also would change the statistics in the lead for the primary. I know you don’t see it that way but it would.

Answer #24

There is absolutly a clear cut answer, The people in those states have the constitutional right to have a vote in the ongoings of our government. to deny that is illegal. End of story. the states can be punished by the election board, but not counting a vote made by an american citizen is not allowed. I can’t believe the audasity of the bumbling imbicile who thought, “We just wont listen to what the people of these states say even though they did’t make the mistake, their poloticans did” How would you feel if you were in a small foucus group or something and you had arrived 10 minutes late but were there for all of the acctual lecture and then were not allowed to say what you thought because someone else said you shouldn’t get to because you were late. BS and eveyone in this whole country knows it.

Answer #25

Ericthehurt, you made some good points, and they would be valid if this were the general election. But this is only a primary, and they do not fall under the same guidlines as general elections. The parties themselves make the rules. All the state comittees agreed on those rules. The politicians didn’t make these decisions, the parties did, and the party is made up of all democrats. The people weren’t paying attention and didn’t do anything to prevent it. It is a shame, and should never have come ti this, but very little can be done now. And in the end, those primaries will have no effect on the outcome anyway. Obama has already won.

Answer #26

No, the votes in either states should not be counted. Reason being that it was agreed upon by the DNC and ALL canidates that if the states held there primary before there schedule date that there votes will not be counted. For the life of me I can not understand why we are considering or have allowed hearings to go on about counting there votes. Well, then again I can because the canidate that was in the lead in the beginning is comming up short and now wants the deligates.What’s the point in having a rule if you are not going to abide or re-inforce it.

More Like This
Ask an advisor one-on-one!

Soble Law

Legal Services, Law Firms, Legal Consultation


Jostock P.A Law Firm

Estate Planning, Probate Law, Legal Services


Brown, LLC

Law Firm, Whistleblower Attorneys, Litigation


Rite Law Worker Compensation ...

Workers' Compensation Law, Personal Injury Law, Legal Services


Law Office of Mary E. King

Tax Attorneys, Estate Planning, Probate Law