Explanation, please (primary election thing)

[Caligulette]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

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

Except that in this case the candidates both thumbed their noses at the states in question, but *now* want the states counted, or maybe counted.

[ChuckF]

I think it's all rather satisfying. By leaping ahead and attempting to increase their state's role in the primary season, Michigan and Florida (BTW - can we stop having elections in Florida yet?) have given up their influence and shifted it to states that waited. And also states that don't usually matter. Hopefully this will teach state parties not to fuck with the damn primary calendar, even if Iowa and New Hampshire remain inexplicably at the front of it. There should be no re-do, even if it means superdelegates select the candidate.

The media narrative is interesting. Hysteria along the lines of "omg the Democratic party is disintegrating" is both amusing and misplaced.

[California Tanker]

I was going to correct on the toe the line issue as well. Indeed, it was well drilled into me: Whenever an NCO showed up in Basic, the first recruit to see him would yell "Toes to the line!" where there quite literally was a line we had to put our toes against: An exercise in following instructions from above if ever there was one.

NTM

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

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

And in this instance, lose. Badly. Just what right is being abridged, or contract being broken? The only reason they're even discussing a re-do is because they don't want too much bad feeling towards themselves in a swing state. I don't know if Michigan is in any danger of going R, but Florida certainly is.

NTM

[Doohickie]

It reminds me of when I lived in Detroit in the 90s and there as a newspaper strike. The management view was that the printing operations were largely automated and severely feather-bedded with union employees. They proposed to *not* lay anyone off, but to simply not refill redundant positions when the person left. The union struck over the issue. The papers were able to print anyway (because after all, the printing operations really were automated and overstaffed by the union) and the union leadership pulled out all stops to try to win. When it was apparent they wouldn't or couldn't, they finally gave in. By then the newspapers (the News and Free Press, two papers who shared printing facilities) had already staffed up with non-union labor. They told the union that as they had openings in the printing operations, they would give former union employees preference in hiring. That was it.

The bottom line is that one side grossly underestimated both their power and their legal standing and lost terribly as a result. Just like the FL and MI democratic organizations.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Doohickie

The bottom line is that one side grossly overunderestimated both their power and their legal standing and lost terribly as a result. Just like the FL and MI democratic organizations.

[Ermintrude]

Why do we waste do much time following these party political restrictions on democracy in a way we do not for Russian and Chinese elections? The Party will choose the candidates via 'delegates' who will do what the Party commands regardless of electoral wishes, and a whole lot more who'll choose as they are paid to. There will be an election between two Party candidates pledged to and backed by minority interests and that will only determine an obscure secondary 'election' of a dictator who will establish a government of appointees without reference to any public choice. And this is the country that calls Iran 'undemocratic' because religious leaders make the pre-choices their Party politicoes do and fulminates against Cuba for offering the same system as themselves and choosing 'wrong'! Thank the gods, the short-lived American hegemony is over and China, India, Iran and the EU all have the economic clout to shut the American cowboy back in his box of "Rights for me mean none for you, nigger".

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Ermintrude

Why do we waste do much time following these party political restrictions on democracy in a way we do not for Russian and Chinese elections?

Setting aside the rest of your content-rich post for the moment, I'd like to focus on this party. What do you mean by "party political restrictions on democracy?" And how do Chinese and Russian elections enter into it?