Election Do-Over... are they serious?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

What do you guys think about the argument for/against a caucus?

Obama has been doing far better in states where there is a Caucus instead of a primary, so if they're going to revote.. should it be the same type of process as it was originally, or is moving to a caucus fair?

I don't think a caucus would be entirely fair. Caucuses are different than primaries and you prepare for them differently. I think it might be a viable solution because caucuses tend to be cheaper, but I don't think they should do anything that would favor a particular candidate. If they do a caucus Obama could benefit by de-facto. If that's the case, I think both campaigns should have to agree to any changes in the primary structure of the state or the state just doesn't get to re-vote. And even then it puts Hillary in a tough spot because she can't politically come out against the caucus.

Ideally, I think the DNC should take the idea of changing the contest off the table. I don't like that they're considering it. There's no way to be fair about that.

[kinggovernor]

never underestimate the ability of the democrats to cost themselves an election. For at least the next two months Billary and Obama are going to destroy each other, Hillary is even praising McCain over Obama.

Hopefully this goes into the summer and leads to a blowup at the convention, which will help McCain win

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

The only reason Iowa and NH are first is simply smaller states bitching (again), that they don't have enough power and that bigger states have more of a say in Presidential elections.

They already have a lot of power in the Senate (too much IMO) now they want to decide the Presidential nominee too. Sorry but that is not right, 100,000 people should not decide the fate of an entire nation.

With that statement you're saying the people are not intelligent to vote and are just going to go by Iowa & NH. If you're human, and I know you are. You're intelligent enough to vote for whichever candidate you like, not who won the first two primaries. Florida & Michigan broke the rules, the people should be pissed off at there states for not making there votes count. Not the DNC. They broke the rules, enough said.

[motivez]

Why should there be a do over at all though? I mean, aside from the rules that prohibited them from moving up their primary, none of the candidates spent time campaigning in the state, so wasn't it all on equal ground if they decide to seat the delegates?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Why should there be a do over at all though? I mean, aside from the rules that prohibited them from moving up their primary, none of the candidates spent time campaigning in the state, so wasn't it all on equal ground if they decide to seat the delegates?

They voted on name recognition then. They bumped their primaries up early and had little to no exposure to the candidates. It isn't a representation of how the voters would vote in an election, which is the purpose of having a primary.

[motivez]

What evidence do you have that they voted on name recognition? Lets not forget that the turnout in both Michigan and Florida were record numbers for the Democrats, it's not as if these people weren't following politics

The DNC expected people to say "Oh, well it's not official", and then no one will show up... but they did, and did so in record numbers.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

What evidence do you have that they voted on name recognition? Lets not forget that the turnout in both Michigan and Florida were record numbers for the Democrats, it's not as if these people weren't following politics

The DNC expected people to say "Oh, well it's not official, no one will show up." .. but they did, and did so in record numbers.

There's record turnouts in every state. They didn't have the same view they would have had if the candidates had campaigned there.

[motivez]

Those record turnouts indicate interest and the fact that people are following the elections, if they don't get to see the candidates in person, does it somehow make their decision less valid?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Those record turnouts indicate interest and the fact that people are following the elections, if they don't get to see the candidates in person, does it somehow make their decision less valid?

The number of people showing up has nothing to do with how they decided to vote and what they based their vote on. What matters is whether or not they would have voted differently if each campaign had the ability to target those voters. When they don't have the ability to do so it isn't fair to all candidates. Ron Paul was a minor candidate. He campaigned in a few states and did much better in those states than in states he ignored. That's not a fluke. He got his name and his message to those states and was able to get some votes from the big names/dogs like McCain, Rudy, etc.

At the beginning of the primary Hillary was still floating off her name and being the female candidate. Obama was still floating on his qualifiers as well. Neither candidate was able to campaign to issues directed to Florida. If they were given the opportunity there would have been a difference in voting. And that's the whole purpose of why we have a Democratic system of independent states and primaries/campaigns.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The number of people showing up has nothing to do with how they decided to vote and what they based their vote on. What matters is whether or not they would have voted differently if each campaign had the ability to target those voters. When they don't have the ability to do so it isn't fair to all candidates. Ron Paul was a minor candidate. He campaigned in a few states and did much better in those states than in states he ignored. That's not a fluke. He got his name and his message to those states and was able to get some votes from the big names/dogs like McCain, Rudy, etc.

At the beginning of the primary Hillary was still floating off her name and being the female candidate. Obama was still floating on his qualifiers as well. Neither candidate was able to campaign to issues directed to Florida. If they were given the opportunity there would have been a difference in voting. And that's the whole purpose of why we have a Democratic system of independent states and primaries/campaigns.

I think the Paul comparison is completely different.

The record numbers, again, indicate that the people who turned out to vote had an interest in the election, and the primary process, and made a decision based on the knowledge they had.. even knowing the delegates wouldn't count at the time

What you're suggesting is that because they didn't get to hear those candidates speak directly, their decision to vote for who they voted for is somehow less valid, or less democratic, like there's no other way for someone to make an informed choice unless they see someone in person

There's probably lots of people who didn't get a chance to see either of the candidates who've already voted, would their decision have been different if they were given a chance to show up to a rally?

Using your logic, yes. And, if so, then you could just as easily make a case for the election season to continue until every single person in America had a chance to hear the people speak in person.

I think the record numbers indicate enough interest that people have been following the campaigns, the speeches, the debates, and messages of the various candidates in spite of not being able to see them directly in person

[JaJae]

If a candidate doesn't want to campaign in a state that should be their right. If they want to campaign in a state it should be their right. They should be entitled to spend as much time/energy in that state as they desire leading up to the primary. If campaigning to states was unimportant every state would just have their primary on Super Tuesday and they'd be done with it. That's not the way our system is set up to work. There are strictly defined rules of how primaries will operate in each state and within each party for a reason.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kombayn

With that statement you're saying the people are not intelligent to vote and are just going to go by Iowa & NH. If you're human, and I know you are. You're intelligent enough to vote for whichever candidate you like, not who won the first two primaries. Florida & Michigan broke the rules, the people should be pissed off at there states for not making there votes count. Not the DNC. They broke the rules, enough said.

You missed the point...after IA and NH most of the candidates who did not win at least one of them drops out. That means less choice for the vast majority of voters who come after. They have entirely too much control in the process

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So Florida and Michigan are looking like they want a do over on thier primaries. They realize that they made massive mistakes moving thier primaries contary to party rules and no want to re-do the entire election. This seems wrong to me. Won't previous results influence the vote this 2nd time around? Doesn't this somehow taint the results of the election? I really don't think this is good idea. I think those states should have to wallow in the filth that they made for themselves. There are no do-overs in politics.

What if we could do over the election of 2000? LIke we could have it once we could see the results and then vote again. I wonder if all those people who voted for Ralph Nader would change thier votes the 2nd time around... Is that fair to allow this? I don't think so.

Primary elections and general elections are two different things. The parties should have the proprietary right to nominate their candidate as they see fit.

[Dumpy Dooby]

It would be great if the Democrats split again.

[Smull]

As to the whole order of states voting in the primaries, basically sort of having a nation wide single day primary, somebody has to vote first and somebody has to vote last. Thats just the way it is, I live in Pennsylvania its a huge deal that we actually matter in the primary season.

I don't see how having the Michigan and Florida elections first would be any better than having the Iowa NH elections first (unless you live in FL or MI).

I stand by what I said in my earlier post that the fairest way is either a rotating order, or random selection.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Smull

As to the whole order of states voting in the primaries, basically sort of having a nation wide single day primary, somebody has to vote first and somebody has to vote last. Thats just the way it is, I live in Pennsylvania its a huge deal that we actually matter in the primary season.

Boy you must love all the attention! This will go on for weeks.

Hillary is the odds on favorite, but we have seen Obama cut into these leads before. Keep us posted!

[Rose_Gardener]

Election Do-Over... are they serious?

Actually - they are - and we don't have much say in it. There is an effort under way to draft the Carter Center. Hopefully - asking the Carter Center to come in, mediate and monitor a solution will ensure a fair and honest outcome.

You can read about it here:

A Real Solution to the FL and MI Problem

While the democratic national party leadership wrings its hands over FL and MI and allows the media to have a field day with the whole situation, there is a real solution that is fair to all parties.
Ask the Carter Center to come in and mediate a solution between all involved parties. That’s what the Carter Center does, well its one of the things the Carter Center does. And it does it very well too.....

The article has phone numbers you can call to request that the DNC and Obama campaign - as well as others - invite the Carter Center into the process for purposes of mediating a solution.

[Ironduke]

As someone who has participated in a caucus and been elected as a delegate, I have to say they're still stupid. Confusing as hell and nobody really knows what they're doing. You're packed like sardines in a room and after awhile the stench of sweat and bad breath gets on your nerves. The one I participated in took 2.5 hours of this.

Plus, I don't believe they represent the interests of the broader electorate as they tend to attract far fewer people than primaries, and those participating in them tend to be more politically involved and interested than the broader electorate.

Primaries, much cleaner, quicker, and easier. Florida is looking at a mail-in ballot.

The money isn't an issue. I checked to see if floridarevote.com was registered the other day, and it had recently been taken. A few hours ago they set their site up, but it's rather unprofessional.

$20 million? A properly constructed website organized and run by someone fairly well-known that could get the word out over the national media (i.e. being featured on CNN, Fox, MSNBC) could easily raise the sums need for revotes in Michigan and Florida. Unlike political campaigns, individuals would be free to donate as much as they please and the sum could be raised rather quickly. When the needed sums are met, those in charge of the site would cut checks to the Florida Election Commission and the Michigan Department of State.

Mail-ins aren't a bad idea. I think Obama is a bit sketchy about having a revote, but he'd reluctantly have to go along with them. With PA, FL, and MI, he could well lose his lead in the popular vote. Then, by his own argument, the superdelegates would have to crown Hillary the victor.

[northhunter]

I see in the news this morning there's talk of a mail in primary in Michigan and Florida. I have a feeling this will go badly however it's done and regardless of the nomination someone will be screaming FOUL! God forbid they would have simply followed the damn rules!