Now that the race for the Democratic nomination has tightened so much, the importance of delegates from Florida and Michigan has grown. The Democratic Party is in a bind. The only viable solution seems to be to hold another primary. The State of Florida paid for the primary held in January, which the party does not now recognize. Who should pay for a new primary?

But nobody has said how ridiculous it is to even suggest it in the first place. If Hillary Clinton would have lost either or both TX & OH there would not be a whisper of a re-vote. And will this not set a precedent for other quorums who later feel for what ever reason a re-vote should be done.
Does having a re-vote magically make the reason they are not seated in the first place go away?
Count 'em as they stand and forget it.
Let them battle (more) with each other over allowing s3eating with the existing vote.
$20,000,000....what a waste of time....effort....money....
Lastly, aren't they assuming a lot i.e. that the FL voters will just say OK, I'll go (vote again).....I would not.

The Clinton grasp is far reaching is it not?

BTK

Maybe if they have a do-over Primary, we should ask for do-over 2004 Presidential and 2006 Congressional Elections..

If that wont work, how about cancelling all of the remaining Primaries and the Conventions. Just send ballots out printed on the back of our Economic Stimulation Rebate Checks. List all of the remaining candidates, allow space for write-ins. Then when the checks are cashed we will vote. Person with most votes becomes President and second place decides who is VP.

Save us all a great deal of time & money and end the circus that we will be exposed to in the next 6 months.

The State of Florida has already conducted a primary election. The fact that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) didn't like when the election occurred is "tough $&#*." Just who the *^&@ does the DNC think it is, telling the State of Florida when it can or cannot do anything?

By the way, this opinion is non-partisan, so if the whiner was the Republican Party, the Green Party or anyone else, the feeling is still the same.

The results are the results, and if the State of Florida wants to hold its primary election two years before the national election, or not have a primary at all, is the choice of the state, not any particular group.

If the DNC wants to poll all registered Democrats via an Internet system or picture postcards, its the DNC's choice. Expecting the Florida taxpayer, directly or indirectly, to subsidize the DNC's 'terms and conditions' is utter arrogance and an insult to those competing for the Democratic nomination.

I'm not really sure how it was decided that Florida have an early primary. I vaguely remember something about it before leaving California but really didn't pay attention to it. Can someone please clue me in?

If it was the State of Florida in some fashion and if the DNC warned the primary would be invalid before it was officially changed, then I believe the responsibility lies with the State. If the DNC kept quiet until the date change occurred, then it should be the DNC's responsibility. If the Florida DC agreed to this change and had the option to leave it where it was, then the responsibility lies with the FDC.

However, I do not believe the previous vote should stand. Either the delegates are totally out as the DNC decided or it should be a revote since many Democrats did not vote for the simple reason they knew their vote was worthless for the primaries.

Originally Posted by redwitch

I'm not really sure how it was decided that Florida have an early primary. I vaguely remember something about it before leaving California but really didn't pay attention to it. Can someone please clue me in?

If it was the State of Florida in some fashion and if the DNC warned the primary would be invalid before it was officially changed, then I believe the responsibility lies with the State. If the DNC kept quiet until the date change occurred, then it should be the DNC's responsibility. If the Florida DC agreed to this change and had the option to leave it where it was, then the responsibility lies with the FDC.

However, I do not believe the previous vote should stand. Either the delegates are totally out as the DNC decided or it should be a revote since many Democrats did not vote for the simple reason they knew their vote was worthless for the primaries.

Think that the FL legislators moved up the primary date so that FL could have more of an impact on the elections. Sort of like a bunch of hunters shooting at one target. The fatal bullet might be fired early on so they wanted to make sure they were in on the kill.

Gotta love this having to be first garbage. Florida and Michigan certainly did an excellent job of shooting themselves in the foot and, as usual, it's the people who pay the doctor's bill.

It's a shame that something as important as an election gets turned into a childish "do it my way, or else" event. The last time I checked, no political party had the "right" to dictate election terms to any governmental body. As long as its taxpayers' money funding the election, then the governmental body - as the duly authorized entity to do so - determines when and how taxpayer money will be spent on conducting an election.

How and when any state wants to hold its primary - and the mode (open, closed, semi-open/cosed) - is a state choice. It's the responsibility of the party to adapt, not the other way around. If that's not to the party's liking, there are legal ways to seek change. Thumbing your nose at any state and its voters is tantrum-like behavior.

If the DNC wants to tell FL Democrats that their input into the selection of the party's candidate won't occur unless the State of Florida conducts its election according to the terms and conditions of the DNC, then FL Democrats are letting their party disenfranchise them.

If the Republican Party tries the same stunt, the same would hold true for them.

What happens next time when California or New York decides it should hold its primary at an earlier date - for whatever the state's reason? Should they seek "permission" to do so from the DNC and RNC? Who is the person within the DNC or RNC who should have that power to give such "permission?" What are the odds that the DNC and RNC would even agree?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no federal law that mandates the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary are the first two elections in the presidential season. There are state laws in IA and NH that they have to be first, but those are selfish and absurd and apply to no one except themselves. With so many relatively inconsequential states holding increasingly early primaries, it was no wonder that Fla and Mich felt left out of the selection process. Ideally, we would return to a day when a big state like California could hold a June primary without the nominee already being determined. Unfortunately, the opposite is occurring. These clowns begin running for president the day after the previous election. Obama was running for president before he set foot in the Senate. Clinton's been running forever, and McCain since the 2000 SC primary. You have candidates announce, raise money, campaign, and drop out more than a year before the election, all based of polls before a single vote is cast. Is it the politicians' fault or the press or the great unwashed? Who knows?

Re the power of the parties vis a vis the states, it is convoluted. The states determine how delegates are chosen and, for the most part, when. However, the parties determine whether the delegates are accredited and seated. History of replete with example of competing delegates from the same state, some being seated by the party, some rejected.