Yes, all things said by Chewie are good.
Yes, all things said by Chewie are good.
I'm just saying that if Clinton wins the nomination, I really will vote for Nader. Or McCain. Which everone I like more, I'm not really sure.
"Whole careers become reduced to a single snapshot."
I'd be content if Clinton joined the ballot with Obama and just ran with him as his vice. They'd be the dynamic duo.
I whole-heartedly agree.Originally Posted by nirorivers6
Haha. Clever Chewie. And I have to say, resisting to begin any sentence with your name in it with something other than "Punch it" has become increasingly difficult.
Alright so what do people think the best solution to the Michigan Muckery/Florida Fiasco is? Its rather complicated and I'm not sure what I think should happen, but I have some ideas of what shouldn't happen.
So first off let me explain what I think I know about this.
The local politicians in Florida and Michigan made the decision to have their primaries early against the rules of the DNC (and the RNC but thats irrelevant right now). As punishment, the DNC stripped the power of the delegates in those two states. Because of the irrelevance of these two primaries many voters did not show up, there was very little if any campaigning from the candidates, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan (amoung others, but once again irrelevant now).
So the outcome of the primaries aren't neccessarily indicative of the outcome if there had been primaries with actual significance.
Although there was some discontent over the DNC's punishment, presently there is more of a debate over what should be done, as the democratic primary is so close.
Several solutions have been discussed:
1. Do nothing
2. Reinstate the power of some or all the delgates based on the primaries that already took place.
3. Do a redo of the primaries with the DNC footing the bill which is estimated to be anywhere from 18-25 million dollars.
4. Do a redo of the primaries with the respective states footing the bill.
There have been arguments for each of these solutions. Here's my opinon on each of the solutions.
1. Doing nothing is leaving a lot of Americans out of one of the closest, most historic, and possibly one of the most important primaries. They did not chose to have the primaries earlier and have to take the punishment for something they were not directly responsible for.
2. Splitting up the delgates based on the past primaries isn't really fair. Many voters didn't show up because they knew their votes wouldn't count, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and there was limited campaigning.
3. The DNC shouldn't foot the bill because they didn't do anything wrong. These rules have been around for awhile and they are just enforcing them. You can't blame them for enforcing the rules. Also spending that money would just be wasting money that is needed during the general election. The Democratic party has always had less money then the republicans when campaiging and this definitly isn't going to help.
4. This isn't ideal either, because the tax payers will get the short end of the stick on this one too. Florida is kinda in a rut with its economy and it needs every penny it can get for schools, roads, etc. Also when pushing the primaries to an earlier date was proposed to the Florida Congress, it was opposed by the Democrats, but as there is more Republican reps and senators, the thing passed despite the democrats efforts to stop it.
The point was made that having a pivotal primary gives a little jumpstart to the states economy because of all the media, campaiging, ads, etc that just stimulates the local economy. This alone could pay for itself. Maybe it isn't enough, or maybe they actually get a profit from it, I don't know.
Now, I think that there should be a redo. These delegates can help swing this close contest to either Obama or Clinton and it can help decide the direction the super delegates will be going. At first I thought maybe a caucus would be cheaper to do then a primary, but I don't thik that would fly with the Clinton camp as Obama does better in those. So, I thought why don't they share the bill?
I didn't proofread so there will be some stuff. So what do people think about all this?
EDIT So I also want to know what people think about this all coming down to Superdelgates because neither Clinton nor Obama will be able to reach the 2k+ it will take to cinch the nomination.
DOUBLE EDIT I forgot to ask: Why did these legislations even propose and pass this if they knew it was against the rules? I mean c'mon. I don't even understand the reasoning behind it.
TRIPLE EDIT So I did more research and several other solutions have been proposed.
5. Internet voting or a mail in vote. This is used for Democrats who live abroad. This will be cheaper with an estimated cost of $6 million. Call me a conspiracy nut, but I'm a little suspicious of voting done on the internet. It is significatnly cheaper though.
6. "Firehouse Primary" Same thing as a normal primary, but with fewer polling places and less time to vote. It is cheaper.
QUADRUPLE EDIT Another factor to note is the repercussions of whatever route is taken. This has to be carefully done, because there has been an increasing sentiment amoung the populace of suspicion. People see this as a place where funny business can happen. It deosn't help that Florida not too long ago had the 2000 election recount. The DNC and other democratic leaders don't want to lose voters over this mess, and they certainly don't want former democrats to jump to the other side. If people in either the Obama or Clinton side cry foul play over this I guarantee the reaction won't be good.
"Whole careers become reduced to a single snapshot."
I really see your "1 and 4" as the only viable options. I personally think 1 is the right option. And by that, I mean ethically, morally, logically, correct. I'm afraid though that most philosopher's skip "keeping other people happy" in their list of compelling argument factors.
I think it is very clear though that we cannot run on current results. Nobody campaigned there so the results are skewed. It'd be an outrage if they were to do so. Many voters simply accepted the fact that their state screwed up and didn't turn out for their candidate. So reholding it would be the only correct way to get any results at all.
The states should have to pay because they broke DNC rule. Simple as that. It's they who are protesting and the cost of getting a say is funding it themselves. If we hold smaller or alternative method elections we are going against traditional set-up and thus changing the demographic and the outcome. So we have to have a normal one.
To be honest, we need a very Truman-esque point of view to say it best. They screwed up. No delegates for them. It's by the rules. Impartial. They just didn't follow the rules and get consequences. Game over.
If only things were so simple.
Well Humor's Hand, things aren't that simple. This conundrum isn't as black and white as you think. You are ignoring the repercussions that this will undoubtedly have if this isn't handled delicately, and over-simplifing the problem.
1. You seem to put all the blame on "the states" and this is only "the states" issue to resolve. But who exactly are "the states"? Its not as if there was a direct vote to hold the primaries earlier, so you can't blame the citizens. True, they elected their officials but you can't blame them for this. Thats like saying the American people were responsible for Watergate and they should feel the consequences. And you can't blame the Democratic senators and representatives, because they fought against this and lost because the Republicans have the majority. So you can't blame the Democratic state legislators.
Because this decison was made by the Republicans, it isn't fair to keep punsishing the people who want to vote in this important and extremely close campaign. You are right that it can't be an alternative becuase of it warping the outcome.
It should be a primary or a caucus. A caucus would be cheaper, but I don't think Clinton would let that fly because Obama does much better at caucuses. Neither are opposed to a new primary, but then it comes down to cost again.
2. The DNC has to swallows it pride, and even though it is in the right, it needs to contribute. Because the DNC's number one job is making sure Democrats get into Office, and the Presdiential election is the number one Office up for grabs right now.
If there isn't a redo, the Democratic party will suffer during the general election. People in Michigan and Florida have threatened to not vote, or not vote democrat during the general election if their votes don't get to count. Whatsmore, if Clinton is the democratic nomination and Obama surporters feel as if the second Michigan and Florida primaries would have changed the outcome, they'll feel cheated and once again you'll lose votes either because they aren't voting or they are voting for someone else, and the same is true if Obama gets the nomination, and Clinton surporters feel like there could have been a difference. And its not a question of if. It's awuestion of how many? And in an election that seems like it will be close and that pivots over the fight for the independent vote, losing part of your base definitly isn't going to help.
I think the best solution is a new primary funded in part by the DNC, and in part by the states. I personally think the states should pay more, as they'll gain an economic stimulus from the attention the primaries will bring. Its been suggested that Clinton and Obama split it. And although there's been record breaking for campaign money being raised in recorded history, I don't think thats such a good idea. Maybe if they contributed a couple million each, but I'm not real sure about that.
Bottom line, there needs to be a redo and I think the DNC and states should split it to make it easier.
"Whole careers become reduced to a single snapshot."
Personally, I think that it should fall solely on the shoulders of the state governments. Also, they should only be awarded half of the delegates the state would ordinarily have had. If not done that way, then the two states would get to decide a primary simply because they broke the rules, and that's not something the DNC can completely condone.
When little kids go to bed, they wear Superman pajamas.
When Superman goes to bed, he wears Trevor Haynes pajamas.
Thats probably best to strip some of the power that the delegates have, but however its done, there needs to be a redo.
"Whole careers become reduced to a single snapshot."
For all the proper parts of an argument, they should not get to because the cause and effect were laid out, they knowingly broke the rules, and a punishment is a punishment. If we want to get into the "but what if people get angry" arguments, I don't see the point in arguing it.
I apologize though. I took the "what do you think" bait and thought maybe just once I could say something without having the "here's 20 reasons you're wrong" follow it. You should've just posted that in the first place. All you really wanted was someone to contradict so your point could stand.
My new decision criteria is "whatever keeps that demon-creature-thing Clinton out of office". Sounds like all the criteria I need.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks