Should Florida and Michigan be allow to have seats at the Democratic National Convention.?

eastchic2001

Well, even though that had a "false start" with their primaries, they shouldn't deprive the whole state (the population) of a chance to voice their votes. It's a slippery slope, because you want to punish them, but you don't want to punish the voters. And if they are in the convention, whoever loses will whine and cry about letting them in.

croatan211

It is an internal issue with the Democratic party. I am an Independent.

The whole primary system has been devised by the two parties. The Democratic Party disenfranchised the Democratic voters of Fla. and Mich. It is an internal affair of the Democratic Party. There is no "right" for the voters to be counted or the delegates to be seated.

I hate Hussein Obama

They new the rules and they knew the consequences. Ironic thing is if they hadn't moved their primaries, both states would really be in play now.

davidmi711

Not at this point. The decision to strip them of the seats was made before the primaries. Because of this, most of the candidates pulled out of those races. Changing the rules after the fact is simply unfair.

Nick C

I don't see why they should. They were given options by the DNC instead of moving their primaries up contrary to DNC rules.

open4one

Neither party exists under the Constitution. They can do what they want, and make up their own rules, exclude states, and make the whole voting process moot with "superdelegates" if they want to.

I just don't understand why people in those states don't rebel against the party, though.

What if Obama gets the most delegates by the other 48 states, but the superdelegates go for Hillary? How will Democrats feel about that?

What if Florida and Michigan would have altered the outcome between Obama and Clinton, how will Democrats feel about that?

What if the superdelegates decide to cast their vote in such a way to give Florida and Michigan their voice, and it changes what would have been the outcome, how will the Party Leaders feel about that?

It's never been clearer that party politics isn't about the people.

Sherilynne B

Of course! And they would have if they had not broken the rules and changed their dates. Just the same as Hillery (remember her?) broke the rules and campaigned in both despite being told not to. No wonder she didn't make the final cut, she tries to cheat at every turn. That may be ok for a pro wrestler but not for the leader of a great country.

rickinnocal

No.

It's an internal Democratic Party issue. The party issued a rule, and said what would happen to State parties that broke the rule. Florida and Michigan made the decision to go ahead anyway, knowing the consequences, and should now take those consequences.

Richard

Call Me Bwana

No, because the DNC decisions prior to those primaries meant that some candidates did not campaign there, and in MI, removed their names from the ballots.

To include them now would be inherently unfair, especially to Obama.

It's unfortunate, but those results were skewed and not necessarily reflective of the actual will of the registered Democrat voters of those states.

CHARITY G

Florida yes, Michigan no. Florida had all names on the ballot. Michigan did not.

Bob

Michigan, definitely no. Florida, maybe. All the Democrats agreed on how Michigan and Florida's votes would not be counted as the two states moved their primaries up.

Michigan only had Clinton on the ballot, so it would be highly unfair to count those votes for her, as she was the only one on the ballot. If Michigan and Florida have that much of a problem with it, they should consider a re-vote.

True American

OK look I work for the Democratic party in Florida and we just had a Steering committee meeting in one of the counties down here. They have decided that they will be seated an that there will be NO other primaries nor caucus here because of overseas voters. Now as an Obama supporter this is very bothersome to me because this is how they broke the the delegate count CLINTON 105 OBAMA 67 and EDWARDS 13 then the alternates are CLINTON 25 OBAMA 10 and EDWARDS 3 and UNCOMMITTED 1. This would be completely unfair considering that the vast majorty that vote after IOWA voted Obama and just about ALL the early ballots went for Clinton.

gomanyes562

No, they violated the rules. If they are allowed to get away with it, then every state will move their primary earlier and earlier, and the election will become a mess.

trickygirlb

If the democrats want to win those states in November it might be a good idea.

Sean

Yes. It must be horrible for all those people to know that their votes have been disregarded.

fairly smart

I don't see why not. Why exclude them if they want in??

ShadowCat

Yes they should have a voice, A Choice and their Votes Counted. Otherwise the entire Process is a Joke.

bumpocooper

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

They are two very important states whose opinions should matter. They are just alienating voters from that state who believe their vote doesn't count in the Democratic party. Bad show by the Democrats.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: