DNC Sends Democracy Back 200 Years
Regardless of the specifics and halving the delegations, the Rules and By-Laws Committee actually took delegates away from Hillary Clinton and awarded them to Barack Obama.
That is correct.
A committee of 30 people took support of Michigan voters who had VOTED for Hillary Clinton, and awarded it to Barack Obama.
Even if you believe that all the voters who voted uncommitted intended to vote for Obama, that still gives him 55 delegates and the DNC awarded him 59…
Harold Ickes, visibly upset at the decision, reserved the right of the Clinton campaign to take this decision to Denver, and I think the Clinton campaign will.
Remember, Obama would probably have won anyway, but now the RBC has gone beyond its mandate and actually made decisions for 250 000 voters, and furthermore, completely disenfranchised some Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton, we can now expect the Clintons will fight even harder.
The DNC wanted unity, and over 4 half-delegates, they have earned themselves a longer fight….
Labels: Where do they get the right to decide how 250 000 people voted
par / by Anthony à / at 7:43 p.m.
23 Commentaires:
on the other hand... if they would have gone with HRC's plan... Who are they to take away those that did not vote because their canidate was not on the ballot or voted for HRC as she was the only democratic option... unfortunately there was no perfect solution.
i have never seen any body make a decision based on the people who did not show up.
secondly, they actually took votes away from a candidate and gave them to another candidate. This sounds like zimbabwe primary instead of the michigan primary.
Even the Zimbabwe election had both major candidates on the ballot.
There is a certain kind of country that only has one option come election time. I'll give you a hint, these countries can be described with a word that begins with "C" and ends with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
they took votes away from clinton and gave them to obama...people who voted for clinton, whose votes will count for somebody else...
Can somebody explain the democratic principle behind this?
Sure. Michigan didn't have a valid primary. If they would have, then delegates should have been apportioned in accordance with it. Since they didn't, it didn't count. The apportionment was made on the same basis as the seating. A political calculation.
so people on a committee are deciding what the will of 600 000 people is?
hahaha, very democratic, expect this to go to denver now
I don't see the democratic legitimacy in using the results from a primary that wasn't conducted in accordance with the rules. But I suppose it is neither here nor there as it's highly unlikely the conflict will go to Denver. The party will have a nominee before then.
This column is a complete SHOCK!
Bitter much, Antonio?
If you want to see the counter point to this, read this column over at the Washington Monthly.
It explains exactly why the DNC had to do what they did today.
Antonio - So what would you propose be done about Michigan--without being unreasonable and saying that Hillary gets her 73 delegates and Obama has to fight her for the other 55? I fail to see WHAT would have been a fair decision that Clinton would have accepted (and not appealed to the convention) that didnt result in Obama getting delegates elected by voters who voted uncommited?
There really wasnt any fair way to deal with this situation. The DNC also has to think about the precedent if they totally sat both delegations. If they allowed it in 2012 a whole bunch more states would move theirs forward.
Giving all uncommitted delegates to Obama is one issue, and I think that the Clinton campaign does not have much argument here, mainly because the four campaigns who removed their name have all endorsed Obama.
However, to take a certain amount of delegates from Clinton, based on votes given to Clinton, and award delegates to Obama, is blatantly wrong and extremely anti-democratic.
The DNC should have done what the Republicans did, and warn the states well in advance their delegations would be cut in half. But they created this mess, and created a bigger mess by taking delegates from voters who voted to Clinton, and award them to Obama.
Anybody who does not see this is shutting their eyes. The difference is 4 half votes, very small. However, now the RBC has sent this fight to the floor of the convention.
Scott,
am I bitter? no
am I upset? absolutely
I was for a seating of the full delegations with 55 uncommitted being awarded to Obama, despite this concession violating DNC rules.
Punishing Florida Democrats for actions of the Republican Party was quite amusing, but hey, rules are rules right?
Then when deciding Michigan, the RBC threw the rulebook out the window and awarded uncommitted delegates to Obama.
The RBC made political decisions this morning, and as a result, will face political repercussions.
You cant use the rules to apply one case and break the rules to find a compromise for the other.
And the 4 half-delegates will just add salt to the open wound in the Democratic Party.
I think it says something that at least 5 (possibly more) of the 13 Clinton supporters on the committee supported what was decided. So I dont know how much of a "political" decision it was.
At the end of the day though Antonio, since the DNC is only seating half the delegations they really only gave 2 votes to Obama that werent his. Those two delegates arent going to make much of a difference.
How do you propose that the DNC ensure that in 2012 more states dont move their primaries forward if they awarded full delegations?
the same way the republicans did, tell states in advance they would lose half their delegates, so people are well aware and people cant complain the people who didnt vote werent heard (what a ludicrous argument btw)
And I have said this before kyle, at 73-55 the Clintons would have trouble complaining, but 69-59 is blatantly unfair and leaves the door open.
Blatantly unfair? There was no Michigan Democratic primary in 2008. There was, in the words of the one of the committee members, an "event"
An event that the RBC had declared would not count in determining delegates in the nomination. An event that Clinton said would not count. Apportioning delegates on the basis of this event that everyone, a year ago, agreed would not count, would have been unfair.
A vote in a democracy must be carried out in accordance with the rules. Rules that are known to all sides and all participants prior to the vote occurring.
Personally, I don't think they should have seated any of the Michigan delegation. But, like I said above, it was a political decision.
I said this a couple months ago, but there is something wrong when the supposed greatest democracy on earth can't figure out a way to rehold two primaries. I've never understood why they couldn't, despite all the nonsense. The money was there, surely there was a way to make it happen, and yet it doesn't, which is why we were left to this pathetic spectacle today. In the end, it was some party hacks that screwed Florida and Michigan voters, by toying with the calendar, and today it was another bunch of party hacks deciding what those same voters should receive. Obama supporter, Clinton supporter, the whole process is a farce.
The 4-1/2 delegates are really meaningless, given that Obama is so far ahead of Clinton in the delegate count. The only reason to take delegates away from Clinton at this point is essentially to give her a black eye for causing so much trouble in the party. She seems to be taking it very personally, and rightly so.
And these are the people that want Americans to elect them to run their country ?
dont worry,
the Clintons wont lift a finger til 2012 now, and at that point, nobody, not even the DNC or Howard Dean or Barack Obama will be able to stop them
Antonio, you say that the Dems should have "done what the Republicans did" and warned states "in advance" that they'd be having half their delegates taken away. Well, I'm less sure about Michigan, but Florida was told OVER A YEAR AGO that NONE of their delegates would be seated. May 2007 they were told what the consequences were of holding an unsanctioned primary. That's a year's notice. How much more "in advance" do you want? A year's not enough notice? If your point is that the Dems shouldn't be making this change at the last minute though, I kinda agree. They should stick to what they told these people a year ago, and not seat any of the delegates.
What the Rules Committee did yesterday was to agree to seat delegates which the DNC had already legitimately, within the rules, and WELL IN ADVANCE determined would not count at all in this process. They gave representation to delegates that had already completely legitimately been removed from the process in their entirety. They didn't need to do that, at all, but they decided to do so anyway for political reasons. Fine.
If the results of votes, no matter how illegitimate or flawed, are more important than the rules that govern the process, then why doesn't Clinton just pay out of her own pocket to hold another set of completely unsanctioned illegitimate votes in Florida and Michigan? If votes trump rules, she can, as suggested above, simply decide to only have her name on all the ballots and to not even allow an uncommitted option. She can hold votes that will guarantee her 100% of the votes, and be basically as legitimate in the eyes of the DNC as the primaries that were actually held.
Surely honour demands no less to avenge this total annihilation of 200 years of democratic tradition.
I'm curious, what is her argument going to be in 2012?
"Hi, I'm Senator Clinton. You might remember me as the candidate who blew a 40% lead back in 2008 to an unaccomplished one term Illinois politician. I am definitely the right person this time to take on the guy who beat the guy who beat me."
I thought this was interesting too (from NBC's Chuck Todd).
Apparently, Obama had the votes on the committee to split the Michigan delegates right down the middle, 50-50. They decided not to push it, since they wanted the vote to be 19-8 rather than something like 15-12.
Well, endorsing the results of a one-candidate election would have sent it back 250 years.
It's not like either choice was going to appeal to democratic values.
Absent an alternative which was truly democratic, they did the next best thing and appealed to the value of fairness instead.
Not perfect, but better than their other options.
Accepting the result of a one-candidate race would have been as bad, or worse, than attributing votes on assumptions.
Rule of the penises and the bigwigs. Votes of real people were practically dismissed and the Bigwigs kept the power firmly intheir hands.
So much For CHANGE ...
I am depressed and deeply disturbed watching how the whole campagne was run by the media and some powerful guys who deceided from the beginning ABC? /anybody but clinton the "crazy aunt in the attic/
I am more liberal then many of you but now I am not sure Democrats deserve the White House.
By The way REVOTING would have been the only fair thing to do.
Nut Obama would not been the favorit of people so it was ditched .
Post a Comment
<< Home