Question

This one is about a potential Florida and Michigan revote on June 3.

As many here know, the DNC refuses to accept in any form the January results of the Florida and Michigan primaries.  I strongly believe the DNC was right to do so, and have written accordingly.  The Republican primary proved that the 50% penalty Florida and Michigan amounted to a slap on the wrist.  Those two jurisdictions still had infinitely more say than Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, and the many other jurisdictions that abided by the rules.  What's to say in the next Presidential election that jurisdictions wouldn't be willing to accept an x% penalty for more influence?

Here's a question that nobody has asked:  If there is a June 3 revote in Florida and Michigan, why shouldn't Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon and the other remaining jurisdictions suddenly be allowed to move their primaries to June 4 or some other date after June 3 in order to be the "tie-breaker?"  Why should these scofflaw states serve as the "tie-breaker"?  Can anyone here answer that question?

•  Okay, so there was more than one question.

  Anyhow, here's a link to the diary I posted this past Sunday regarding a possible FL and MI revote.

  by jim bow on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:20:29 PM PDT

•  There

  aren't going to be any re-votes.

  by pointman on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:20:51 PM PDT

  •  Clinton is going to try to get them seated

    because she has the balance of supporters on the credentials committee.  

    And when that happens, all hell will break loose in Denver, and we will lose in the fall.

    by novaseeker on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:22:49 PM PDT

    •  Not gonna happen

      Actually the Rules and Bylaws Committee has jurisdiction over the delegate selection plans and the Credentials Committee can't seat anyone who wasn't part of an approved delegate selection plan. The Rules and Bylaws Committee could try to seat them (and they probably will in some way, shape or form) but they are   not going to seat them if it will prefer one candidate over the other. The rules people are very strict.

      See: Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention

      by DonFromMA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:56:13 PM PDT

•  Punish me! No, punish me! I've been bad!

  Interesting angle. A race to be later in the primary season. I don't think states would be moving their primaries at this late date though. I think most people just want to get this over with.

  by Travis Stark on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:25:42 PM PDT

  •  But for influence as the tie-breaker?

    by jim bow on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:37:48 PM PDT

    •  Interesting question.

      I've got one for you...

      Are you crazy or something??? Some things should not even be whispered on the moon!

      Seriously, with all the trials and tribulations this whole thing has created for Florida and Michigan, I doubt any other state would even consider going there.  

      by bubbalie 517 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:57:42 PM PDT

      •  Ya, but right now there's no penalty

        for making your primary "later". I don't think so either. The only primary that's going to possibly matter anyway is PA I suspect. If Hillary can't win that one by 30 points it's going to be tough to argue how she's going to win all the rest by more.

        by Travis Stark on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:26:59 PM PDT

•  The Technical Answer

  Is that all of the state's Delegate Selection Plans needed to be submitted to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee by May 1, 2007. All of the states, except MI & FL, submitted plans and had them approved.

  See: DNC Delegate Selection Rules

  In the recent cases, I think the Rules & Bylaws Committee was offering a waver of the deadline in the case of MI & FL if they submitted plans that were agreeable to the DNC & both campaigns. Nothing says they need to offer a waiver so this prevents other states from trying to change the game while it is in progress.

  An interesting point is that these rules state that the penalty for having an early primary is loosing 50% of delegates and supers. It was a separate decision to strip them entirely. Some have argued that they should revert back to the original rules (50%). I agree with you assertion that the 50% cut that the Republicans did had little effect and I suspect the Republicans will cut more next time if they are serious about controlling the calendar. On the other hand, no one on the Republican side seemed to complain about MI & FL so maybe they don't really care.

  by DonFromMA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:34:10 PM PDT

  •  Except ...

    ... if the DNC made an exception for MI and FL out of political fear for not disenfranchising voters, what makes you think they would be willing to adhere to the calendar rule?

    Also, most of the time, the primaries are over by Super Tuesday.  Every state voting after Super Tuesday would still have less influence than those scofflaw states having primaries before Super Tuesday (excluding IA, NH, NV, and SC, which should be allowed to go before Super Tuesday in the interest of preserving "retail politics").

    by jim bow on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:14:46 PM PDT