Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Florida DNC appeal may bring back FL superdelegates
WE’VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
Starting to percolate on the newswire is an appeal by DNC Floridian Jon Ausman. He is stating that DNC rules prohibit the Rules Committee from:
a.) stripping Florida’s superdelegates of being seated at the national convention and
b.) stripping Florida of all of its pledged delegates. He states that the penalty called for is a penalty of 1/2 of delegates (similar to what the RNC did to Florida and Michigan).
The early conventional wisdom is that argument A has validity, argument B less so. The DNC Rules Committee staff is apparently currently reviewing the appeal, and expects that to be done in about two weeks, after which the Committee would re-convene to review it.
It would be very weird if after all the arguing of disenfranchising Florida’s voters if the superdelegates were able to be seated but not the regular delegates. We’ll keep you up to date of how this progresses.
Posted by 2009 Journal Writer at 3:32 AM 
The best solution is Phil Breden’s. Hold a Super Delegate “meeting” in early June. Each candidate speaks, and then the Supers vote in a binding fashion. Let the Florida and Michigan Supers vote. If you do the math (and on this site — THEY HAVE) and consider the ever growing number of Supers who will not overturn the popular vote, Obama will win the nomination whether or not the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated.
In that case, it’s easy to seat the delegates because their votes will not “matter” EXCLUSIVELY in the sense that those delegations will not change the outcome of the floor vote.
The more I think of it, the more I like it.
It would be helpful if someone actually posted a link to all of the iterations of the convention rules…here is the latest version: http://tinyurl.com/2e7vpg [pdf file]
I read the rules a few months ago, and they appear to have changed. I remember reading in the older version that 1/2 of the delegates would be seated if a State was in non-compliance, but it appears as if the language has changed to not seat any delegates:
“REG. 5.6. ARTICLE VII.B.3.
Standing committee members selected pursuant to a Plan found in non-compliance by the RBC shall not be included on the membership roster by the DNC Secretary, nor shall those individuals be allowed to participate as members at the standing committee meeting, nor shall they be afforded guest seating during the Convention….”
I wonder why the committee has changed the rules in the middle of the game…seems unfair.
Ubuwalker31, since the date on those regulations is February 1, 2007, and since people have been talking about the fact that Florida and Michigan delegates would not be seated for ages (it hardly came as a surprise), I’d say the burden is on you to show that anyone has “changed the rules in the middle of the game”.
Here is the August version of the rules. Notice that section 11A and 20C1A is absent in the new version posted above. http://tinyurl.com/2ap8ux
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held
no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which
scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National
Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation….
and of course the kicker:
5. Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the
DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions….
Aha!
Here’s your problem, ubu. Your first post quotes from the Regulations of the RBC, your second post from the Delegate Selection Rules. Two different documents – neither of which has been changed midway through the race.
ubu:
I’d direct you to Reg 2.6, which defines non-compliance. The way this is supposed to work is that the RBC makes a finding of non-compliance, and then within thirty days, the state party fixes the defficiencies, and the RBC certifies them as compliant. So, for example, had the RBC decided not to supplement the automatic penalty for holding an early contest (1/2 the pledged- and all the super-delegates), Florida could have asked to have its plan for selecting its remaining delegates certified as compliant, and they would have been given their seats at the convention and on the standing committees. Or they could have acknowledged their error, and submitted another plan to allow for the selection of their full delegation in a manner that was compliant with the rules.
As it happens, the RBC opted to exercise its power to supplement the automatic penatly, and stripped Florida and Michigan of all of their delegates. Their delegate selection plans remain, for the moment, non-compliant. And states with non-compliant plans don’t get to assume either their temporary or permanent seats on the standing committees, nor are their delegates included on the temporary rolls. That’s not a penalty. It’s just the inevitable result of not having a compliant plan, and it’s easily remedied – write a plan that can be found in compliance.
I’d also note that, contra Charlie’s take on the “early conventional wisdom,” Argument A doesn’t hold any more water than Argument B. The key point here is that the DNC Charter sets out guidelines with which any delegate selection plan needs to comply before it can be certified. One of those guidelines is that the delegates need to be selected in a manner that preserves the slots for superdelegates, without quota or competition. If the DNC had approved a plan from Florida or Michigan that stripped them of their superdelegates (for example, by allowing the automatic penalties to stand) then the superdelegates would actually have a really good case for being seated. But, in point of fact, the RBC hasn’t approved a plan that violates the DNC Charter – it’s simply ruled that the plans submitted by FL and MI are non-compliant, and refused to certify them.
To put this as simply as I can – there’s nothing in the charter which directs the DNC to seat particular people as delegates. The charter simply sets rules for how the delegates need to be selected. And no action of the RBC has violated those rules. The claim being made is analogous to pointing out that the charter demands that the pledged delegates be evenly divided on the basis of gender – and then arguing that all the pledged delegates need to be seated, because they can’t very well be divided on the basis of gender if they aren’t seated. It’s a load of hooey, and it’s going to get laughed out of the committee.
Here is the first appeal from Florida. The violation on the part of the Rules&Bylaws committee refers to the Charter of the party.
AFFIDAVIT FOR FLORIDA CHALLENGE NUMBER ONE:
FLORIDA’S DEMOCRATIC UNITED STATES SENATOR, DEMOCRATIC UNITED STATE REPRESENTATES AND MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE ‘SHALL’ BE DELEGATES TO THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
4.
5. I am a registered or enrolled Democratic voter in the State of Florida;
6. I am a resident of the State of Florida;
7. I subscribe to the substance, intent and principles of the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States;
8. On or about Saturday, 25 August 2008, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted to deny Florida’s Democratic United States Senator, Democratic United States Representatives and Members of the Democratic National Committee their right to be delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention if the Florida Democratic Party (FDP) did not submit an acceptable delegate selection plan within thirty (30) days of the transmittal by letter of this decision of the Rules and Bylaws Committee to the Florida Democratic Party;
9. On or about Tuesday, 28 August 2008, the Co-Chairs of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee transmitted a letter to FDP Chair Karen Thurman stating the FDP Delegate Selection Plan was in non-compliance for “violation of timing” and that the DNC Rules and Bylaws “Committee voted to increase the delegate reduction equal to a 100% reduction of all pledged and unpledged delegates allocated to Florida”;
10. The Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States in Article Two states “The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between women and men. The delegates shall be chosen through processes which…provide for all of the members of the Democratic National Committee to serve as unpledged delegates” (Article Two, Section 4(h)(i);
11. The Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States in Article Two states “The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between women and men. The delegates shall be chosen through processes which…permit unpledged delegates consisting of…the Democratic members of the United States Senate and the Democratic members of the House of Representatives” (Article Two, Section 4(h)(iii)2);
12. The Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States in Article Two states “The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between women and men. The delegates shall be chosen through processes which…permit unpledged delegates consisting of…former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee” (Article Two, Section 4(h)(iii)7);
13. The Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States in Article Ten states “Each official body of the Democratic Party created under the authority of this Charter shall adopt and conduct its affairs in accordance with written rules, which rules shall be consistent with this Charter….” (Article Ten, Section 3);
14. The Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States in Article Ten states “Bylaws of the Democratic Party shall be adopted to provide for the governance of the affairs of the Democratic Party in matters not provided for in this Charter.” (Article Ten, Section 2);
15. The Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States in Article Two states “In addition to the Committees otherwise provided for in the Charter or in these Bylaws, there shall be the following standing committees of the Democratic National Committee….Rules and Bylaws Committee” (Artilce Two, Section 10(a)(iii));
16. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is the subordinate creation of the Charter of Democratic Party of the United States;
17. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is mandated as an “official body of the Democratic Party created under the authority of this Charter” that it “shall adopt and conduct its affairs in accordance with written rules, which rules shall be consistent with this Charter.” (Article Ten, Section 3);
18. The Democratic National Committee shall issue a Call for the Democratic National Convention as mandated in the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States in Article Three, Section 1(a);
19. The Call for the Democratic National Convention is a subordinate creation of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States;
20. The Call for the Democratic National Convention was adopted by the Democratic National Committee on or about Friday, 2 February 2007;
21. The Call for the Democratic National Convention states in Article II “Only delegates and alternates selected under a delegate selection procedure approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and in accordance with the rules shall be placed on the Temporary Roll of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.” (Article II, A);
22. The Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention was adopted by the Democratic National Committee on or about Saturday, 19 August 2006;
23. The Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention is a subordinate creation of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States;
24. The Delegate Selection Rules states “In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules….none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation.” (Rule 20,C,1,a);
25. The Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States in Article Ten states “The Charter may be amended by a vote of a majority of all of the delegates to the National Convention, provided that no such amendment shall be effective unless and until it is subsequently ratified by a vote of the majority of the entire membership of the Democratic National Committee. This Charter may also be amended by a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership of the Democratic National Committee.” (Article Ten, Section 1);
26. No amendments to the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States have been passed allowing the removal of Members of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Members of the United States Senate and Democratic Members of the United States House of Representatives as delegates to the Democratic National Convention;
27. The motion adopted by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee “to increase the delegate reduction equal to a 100% reduction of all pledged and unpledged delegates allocated to Florida” conflicts with the language in the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States stating that the following shall be delegates: “members of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic members of the United States Senate and the Democratic Members of the House of Representatives, former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.”
28. The remedy I seek is for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to revisit its motion of 25 August 2007 and adopt a motion which “shall be consistent with this Charter” of the Democratic Party of the United States;
29. The remedy I seek is for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to revisit its motion of 25 August 2007 and specifically state the following shall be voting delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention as mandated by the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States: “members of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic members of the United States Senate and the Democratic Members of the House of Representatives, former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.”
30. I have been injured by the action of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee in the following specific ways: members of the Democratic National Committee that represent my interests have been denied their mandated right to be delegates; the Democratic Member of the United States Senate who represent my interests has been denied the mandated right to be a delegate; the Democratic Members of the United States House of Representatives who represent my interests has been denied the mandated right to be delegates; the former Chair of the Democratic National Committee who represents the interests of Florida has been denied the mandated right to be a delegate; the Democratic candidates for President of the United States have not campaigned in Florida; the national media has ignored the interests of Florida; and, the opportunity to energize the Democratic base in Florida because of vigorous primary campaigning has been missed;
31. The following is a list witnesses likely to be called to testify in support of the challenge:
32. The following documents are likely to be offered in support of the challenge: the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States; the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention; Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention; Regulations of the Rules and Bylaws Committee; Summary of Findings on Florida Delegate Selection Plan; correspondence from and to the Co-Chairs of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee; correspondence from and to the DNC Secretary; legal documents from Ausman et al v. Browning filed in the Federal District Court of North Florida (4:2007CV00519); correspondence from and to Jon M. Ausman, Member of the Democratic National Committee.
AFFIDAVIT FOR FLORIDA CHALLENGE NUMBER TWO:
WHEN A VIOLATION OF TIMING OCCURS BY A STATE PARTY THE NUMBER OF PLEDGED DELEGATES SHALL BE REDUCED BY FIFTY PERCENT (50%)
5. I am a registered or enrolled Democratic voter in the State of Florida;
6. I am a resident of the State of Florida;
7. I subscribe to the substance, intent and principles of the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States;
8. The State of Florida Republican dominated legislature passed a bill providing for Florida’s presidential preference primary to be moved forward to Tuesday, 29 January 2008, and for the use of optical scan voting machines with a paper verifiable ballot;
9. The Florida Democratic Party opposed moving the primary forward to 29 January 2008 and in written correspondence with the Florida Senate and House asked that if a move occurred it respected the 5 February 2008 window adopted by the Democratic National Committee;
10. Efforts, however belated, by the Democratic leaders of the Senate and House to move the primary to 5 February 2008 or later failed;
11. The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention were adopted on or about Saturday, 19 August 2008;
12. The Delegate Selection Rules in Rule 20 states “In the event the Delegate Selection plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining step in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules…the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty percent (50%).” (Rule 20,C,1,a);
13. The Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention was adopted by the Democratic National Committee on or about Friday, 2 February 2007;
14. The Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention assigned a total of 185 pledged delegate votes and 31 alternates to Florida (Appendix B);
15. On or about Saturday, 25 August 2008, the DNC staff issued a review of the Florida Delegate Selection Plan which recommended to the Rules and Bylaws Committee to find the plan in non-compliance because “The material deficiency is entirely related to the date of the presidential preference primary and the resulting violation of timing”;
16. The DNC staff review stated “A state Plan that violates the timing provisions of Rule 11 is in Non-Compliance with the Rules and is subject to provisions of Rule 20.C. These sanctions include the automatic reduction of delegates and alternates and the prohibition of presidential candidate campaign activities outlined in Rule 20.C.(1) and the imposition of additional sanctions as provided in Rule 20.C.(5) and Rule 20.C.(6).”
17. On or about Saturday, 25 August 2008, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) “voted to increase the delegate reduction equal to a 100% reduction of all pledged and unpledged delegates allocated to Florida”;
18. On or about Tuesday, 28 August 2008, the Co-Chairs of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee transmitted a letter to FDP Chair Karen Thurman stating the FDP Delegate Selection Plan was in non-compliance for “violation of timing” and that the DNC Rules and Bylaws “Committee voted to increase the delegate reduction equal to a 100% reduction of all pledged and unpledged delegates allocated to Florida” based on Rule 20.C.1.(a), Rule 20.C.5 and Rules 20.C.6 of the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules;
19. The Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States in Article Ten states “Each official body of the Democratic Party created under the authority of this Charter shall adopt and conduct its affairs in accordance with written rules, which rules shall be consistent with this Charter….” (Article Ten, Section 3);
20. The Rules and Bylaws Committee is required by the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States to “conduct its affairs in accordance with written rules” (Article Ten, Section 3);
21. The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention state in Rule 20.C.(1).(a) “In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules…the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent”;
22. Rule 20.C.(1).(a) mandates that a timing violation “shall” result in a reduction of the pledged delegates and alternates by fifty percent(50%);
23. The Rules and Bylaws Committee, by imposing a penalty of a one hundred percent (100%) reduction violated Rule 20.C.(1).(a) as the only finding of non-compliance was the timing of the Florida Presidential Preference Primary;
24. The Rules and Bylaws Committee justified the one hundred percent (100%) reduction in Florida’s pledged delegates based on 2008 Delegate Selection Rule 20.C.(6);
25. Rule 20.C.(6) states “Nothing in these rules shall prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing sanctions the Committee deems appropriate with respect to a state which the Committee determines has failed or refused to comply with these rules where the failure or refusal of the state party in not subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of this section C”;
26. The only written justification for a penalty against the Florida delegate selection plan was a violation of timing as defined in Rule 20.C.(1);
27. Rules 20.C.(6) specifically states that the Rules and Bylaws Committee shall “not” imposed additional penalties on Florida since it is being penalized under Rule 20.C.(1);
28. The Rules and Bylaws Committee justified the one hundred percent (100%) reduction in Florida’s pledged delegates based on 2008 Delegate Selection Rule 20.C.(5);
29. Rule 20.C.(5) states “Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C, against a state party and against the delegate from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C, including, without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances”;
30. The only written justification for a penalty against the Florida delegate selection plan was a violation of timing as defined in Rule 20.C.(1);
31. Rule 20.C.(5) specifically states the Rules and Bylaws Committee may impose “additional sanctions including…those specified in subsection (6)”;
32. Rule 20.C.(6) specifically states the Rules and Bylaws Committee shall “not” impose additional penalties on Florida since it is being penalized under Rule 20.C.(1);
33. The Call for the Democratic National Convention states in Appendix B that Florida shall have 121 district level pledged delegates, 40 at-large pledged delgates and 24 party leaders and elected officials pledged delegates for a total of 185 pledged delegates (Article B, page 33);
34. The Call for the Democratic National Convention states in Appendix B that Florida shall have
35. A fifty percent (50%) reduction of 185 pledged delegates is 92.5;
36. A fifty percent (50%) reduction of 31 pledged alternates is 15.5;
37. The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention states “In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest who number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number (Rule 20.C.1.(a));
38. The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention mandates for a timing violation by Florida a reduction of 93 pledged delegates and 16 pledged alternates (Rule 20.C.1.(a));
39. After a fifty percent (50%) reduction Florida should have 92 pledged delegates and 15 pledged alternates;
40. The motion adopted by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee “to increase the delegate reduction equal to a 100% reduction of all pledged and unpledged delegates allocated to Florida” is inconsistent with the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention;
41. The remedy I seek is for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to revisit its motion of 25 August 2007 and adopt a motion which shall be consistent with the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention;
42. The remedy I seek is for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to revisit its motion of 25 August 2007 and specifically state that Florida shall have 92 pledged delegates as voting delegates and 15 alternates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention;
43. The remedy I seek is for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to revisit its motion of 25 August 2007 and specifically state that Florida shall have 185 pledged delegates as voting delegates, three (3) add-on unpledged delegates as voting delegates and 31 alternates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention;
44. I have been injured by the action of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee in the following specific ways: Florida is entitled to representation, even if reduced, at the 2008 Democratic National Convention; denial of delegates means Florida shall have no input on the Democratic nominees for President and Vice President, on the 2008 Democratic Platform or on proposed amendments to the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic National Convention; the Democratic candidates for President of the United States have not campaigned in Florida; the national media has ignored the interests of Florida; and, the opportunity to energize the Democratic base in Florida because of vigorous primary campaigning has been missed;
45. The following is a list witnesses litestify in support of the challenge:
46. The following documents are likely to be offered in support of the challenge: the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States; the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention; Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention; Regulations of the Rules and Bylaws Committee; the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee staff review of the Florida Delegate Selection Plan; correspondence from and to the Co-Chairs of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee; correspondence from and to the DNC Secretary; legal documents from Ausman et al v. Browning filed in the Federal District Court of North Florida (4:2007CV00519); correspondence from and to Jon M. Ausman, Member of the Democratic National Committee.
ubuwalker- You are right about the violation being based on timing pursant to section C of the Delegate Selection Rules. But, if you read on pass 5 and 6 of section C you will see that once we have received the 50% reduction no other sanctions can be taken. Moreover, based on the charter being the National Convention is the highest authority in the party. No state can go unrepresented. That is why the Rules&Bylaws committee given so much power to assure every state has met affirmative action needs and have a BALANCED WELL REPRESENTED DELEGATION.
Would have been a moot issue if only Florida Democrat “leaders” had followed the rules.
Like a lowLife poolPlayer..once they find that they are losing, they try to change the rules, they complain about the way the game is being played, they try to “shark” the opposition, they cry, they moan, they finally insist that since their demands are not met..they are picking up the cue ball {marbles}..and quitting.
If the Dem.Party so-called leadership..trys to shark Obama, and manages to finagle the nomination to another candidate and “foists” an undesirable on us, then this professional Dem. campaign worker will spend all his waking time working against the party in this election.
Don’t give me the party-line argument you gave me with Gray Davis.. It is not more important to stick with the party…What, and vote in someone I don’t want to vote for…ever.
Proceed at your own risk..Dianne, Art, etc.
George Shieman gshieman@aol.com
SanFrancisco/Eureka
GEE – how about some honesty here!! If the candidates weren’t okay with not seating Florida and Michigan, why did they sign an agreement that they were? Oh yeah, right – that was to make nice with New Hampshire and Iowa which they don’t need anymore. Like Bill C. said, New Hampshire snuck ahead and ‘didn’t wait its turn’! What will camp Billary come up with next.
Hillary nor Obama should drop out. This nomination is still wide open. Florida and Michigan delegates MUST and WILL have their say. I have two solutions for the Florida and Michigan Delegates:
1) Seat them all at the convention, but, unlike all other delegates, they should be “unpledged” on the first vote. Perhaps they can pledge by a certain date, so we can see if Hillary is truly viable.
2) Or allow the delegates of the two states to vote in the second and subsequent rounds of voting, but not in the first, which is likely to be deadlocked.
The delegates will all be mercilessly pursued! That’s Democracy
Thank you Fldem23. I have been inquiring for days why FL was stripped of all delegates. I agree that FL should be stripped by 50%. I think we should call for the removal of the arrogant Howard Dean.
I was wondering why the 50% rule wasn’t applied in this case (as it was on the Republican side).
As for arrogance, that pretty much falls to the following ship of fools:
Jeremy Ring, Democratic State Senator and CO-SPONSOR of HB #537:
“My hope is we’ve blown up the whole primary system. It would be the biggest legacy we’ll get from this legislation.” (Tampa Bay Online, 01/20/08)
Dan “I don’t have any constituents in the DNC” Gelber;
Keith “We have a duty to the rest of the country to be in this process from the beginning” Fitzgerald;
Elaine “Those concerns were largely drowned out by their enthusiasm for making Florida an even bigger player” Schwartz; and,
Mark “Florida Democrats are all for [moving the primary up]” Bubriski.
Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina ALSO broke the rules by moving up their date from those indicated below.
However Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were NOT penalized and did NOT have their votes not counted.
Only Florida and Michigan’s votes were not counted. Why?…because they are Hillary states.
Below are the rules that were broken by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina….but they were NOT penalized.
Florida and Michigan’s 2 million votes need to count also.
This is America…every vote needs to count!
no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.”>