Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Elections for Dummies

My blogging homeboy, the Hippie Conservative just wrote a great piece which offers the most lucid answer to the Michigan/Florida primaries controversy I've heard so far. Just to give you a recap of the sitchy-ation:

  1. Michigan and Florida legislators decided to essentially break ranks with the DNC party rules which state that only Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina were allowed to hold democratic primaries before February 5. Michigan and Florida wanted to increase their influence on the process of selecting the party's candidate (Honestly, I really can't say I blame them for this. I happen to agree.)

  2. The DNC punished the two states by removing their delegates from the convention.

  3. Five of the Democratic presidential candidates (included in the group is current front-runner Sen. Obama) honored party rules by not campaigning in the violating states; nor did they place their names on those state's ballots. Consequently, those candidates all got rolled into the "Uncommitted" section on the ballot. Meanwhile, the remaining candidates (included in that group is Sen. Obama's opponent, Sen. Clinton) placed their names on the ballot despite party rules.

  4. Clinton wins both states convincingly. But, assuming the nomination was in the bag, Hillary thought nothing more of those two states. But since Obama has emerged as a legitimate (and arguably, favored) candidate, Clinton is demanding that those once insignificant delegates be reinstated.

Hippie goes through all the possible scenarios currently being tossed around to handle the controversy. So I won't bore you with the details. Instead, I wanna highlight the conclusion: where he presents a pretty brilliant solution fair to both Obama and Clinton. The simple solution to this whole debacle is to reinstitute another vote at the expense of the state legislators who decided to break party rules in the first place. Let them jokers pay for it. That way, the onus to fix the problem falls on the very people who created it.

See? This is what I'm talkin' about. This is why Hippie's the odds-on favorite to be my running mate one day. Unless, of course, he's losing in the popular vote. At which case (following the Billary model), I'd have to be his VP.

- ACL

8 "Insiders" spoke their mind. Join in...:

KC said...

Makes sense to me.

Andre said...

Republicans are living this up right now. Not only does this clearly show that the Dems have no or organization whatsoever, but they're anticipating the amount of money that will be spent for a do-over. That's money that WON'T be spent during the general election.

Kenya said...

All of the nonsense can be solved really easily.

1. Let the popular vote (anything above 50.9%) decide who wins.
2. Each states holds their primary elections and/or caucuses AT THE SAME TIME!

Simple enough for a child to understand.

Following this SIMPLE AND ELEMENTARY plan would keep us from wasting MILLIONS of dollars, make things fair for the candidates, and keep corruption out of the system. The junk they've come up with so far is scaring me a bit. Superdelegates who can be influenced. Small states starting off the primary season. It's all crazy! The current systems leaves the possibility of fraud too open.

Kenya said...

Oops. I meant to say "anything about 50.1%" That's a true majority.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I don't think Michigan OR Florida deserves to get counted. They were CLEARLY told what would happen if they chose to move ahead with early primaries. Let them accept the consequences for their actions.

Voters, if you're so mad, take it up with your idiot state representatives. They put you in this situation.

The H.C. said...

Hey Dre,
Thanks once again for the props. I'm trying to stay worthy of the V.P. position.

nic said...

I'm seeing reports that the odds of a do-over in Florida are slim, but another Michigan primary is all but in the bag.

Everytime I've come across do-over elections in the news (usually occurring in 3rd world countries, or those run by tyrants), I've raised my brow. This is no different. But hell, while we're @ it, can we have a year 2004 (or better yet, a year 2000!) do over election too?

-n

Kenya said...

Hi nic,

I can definitely see us doing a do over for the 2000 election. If the country knew THEN what they know now! LOL!