Let every vote count.

Not true.

In either case.

Incidentally, this is about the worst "power grab" I've ever seen (by both the national Republicans and the national Democrats, for both parties, I have ever seen, politically, in my life.

(FTR, the national Republican Party 'punished' those two state's Republicans, as well, with this same sort of scenario.)

Since when should some un-elected types attempt to tell any state what law or laws the respective sovereign states should pass, by their duly elected legislatures. And BTW, apart from tradition, why are the laws of Iowa and New Hampshire somehow deemed valid, and the laws of Florida and Michigan deemed invalid, by a bunch of hacks and "free-loaders" from the two national parties?

Instead this shows (since neither Florida or Michigan did anything illegal, unethical, clandestine, or unconstitutional, in any manner whatsoever) exactly how little regard the national parties really hold, for the states, the laws, and the Constitution, for the states who would 'upset' their little 'planned-out' scenario.

In essence, FL and MI were asking 'Why should they be relegated by some 'party bolshevisks' to twentieth rate status?'

I'd say, "Good question!"

Ed

 

The U.S. constitution does not mention political parties, to my knowledge.

 

Florida and Michigan Democrats and Republicans both did follow the rules. These rules are known as laws, and the parties of both FL and MI followed exactly the laws of the two respective states, as to a primary or caucii, just as did every other state, including KY, which held her primary on May 26, when it is/was effectively meaningless, on the national level.

Ed

 

Geting on the same page with yourself is my suggestion, folks!

I could care less as to whom you vote for, as it relates to this thread.

However, if you are anywhere close to one of these "limited, constitutional government types", as you claim, I would call on you to renounce and reject your own post #5, from earlier in this thread. The legislatures of FL and MI both enacted a primary date, earlier than either national party apparatchick wanted, yet entirely in the purview and perogatives of the legislatures (and the Governors) of the respective states. (I believe in one house of Michigan, this legislation passed unanimously, if I recall, correctly.)

Yet you are suggesting (in post #5) that these states "deserved" to be punished, somehow, for passing a bona-fide law???

"Ah 'on't get it!"

Ed

 

And your point is?

Ed

 

In the 2000 General election the dems made a mockery of the voting process by holding voting cards up to the light to look for dimpled cards.:BangHead: All in the name of "every vote should count". Now they want to exclude votes within their own party. Now every votes should not count. Oh the hypocracy!

 

A party has the rights to set its own rules. The national party sets the rules for its national convention.

This has nothing to do with the U.S. constitution.

 

Why does Obama get the 55 uncommitted votes?

Does the creep take them even though they are uncommitted?
Clinton should fight this!

Uncommitted does not automatically mean "Obama"
How dare the DNC assume that voters meant to vote for Obama when they marked uncommitted....

The DNC are destroying the very thing they stand for... democracy.

They just gave Obama 55 delegates that are not his...

I hope Hillary fights this tooth and nail...

 

I think she will; however, she still won't win the nomination.

Senator Obama is getting the 55 delegates with half a vote each because he is the only other candidate left besides Senator Clinton in the party and even the Clinton supporters at the hearing today admitted that most of the uncommitted delegates would vote for Senator Obama.

 

But why not leave them uncommitted until the convention or until they announce which candidate they support?
To automatically assume that all uncommitted should go to Obama is assuming too much IMO. It is clear who is the favored candidate with the DNC...

And this should be seen as a clue to who most uncommitted superdelegates will go for... Obama.

 

That has been evident for a while.

 

Yes and No.

Yes, a party has the right, I guess, to set its own rules.

Does that give the party the right to attempt to "supercede" the laws of a state? Not in my book!

The laws of the state of Arkansas were amended in 2005 (prior to which, they were not voting this early in the year), and styled in this manner:

Do I need to spell it out that AR voted, in accordance with Arkansas law, on "Super Tuesday", in 2008? Or that prior to that Amendment being adopted, that AR 'voted' at a later date?

The laws of the State of TX name the first Tuesday in March. [TX. Election Code 41.007(c)]

The laws of the Commonwealth of KY name the first Tuesday after the third Monday in May in each Presidential election year. [KRS. 118.561(1)]

The revelant part of the laws of the State of FL name this as follows:

The relevant part of the laws of the State of MI name this as follows:

So, I repeat, yet once again, both the National Parties showed their contempt for the laws of the states of FL and MI (and for the US Constitution, generally), by telling those two states "To H * Double Hockey Sticks with your laws! Our 'rules' are the important thing - more important and binding than any law you or any other state have!"

And further, I suggest that anyone on this thread who would 'justify' either or both of the 'national parties' and supporting their decision, is showing the same contempt for the laws of the several states, and our Constitution, as well!

Ed

 

Well, then let Florida and Michigan take the matter into federal court and see what happens.

 

That's what I meant to say/thought I said.