It depends on who is paying for it. If the state Democratic party wants to pay for it, then I see no problem; after all, primaries are a party function, and it was the action of the state Democratic party that caused the loss of delegates. But neither the state, the national government, nor the Democrats in other states should have to foot the bill for the state party's screw-up. If the party members in those states have a problem with what has happened, they need only to look to their state leaders, who were given ample warning that they were breaking previous agreements.
The entire affair isn't the business of non-Democrats, and out-of-state Democrats should only have a passing interest (as long as they aren'y paying for another election). And, please, no one suggest that these people were denied the right to vote. The election for president hasn't been held yet. (And, to be honest, Floridians didn't make enough fuss about being denied the right to vote when they should have, almost 8 years ago.) This was solely a party matter, and the party in each state is the party to blame.
Posts: 16180 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted.
"All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: It depends on who is paying for it. If the state Democratic party wants to pay for it, then I see no problem; after all, primaries are a party function...
If, as you say, primaries are a party function, then why should the taxpayers have to pay for them in the first place? Why don’t both the Democratic Party and Republican Party just hold their conventions like they used to, entirely paid for with their own private money they have raised, and select the candidate they want to put on the ballot for the Presidential Election at their respective conventions? I would submit that primaries are not a function of any state or federal government to dole out public funds to hold - either once or twice!
quote:
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: (And, to be honest, Floridians didn't make enough fuss about being denied the right to vote when they should have, almost 8 years ago.)
They didn’t make a fuss because they weren’t denied their vote.
Granted, the Gore team did try to deny the votes of the people in nearly 63 Florida counties, but the 14th Amendment forbid their attempt.
Whether Gore won or not doesn't change the fact, as reported by the Carter-Ford committee on voting, that tens of thousands of black voters in Florida were denied their right to vote. I know that you are fond of quoting a member of a committee on voting rights saying that no one was denied their voting rights, but you always neglect to mention that the opinion you quote was the minority opinion. (I've quoted that report and linked to it several times in the past, but you still insist on ignoring it when you speak about those people being denied their right to vote.) That's like saying that the Supreme Court denied abortion rights in the Roe v Wade decision. The reality was a 7-2 decision that overturned almost all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion.
Now I am not particularly fond of abortions, but I am very fond of a phrase often used in TV (and presumably real) courts; "...the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..." (I chose not to emphasize the middle part because all of that phrase is important.)
By the way, recounts don't tell the real story if thousands were denied their right to vote.
Posts: 16180 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
John, I have no problem with each party paying for its own primary. In the past, at least in Illinois (I think), primaries were held concurrently with local elections, in which case the parties should have paid a portion of the cost.
Posts: 16180 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
It's a real shame, actually, that Michigan and Florida chose not to abide by party rules. The Party could be in a bit of a pickle if Obama is otherwise ahead in popular votes and Hillary wins the nomination. It would almost be as testy as the electoral college!
Posts: 7494 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Whether Gore won or not doesn't change the fact, as reported by the Carter-Ford committee on voting, that tens of thousands of black voters in Florida were denied their right to vote.
NEWSFLASH: No one, not even blacks, are allowed to vote for two individuals for the same office at the same time! Such "votes" were not disenfranchised, they were legally and justifiably invalidated.
Please note, in each of the links I have provided I chose to link to black pundits' comments on this topic.
There is not much difference between the "Bush Stole Florida" folks and the "9/11 Was an Inside Job" folks. Each believe an evil republican pulled the strings to orchestrate a nefarious massive conspiracy involving thousands of people (and somehow got away with it). Facts don't matter for either conspiracy theorist. Only hatred of a small group of individuals whom they try to wildly pin the most outrageous conspiracies that fail every test of fact and common sense.
Sorry, John, but that doesn't change the fact that thousands of blacks were turned away at the polls, denied their right to vote. Blowing smoke about trying to vote twice does not hide the facts, and it really doesn't matter what color the author's skin is. But at least you did more than just quote the minority opinion of the report. Unfortunately for you,the overwhelming majority of the Commission found that thousands had been illegally disenfranchised. I think there were about 28 members who found serious problems and 3 or 4 who saw no problems. That's a minority opinion.
You're starting to sound like the (increasingly smaller number of) people who insist that the moon landing was fake. I hope you understand that every time you drag out your arguments, you look less and less credible on other things.
Posts: 16180 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: ...the overwhelming majority of the Commission found that thousands had been illegally disenfranchised. I think there were about 28 members who found serious problems and 3 or 4 who saw no problems. That's a minority opinion.
...the conclusions drawn by the report often bore little relationship to the facts contained therein… Of course, almost no one actually read the report. But the handful that did (especially the incisive dissent authored by Commissioners Abigail Thernstrom and Russell Redenbaugh) discovered the astonishing mendacity underlying the myth.
There's absolutely no evidence that a single person was intimidated, harassed, or prevented from voting by Florida law-enforcement officials.
Despite claims of rampant police intimidation and harassment, the only evidence of law-enforcement "misconduct" consisted of just two witnesses who described their perceptions of the actions of the Florida highway patrol...
There's no evidence of systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.
The myth of a nefarious plot to thwart black voters from casting ballots is wholly unsupported by the evidence. Inconvenience, bureaucratic errors, and inefficiencies were indeed pervasive. But these problems don't rise to the level of invidious discrimination. (There was one case in which a black woman alleged that she was turned away from a poll at closing time whereas a white man wasn't.)
State officials were not at fault for widespread voter "disenfranchisement."
The myth holds that Governor Bush, in league with Secretary of State Katherine Harris, either by design or incompetence, failed to fulfill their electoral responsibilities, resulting in the discriminatory disenfranchisement of thousands of black voters. This was purportedly a key to the overarching Republican plot to steal the election from Al Gore.
Again, reality intrudes. The incontrovertible evidence shows that by statute the responsibility for the conduct of elections is in the hands of county supervisors, not the governor or secretary of state. County supervisors are independent officers answerable to county commissioners, not the governor or secretary of state. And in 24 of the 25 counties that had the highest ballot-spoilage rates, the county supervisor was a Democrat. (In the remaining county the supervisor was not a Republican, but an independent.)
Moreover, as is simply put by Commissioner Thernstrom, voter error is not the same thing as "disenfranchisement." Even if more black voters than white voters spoiled their ballots by mistake, that's not evidence of a scheme to discriminate on the basis of race, and it certainly doesn't evoke images of dogs and fire hoses.
After issuance of the commission's report, some diehards, perhaps realizing that history frowns on demagoguery, desperately sought any facts that might support the myth. The Justice Department was pressed for action, and conducted a thorough investigation. The result: The Civil Rights Division found no credible evidence in our investigation that Floridians were intentionally denied their right to vote during the November 2000 election. [Emphasis added.]
The Justice Department did find violations of the Voting Rights Act in three counties. The infractions were that some poll workers had been hostile to Hispanic voters, bilingual assistance hadn't been provided to two Haitian voters, and some Hispanic voters had been denied bilingual assistance. None of the offending counties was controlled by Republicans…
The myth is poisonous to society and democracy. Its antidote is a relentless, adamant repetition of the truth.
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: You're starting to sound like the (increasingly smaller number of) people who insist that the moon landing was fake. I hope you understand that every time you drag out your arguments, you look less and less credible on other things.
This is a clear-cut case of psychological projection on your part. Like the "Moon Landing Was a Hoax" believers, it is not I, but you, who believes in a massive secret conspiracy led by a handful of sinister forces in the government to make it appear one thing happened that really didn't, and that they somehow got away with it.
John, you're getting like LR, repeating the same story, regardless of how often it has been disproved. Go back and read my other posts about this matter again. That's my response. If you find a way to refute that information, I'll respond, but your refutation has to be better than what you have done so far.
Posts: 16180 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: John, you're getting like LR, repeating the same story, regardless of how often it has been disproved.
I look at ALL the information on an issue & draw my own conclusions, not just the one-sided opinions many like to put here to bolster their position. And if it means being contrary to popular opinion, then so be it. Until something else develops to change my mind, I continue to be hard headed in my thinking. And I certainly make no apologies for it.
Posts: 2048 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: John, you're getting like LR, repeating the same story, regardless of how often it has been disproved.
Re-read the last line in the above quote: "The myth is poisonous to society and democracy. Its antidote is a relentless, adamant repetition of the truth." That's why I do it. You and your conspiracy theory-minded friends are doing as big a disservice to this nation as would the fictional myth you claim exists. That is why I am relentless about it.
Since you, apparently, believe whatever a majority says is the absolute truth, regardless of facts, that must mean you also believe:
