Count Every Vote...Unless its a Democrat in Michigan or Florida

By greedygov Posted in 2008 — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I find it interesting that the Democrats raged about counting ALL the votes for Gore in Florida during the 2000 election. They were way past the deadline to recount the votes, but the Democrats sued to continue counting. The argument was that those voters should not be disenfranchised, even if it means breaking the rules. Now those same people are disenfranchising ALL Democratic voters in Florida in Michigan because of rules that say Iowa and New Hampshire must be first. Why? Apparently, God came down to earth and said: "I sayeth unto you. Blessed be Iowa and New Hampshire. For they shall vote first." This rule set requiring Iowa and New Hampshire to be first EVERY SINGLE ELECTION MAKES NO SENSE.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657950286167233.html?mod=opinion_main...
"I'm a numbers guy, especially if they have to do with politics or economics. So even though I am a Republican, analyzing the Democratic primary results has become a great pastime. This is especially true when it comes to the Democrats' dilemma about how to handle Florida and Michigan -- two states that broke party rules by holding their primaries before the allowed date, but which probably hold the key to the Democratic presidential nomination.....
Democrats are clearly going to have to rewrite their delegate selection rules after this contest, like they did after similar fiascos in 1968 and 1988. Until then, it's up to the lawyers, and may the cleverest lawyer win. My money is on Mr. Obama blocking the statistically based solution described above. After all, as a product of Harvard myself, I know perfectly well that Harvard produces cleverer lawyers than Yale, regardless of what the numbers might say."

Key difference between 2000 and 2008 by civil truth

In 2000, we were talking about the execution of state law, which was arguable the province of the courts to interpret.

In 2008 here, we're talking about a non-governmental organization setting rules for selecting its Presidential nominee. Where do the courts have standing to intervene in this dispute, and particularly to impute the application of some kind of "right to participate" into the Democratic convention process?

And Rightly So!

Reply To This — User Info — #1

Still the hypocrissy is delightful by Joliphant

The people who argued so passionately for recounts are now exposed as having less than pure motives.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Reply To This — User Info — #2

Good question. by greedygov

But gut reaction is that the point is a minor one. The moment a party uses the Secretary of States' office to hold an election (which they did in both states.) They are bound by at least some of the election laws.

From the Florida Supreme courts point of view, the Democrats voting didn't know the details of who was hold the primary. They were voting for president.

The real question is, why do Iowa and New Hampshire ALWAYS GO FIRST? How does one argue against the logic of the electoral college (saying it is outdated) but some how believe Iowa and New Hampshire are unique enough to always be the first to vote. It makes no sense.

Reply To This — User Info — #3

The parties would have to stand up to the state legislatures by civil truth

My understanding is that New Hampshire and Iowa have state laws requiring their Presidential primaries to be held ahead of other states.

This creates an "arms race" when other states act to advance their primary dates, culminating in this year's cirus where we almost saw a Christmas primary.

This isn't going to change unless Iowa and New Hampshire change their laws, and the only way that's going to happen is if the parties successfully face down the state legislatures. After this year's fiasco on the Democratic side regarding Michigan and Florda, though, it's hard to see what sanctions the parties can employ as leverage over New Hampshire and Iowa.

We've got about three years for the two parties to figure this out, or maybe we will see Thanksgiving 2011 Presidential primaries, which would make us the laughing stock of the world - and be an absurd way to elect a President.

Personally, I think we need to shorten the whole cycle - primaries in June (or possibly May) at the earliest.

And Rightly So!

Reply To This — User Info — #4

If other states decree their primary to be held the same day by greedygov

as Iowa and New Hampshire, what date could Iowa and New Hampshire move thier vote to to be first?

Reply To This — User Info — #5

Redstate