Ok a friend of mine tried to explain the whole Michigan and Florida thing to me this past weekend.But being one who abides rules and doesn't believe that laws are made to be broken it's still hard for me to comprehend.
So can someone explain it to me SLOWLY so I get it this time?
How does one "set rules, voted for them and then decided that they don't need to abide by them"?
And I'm being serious here I don't understand the entire process and what went on and how you can just vote and then the votes don't count?
So if anyone has the know how and the time to break it down to me I'd really appreciate it....and a "do-over" sounds like something I did when I was 6 and I was upset that someone won my favorite marble, so while you're at it explain that to me as well.
Thanks
ETA 9AM:
Thank god for Joe! All hail Joe....Joe your explanation was perfect, even layman me was able to understand it...so your comment intrigued me so much that I have a few more questions...if you don't mind!
1. Why did these two states conduct their primaries before they were permitted to do so?
2. Does anyone get in trouble for conducting it before they were permitted to? Did anyone break any laws?
3. I think I'm missing one crucial part here so I'm going to ask this question (they say the only stupid question is the one not asked, so here goes!)Why because of this did the Democratic Party refuse to seat delegates?
ETA 2:50PM:
Joe Thanks for coming back and giving me the full 411 I can now say I FULLY understand!!! And after reading your Star Wars vs the City I also NOW know what SATC stands for too...where have I been living? Under a rock!!
Those two states violated party guidelines by conducting their primaries before they were permitted to. As a result, the Democratic Party refused to seat delegates from those states, effectively invalidating the votes. In most years, it wouldn't have mattered, but this year the primaries were so close that those votes were critical. So while they could award the votes (and delegates) Obama didn't even bother to run in Michigan (I forget what happened in Florida).
ReplyDeleteBy refusing to seat the delegates, it also effectively lowered the total number of delegates required to secure the nomination, hence Clinton's argument that they should be seated, which would give her more delegates and raise the total number of delegates required to secure the nomination.
The "do over" idea was proposed to allow both candidates to campaign so neither is unduly harmed and, by having the votes take place (and thus the delegates seated) after the date allowed by the party.
Does that make any sense or did I just make things worse.
Yeah what Joe said (and i'm a former poli sci major *snort*)
ReplyDeleteWhat a mess huh? He did a good job of explaining, still sounds crazy to me too!!!! Welcome to the USA!!!
ReplyDeleteI am glad you asked that question..'cause I didn't understand either..thanks Joe..for explaining that:)
ReplyDeleteCome and visit me..I am having a give-a-way!
i live here and I don't get it either!! LOL.
ReplyDeleteWow, now I actually feel pressure to be right. Here goes, but don't be too surprised if someone corrects me along the way.
ReplyDelete1. Why did these two states conduct their primaries before they were permitted to do so?
Probably to prevent their voters from feeling left out of the process. The later you hold your primaries, the more likely that the contest will already have been decided by then. Also, nobody really said this but I'm guessing that they wanted to curry favor with the eventual nominee by being able to say that they gave that person their initial boost.
2. Does anyone get in trouble for conducting it before they were permitted to? Did anyone break any laws?
No laws were broken, just the rules of the party. As for trouble, their delegates weren't going to be seated at the convention, thus robbing the state of it's "voice" in the process. Now only half will be seated. That's the punishment.
3. I think I'm missing one crucial part here so I'm going to ask this question (they say the only stupid question is the one not asked, so here goes!)Why because of this did the Democratic Party refuse to seat delegates?
Because it was the only recourse they had when the states ignored the guidelines. The party leaders told MI and FL "Okay, hold your primary but it will be meaningless because your delegates (who actually are responsible for nominating the candidate) won't be seated or counted". In essence, this made the vote void - and the time and money spent by the state Democratic party was wasted.
Joe is absolutely right. i could add to this as I know this pretty well, being the political junkie I am, but really, Joe has captured it very well.
ReplyDeleteWOW...This was pretty deep :-).
ReplyDeleteAnd might I add, VERY informative. Thanks, Joe!
And thanks, BEM for asking the questions to get this cleared up.
My problem would've been HOW to ask the questions in the first place.
So, with that...DRINKS FOR EVERYONE...on me! LOL
Hello EBM. I'd like to add my two cents to this. Both and Florida and Michigan violated the party rules in moving their elections up early. I read why both did it even though they knew it was against party rules a few months ago and you probaly can find the answer on the internet too. Being from a state (California) that normally held the primary election in June, I know what a problem it has been holding our primary so late. By the time June rolled around over the past elections, most of the candidates had dropped out so our vote didn't count for who would get the party nomination. So last year a number of states petitioned to allow their primary to be held earlier so that the people could vote any of the candidates running.:) Michigan and Floride were not suppose to hold theirs when they did. I know the Democrats in Florida claimed that they needed too because of some situtation in their state and I not sure why Michigan did.
ReplyDeleteAll the candidates agreed not to campaign in both these places but Hillary decided to anyhow which I could never understand why more wasn't being said about her not being a team player.
Anyhoo, as it turns out this election was so different from the past ones in that the states that held primaries at the end did get something out of it for being last. In the past South Dakota and Montana never got campaigns coming to their state to convince them as if they mattered. This year they did and the people were very happy about it. Remember how last week Obama and Clinton spent time there? So as it turns out the states that voted late didn't get to cast a vote for Edwards or Biden or Huckabe etc., but they did get the attention and for a few it did matter.
Also, you can bet that this year the National Democratic Committe has changed some of there rules so that these issues won't come up again. Check it out.
Thanks for letting me share my two cents!
DJ