No revote in Florida

[ukchris82]

No new primary for Florida's Democrats
Posted: 05:44 PM ET
(CNN) – The Florida Democratic Party says there will not be a second vote in the state.



Sorry if already posted!

[Beet]

Well when this idea was floated I knew it was too good to be true. There was just too much common sense in it for it to prevail in the American political system.

[Mr. Morden]

More:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/17/776838.aspx

First Read has obtained a letter from Florida Democratic Party chair Karen Thurman, in which she says there won't be a re-vote in her state. This seems to mean: 1) that Florida's delegates won't be seated; 2) that they will, via a vote from the credentials committee; or 3) that there will be some sort of compromise (like counting delegates by half).

"Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again," Thurman writes. "So we won't."

"A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it...."

[Aizen]

If they aren't willing to revote, then their delegates shouldn't be seated. How about Michigan? I trust they are making actual progress (from what I've heard)

[Beet]

If they aren't willing to revote, then their delegates shouldn't be seated. How about Michigan? I trust they are making actual progress (from what I've heard)

According to the letter "the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again... So we won't."

Is this true? Is there really an overwhelming feeling among rank-and-file Floridians against a re-vote? If so why?

[True Federalist]

Simplest solution is to simply seat only the superdelegates from Florida (and Michigan if they don't revote).

[Mr.Phips]

Simplest solution is to simply seat only the superdelegates from Florida (and Michigan if they don't revote).

Only the superdelegates is fair.  It would be a travesty to seat pledged delegates from a contest that clearly didn't count. 

[Aizen]

Simplest solution is to simply seat only the superdelegates from Florida (and Michigan if they don't revote).

Not a bad solution actually.

[Beet]

Simplest solution is to simply seat only the superdelegates from Florida (and Michigan if they don't revote).

What about 'the will of the people'?

[Aizen]

Simplest solution is to simply seat only the superdelegates from Florida (and Michigan if they don't revote).

What about 'the will of the people'?

There is no "will of the people" because most people didn't vote in that primary because it clearly did not count. But aren't the superdelegates in Florida mostly towards Hilary? If so, there you go.

[Sibboleth]

Most people never vote in a given primary.

[Beet]

Simplest solution is to simply seat only the superdelegates from Florida (and Michigan if they don't revote).

What about 'the will of the people'?

There is no "will of the people" because most people didn't vote in that primary because it clearly did not count. But aren't the superdelegates in Florida mostly towards Hilary? If so, there you go.

But what about the whole idea of holding a primary that does count so that those people who want to vote get to express their view?

[Aizen]

Most people never vote in a given primary.

But when you are told your vote doesn't matter and you are ignored by the media and candidates, that's different. The fact that the Republicans won in voter turnout is proof of this.

[Aizen]

Simplest solution is to simply seat only the superdelegates from Florida (and Michigan if they don't revote).

What about 'the will of the people'?

There is no "will of the people" because most people didn't vote in that primary because it clearly did not count. But aren't the superdelegates in Florida mostly towards Hilary? If so, there you go.

But what about the whole idea of holding a primary that does count so that those people who want to vote get to express their view?

They should revote in a primary that does count but it looks like the Florida democrats shot that down. So I don't know what to say to them....

[Former Moderate]

Simplest solution is to simply seat only the superdelegates from Florida (and Michigan if they don't revote).

What about 'the will of the people'?

There is no "will of the people" because most people didn't vote in that primary because it clearly did not count. But aren't the superdelegates in Florida mostly towards Hilary? If so, there you go.

Most people didn't vote in that primary?  Are you kidding me?

Even though the Florida contest "didn't count," it still had massive turnout.  The 33.8% of Florida voters who turned out to vote in the primary (including 1.73 million Democrats) outpaced turnout in South Carolina and a majority of other states that have already voted.

[Beet]

Simplest solution is to simply seat only the superdelegates from Florida (and Michigan if they don't revote).

What about 'the will of the people'?

There is no "will of the people" because most people didn't vote in that primary because it clearly did not count. But aren't the superdelegates in Florida mostly towards Hilary? If so, there you go.

But what about the whole idea of holding a primary that does count so that those people who want to vote get to express their view?

They should revote in a primary that does count but it looks like the Florida democrats shot that down. So I don't know what to say to them....

It appears that both the state's congressional delegation and Obama's campaign were cool on the idea, but the reason given in the above letter for deciding against a re-vote makes little sense. Last week Karen Thurman sent a letter out which cited a poll that said 59 percent of Florida Democrats supported a re-vote. Today in her letter she says there is a "consensus" against a re-vote.

I'm still confused... what killed the re-vote.. the Obama campaign? Or the Florida congressional delegation? And if so, why for each?

[Sam Spade]

So, the present delegation is the one that will eventually get seated.  Ok.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Obama should agree to the penalty originally outlined in the DNC rules - 1/2 of pledged delegates sanctioned and no superdelegates seated.

[Mr. Morden]

Obama should agree to the penalty originally outlined in the DNC rules - 1/2 of pledged delegates sanctioned and no superdelegates seated.

I doubt he'd ever agree to that until either:

1) It's clear that he's going to win both pledged delegates and popular vote regardless, or maybe:

2) It's part of a package deal regarding a resolution on Michigan.

The problem with Obama agreeing to a 50% cut in Florida delegates now is that it legitimizes the Jan. 29th Florida primary as being, even in some minor way, a reflection of the will of Florida voters, which is problematic if Obama wants to claim some kind of "popular mandate" by winning the pledged delegate count and the "popular vote minus FL & MI".  What if Clinton manages to catch up in popular vote once you include Florida in the calculation?  There's no reason for Obama to take that risk by agreeing to count the Florida primary in any way....unless and until it becomes clear that Florida wouldn't change anything.