Explanation, please (primary election thing)

[Caligulette]

I will admit that some of the news slipped past me, and I will endeavour not to let that happen again, but am I to understand that the Dem Party disqualified some states' delegates for holding "early" elections and that the Obama and Clinton camps are now in a struggle to have the delegates re-instated as they might tip the balance?

Or am I just totally out of the loop here?

[California Tanker]

Yes. Michigan and Florida. They decided to move their Primaries early in order to be a greater influence on the process (Just like every other State, though more than most), which in hindsight was a stupid move because (a ) they've lost their delegates, and (b ) the later States still seem quite important right now. They had been warned that they were violating DNC rules, and did it anyway. The punishment was the delegate loss. The Republicans had a similar problem with about a half-dozen of their States, though their punishment was less severe: The offending States lost half their delegates.

No candidate campaigned in Michigan, and of the major candidates, only Hillary left her name on the ballot. I believe nobody campaigned in Florida. Both States went for Hillary (though Michigan was a given with only her name available), so, unsurprisingly, she wants the delegates to count. Obama, equally unsurprisingly, does not want them to count.

There is some talk of accepting a 're-do', and holding a new primary, but there's an issue with the funding. The DNC won't fork out the millions, and the Florida DP can't afford it. The Governor (a Republican) sees no reason the Florida taxpayers should pay for a second election if the Democrats are the people who screwed it up. You also have the issue of 'just how valid is a re-do anyway?', particularly in Michigan where Hillary 'didn't abandon the local voters'.
On a larger scale, if the DNC allows a re-do, what precedent does that set for the future? "We'll say 'don't do it, but if you do, don't worry, we'll let your vote count eventually anyway'

The Dems have really shot themselves in the foot over this one.

NTM

[Caligulette]

Thank you. That's what I thought, but for some reason did not want to believe it had got that stupid.

[Doohickie]

I don't think the NDC has shot itself in the foot. The Dem party of both of those states has, however. Since they were called null-and-void before they even occurred and the candidates didn't campaign there (and Hillary was the only name on the ballot in MI), it seems pretty ludicrous to count them. Having a re-do is just as ludicrous. I think the national party needs to tell the states that messed up "You made your bed, now sleep in it." They were just being attention whores anyway.

[Caligulette]

I have a serious problem with a party declaring that if a state does not tow the line their votes do not count.

[wei yau]

I like the cut of Doohickie's jib. Or at least the way he thinks, I've never seen his jib, unless it was that firetruck.

Anyhoo, enough about Doohickie's jib....

These states messed up, they were told the rules and the consequences for violating the rules. I am uncomfortable with the idea that they were expected to "tow the line". I can't quite explain it, but "towing the line" always seemed to me to be more of do this, even though you don't believe it, agree with it, etc.

In this case, these states had no good reason for moving their primaries up. "To be more important"...what kind of reason is that? I mean, if they thought that by moving up their primaries, their votes would count "more", then they were effectively trying to render the votes in other states meaningless.

Seems like justice to me, they wanted to make later votes "not count" and now their early votes don't count.









Doohickie's jib

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

Since they were called null-and-void before they even occurred and the candidates didn't campaign there (and Hillary was the only name on the ballot in MI), it seems pretty ludicrous to count them.

Despite the sillyassed pledge that the Democratic candidates signed pre-Iowa, Clinton actually did some pretty substantial campaigning in Florida. She's banking on a back-down by the DNC. If circumstances remain unchanged between now and convention time, the Clinton campaign will see to it that all 200 or so of those delegates show up at the Convention Center in Denver and double dog dare the DNC to refuse them seats. Oh, the drama.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

I have a serious problem with a party declaring that if a state does not tow the line their votes do not count.

You don't tow the line, you toe it! /pedant

I don't know why it would be a problem. There's no constitutional right I'm aware of to a say in choosing a party's nominee. The party makes its own rules.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Despite the sillyassed pledge that the Democratic candidates signed pre-Iowa, Clinton actually did some pretty substantial campaigning in Florida. She's banking on a back-down by the DNC. If circumstances remain unchanged between now and convention time, the Clinton campaign will see to it that all 200 or so of those delegates show up at the Convention Center in Denver and double dog dare the DNC to refuse them seats. Oh, the drama.

The liquor sales here are gonna be out of sight. I need to get my license asap.

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

I have a serious problem with a party declaring that if a state does not tow the line their votes do not count.

I have a bigger problem that two parties are allowed to monopolize the general election.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Despite the sillyassed pledge that the Democratic candidates signed pre-Iowa, Clinton actually did some pretty substantial campaigning in Florida. She's banking on a back-down by the DNC. If circumstances remain unchanged between now and convention time, the Clinton campaign will see to it that all 200 or so of those delegates show up at the Convention Center in Denver and double dog dare the DNC to refuse them seats. Oh, the drama.

I think the discipline should stand and if Clinton spent any time, energy or money there, it's her own damned fault. No "mulligans" in political primaries. She had her warning.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

I have a bigger problem that two parties are allowed to monopolize the general election.

So...Let them screw over their members by making stupid decisions. Their members will then abandon the parties. If you don't like party rules, don't join the party. Does it really make much difference whether you participate in party primaries or not?

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

I have a serious problem with a party declaring that if a state does not tow the line their votes do not count.

I've no issue with it. The right of the Parties to determine the method of picking their candidate is pretty much set in stone. As near as I can tell, they can paint names on snail shells and see which one crosses the line first.

It's not as if anyone's being disenfranchised from the General Election: The party members in the offending States get to vote for President from the exact same group of candidates that every other voter in the US gets to choose from.

NTM

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Uthgar the Brazen

The liquor sales here are gonna be out of sight. I need to get my license asap.

Ooooo....That's right. Uthgar is going to have them in his brazen clutches. I pity the poor Democrats.

[Doohickie]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

I have a serious problem with a party declaring that if a state does not tow the line their votes do not count.

I have a bigger problem with not following the established rules for an election. Changing the rules as you go along is the stuff of voting irregularities. If there were gross, state-party-wide irregularities, with the party officials failing to follow the rules in any state, I think the national party is fully justified in eliminating those delegates.

What if it turned out that it came to light that the party purposely put too few voting booths in areas where one candidate was overwhelmingly favored? Such a voting irregularity should not go unpunished. I think we have a similar situation and justification for the national party's actions here.

...and I'll show you my jib if you show me your poop deck.... no wait, that probably didn't come out right...

[wei yau]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

...and I'll show you my jib if you show me your poop deck.... no wait, that probably didn't come out right...

you need either more fiber or less

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Ooooo....That's right. Uthgar is going to have them in his brazen clutches. I pity the poor Democrats.

Hell yeah, baby!

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Uthgar is going to have them in his brazen clutches.

He's going to whosit with the what, now?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Uthgar the Brazen

The liquor sales here are gonna be out of sight. I need to get my license asap.

I'll go halvzies with you on the license and the two of us will take those goddamn rubes for every penny they have. It'll be better than owning a casino.

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I think the discipline should stand and if Clinton spent any time, energy or money there, it's her own damned fault. No "mulligans" in political primaries. She had her warning.

I agree. I just can't shake visions of a progression along these lines: (1) in true Clintonian style, Hillary starts a horrifically divisive floor fight over the Florida and Michigan delegates; (2) the party is left hopelessly splintered and unaffiliated voters blame the whole odious mess on the Democratic nominee, whoever it is; (3) President Walnuts.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I agree. I just can't shake visions of a progression along these lines: (1) in true Clintonian style, Hillary starts a horrifically divisive floor fight over the Florida and Michigan delegates; (2) the party is left hopelessly splintered and unaffiliated voters blame the whole odious mess on the Democratic nominee, whoever it is; (3) President Walnuts.

Yeah, but....

That's what I thought this whole "superdelegates" business was about...avoiding that scenario. It's my understanding that the "supers" were to come to the convention "uncommitted" and if their was no clear primary/caucus winner, then their votes should swing it...

Did I miss something (other than that somebody within the party is sure to be pissed off at that "elitist" approach to candidate selection)?

[Caligulette]

Originally Posted by Adam

You don't tow the line, you toe it! /pedant

I don't know why it would be a problem. There's no constitutional right I'm aware of to a say in choosing a party's nominee. The party makes its own rules.

No, it's like a tow line- you pull when and what they say to pull (shh!). What the hell would toe-ing a line be? Just making a line in the sand with your toe? What good would that do?

[Caligulette]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

I have a bigger problem with not following the established rules for an election. Changing the rules as you go along is the stuff of voting irregularities. If there were gross, state-party-wide irregularities, with the party officials failing to follow the rules in any state, I think the national party is fully justified in eliminating those delegates.

Then how can it even be up for debate as to whether a new primary or counting of the old ("illegal") primary should even happen?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

No, it's like a tow line- you pull when and what they say to pull (shh!). What the hell would toe-ing a line be? Just making a line in the sand with your toe? What good would that do?

nuh uuh...

See here.

It's from athletic contests, or military or parliamentary protocol, and it's "toe".

[Doohickie]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Then how can it even be up for debate as to whether a new primary or counting of the old ("illegal") primary should even happen?

Because when someone feels they have been disserviced by the system, they can always sue in the courts.

[Caligulette]

HMPH-

I thought this vernacular phrase originated during construction and operation of the Erie Canal, completed in 1825, and it referred to the horses, which “TOWED THE LINE” (is in tow a rope) used to pull the loaded barges (first of dirt, then of goods) along the canal. Small trains later replaced the horses until eventually, the economics preferred trains over barges and the canal system served only local markets which trains did not serve. Does anyone have a date of earliest recorded use for “toe the line”? If it is not older than 1825, perhaps “TOW THE LINE” is the proper phrase.

From comments here: Surely as reliable as wikies, after all, I found it on the interweb.