If your friend jumps off a bridge.....

[FlyingSquirrel]

You probably don't jump too. Unless maybe the bridge is kinda low and over water, and you see that he escaped bodily injury -- then if you have the courage you might follow him.

Otherwise you don't, because you see that there's a consequence to the action.

So let's get that one outta the way right now.

Here's a better analogy to what happened with MI and FL. You and your brother see your sister grab a cookie out of the jar, just before dinner, in full view of your mom who says nothing in spite of the clearly stated rule that you don't take a cookie just before dinner. So you and your brother look at each other, go up to the jar and grab one too.

Mom gets mad and you both go without dinner, but nothing happens to the favored sister.

From what I was hearing on Air America this morning, that's basically what happened. New Hampshire was the favored one. The DNC had it all set up the way they wanted, NH didn't like it and moved their primary up in clear violation of the rules, and nothing happened. MI and FL, seeing this, decided they would do the same thing and now they're gonna have to go without dinner.

Am I getting this wrong somehow? And please, let's not bring the issue of Clinton being the only one on the ballot in MI right now, that's a separate issue. I'm not advocating restoring MI and FL's delegations, at least not right now. I just wanna know if I'm getting the narrative right and this is basically what happened.

[LakeSamish706]

1. It may be what happened, but the problem still exists that the rules were set...

at the time by the DNC and no one argued about it at the time (as they probably should have). So you can't change the rules in the middle of the game, you have to wait until this game is concluded and before another one begins.

[FlyingSquirrel]

2. In any Union I've been in (several), a disparate treatment grievance would be filed

Basically saying, "You knew about this and let it go before, now you wanna punish this guy. Not cool."

What usually ends up happening is, either the punishment is taken away or greatly reduced, with a warning that this does not set a precedent for future union members.

The rules of the game are that people vote and delegates are assigned based on that vote. But right now I still want to know if what I heard this morning was true, and NH was allowed to violate the rules and get away with it prior to MI and FL doing the same thing.

If so, they have a case. They should be allowed to make it and the punishment should probably be lessened. It's not about "rules of the game" except in the case of MI where Clinton was the only one on the ballot. In Michigan's case, there would have to be an agreement among all parties regarding how many delegates would be awarded based loosely on the vote totals, and taking into consideration the fact that only one candidate was on the ballot.

That's what'd happen in my union. The punishment would be reduced on a non-precedent-setting basis and any other disagreement regarding how things should proceed would have to be resolved among all parties involved. Otherwise it'd go to arbitration and the arbitrator (selected by agreement of both parties) would make the final decision on what, if any, punishment was appropriate and any other details that were in question.

Not sound fair?