Michigan/Florida Delegates

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
Aris
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:29 am
Location: Bellevue, Nebraska
Contact:

Michigan/Florida Delegates

Post by Aris » Thu May 22, 2008 3:38 pm

You know what i find humerous about Clintons efforts to get all the delegates for these 2 states seated? If they were seated. Obama would get 50% of the delagages from florida since edwards backed him, and that would put him over the 2026 delagates needed to win the nomination.

Not only that, even if you gave ALL of michigans delegates to clinton, and split the delegates 50/50 in florida (which is how the votes actually turned out), obama would still be in the lead in pledged and super delegates.

the ONLY way for clinton to win, is:
1. do not seat florida's delegates or she loses
AND
2. get basically all of the super delagates currently not backing someone to join her.

Even without the delegates from florida, obama only needs around 30 more superdelegates to win after the last 3 primaries finish in the beginning of june.

jhhoffma
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jhhoffma » Thu May 22, 2008 4:28 pm

As a native Michigander, I don't think our delegates should count (not that I really care). Michigan's Democrat leaders knew the rules when they advanced the primary against the DNCs warnings. They have only themselves to blame. It was a feeble attempt to draw attention to Michigan by not playing by the rules. If they had, we wouldn't be worrying about this as Clinton would have won anyway, and Obama would still have a huge lead. Obama didn't run in Michigan, which makes the whole state seem irrelevant, despite the party's effort. It seems such a waste of an opportunity to draw some national focus toward a state that is in dire crisis with the fall of the auto industry and the rest of the American manufacturing industry.

VanWaGuy
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Vancouver Wa USA

Post by VanWaGuy » Thu May 22, 2008 5:27 pm

And at the time, both candidates agreed to those rules, and it is only now that it would benefit her to change the rules is Shrilery noticing how important it is for each Michigan vote to be counted.

Aris
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:29 am
Location: Bellevue, Nebraska
Contact:

Post by Aris » Fri May 23, 2008 5:17 am

in all honesty, i think they should seat them both.

Cause if they did, Obama would still have more delagates AND he'd have more than 2026 total delegates giving him the demecratic nomination.

This would also keep any independants and regan dems in michigan/florida from possibly feeling disenfranchised and voting for mccain.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Fri May 23, 2008 6:43 am

If the government can snoop my emails and phone calls, the least they could do is put some of that technology to use and actually count our votes!
Do away with the delegates and the electoral college!
One vote = One citizen.

Using a voting system designed to work when the horse was the fastest way to relay election results is a travesty to democracy.

The last few presidential elections have been a great example of whats wrong with this antiquated system.

Ok time to put my soap box back in the closet...

Blacktree
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:59 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Blacktree » Fri May 23, 2008 9:30 am

I knew this was going to happen. The Dumb-o-crats thought they were punishing us when they boycotted the Florida and Michigan primaries. But in fact, they punished themselves.

"I'm going to punish you by not letting you vote for me... duuuhhh..."

jhhoffma
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jhhoffma » Fri May 23, 2008 9:36 am

xan_user wrote:If the government can snoop my emails and phone calls, the least they could do is put some of that technology to use and actually count our votes!
Do away with the delegates and the electoral college!
One vote = One citizen.
So you're all for a popular vote then?

Hope you don't live in 38 of the 50 states that have less population than New York City, cause depending on the way you voted, your vote just got canceled out. But I'm guessing that your from CA...

I would remind that the reason we have an electoral college is because we are not a true democracy but a Republic that is founded on state's right's first!

I'm sure you're referring to the 2000 election with your last comment (not quoted above), but what was wrong with 2004 other than that Bush won? He won both electoral and popular vote, same with Clinton in '92 and '96. I live in a state that routinely votes against my personal beliefs, but does that mean my vote doesn't count? Hell no! The only vote that doesn't count is the one not cast, or the one that wasn't punched properly!!!

Electronic votes are not the answer...ask the Dutch. IMO, if you can't be bothered to go down to the local poll, you don't care enough to vote. If you're that busy, file for an absentee ballot.

I'll keep my soap box out, cause I need to get some stuff off the top shelf... :P

VanWaGuy
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Vancouver Wa USA

Post by VanWaGuy » Fri May 23, 2008 10:07 am

Well said jhhoffma,

I live in a state with a relatively small population, and hear people all the time say we should just count the votes.

My response? "Hello, what state do you live in" (I live near the Oregon/Washington border)? Why give up your over-represented vote? Think!

I often asked if they took a history class. Early in the formation of the country, there was a split between the states that wanted 1 state = 1 vote and those that wanted 1 person = 1 vote, and they made a compromise to get all the states on board. Look up Great Compromise. (So, to disagree with JHHoffma just a little, it was actually a balance between individual and state rights first, but those suggesting to just count the votes are ignoring the State aspect.)

This was a major decision that affected the very formation of this country, and would require a rewrite of the constitution. Do we eliminate the Senate too then? Do we just apologize to Alaska and Wyoming that just had any political power they did have taken away? Do we let them secede?

jhhoffma
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jhhoffma » Fri May 23, 2008 12:02 pm

To clarify a bit, when I said "state's [sic] rights first", I meant a state's rights to govern themselves and not by the federal government...not a state's rights above the individual. To me they are one and the same, as state rights are an extension of the rights of an individual or group of individuals. Big difference between A state and THE state. :wink:

floffe
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 4:36 am
Location: Linköping, Sweden

Post by floffe » Fri May 23, 2008 10:29 pm

Aris wrote:in all honesty, i think they should seat them both.

Cause if they did, Obama would still have more delagates AND he'd have more than 2026 total delegates giving him the demecratic nomination.

This would also keep any independants and regan dems in michigan/florida from possibly feeling disenfranchised and voting for mccain.
However, it'd do nothing to discourage states to move their primaries forward, which was the reason they were punished in the first place. Seating them with half the number of delegates, like the republicans did, would make more sense.

Aris
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:29 am
Location: Bellevue, Nebraska
Contact:

Post by Aris » Sat May 24, 2008 7:35 am

jhhoffma wrote: So you're all for a popular vote then?

Hope you don't live in 38 of the 50 states that have less population than New York City, cause depending on the way you voted, your vote just got canceled out. But I'm guessing that your from CA...
You mean as apposed to the way it is now, where you have to be lucky enough to live in the 10 or so swing states for your vote to matter? Its a crappy deal either way, but at least a popular vote is completely fair. If your in a demecrat heavy or republican heavy state, your vote does not currently count, because they will always outweigh you, and then the whole state goes to one guy. This is why voter turn out is so low, why should i vote? Seriously, it wont matter one way or the other until i move to a swing state.

The only people who bring up this argument, are the ones that are currently part of a state with small population but are a swing state so they get extra media attention (like iowa). Its all about money. You make it a popular vote and the small swing states all of a sudden get less time on national news, while other states that are currently not so important cause their not swing states like new york and california now get the media attention.

I for one am tired of sacrificing the rights of the many so that a select few who live out in the boondocks can hog the spotlight.

1 citizen = 1 vote. We have the technology, just do it already. Its the only way to make it truely fair.
floffe wrote:However, it'd do nothing to discourage states to move their primaries forward, which was the reason they were punished in the first place. Seating them with half the number of delegates, like the republicans did, would make more sense.
honestly, who cares when they hold them? Have all the states hold them in january for all i care. I mean seriously, who gives a shit? It'd be better than the way it is now, and have it drag out till june or later.

Again this is another argument for those select few states that have been granted special rights (like iowa) to hold their primaries before everyone else to get extra media attention.

Have all the primaries all be on the same day, or have it be like 12 states per week, 4 weeks in a row, all in january. Then instead of super tuesday in feburary being for primaries, have it be the convention in denver. Have it all said in done in 1 month with a popular vote.

--------------

I have never voted yet, you wanna know why? Because i have yet to be special enough to live in a state that matters. I was in michigan growing up, but had to move before i could vote. Then the next place i lived was california, but its not a swing state so it doesnt matter. Then stationed in mississippi, then nebraska. Still no swing states, so no point. Then i got stationed overseas, and we all know how much of a joke absentee ballots are. 90% of the time they arnt counted at all. Now im in texas, again not a swing state.

I'll vote when my vote matters. They want voter turnout to be high, make EVERYONES vote count, and we will.
Last edited by Aris on Sat May 24, 2008 7:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

VanWaGuy
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Vancouver Wa USA

Post by VanWaGuy » Sat May 24, 2008 7:41 am

If they seat both states though, then 2026 would not longer be the target number of delegates that they need.

How do you seat delegates when both candidates agreed that they would not be seated, and so to differing degrees did not campaign there?

If you split them half for each candidate, then they don't even affect the election so they cancel out and may as well not count them anyway. (Except as a show to keep the people fro those states happy.) If you do not just split them, how can you base it on an election where the candidates were already told that the vote would not count? Do you punish Obama for taking his name off the ballot? At the time, that seemed the more proper thing to do to me.

I wish someone would tell Ms. Clinton to stop complaining, she already agreed that they do not count, story over.

floffe
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 4:36 am
Location: Linköping, Sweden

Post by floffe » Sun May 25, 2008 12:32 am

Aris wrote:
floffe wrote:However, it'd do nothing to discourage states to move their primaries forward, which was the reason they were punished in the first place. Seating them with half the number of delegates, like the republicans did, would make more sense.
honestly, who cares when they hold them? Have all the states hold them in january for all i care. I mean seriously, who gives a shit? It'd be better than the way it is now, and have it drag out till june or later.

Again this is another argument for those select few states that have been granted special rights (like iowa) to hold their primaries before everyone else to get extra media attention.

Have all the primaries all be on the same day, or have it be like 12 states per week, 4 weeks in a row, all in january. Then instead of super tuesday in feburary being for primaries, have it be the convention in denver. Have it all said in done in 1 month with a popular vote.
I agree that the US primary system could use some modifications. The arguments against having everything in january-march is that when the primaries are over, the presidential campaign begins. It'd get pretty annoying if that ran for 7 months rather than 3, no? Also, not starting big early on would allow the candidates to do more actualt governing and less campaigning. As for spreading them out, this allows candidates to build a reputation and gives those without national name recognition at the start of the season a reasonable chance to get somewhere if they do well in some of the earlier primaries.

Mescalero
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:02 am
Location: TU-BS, Germany

Post by Mescalero » Sun May 25, 2008 1:47 am

I think if the system kept the electoral college but switched from the winner-take-all to system with proportional representation (like the Dems are using), the system would be a little fairer.
People like Aris could still make a difference helping their candidate to pick up delegates in their state and samll states would also have some influence.

VanWaGuy
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Vancouver Wa USA

Post by VanWaGuy » Sun May 25, 2008 4:09 am

I do not know why the primaries are even a government funded event.

All the primaries are for is for each party to select who they will put on the ballot for president in the General election. The rules are set up by the party, that is why there is a mix of caucuses, winner take all, and proportionally represented primaries.

I think one function that the long drawn out primary season accomplishes is that it creates an illusion that the majority of the party supports their candidate.

In the beginning, when there might be 10 candidates, there might be no one with over 15 or 20% of the party support. As they battle, candidates are weeded out, and eventually it narrows down to a tiny number, and hopefully for the parties, they eventually get a candidate that the whole group can support for president.

If the primaries were all at the same time, the winner might have 20%, and it would be much harder to convince everyone to rally behind their party candidate.

Post Reply