Akamai Politics » The shifting rules of the political game

The shifting rules of the political game

March 10th, 2008 by Jerry Burris

Hawaii was thrilled when its Democratic caucuses, moved up in time a bit to garner national attention, did just that.

Because the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was still fully pitched when the Hawaii caucuses were held, Hawaii received a lot of attention and attendance at the caucuses was phenomenal.

That same thinking and same goal was behind the decision in Florida and Michigan to push up their primary elections: Get in on the nominee-deciding action.

Unfortunately, those two states moved ahead with out Democratic Party permission and now they are being punished. Their delegates won’t be allowed to vote at the August Democratic National Convention. But now, there is serious talk of a “do-over,” another election to make those Michigan and Florida votes valid.

Somehow, that doesn’t seem fair. Both candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states (although there was a little unauthorized campaigning and some wash over from cable television advertising). And Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan.

Seems like the fairest and cheapest thing to do would be to seat the two states and apportion their votes according to the distribution of the remaining legitimately seated delegates. That way they get to wear the funny hats, listen to the speeches and attend all the parties but they don’t get to impact the outcome by changing the rules in midstream,

What do you think?

This entry was posted on Monday, March 10th, 2008 at 9:38 am and is filed under Akamai politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “The shifting rules of the political game”

Paul [Visitor]:
March 10th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I think the best thing to do is play by the rules everyone agreed to and not seat the delegates.

Andy Parx [Visitor]:
March 10th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Just wait until they are REALLY battling for each delegae and Hillary goes back and points to the way the caucuses were conducted in Hawai`i… Neil standing on the table shouting “everyone’s voting on the honor system” will be on CNN day and night

Innocent Observer [Visitor]:
March 10th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
While it appears that the rules adopted by the DNC should be upheld from an ethical standpoint; it is actually wrong to not allow a state caucus to have a say in the nomination process.

This is an important selection and close one. Hence, all states should be allowed to make a choice. To bar those states who have a large number of delegates, could unwarrantly give the nomination to someone who might not have won had all the delegates allowed to cast votes.

It is punishment (additional costs) enough to allow the states to revote so that their votes cam be counted.

In this instance, practicality should prevail, it is too important to be idealistic.

Chicken Grease [Visitor]:
March 11th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Jerry Burris Unfortunately, those two states moved ahead with out Democratic Party permission and now they are being punished. Their delegates won’t be allowed to vote at the August Democratic National Convention. But now, there is serious talk of a “do-over,” another election to make those Michigan and Florida votes valid.

What do I think? TA-DAAAA!!!!!! THAT’s what I think. I mentioned, I think here, other blogs on this here Advertiser blog-fest, that this Caucus thing was ????? and conflicting and confusing. And at this point, that’s all I have to say.

I won’t be surpised if some loophole is found to put Hilary and Obama on the primary ballot. Oh, wait, was that the case all along? THEN WHY HAVE A CAUCUS????