Florida and Michigan Delegates Count, Now. Umm, yey.

[Tricky]

In a pragmatic sense and acknowledging that we live in a complicated world, you are correct.

On the other hand, it will be interesting to see what people take away from this mess 4 years from now. (or 3 years and some change) Will these states, or others, break these rules again knowing that their primary votes will ultimately be counted anyway?

I don't think they can know that. It is quite unlikely that these votes would be counted if they were allowed to reverse the results that occurred without those states. Sure, they're making up the rules as they go along, but it doesn't appear that they are doing so to reward the cheaters, other than allow them into the party that is going to nominate the person they didn't vote for.

It seems likely to me that similar things will happen in the future. Elections have real fuzzy rules.

Knowing that, will the punishment of not being considered an influence on the rest of the country still be there? The DNC doesn't control that. The public's perception does.

This time, the punishment was almost a happy accident that worked in the DNC's favor. Like I said, it depends on how history remembers the sequence of events.

Like I say, I don't think it was an accident. I expect it will be remembered by Florida and Michigan (and any other states with ideas about jumping the gun on the primaries) that those states that did it were marginalized until the outcome of the primaries was decided. I don't think they'll dance the next time they hear that song. I could be wrong.

 

[ZouPrime]

On the other hand, it will be interesting to see what people take away from this mess 4 years from now. (or 3 years and some change) Will these states, or others, break these rules again knowing that their primary votes will ultimately be counted anyway?

It's not important if they are counted away or not. What's important is if they are meaningful to the nomination process or not.

Why do states want to go early in the primary season? Because they know early states have more influence on the outcome. They know the candidates will put enormous time and ressources in winning Iowa and New-Hampshire, and they want them to spend money in their state instead, and address their state issues. Nobody wants to go late in the season, because by then the nominee is already chosen most of the time.

Sure, now the DNC has decided the Michigan and Florida delegations will be seated in full, but it doesn't mean both these states are happy with this final result. After all, they didn't fulfilled their objectives: they had (almost) no influence on the primaries results, because this decision from the DNC comes so very late in the process nobody care anymore. Obama is going to be the nominee, and it's not the Michigan nor the Florida delegations that are going to change that.

If other states try the same trick in 4 years, you can expect the same scenario to happens. They will be stripped of their delegates, all the other states will vote, a nominee will be chosen, and after this choice becomes a concensus and stabilizes, then the offending states will be welcome back to the fold, since their presence or absence won't matter at all anymore*.

 

[gnome]

What if the Republican majority in Florida's legislature refuses to move the date back, knowing that it will cause problems each presidential election for the Democrats?

Something I never quite understood in this case, since it was a legislative decision it is possible that one's opposing party can force you to break the rules...

Or are my facts mixed up?

 

[Upchurch]

Something I never quite understood in this case, since it was a legislative decision it is possible that one's opposing party can force you to break the rules...

What I don't understand about it is why the state government is involved with running a party nomination. Not just in Florida, but anywhere. Seems like that should be something the party manages.

 

[Beerina]

I'm not sure if I "get it"...

The only reason why Florida and Michigan's delegates weren't reinstated in full was precisely because they would have gave the nomination to Hillary at the very end of the nomination process, a scenario that would have destroy the credibility of the DNC.

Now that we know Hillary won't be the nominate, nobody care if they are be sited in full or not. It's just gracious for Obama and the DNC to allow it.

Florida and Michigan were originally stripped of their delegates in order to make them irrelevant in the nomination process, and this is exactly what happened.

No, you 100% get it.

Let me see if I have this right.

The Democrats in Florida and Michigan were warned that if they moved their primaries up they would be penalized and might not have their delegates counted.

Hillary herself agreed to this months before the election took place as did Obama who actually took his name off the ballot in Michigan. All candidates agreed that they would not campaign in either state.

It only became a problem when Hillary got behind in the votes and she conveniently "forgot" that she agreed to this whole shooting match months before. Party rules are party rules, you don't get to change the rules when they don't fit your new situation.

Now it's the DNC and Obama's fault?

The national politicians played their game, and the state ones, theirs.

In any such conflict, the winner is the one with the bigger gun. In this case, the states were wielding the gun of votes and democracy and propriety, challenging the federal politicians to ignore them -- for what amounts to their own power grabbing goals.

What I don't understand about it is why the state government is involved with running a party nomination. Not just in Florida, but anywhere. Seems like that should be something the party manages.

I agree -- but it would be the state-level party who controls it, which is the same people (in this case) as the state government.

 

[gnome]

For one of the parties, sure... but the other party is not in significant power in that state.

 

[dirtywick]

Like I say, I don't think it was an accident. I expect it will be remembered by Florida and Michigan (and any other states with ideas about jumping the gun on the primaries) that those states that did it were marginalized until the outcome of the primaries was decided. I don't think they'll dance the next time they hear that song. I could be wrong.

If you ask me it depends on how it plays out during the election that really matters. The people that were actually "hurt" by this is the voters. If McCain pushes it, which considering now that everyone is reminded it happened and how it phony this whole thing appears (at least, to me it does, and it wouldn't be hard to spin it that way regardless) and it's considered a contributing issue that loses either state, or possibly the election the incentive to repeat is much higher.

Either way it should get them to revaluate how things work now.