Question: Why did MI and FL violate the rules? (Serious question)

[Hepburn]

I have to assume that the Dem parties in both states were on notice of the rules and the consequences of violating the same.

I am curious ~~ why they would go ahead and violate the rules which were set down for them? What did they expect to accomplish? Did they consider the consequences of doing this?

I just cannot understand what the thinking was behind these actions.

[SharonRB]

1. To put it in a nutshell

They were trying to become relevant. They may not have done anything had New Hampshire not moved up their date, also in violation of the rules. I don't see New Hampshire being punished, though.

[Fresh_Start]

2. Iowa gets $100's of millions of dollars

in spending because it is the start of the primary season.
Other states reasonably want to get the economic advantage of that type of spending.

My solution: rotate the damn primary season so different states enjoy the advantages each election

[Hepburn]

4. I like your solution....

...rotate so each primary gets a shot at being first. Great idea, IMO.

[Dinger]

6. I Like That Rotate Idea

As long as the "red" states get LAST dibbs!:evilgrin:

[crispini]

14. Ha. A contested primary is the best way to turn a red state purple.

OMG you would not believe all the new democratic activists we have involved down here in Texas, this red state. What person-power! It's inspiring.

[nonconformist]

32. And unfortunately, disenfranchising your own voters is the best way to turn a blue state purple.

Or, god forbid, red.

[crispini]

45. What does that have to do with a rotating regional primary?

I think it's a fine idea.

If you're referring to FL and MI, the delegations will probably be seated in some form by the eventual nominee. And if we're ever going to get what we need -- a rotating regional primary -- then the DNC has to assert some form of control over the state and parties.

[nonconformist]

47. I think a rotating primary is a great idea, too.

Your subject line just gave me an opening. :)

And I do worry about alienating many voters in both MI and FL. FL is a key swing state and MI is blue (and critical), but people there are really pissed off about this. And for the most part, they're blaming the Democrats in general for it... and they're also extremely unhappy that Obama has argued to not only discount the original vote, but is fighting against a revote, too.

[crispini]

52. Yes, it's very "inside baseball" to know how all this works.

People are understandably annoyed, and the nuances of who what when where why don't get out, really. I just think (hope) a lot of opinions will change after the nominee is chosen and the delegates are seated.

Boy, this is going to be one weird year.

[cyclezealot]

30. now the red states get first dibbs

and we have to live with their choices, of which we may not want. Their should be an ideological choice for all states to choose from, not what New Hampshire eliminates. This is not a new conflict and Dean is at fault for not listening to long standing rifts that suddenly became explosive. With Dean's lack of diplomatic skills and either you are with us or against us - , I'd certainly not recommend him for Secretary of State in a future Democratic Administration. from the Nation. Its not about who gets the first dibbs at the 100 million spent on New Hampshire and Iowa. Its who and how those in those states limit our choices later down the line. Say Oregon, Hawaii, Minnesota were paired with New Hampshire, think the finalists would be the same. ? We need some version of a national primary and end the race to the nomination that is so divisive.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/nichols

It may be satisfying to point fingers at the misdeeds and missteps that have left the Michigan and Florida delegations in limbo. For years, national party leaders ignored complaints from Michigan officials about the stranglehold the small, very white and mostly rural states of Iowa and New Hampshire maintained on the nominating process of a party that relies on people of color and urban voters in big states to win elections. But when Michigan and Florida leapt ahead of the Democratic National Committee's schedule, they callously disregarded DNC moves to diversify the process by sanctioning early contests in Nevada, with its substantial Hispanic population, and South Carolina, where African-Americans are major players.

[Hepburn]

43. I am not arguing with what you are saying....

...but I just do not understand what the hell the voting in one state has to do with the voting in another state. Each state is individual and distinct. Some are more alike than others, but how in the hell does NH or Iowa influence me here in SoCal? The issues and economy are as different as the mean temperatures in January, IMO.

I am not looking to finger point ~~ I want to know what the hell happened and WHY. I don't think anyone wants to see this kind of mess again. There are good and bad arguments and points on both sides of the issues involved as to the current situation on re-vote, no re-vote, seat, do not seat, etc., the delegates from these two states. These are after-the-fact fixes or decisions based on one hell of a mess that should have never happened, IMO.

Let's not do this again. Our Dem party is fractured and divided enough as it is. What can we do to see that in the future we have one set of agreeable rules?

[cyclezealot]

51. Simple I think

New Hampshire eliminates my choices of who I can vote for. They are not representative of the nation at large. Labor is small and they are lilly white. After New Hampshire, Iowa. Fat cat donors and the media pretty much eliminated my choice of Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Biden, etc. If we are not particularily eager to vote for either Obama or Clinton, why should we bother to vote at all. We want a full range of ideologies and choices, same as New Hampshire. Who is to say if Oregon, Minnesota went first. Normally Democratic states, we'd have the same finalists around for Super Tuesday. We had our choices eliminated by the time the road show came to our state. To hell with that crap. All Democrats should have the same range of choices.

[Dinger]

3. Did Either Of Them Have repuke Legislatures?

That might have something to do with it.

[Hepburn]

9. Well, how in the hell does a legislature set the rules for either party...

...on federal issues? What the hell jurisdiction does the state legislature have over how a national politial party runs a primary ~~ in particular the date thereof. I cannot think of a legal nexus that would allow any exercise of power on this. Can you explain the factual legal basis for the exercise of jurisdiction ~~ the legal theory ~~ behind your post?

What I want to know is what in the hell were the Dem parties in those states thinking? I see from the prior posts some info that I had not considered before ~~ a monetary advantage.

But would that financial advantage be sufficient to offset the consequenes? Looks like the mess right now was not worth the noney if this was the thinking.

JMHO

[crispini]

17. It's not a federal issue.

It's a state issue. That's why it's such a mess. The party's primary dates are controlled by the state legislatures and by the state parties. The DNC has very, very little control. Now, you ask me WHY, I don't know, but 'tis true.

[Hepburn]

20. OK...good point....

..although the ultimate issue is the election of POTUS, it is a state issue on how the state delegates are selected.

Thanks for putting me back on the correct track on this.

[sybylla]

31. The jurisdiction involves paying the costs for the primary to take place

Of course state legislatures can't dictate the date of a party election - unless the party wants to weasel out of paying for it. Then we have to take the date the state legislature agrees to.

In other words, unless the state parties want to pay for the entire cost of what would be considered a "special" election themselves, they agree to hold their primary on the same date as perhaps a statewide primary for state or local races. The second best option would be to agree on the same presidential primary day with the repigs so that the cost is shared. You want to put the state employees to work for your party's primary, you have to pay.

Same is true in my state with local municipal referenda - unless the organization/government body calling for the referendum wants to pay the entire cost of balloting and poll workers, they schedule it to take place on a day the balloting and poll workers are already in place.

You've already heard news reports (or you can google them) of what the repeat primary in Florida could cost. The Dem party in Florida would have to pay that. Same is true if you didn't schedule your primary for the same day as a spring election/primary earlier in the year.

So the legislatures of all states have a defacto horse in the race for setting the primary date.

[MaineDem]

10. I know FL does

But the DNC was clear that if the Democrats fell victim to a GOP legislature that gave them an earlier primary, the Democrats would have to show that they fought against the bill. In Florida's case, I believe it was a Democrat who proposed it and the Democrats voted for it and the FL Party didn't do much to prevent it. There were options for the FL Dems and they didn't take advantage of any of those options.

In Michigan, it was the Democrats who were in favor of the earlier date - at least Senator Levin and the Governor.

Neither Party met the standard of opposing the laws that the Rules and Bylaws Committee set.

[Hepburn]

21. Thanks for the into and that makes a ton of sense....

...if the Dem party is or was bullied into doing something against the rules because of a minority status, then they cannot be penalized. But if the Dems proposed, supported or went along with the violation, they were to be held accountable.

Makes a lot of sense...thanks for that explanation.

[Changenow]

53. In Michigan all the major players

in the decision were Clinton supporters, including the governor.

In Florida, the Republican dominated legislature passed it with 100% support from the Democrats. There is plenty of blame to go around.

[nonconformist]

5. The Republican legislature in Michigan voted to move it

LANSING, Mich. — The state Senate passed a bill Wednesday setting up a Jan. 15 presidential primary, but Michigan Democrats continued to fight among themselves over whether to hold a primary or a caucus.

The bill passed 21-17, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against.

[Hepburn]

12. That would appear to be an illegal exercise of power...and no reason...

...for the Dems to not allow the party to legally vote on that date. I don't understand your post. The Dem party set the rules...how did the MI leg get in the act?

[nonconformist]

18. I don't know, but they had a vote on it.

And that's why it was moved to that date, despite warnings. Makes you think, no?

[sybylla]

42. See my post above

in response to your post #9

The Michigan Dem Party could have held a primary or caucus on a date that conformed with DNC rules but chose not to. It may be because of the cost. It may be because they thought they could pressure the DNC to seat their delegates anyway.

I agree, the Michigan legislature did this to screw Dems, but they had alternatives and months to consider them. It's possible that since the Michigan Republicans screwed them out of the standard primary date, the DNC would have helped them pay for the primary. Unfortunately, that avenue seems to have been given up in favor of strong-arming the DNC into accepting the primary date set by the legislature.

[PassingFair]

26. WE didn't HAVE to vote early. There were PLENTY of alternatives.

Levin has a hard-on against New Hampshire, and the
rest of them wanted it to look like the "invincible"
Hillary had no competition, so they basically said

FUCK OFF to the voters, while backhandedly assuring
us that "they will seat our delegates, they'll HAVE
TO..."

[Hepburn]

37. Wow....

...if that is true...that is really rotten! Playing one-up-manship with the right to vote and make ones vote count!

[PassingFair]

55. That's why I'm so ANGRY!

None of the people in our district were
for this.

We wanted to follow the rules.

[L0oniX]

27. I believe that almost the same thing happened in Floridah. It's sabotage.

[Changenow]

58. But 100% of the Democrats agreed to it. nt

[npincus]

33. so the DNC should have given that fact consideration and NOT punished Dem

voters.

[MaineDem]

39. The DNC had an out for states in this situation

The Democratic Parties in those states had to fight against the legislation. In Michigan, the Governor and at least Senator Levin were strongly in favor of it. In Florida, the Democrats voted almost unanimously for the move and the state party didn't do much to oppose it.

The DNC offered compromises that the states didn't take.

There is a lot of information about this here at DU.

[cyclezealot]

35. The Mich House is Democratic along with the governor.

The Mich Repukes also violated their own RNC rules and were penalized with by loosing half their delegates, so don't think it is vindictiveness towards the Democrats. The national RNC had the foresight to only penalize Michigan / Florida Republicans and not kick them out of the party. As we know, Republicans are the better political players.

[Changenow]

57. The Clinton supporters wanted it

firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/24/332029.aspx

Here is the full text of the letter:

August 24, 2007

The Honorable Jennifer Granholm
Governor
State of Michigan

Chairman Mark Brewer
Michigan Democratic Party

Chairman Saul Anuzis
Michigan Republican Party

Dear Governor Granholm, Chairman Brewer and Chairman Anuzis:

We are writing to indicate our preference for a presidential delegate selection process that embraces an inclusive and early primary in Michigan.

There has been much discussion in recent weeks and days as to what the best approach would be for Michigan to take for this Presidential cycle. We believe that it is vital that all Michigan citizens be provided with an opportunity to participate and have their voices heard in this crucial election cycle. A primary election provides the most inclusive process and highest voter participation.

In the 2004 Democratic caucus, only 164,000 people participated in a state of over 10 million people. By contrast, in the 2002 and 2006 Democratic and Republican primaries, 1.6 million voters and 1.1 million voters participated, respectively. It is critical that millions of people have the opportunity to participate in a process that is reliable and inclusive.

We support efforts to make the overall Presidential nominating process more reflective of the diversity of this country, and strongly believe that manufacturing issues need to be part of the Presidential candidate dialogue. Embracing an early, inclusive contest would ensure that those issues are raised and our Michigan viewpoints are heard. An early, inclusive primary election is the best way to ensure the issues of trade, health care, and manufacturing are in the national limelight.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt observed that “the constant free flow of communication among us—enabling the free interchange of ideas—forms the very bloodstream of our nation. It keeps the mind and body of our democracy eternally vital, eternally young.” We, in Michigan, have a responsibility to provide a forum where the largest number of people possible are participating in this process, in what, quite frankly will be one of the most important elections of many people’s lifetime. Maximum participation should be the first and foremost goal with the goal of keeping this state’s future healthy and vital.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, United States Senator; Andy Dillon, Speaker, Michigan House of Representatives; Debbie Stabenow, United State Senator; Mark Schauer, Michigan Senate Democratic Leader; John D. Dingell, Member of Congress; John Conyers, Member of Congress; Sander Levin, Member of Congress; Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick,
Member of Congress; Kwame Kilpatrick, Mayor, City of Detroit; Robert Ficano, Wayne County Executive; Jewel Ware, Wayne County Commission; Debbie Dingell, DNC Committee Member; Michael Tardif, DNC Committee Member; Richard Wiener, DNC Committee Member

[Tippy]

68. In FL they have

Just some info:

25 Republican Senators........13 Democratic Senators

They have 77 Republican Reps....41 Democratc Reps....

And the Gov. is Republican

[madfloridian]

69. And a Democratic governor signing it.

[mohc]

7. They were well aware of the rules

The rules states that any state other than IA, NH, NV, and SC holding their election before February 5th would lose half of their pledged delegates and all of their unpledged superdelegates. The Florida Democratic Party fully expected those rules to be applied, and did not care. They thought having early influence trumped delegates.

[Hepburn]

19. OK....

...that does make sense. Bad decision, IMO, but at least I can understand where they were coming from. So...why bitch now? If they made the decision with full knowledge of the consequences, on what grounds do they ask for a re-do? As I understand it, the majory of the Dems in charge in FL decided to try to re-do the mess they created. I think the same is going on in MI, right? So why is this still dragging on about re-votes?

BTW: I do support Obama...but I am asking these questions because I would like to understand more fully what is going on with the thinking and choices that led to this mess. Is it now just merely a political issue of who may come out ahead? Or is there really someting wrong that led up to this mess and that needs to be fixed?

[MethuenProgressive]

8. Becuase they wanted their votes to count.

Being so late in the process as they were, the nomination would've been settled before they had any input.

[KittyWampus]

11. their vote would have counted this time, wouldn't it?

[MethuenProgressive]

15. FL and MI are much "like" America than NH and Iowa.

Shame that so few, from such tiny and non-Representative states, have such a say on who might be President.

[SoonerPride]

23. The parties don't want to front load the process with expensive states

They want small states to allow a less-well funded candidate to gain traction.

Front loading the process with big expensive states makes it all about money and less about ideas.

Both parties agree that front loading with bigger states is a bad idea.

[Hepburn]

28. Thanks for the in-put....

...I have never heard this theory before. I can see why it makes some sense, too.

But...I am still wondering why FL and MI with knowledge of the consequences would violate the rules. I just do not understand that kind of thinking. Especially because voting is such an important right. Why didn't these states make SURE that all the rules would be followed at the time of these primaries so that the votes would count and then bitch about the rules later?

:shrug:

[Hepburn]

25. How do they have more say so???

They are smaller and have less delegates. How in the hell do they have more influence?

That is like saying that all of the jurisdicitions in the US have to vote at the same time on election day no matter what the time zones so that no jurisdiciton can be first and influence others.

And as to FL being more like the US than other states....first, I don't think it is because the population demographics show am much older medium age and, second, that is irrelevant to whether or not rules are followed. Sounds like you are saying that FL is better than other states so it should get a free pass. Maybe you did not mean it that way, but it sure sounds that way.

[nonconformist]

29. It's all about momentum. nt

[MaineDem]

13. I think it was more about the money

There's a LOT of monetary benefit to being one of those 4 early states.

[Hepburn]

22. So that makes breaking the rules and losing any delegates...

...a good decision? I don't understand that thinking: We want to have our votes count, so we will violate the rules and lose all say-so?

Can you explain that? TIA..:hi:

[MethuenProgressive]

24. You understand that the voters didn't decide to have their votes voided, don't you?

Why so much glee over voters getting screwed?

[Hepburn]

34. I don't know anyone who is happy over this situation...

...it is a mess and IMO reflects badly on the Dem Party. So, I guess the Pubbies might have some glee over this, but I cannot imagine anyone who is a true Dem enjoying this mess.

And, of course, I understand that the voters had -0- say so. It is a bad situation: Those that voted do not count under the present situation and if these votes are counted, those who stayed home and followed the rules are screwed.

I want to know WHY the Dem leadership in these two states did NOT protect the voters. I understand that the Dems in power in FL supported this in the state legislature. So why do something this stupid? They obviously knew the rules, right? They decided to fuck everything up...so what exactly did they have to gain that would lead them to do something this stupid...that is my issue.

And if you think I am gleeful about this...you are totally wrong. I am rather disgusted and trying to find out WHY this happened so we don't as Dems fuck ourselves up like this again and look like total fools. It goes beyond right now...it goes to how the hell do we fix this and make sure whatever caused this mess is looked at and remedied.

[MethuenProgressive]

41. I apologize for thiniking you were one of those who are happy over this,

"I cannot imagine anyone who is a true Dem enjoying this mess."
Me neither. (emphasis added by me)

[Hepburn]

44. I totally agree....

...IMO, the Pubbies may be chortling cuz rights are not something they care about. But...I am upset about this mess and I hope there is some examination of what caused it and that it is prevented. I am not just looking at now...but I sure as hell do NOT want to see this happen again.

Thanks for the apology....that was nice!

[wileedog]

38. Hey, I didn't decide to go into Iraq either

My 'elected' leaders did that for me too. Can I just start flying soldiers home because that wasn't my idea?

And there is no 'glee' in it, but nor do I see the overt tragedy that 10-15 delegates are going to be added one way or another to a pretty much decided election anyway.

How many late voting states NEVER get to influence the primaries? Why no cry for them every 4 years?

[Occam Bandage]

49. Hilariously, if they hadn't done this, their votes would have been quite valuable.

[Coexist]

16. another ? If they wanted an early primary,why didn't Florida apply for one?

they didn't.

[Hepburn]

36. That is what is bothering me....

...what the hell reason would they have for NOT following the rules? Usually when rules are broken, there is a weighing process of the consequences versus the advantages. What in the hell were the advantages in this one?

:shrug:

[spinbaby]

40. Somewhere on this board I read

That team Clinton pushed for the early primaries because Hillary had a strong base in these states. They had hoped to get the nomination wrapped up early.

[sybylla]

46. That makes a lot of sense, but

I would prefer to see a link to a bit of evidence for this.

[demo dutch]

63. You really should get your facts straight before making conclusions!!!!!!

The reason that the Florida primaries were moved up is...
The republican legislature wanted Florida to become more influential, and the democrats signed because GOP attached to the bill the move away from touch screens with NO paper trail to voting machines that have a paper trail, something they've been fighting for since 2000.

The problem is that the Florida voters didn't have a say. Nelson files a lawsuit right after the bill passed way before the primary even happen and they've been fighting ever since!

[Hepburn]

48. Thanks for the responses....I got a lot of info and input that I did not have.

This is a good discussion...and I have enjoyed it! :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

50. They risked voters' votes to get the monies. The states lost, and the voters lost.

[Strawman]

54. They thought the attention from an early primary was more important than the delegates

They didn't forsee the campaigns signing these pledges to Iowa and NH not to campaign in MI and FL and/or pulling themselves off the ballot.

They didn't think the race would be this close (where the delegates would matter) or last this long (neither did I for that matter). As Sharon said upthread, they wanted to make MI relevant and see its serious problems addressed through the media attention of an early campaign in MI. Which is a fine objective, but they were wrong, in my opinion, to be so reckless with our votes. That's MY vote. It isn't something for them to gamble or play games with.

Once it became clear this strategy had backfired, the candidates surrogates in the state (mostly Clinton's and Edwards') started playing games and could not agree to an alternative, so they went ahead with the Jan. 15 debacle.

The way I see it, here in MI (don't know about FL) we have:

A stubborn Senator (Levin) who has complained (rightly) about Iowa and NH's privileged status for years, who refused to back down once it was clear this maneuver wasn't going to work.

Candidates willing to say and do whatever to appease Iowa and NH voters in order to get the juice from an early win.

A governor (Granholm) and DNC chairwoman (Dingell) who are stunningly arrogant in their roles in this mess and willing to do whatever to make sure their candidate (Hillary) got an early boost from an early MI primary (where they were more worried about thwarting a strong showing by Edwards in a MI caucus).

An ineffective state party chairman (Brewer) who wanted a caucus for his patron's (Bonior) candidate (Edwards) but didn't have the clout to resist the forces lined up for Hillary (Granholm and Dingell) and a stubborn senator (Levin) with no clear dog in this fight, but (as PassingFair puts it) a 20-year "hard-on" for standing up against Iowa and NH.

Now add to that Obama surrogates in the state Senate who (with good reason) are mistrustful of the people mentioned above and wary of any do-over primary. Personally, I think they should just go ahead and do it and beat Clinton here (which I think he would, even with one arm tied behind his back....) and use the opportunity to organize here.

[PassingFair]

65. !

:applause:

I don't know if that money should be spent for a re-do.

We should have a caucus because the cost would be MILLIONS less.

I think Obama would take it either way. The party boosters have
their heads up their asses here, and don't CARE what the rank and
file think.

[WilyWondr]

56. A-T-T-E-N-T-I-O-N

They didn't think their delegates would matter because HRC would lock up the nomination on Feb 5. So they didn't care that their delegates would not be seated.

It only became a big deal after HRC did not lock up the nomination on Feb 5.

Why do you think no one in FL or MI has called for recall elections to replace the state legislators that did this?

[demo dutch]

60. NOT TRUE, Florida Dems have been fighting it since the bill past way before the primary even happend

[MaineDem]

70. Sorry, DD, but they really didn't fight it much at all

Karen Thurman is the one to blame in all this. She and the Party had options and didn't use them.

[PassingFair]

61. T-R-U-E

It makes me :puke:

[demo dutch]

62. NOT TRUE... The reason that the Florida primaries were moved up is...

The republican legislature wanted Florida to become more influential, and the democrats signed because GOP attached to the bill the move away from touch screens with NO paper trail to voting machines that have a paper trail, something they've been fighting for since 2000.

The problem is that the Florida voters didn't have a say. Florida dems have been fighting it ever since the bill passed Nelson files a lawsuit way before the primary even happened in FL.

[PassingFair]

64. Florida could have moved their date back.

They were offered alternatives by the DNC.

Those Florida dems WANTED TO GO FIRST.

They claimed at the time that it
meant nothing to them if they weren't seated.

And in Michigan, we could have held a caucus AT ANY TIME.
(This was BEFORE the Clinton campaign figured out that
they SUCKED at the caucus scene....)

[demo dutch]

66. They tried to file an amendment to stop the date change which was overturned by the GOP, so

by trying to be clever they found themselves outsmarted by the GOP. This is something that happens consistantly to the FL Dems. Sorry to say but they're a bunch of losers! If it wasn't for state rep Wexler and Klein, I'd be a registered Indie. (closed primary in FL)

Meanwhile the FL voters have had no say in any of it and get fucked over by the politicans again!

[PassingFair]

67. They ARE a bunch of losers who vote like Republicans!

I've seen those "size counts" and "Screw Dean" buttons they
were wearing! They FOUGHT for this!

They STILL could have held THEIR primary/caucus
within the rules, they just didn't want the
RETHUGS to go first without them.

BE HONEST!

[demo dutch]

71. Amendment to Housebill 537 to move back to Feb 5 was greeted with laughter by GOP recent link

discussed the debacle...
http://www.wesh.com/news/15622674/detail.html

You can listen to the whole sorry mess at this link
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/18/1474/83180/121/478896

You will hear Dem Minority Leader Dan Gelber and Dem Leader Pro Tempore Joyce Cusack offer an amendment to set the primary date to Feb. 5. The amendment failed by voice vote with no debate.

Florida House bill 537
http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?Mode=Bills&Submenu=1&BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Billnum=0537&Year=2007

S960 was originally a separate general elections bill containing the paper trail provision and the Election and Ethics committee (5 R and 3 D's on committee) voted to combined the two. Dems voted on combining the two bills (they claim because they felt it was their only chance to pass the papertrail issue) and the damage was done. Daily Koss has his own interpretation on that.

Like I said they they're a bunch of losers and were outsmarted by the GOP, something that happens frequently!
Meanwhile, FL voters had no say in any of this and are getting screwed once again by the politicians.

[demo dutch]

59. The reason that the Florida primaries were moved up is...

The republican legislature wanted Florida to become more influential, and the democrats signed because GOP attached to the bill the move away from touch screens with NO paper trail to voting machines that have a paper trail, something they've been fighting for since 2000.

The problem is that the Florida voters didn't have a say.