Are the parties disenfranchising voters?
Posted 41 weeks 6 days ago byI have thought a lot about the punishment given to Michigan and Florida for violating the DNC rules. I think it was rather harsh considering two very important concepts:
1) Elected officials should be representing the will of the people not the will of the parties.
2) Economic losses associated with campaign funds in both states seem punishment enough.
Now that the dates for those primaries are over, why wouldn't the DNC agree to seat the delegates? The same is true for the RNC partial punishment.
I have no doubt that voters in those state feel disenfranchished and rightly so! I think it is wonderful to see the turnouts. It seems as if the voters are saying "we will not be silenced"!
Any thoughts on this? I would love to hear other people's views.
Thoughts
From everything I have read,
Submitted on January 30th, 2008 by TaliaFrom everything I have read, Senator Obama ran national ads that aired in Florida and he could have actively prevented it by running state-wide ads in South Carolina and delaying national ad play until after the Florida polls closed. He chose not to do so and therefore he willfully violated the pledge. Senator Clinton stated she would not violate the pledge even after this happened.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama both had private campaign fundraisers in Florida prior to the primaries. Senator Clinton chose to wait until after the polls closed to make a public appearance to thank the voters which I think was a great thing. It saddens me to see that all of the candidates did not do so.
It saddens me more to see statements from the Obama campaign and by John Kerry like "Florida doesn't matter." While they may not mean to imply Florida voters do not matter, that is in fact how it was perceived by many from the posts I have been reading.
Words do matter and the deed is done. The outcome of the primary cycle will no longer be affected anymore than it already has by the voters being allowed to voice their opinions. It seems senseless to not seat the delegates. I also read recently that Senator Obama also stated if he is the nominee he will ask that they be seated as well.
The DNC and RNC organizations can rectify the situation within their own party rules now that the primary votes of both states have been cast.
Yes, thoughts
Submitted on January 30th, 2008 by JoelI do understand, to some extent, why the DNC took the action it did. If it hadn't, we'd be looking at the first 2012 primary being run sometime in, oh, this December.
That said:
* I agree with you that voters shouldn't be disenfranchised. But once the rules were made, it's unfair to everybody to change them mid-game. That's what Hillary Clinton is, in effect, doing in trying to get those delegates reinstated.
* I don't think a national primary would be such a bad idea, even if you were apportioning delegates on a state-by-state basis. The upcoming SuperDuperTuesday is kind of a halfway version of that -- and lo and behold, we had Barack Obama campaigning in Kansas yesterday! That kind of stuff never happens.