"Democratic Party excludes Michigan from national convention"

[TahitiNut]

Democratic Party excludes Michigan from national convention
Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau

The Democratic Party on Saturday barred Michigan from next summer's national convention, the expected -- and likely temporary -- punishment for holding a Jan. 15 presidential primary.

The national party's rules committee voted to ban all but a handful of Michigan officials from the Denver convention, at which the party's presidential nominee will formally be chosen. The move was widely expected -- it's the same penalty the committee handed down in August to Florida, which like Michigan is holding a January contest. Just four states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- are allowed to do so under the party's calendar rules.

But there is also widespread belief, in Michigan and elsewhere, that both Michigan and Florida will eventually be allowed to attend. It is unlikely that the eventual Democratic nominee, who will have substantial control over the convention, will want to court trouble with two important general-election states.

The motion passed by the Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws committee also gives Michigan 30 days to come into compliance by moving to Feb. 5 or later -- a path Michigan officials say they will not take.

Before punishing Michigan on Saturday, the committee approved waivers for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, allowing those states to move their contests earlier than their assigned dates -- and prompting accusations of inequitable enforcement of the rules from Michigan officials. All three of those states were assigned January dates that they have moved from; New Hampshire, for example, was assigned Jan. 22, but will vote on Jan. 8.

Michigan had sought a similar waiver, with officials saying they were simply fulfilling their pledge to abide by the calendar only if other states did the same. But Democratic officials rejected that plea.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071201/UPDATE/712010410

[Strawman]

1. I've never been convinced that non-voting was a political statement until now

For the first time in my life, I don't think I will be participating in the Democratic presidential primary. Its a complete sham. I won't be voting "uncommitted" or for Kucinich when the vote won't count. When there is no possibility of exercising "voice," "exit" seems like more of a statement to me.

It's probably always been a sham, but at least they made some pretense of my vote counting in the past.

[vanboggie]

2. Another non vote here

I'm really ticked that I can't cast a vote for John Edwards. Oh but we just had to get to the front of the line. Way to go Michigan Dems. Tell me why I should go to the polls and vote Uncommitted when I want Edwards?

I always voted. Now I can't trust the machines and can't even trust my Party to make it possible to pretend I'm voting for who I want. It makes me sick.

[vanboggie]

3. On further checking, perhaps I should vote

If what I just read is true, perhaps I should vote uncommitted as a protest against handing the state to Hillary?

Bonior Places the Blame for the Primary Farce Straight on Jennifer Granholm
http://michiganforedwards.blogspot.com

[SharonRB]

4. This is exactly what everyone who doesn't want Hillary to run away with this

should do. I actually would vote for Dodd, but I think there's a better chance of getting 15% uncommitted in my district than 15% for Dodd, so I'm going to vote uncommitted. If our delegates actually get seated, it would be good to have uncommitted delegates who could vote for Edwards or Obama or another candidate not on the ballot once they get to the convention. We won't get uncommitted delegates in a district unless the district gets 15% of the vote to go for uncommitted.

I still have my doubts that our delegates will actually get seated, though.

This has been a sham and a travesty and has disenfranchised thousands of Michigan voters from being able to vote for their selected candidate.

[vanboggie]

5. Thanks for the input

OK, that's enough reason for me to go and place an uncommitted vote. You've convinced me, though I'm with you and doubt that our delegates will be seated.

[SharonRB]

6. You're welcome!

Spread the word: Vote for "uncommitted" for president!

[JNelson6563]

10. Uncommitted delegates will be free to vote Edwards

Uncommitted votes count and can do some good. I urge anyone who doesn't plan to vote to please reconsider. I really think this debacle is (in part at least) intended to help Hillary take Michigan's delegates.

Julie

[knitter4democracy]

7. At this point, I am still uncommitted, so I'll vote that.

Frankly, I'm ticked with Brewer and all those top brass that made this crap happen. It wasn't worth the fight, Dean made it clear he wouldn't back down, and it turns out there isn't safety in numbers. Ugh. They all made our state look stupid.

[PassingFair]

8. I feel sorry for Brewer.

I really don't think this was his idea.
Now HE'S stuck selling it, and he CAN'T
BADMOUTH Granholm, who SET IT UP!

I pity Brewer, I do.

[Strawman]

12. There's plenty of blame to go around

I blame the national party mostly. In a way if we were voting after Super Tuesday anyway, we had nothing to lose by trying to move up, but it seems like there needs to be some kind of collective effort by every state not named Iowa or New Hampshire to insist on a national primary rather than these attempts by individual states to try and jockey for position. Each cycle, it seems like enough individual states are coopted to support this flawed system that priviliges New Hampshire and Iowa. At least that's my impression.

I also think that the governor and the big unions had their own little schemes to steer this in favor of their respective favorites. I don't know if Bonior has clean hands either. The governor wants Hillary and seems to have won out, and the unions wanted a less open caucus where their organizing advantage would deliver the state to Edwards. Its almost as if this was engineered to fail and the real battle was over whose alternative would prevail.

I think the whole thing sucks and I'm not voting uncommitted in some plebescite on Hillary Clinton. Who gets to ultimately commit my vote? I can understand why some would choose to vote uncommitted, and I respect that. I'm not telling anyone what they ought to do, but I won't vote. Let the governor or the Executive Board of the UAW just annoint our state's selection. They clearly have no need for my input unless they're asking me to write a check. It's a sham primary.

[skipos]

9. I am voting uncommitted. nt

[PassingFair]

11. Me too. nt

[Mich Otter]

13. Who chooses the supposedly "uncommitted" delegates?

Won't the person doing the picking choose people who
will vote for her candidate? How "uncommitted" will
that be?

[SharonRB]

14. The uncommitted delegates are chosen in their districts

They run for delegate just like any others. Check out the delegate selection plan. It should be available on the MDP site.

[booksenkatz]

15. Even voting "uncommitted" pisses me off.

I would be voting to ensure that someone else's vote counts, although I'd have no idea how that person would vote ultimately. So my vote still wouldn't count. My direct vote should count, dammit. It's like being a woman in 1896 and hoping that you can influence your dear husband to vote as you wish, you beg him to consider voting a certain way, but in the end, he's going to vote as he damn well pleases.

My 8-year-old son said, "Mom, can't they have maybe groups of states go first and take turns? It isn't fair for 2 states to go first every time." So simple, even a third grader sees the steaming pile, with no prompting from me.

They don't want my vote this time, they aren't going to get it. I've been a loyal voter, donor and campaign worker in the GE for decades, and this is what I get for it.

The irony is how I'm getting phone calls every evening from polling groups who want to know how I would have voted. At least THEY care. Too bad my vote counts no more with the polling groups than it would on Michigan's Big Day.

It's stunning to think that I'm sitting here in 2007, feeling jealous of people whose vote counts! Maybe I should march for suffrage, that might be constructive, eh?

Disgusted here in the Ann Arbor area. Sorry. I'll keep reading the posts here, maybe I'll reconsider, but it's not too likely at this point.