Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Michigan delegate compromise offered

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU
 
maddogesq Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-31-08 09:15 PM
Original message
Michigan delegate compromise offered
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_el_pr/primary...

This was posted in LBN Forum. Anyway, if I was Dr. Dean, I would throw this one out on it's arse. I like Bart Stupak, but this is pure nonsense. At this point I've a mind to say since our votes didn't count, let's keep it that way. There is no fair solution. Wait, there is a solution: new leadership at MDP. Sorry, just me venting again.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-01-08 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. There is no "solution" that does not include campaigning - ASKING the voters for support.
That's the bottom line, as I see it. Put their asses in front of the voters of Michigan and answer to them. Deal with unemployment isues in the state with the highest unemployment. Deal with forclosures in the region with the highest rate of foreclosures. And SPEND SOME MONEY!

There is nothing "democratic" about ANYTHING thet've done so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ajamo Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Michigan primary
We do not have a voice, shy because our State Party leaders do not believe in the rules. They screwed up let them answer for it.
Because of some delegates taken their names from the ticket, a great many of Democrats did not go to vote. No time for re vote and to do one honestly, I have my doubts.
The National vote needed to win the nomination, should be minus the total delegates including super delegate from Michigan, and Florida.

Rules are rules leaders should live by them. God how I wish our county leader would abide by the by-laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-01-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. Anything that uses the bogus January 15 primary in any way
is unacceptable. Obama wasn't on the ballot and the primary has now been declared unconstitutional. It cannot be used. Period.

For Hillary's people to say it was fair and should be used is disingenuous and ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Back to 92 Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-10-08 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
4. The whole situation
comes back to the fact that they are BOTH ridiculous.

Obama doesn't want a revote. Clinton does.

Clinton wants the old vote to count. Obama doesn't.

It is ABSURD to claim that one side is somehow right and the other wrong on this. If Obama wanted a revote it would have happened. For Clinton to say the results of the Jan 15th election were valid that's stupid.
For Obama and Edwards to have taken their names off the ballot in some stupid political calculation, that was stupid too.

A LOT of people around here like to tell half the story and dump all of the blame on the state party, because they would have anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Back to 92 Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-10-08 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Also
The state party was stupid to do what they did. Play chicken with the selection of the president. WHAT A GREAT WAY TO MAKE A STATEMENT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Back to 92 Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-10-08 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. And just to pile on..
The leadership of the National Party has been terrible on this. Letting New Hampshire break the rules penalty free and antagonizing two of the most important states in the GE.

AND, it is ridiculous to even have district conventions right now, for what purpose. That could easily happen later in the cycle, June or July. What a screwed up archaic BS system to begin with.

All of this is a total waste of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
7. The solution I endorse:
Split Michigan's delegates 50/50 down the middle.

Give Clinton HER Florida delegates, and give the
remainder (all of them) to Obama.



This is the fairest proposal I've seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Works for me.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. With all due respect, just how does that achieve "delegation"?
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 11:11 AM by TahitiNut
It seems this public discussion of the disenfranchisement of the (Democratic) voters of Michigan loses sight of what actually legitimizes a delegation and what is inherent in the very act of delegating to others the authority and responsibility to perform a task on behalf of the delegating body. Let's first understand that the act itself of delegating a task is one that is performed by a higher authority to a subordinate person or persons. In governance, that 'higher' authority is possessed by the electorate which, in this case, is equally vested in the (Democratic) voters of Michigan. It's not some other subordinate body, like the state party or some ad hoc council of elders, it's the voters themselves.

Further, this is not a process of shifting authority or overall responsibility. The voters remain accountable and responsible. In order that there be assurance that the task is performed consistent with the express will of the superior authority, that superior authority must have actually expressed its will in the very act of delegating the task to be performed.

NONE of this has been achieved. To engage in some imitation - some charade of delegation - does not, in fact, permit the expression of that will nor does it recognize that the superior authority in fact has that authority and continues to be responsible. This is what the caucus system or primary system is supposed to achieve. It's not the mere appearance of some ad hoc group of warm bodies whose performance bears no resemblance to the electoral will. That's kabuki.

The primary was FUBAR. It's Humpty Dumpty. There was no campaign - no spending in our economy and no interaction between the candidates and the members of the electorate and no proportionality in the assembly of a valid delegation. Without these steps, it's a charade - a fraud. There is no alternative authority for the selection and chartering of a delegation than the voters themselves.


Let me try to describe this problem another way. Remember the election FUBAR of 2000? The reason it was FUBAR is because the electoral will of the people (of Florida and of the U.S.) was NOT recognized directly. The essential principle is this: the ACT of ELECTING cannot itself be delegated, except in the single Constitutional instance of the Electoral College. Indeed, that's the reason we're a Federation of democratic republics (states) and not, nationally, a democratic republic per se. But we're supposedly guaranateed a "republican form of government" (at the state level) in all we do under the Constitution. That means that one thing is sacrosanct ... and that's the absolute necessity that an election be conducted in a manner that assures, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the will of the sovereign authority (the people) is expressed. In other words, the act ov voting/electing is not itself delegatable ... and is certainly not legitimate when merely hijacked by some ad hoc set of movers and shakers. (That's what SCOTUS did ... and it was an absolute abomination.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. It doesn't achieve "delegation". It's a compromise.
I agree that the "primary" was FUBAR.

A bunch of active democrats seem to think
a trip to Colorado is important....
wouldn't they still get to have input on
the party platform, etc?

Here in Michigan, too many people either didn't
vote, or voted for the 'puglican. To even SUGGEST
that counting the "votes" from that debacle is a
fair solution is laughable.

Splitting the delegates will not put forth the will
of the people as far at the nominee is concerned, but
they will have a say in other party business.

Personally, I think an inexpensive caucus should
be held here in Michigan, with required membership
in the MDP, but FAT CHANCE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-19-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
11. How many different ways can they throw these elections
to come out as they plan not as we the people want?

The line is drawn here in the sand as far as I'm concerned. I'm sick of it being so long and expensive. I'm sick of them avoiding the elephant in the room...NAFTA like it is a done deal of open borders and the Americas Union.

I will not accept Fascism for my country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 24th 2014, 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC