How The Clintons Would Disenfranchise Florida And Michigan Voters

The Atlantic ^ | May 28, 2008 | Andrew Sullivan

[fightinJAG]

A reader makes an excellent point:

The Clintons repeatedly say, when making their "count Florida and Michigan" argument that 2.3 million voters cast ballots in these States, and Hillary often adds that the 1.7 million turnout in Florida was the highest ever for a Democratic primary. Sounds impressive. But guess what? I compared the number of persons who cast ballots this year in each of the other top ten States to the number of persons who voted for John Kerry in the 2004 general election.

[okie01]

Andrew is smoking the good stuff while he grinds his axe.

He should forget writing about statistics...not his strength.

[Peacekeeper357]

Figures don't lie but the Clinton's sure figure.

[Cicero]

Hillary’s argument makes more sense than al gore’s did. The Democrats’ mantra for the past seven years has been to count all the votes. Then suddenly it doesn’t apply any more, because the press is in love with Holy Hussein.

[stylin19a]

what’s the point of comparing vote totals from a primary against a general election ?

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

a contest should be governed by the rules agreed to in advance. Period.

Seems obvious, doesn't it?

[fightinJAG]

Uh, except the Witch agreed ahead of time to NOT count all the votes . . . Just sayin’.

[Dilbert San Diego]

It’s true that the rules should be adhered to, but these are the Clintons were talking about. To them, there are no hard and fast rules. Since Hillary needs those votes and delegates to make her case of winning the popular vote overall and getting closer in delegates, they make the case that every vote should count. If the situation were reversed, they would argue that everyone agreed to these rules to start with, and that they should be followed.

The overriding rule is : Whatever benefits the Clintons is what the rule should be.

[fightinJAG]

Remind me, were the MI and FL primaries closed or open?

[fightinJAG]

Yeah, I don’t see how they get around this one. But leave it to the Rats to try. When the result isn’t pleasant, change the rules.

[Will88]

In these discussions what’s not often mentioned is that, regardless of which candidate one might support, the voters of Florida and Michigan are being disenfranchised. They’re being disenfranchised because the national and state parties, and the Florida legislature, failed to agree upon primary dates that were acceptable to all parties concerned.

So, because all these pols and party officials screwed up, the voters of Florida and Michigan are being disenfranchised. Not their fault and it shouldn’t have happened. Surprised there aren’t more voters filing law suits.

[stylin19a]

don’t know

[Fledermaus]

I believe MI is open and FL closed.

[TBP]

Whether or not one supports the DNC’s rule that Michign and Florida get no delegates, they did have elections and their people did ovte. OK, maybe it was a beauty contest, butit still occurred. I don’t see how you can say that those votes never happened.

Now, counting in thos votes, Hitlery has more votes. Yet they’re goign to nomintee Barry Osama. Maybe Democrats are as stupid as we think they are.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

To change the rules of the contest retroactively because one candidate lost is an outrageous attack on fairness, civility and sanity.

That's their brand. "If it's not outrageous, it's not a Clinton!"

[xp38]

How come the Republican Florida primary didn’t have this problem? It became a decisive battleground which pretty much sealed McCain as the nominee since he just edged Romney and it was a winner take all state.

[dr_lew]

You got it!

[Wally_Kalbacken]

This isn't a matter of semantics - none of the qualified voters who went to the polls in Michigan and Florida this year were disenfranchised. They voted, the votes were counted. The results were certified and published. The Democratic Party chooses not to give any weight to those results, and this creates a great deal of grief, to be sure. But no one who was eligible to vote was refused the opportunity to vote.

[cynwoody]

But no one who was eligible to vote was refused the opportunity to vote.

But a lot of eligible voters didn't bother because they thought the rules would be followed and their vote would not count. Therefore, to now count the votes of the voters who did vote would not be fair to the ones who would have but did not, believing the rules would be the rules. Sullivan's reader cites statistics that indicate the number of such voters is substantial.

The only acceptable remedy is a revote in the two states. That's probably not going to happen, so the GOP gets to rename the Democrat Party the Undemocratic Party.

[VeniVidiVici]

But a lot of eligible voters didn't bother because they thought the rules would be followed and their vote would not count.

Um, no. That's why turnout was so high.

Many "eligible" Democrat voter thought that since (they thought) their vote wasn't going to count they could create a little mischief and switch parties and vote in the Republican Primary. They are the ones whining that the FL and MI votes shouldn't count. They f'd up.