News-Record.com

"... and it should."

No, it shouldn't. It would be patently unfair to have told potential voters that their votes wouldn't count, inspiring many not to vote, no doubt; unfair to deny candidates the opportunity to campaign, then turn around and change the rules.

Seriously, I can't imagine who you would deem your suggestion to be fair. Dissuade people from voting, prohibit the candidates from introducing themselves to the voters and then count the votes of such an "election" anyway? Really?

If I had my way, there'd be no advertising, commercials, etc., until one month before a primary and one month before the general election. I'm already suffering from Electile Dysfunction with the constant bombardment of political junk on TV. I mean, seriously, there's not a thing I can do about an election in Florida, and the winner there isn't necessarily going to be on the ballot in November, so WHY have 24/7 coverage? I'm sick of it. Come November I'll go into the booth and pull the "R" lever no matter who's on the ballot. So there.

Roch is right, as usual. Whatever we think about the national parties' attempts to control the timing of state primaries, at this point the primary votes cast in Michigan and Florida should most definitely NOT count. If they were going to count, then Edwards and Obama would have campaigned in those states, and Hillary wouldn't have collected those "wins."

Well, I should say that Hillary wouldn't have collected such EASY "wins." She might have won anyway, but who knows?

Clinton vows to push the party to reconsider ... and it should.* Doug

Don't worry! The President Clintons will hold one national primary in 2012 thus centralizing federal presidental elections....The American Soma islands has been chosen as the winner take all on Jan 1, 2012.

Doug:

Somehow I missed your criticism of the Republicans for stripping Michigan and Florida of half of their delegates. Aren't you at least 50 percent outraged at this Republican injustice?

Dave, rein in your sensitive side. I'm hardly outraged. Republican voters in Michigan and Florida haven't been denied any say in the nominating process. I'm sorry some might think it would be unfair to Obama to count the delegates, but lots of Democrats did vote, and they had the opportunity to vote for anyone on the ballot. It's more unfair to them to tell them they shouldn't have bothered. In my view, what's unfair to the voters trumps what's unfair to the candidates.

Roch is exactly right for the reasons he stated. Who knows how the result would have turned out if the candidates campaigned there. Hillary has a built in advantage because of name recognition. That's an advantage that Obama quite possibly could have overcome by campaigning on issues in Florida.

That is like advocating that nobody campaign at all and let the voters decide based solely on what they know about the candidates already. Such a policy would always favor the incumbent or better known candidate.

Hillary knew the rules, she committed to the rules, and now after she has pandered to Iowa and New Hampshire and can't be the victim of a backlash there she wants to change the rules.

How Clintonesque. How typical. How Hillary- say one thing to get votes in Iowa and New Hampshire and then do something else when those votes are no longer in play. The Clinton's know no limits in their ability to use and discard people to further their own careers. The voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are no exception.

Doug, the point you're missing is that counting the votes WOULD be unfair to voters, in particular those who didn't vote because they were told that it'd be merely a straw poll, a beauty contest. You might say that those people don't count because they chose not to go to the polls that day. But they made that choice based on the information that their votes would do no good as far as selecting delegates was concerned.

Moreover, your comment about Republican voters is correct only if the nominating process is only about "momentum" and not at all about delegates. There's been some discussion about this recently, such as:

http://www.slate.com/id/2182946/

If selecting delegates matters at all, i.e. if it's not entirely about momentum, then GOP primary voters in Florida and Michigan were indeed denied some say. Because of the national Republican party's 50% sanction of those two states, the delegate-selecting value of each primary vote in those states' GOP primaries was cut in half.

Sorry, I've been offline all day.

You all make valid arguments and, from a legalistic standpoint, I have to concede you have the right of it.

However, I still care more about what's fair to people who did vote than to people who did not.

As for the Republican half measure, 1/2 is an infinite multiple of zero. The Republican votes do count, albeit not as much as they should. But counting, however much or little, is infinitely better than not counting at all.

Doug:

By that standard the Democrats were already infinitely better as soon as they let the first state count. Adding two more states would not improve this infinite improvement.

The appropriate standard is how much worse off the Democrats are. By this metric, the Democrats are two full states worse off, while the Republicans are one full state worse off.

While we are on the subject, what do you think of the Republicans' winner-take-all rules for several states. Should McCain have gotten all of the available delegates from Florida even though he only garnered slightly more than a third of the vote? Sure, "thems the rules," but it does seem to disenfranchise a large part of the Republican electorate. The national total of disenfranchised Republicans could well eclipse the Democrats from Florida and Michigan.

Roughly 1.2 million Floridia Republicans voted against John McCain but will have no say in their party's convention. That figure alone eclipses the 850,000 Democrats who are disenfranchised.

Thanks, Dave. Now that you mention it, yes, I am outraged at the winner-take-all apportionment of Republican delegates in Florida. If I take power before the GOP convention, I'll make the appropriate reallocation.

Doug:

Thanks. I knew I could count on you :)