What should be done regarding Michigan and Florida and their delegates?
By whiteheron
@whiteheron (4222)
United States
May 21, 2008 11:32pm CST
It seems that all eyes are on Florida and Michigan and what will be done regarding their delegates.
Both Clinton and Obama agree that they sould be seated at the Democratic National Convention but the number to be seated, the votes that they will be able to cast, etc. all remain in debate.
As you know, the Democratic National Committee stripped both states of all their delegates to the party's August nominating convention in Denver after they moved their primaries to January in a bid to have more influence on the campaign.
Obama respected the request of the DNC and chose not to put his name on the ballot. This was an honorable action. Clinton violated the DNC's request for candidates not to participate in those elections and made sure that her name was on the ballot. She, of course, won the election as she had no real competition.
And the question now is, should the states of Michigan and Florida be rewarded for going against the rules of the DNC and have their delegates seated?
Should Clinton be rewarded with those votes and the delegates that those votes would give her? Is this really fair since she violated the rules?
Would you support a splitting of the delegates and votes down the middle so that neither side would benefit from the wrong doing of Michigan and Florida?
If you were the Democratic National Committee how would you deal with this?
2 people like this
3 responses
@whiteheron (4222)
• United States
24 May 08
I think that some sort of split is a good idea... That way all of the delegates will be seated.
What split will be chosen we still do not know.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
27 May 08
I'm just glad I'm NOT the DNC! In some ways they created this mess but in some ways their hands were tied. They couldn't tell other states they couldn't move their primary dates, then those states backed down, only to have these two states "get away" with it - even if the whole idea backfired anyway because had they kept their original dates they'd have had more of an impact than they did on their earlier dates. Also, the Florida Democrats would have kept their date the same but the Republican legislature and Governor wouldn't let them. Anyway, what's done is done and what matters is what happens now. I definitely think the delegates should be divided, I'm not sure exactly how but Hillary doesn't deserve to get all the votes she received in either state all things considered. I'd like to see a re-vote but I know that's not going to happen.
Annie
1 person likes this
@whiteheron (4222)
• United States
27 May 08
I would have liked to see a re-vote too. Thanks for posting!
1 person likes this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
28 May 08
While I admit that it is not fair for the voters in those states to have their votes not count, the two states did violate the rules by having their primaries early. If a complete re-vote is not an option - and due to funding that is apparently the case - the best option would be to split the delegates 50 / 50. At least then the states would not actually be rewarded, but since Obama did not even have his name on the ballot in Michigan, Hillary would not be given an unfair advantage. The BEST solution, however, would be to allow both Hillary and Obama to campaign in both states and have a new primary. Then seat the delegates based on these votes. In my opinion that would be the best way to deal with it. But splitting the delegates down the middle would at least be a fair way to deal with it.
@whiteheron (4222)
• United States
29 May 08
I am in agreement with you... a revote would have been best but since they are not doing it, a 50/50 split would be okay.
