A "Do-Over"!

[Gene]

The debacle of the Michigan Dem primary sure has gotten a lot of news, and for good reason.

The short of it is that Michigan Dems decided to hold their primary early, against what both the national Dems and the Michigan Dems earlier agreed to. Breaking these rules, Obama would not place himself on this ballot, nor campaign in Michigan, and was eventually not on this ballot. Also, the national Dems would not honor the represented delegates, either. (Florida is in a similar mess.) Not such a big deal if the race isn't nationally close, but, it's proving to be just that, and people are now re-examining just what to do about it all.

Some say "Tough!", that is, Michigan broke the rules and now has to live with the consequences that could have occurred, and this was one of those possible consequences.

Some say that it's not fair that Michigan citizens are effectively not counted in a fair presentation of candidates, and a re-vote has to be done, but nobody wants to pay for it (costing a two-digit number of million dollars), and neither Michigan nor the national Dems (NOR the US government) feel a responsibility for footing the bill of this.

I can certainly relate to the "tough!" stance, and one taking resposibility for one's own stupid actions and all, but the thing is, the Michigan Dems did the wrong thing, but the citizens end up paying the penalty. They were gambling with other people's money, so to speak... So while it's fair SOMEBODY pays for this goof, Michigan citizens should be the LAST party to look to for this.

I've heard a few options. One is to invent a Michigan "mini-caucus" to have delegates choose the preferred candidate on the state level. Another option is mail-in, but this is against Michigan's constitution as it stands right now (not to mention having a bunch of other integrity and logistical problems as well).

One option put out there is to just split the delegates, call it a draw, and call the whole thing off. It would sure save a lot of money and time. But, there's that "fairness" thing...

The most favored option so far is a re-vote, and Michigan eating the cost of this (like THEY can afford it!...). This also is not without it problems, beyond the cost (and ethics) of it. Unlike Reps, there is no "list" of registered Dems in Michigan. One of the terms would be that registered Reps couldn't vote in this re-do, so a cross-checking would have to be done to assure the "purity" of the vote.

Some political watchers have suggested that Michigan citizens "eat it" in some fashion, and just have them get rid of the bums that screwed them when next election rolls around, so the proper people are eventually "punished" for this. This is the vengeful "Hollywood ending " version, where the bad guys eventually get what's coming to them, if you're of that mentality, but is it really the most PRACTICAL thing to do?...

Aaaugh! What a fine MESS!...

[Gene]

Just got back from reading the lastest on all this from cnn.com . Well, Michigan, it was up to your state government to maybe save the day on all this with a re-vote, but, it ended up getting fillibustered all the way up to the Spring Break (which no one was dedicated enough, or saw this issue as important enough, to postpone or partly cancel). Yeah, the incompetancy could have been averted and put behind us, but, alas, Michigan can't even get a second chance right!...

The spin doctors offer their takes, of course. The Clinton camp, being slightly behind and having a good chance to win Michigan legitamately (and a FAIR chance in Florida), offers that a re-vote should definitely be done. They posture that "the people should be heard", and NOT hearing them is "unamerican", and so on. Clinton takes a high road in this somehow, saying that even though Michigan was going against DNC rules, it was WORSE to not have Michigan be heard, so she put her name on the ballot, unlike her opponent. She charges that Obama wants to stifle the people's voice, and the like.

Obama, being the slight frontrunner, sees little or no benefit to introducing anything more that could tip the contest in any significant way. A delegate split or delegate ignoring (same effect, really) of these states sounds very good to him, of course. He charges that he has played by the rules all the while, and his opponent only seems interested in a fair re-vote when her political ass is in trouble, and she's now "suddenly concerned" about this, and it's ALL just political angling.

The re-vote option for Michigan is all but dead at this point. There were problems with it, though, one of which was that many Dems, seeing they couldn't vote for who they really wanted, decided to vote in the Rep primary to cause some chaos, and NOW, they wouldn't be able to vote in this re-vote the way they would really like to because of the rule that Reps can't vote in this. It implies that you would almost have to run another Rep primary, too, along side this one. But, the nominee of the Reps is now a forgone conclusion, so what's the point of that?

Holy crap, it just gets worse and worse!...

[Benji Duncan]

I believe the michigan democrats made a good decision to hold the party early. They were looking out for the interests of the people of michigan who are sick of the federal government ignoring our economic situation. They felt that putting michigan early would force these candidates to finally start talking about what to do about outsourcing, a topic the candidates in 2004 totally ignored.

It's the dnc that fouled. By punishing Michigan they stuck a finger in michigan's face and said "No! Your problems are not unique! Your state does not deserve any special emphasis!"

I applaud Michigan's senators and hope they stick to having an early michigan primary in future presidential years. If it didn't count this time, it will count next time.

A do-over benefits Obama, because he's the only candidate that can realistically lock the normal delegate count before the convention. A do-over does not benefit Hillary, because she is behind and is hoping the whole race is turned over to the super delegates.

I want another michigan primary because, well, I want Obama to win.

[Gene]

Heh. It's a question of perception.

Say that I have a big 5-gallon carton of ice cream that I want to serve to 50 people in a room. I say, "Everybody, one at a time! Single file!". I offer for them to line up, say, alphabetically by last name, since that sounds like a good a rule as any. The 50 people say "Okay".

Now Mr. Roberts and Mr. Thomas decide later that they need the ice cream sooner than they originally agreed to. So, they cut in line, in front of Mr. Baker and Mr. Dawson. I decide that, since they went against our rule, when they appear in line early, they get no ice cream at all. I would have even given them ice cream if they tried again appearing in the order they were originally supposed to, but they don't show up at that time. Now, at about the time Mr. Walters is getting his ice cream, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Thomas are mad they missed their chance. They start charging that the system chosen to hand out ice cream is stupid, and maintain that they deserve their share.

Okay, is it the case that the pompous person scooping ice cream has gone mad with power, and the method for dole-out should really be re-assessed, or is this the fault of the audacious ones cutting in the line? As the saying goes, where you stand has much to do with where you sit!...

Metaphores aside, I'd agree that SOME "rust belt" state going early (say Michigan, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania) would be a great idea in bringing up the issues of fair trade and labor a lot sooner in the campaign. But, doing it the way Michigan (and Florida) did, they took a big gamble. They have apparantly lost...

Now, it's getting to be a situation that the votes of these two states are more needed than originally thought. NOW what?...

No matter which way it goes, someone is going to lose to some degree, now. You can bet that many stakeholders in Michigan are praying that the contest is decisive enough late enough where this whole stumble can be a moot point. But, at the end, if it is found that the race is still very close and these states' voices are going to be needed to break the tie, it's going to be very, very bad!...

Jeez!...

[Benji Duncan]

There's one problem with your analogy Gene. We are not speaking here of a couple people getting ice cream, which is an unnecessary treat. We are talking about voters getting what democracy demands- representation and the ability to elect their representatives in government.

To amend your analogy, lets say ice cream was the only food available. And 50 people stood in line to get it, but those people represented millions of people, not just themselves. If a couple people cut in line, would it be fair to allow the millions of people they were getting the ice cream for to starve to death?

Michigan did go early than was planned, but they did go during the primary season and they funded their own vote. What if every state held their primary on the first week of january? Most pundits seem to prefer the idea of a national primary where everyone goes on the same day anyway.

Michigan and Florida have unique problems and they should go earlier. None of the tiny states which go earlier now have unique problems. We must remember that the primary order was established at a time long ago when the political climate and demography was totally different than it is today.

It is the job of our state congresspeople to look out for the interests of the people of michigan, when they decided to hold our primary early, they were doing just that. When the DNC stripped our delegates they were not looking out for our interests whatsoever.

[Gene]

Your analogy hones in better, for sure, but I wouldn't call the priveledge of voting a life-and-death matter (although I'll buy the arguement that folks have died to HAVE this priveledge...). You are closer than me, though.

You could look at it like Michigan stood up for its citizens in the line-cut they did, but pardon me if I somehow don't have the instinct to slap backs and give out atta-boy's and way-to-go's about it... Noble as the attempt was, it flat didn't work. I charge that the risk taken by Michigan with this move in all this was huge, and one could even go farther and say that the move was foolhardy and Quixotic, and this miscalculation of stand-off in the end equals bad management. I suppose this is easy to say NOW, the way things landed afterward; If Michigan had gotten away with it, Michiganders would have applauded the representation of Michigan in all this as victors, and telling that mean ol' national DNC what-for, and "Don't mess with Michigan!", and the like... Heh; Didn't happen...

Oh if only Obama had decided to run during that primary. Yeah, it's HIS fault! Let's blame him!...

[Benji Duncan]

You're talking about the decision in the past tense, as though the result of the michigan congress's act has already played out. What about the 2012 primary? In 2012 Michigan will go in January again and the DNC will count every delegate. I'd bet my bowels on it. So we easily could be saying in 2012 that the decision to go earlier did work, it just took a failed election to get it to work.

[Marvin the Misfit]

Since we're on the subject who did everyone vote for in the republican primary? I voted for Mitt Romney because I figured he'd be easiest for the democrats to beat.

[Benji Duncan]

I voted for Ron Paul.

[Gingy]

i think all the primaries should happen the same day just like the election. so all the candidates are on the ballot. i would say the primaries should be set sometime in may or june.

[Benji Duncan]

I agree, except for the May or June part. It should be earlier than that. Like February. It isn't fair that the people who voted in January were voting for a candidate out of a field of seven and the people who voted in March were voting out of a field of two.

[Gene]

It does beg the question of this business of primaries for major political parties going in dribs and drabs is best, or if a single national one is best. With the immediate mass medias available today, it would seem somewhat redundant to have all of these candidates giving their stump speech over and over and over again, not to mention the whopping costs involved of all these drawn-out campaigns. Many feel that this time is better served in debate amongst the major parties, rather than debate amongst themselves, too...

On the other hand, the states of these United States do have differing identities. Alaska wants to talk about different things than New Jersey does, and so on. It may be a better system to take on national campaign in a more serial fashion, so issues can take turns at getting higher/lower attention at various times. But, taking that idea to a purist extreme would mean that every state should get a primary day of its own, which is not a very practical idea.

The states' primaries going in chunks seems a decent compromise (this word coming up in a lot in how systems in our government are decided on...). But, the devil is in the details: Which states should go when? What should be grouped on: Geography, population, dominant industries, alphabetically?... Is it best for "similar" states (whatever that means) to be of a group or not? Should the state itself have a say to choose which and when? It's a stringy, detailed problem, requiring a complicated negotiation and compromise, but ah, that's America!...

I'd suggest that groups should be coarsely equal in population make-up, and go, say, 5 at a time, each a week apart. There could be some effort to combine states of like issues together for the reason of pedistalling a particular issue on a particular week, perhaps. The process of having these 10 primary days would be done in two and a half months. It's not precise and exact, of course, but generally, it could work!...

[Gingy]

I agree, except for the May or June part. It should be earlier than that. Like February. It isn't fair that the people who voted in January were voting for a candidate out of a field of seven and the people who voted in March were voting out of a field of two.

why? they would all be held the same day. the only thing i was thinking was that it may force some candidates out if they were held so late as money would be shorter. i am thinking of people like dennis kucinich.

if all the primaries were held the same day the ballots woudl be the same.

ok let it be earlier. but let no camapigning start before the first of the year. this election they started before august.

keddedy announced his name in the race on january second of the year he ran. i think that is the way it should be.

we are all oversaturated. i like politics but it is getting repetitive and with all the talk it isn't about issues. it is about carp like reverend wirhgt. or what bill clinton said. or some stupid remark mccain made.

all based on soundbites.

[Benji Duncan]

You have a point, but the reason I'd prefer it to be earlier is for campaign fundraising reasons. There are a lot more elections than just the presidency and most other campains, like those for house seats, are launched at the beginning of the summer. It would be better for fundraising overall if the parties did not have to focus all their funding on the presidential election in that short amount of time so that candidates for other offices could get fundraising money too.

[Benji Duncan]

May 1, 2008 8:21:22 GMT -5 Gene said:

It does beg the question of this business of primaries for major political parties going in dribs and drabs is best, or if a single national one is best. With the immediate mass medias available today, it would seem somewhat redundant to have all of these candidates giving their stump speech over and over and over again, not to mention the whopping costs involved of all these drawn-out campaigns. Many feel that this time is better served in debate amongst the major parties, rather than debate amongst themselves, too...

On the other hand, the states of these United States do have differing identities. Alaska wants to talk about different things than New Jersey does, and so on. It may be a better system to take on national campaign in a more serial fashion, so issues can take turns at getting higher/lower attention at various times. But, taking that idea to a purist extreme would mean that every state should get a primary day of its own, which is not a very practical idea.

The states' primaries going in chunks seems a decent compromise (this word coming up in a lot in how systems in our government are decided on...). But, the devil is in the details: Which states should go when? What should be grouped on: Geography, population, dominant industries, alphabetically?... Is it best for "similar" states (whatever that means) to be of a group or not? Should the state itself have a say to choose which and when? It's a stringy, detailed problem, requiring a complicated negotiation and compromise, but ah, that's America!...

I'd suggest that groups should be coarsely equal in population make-up, and go, say, 5 at a time, each a week apart. There could be some effort to combine states of like issues together for the reason of pedistalling a particular issue on a particular week, perhaps. The process of having these 10 primary days would be done in two and a half months. It's not precise and exact, of course, but generally, it could work!...

I had another discussion about this matter in another forum recently. Mainly the idea of what is more ideal democratically- a candidate that is acceptable to the most people, or a candidate that is preferred by the most people. I think our system favors the idea of electing someone who is preferred by the most people, but acceptable to very few in comparison to other candidates who are preferred by less people but acceptable to many people. Runoff elections would fix this problem.I looked into it and it's a rather sound idea. They do it in some european countries.