Hillary Clinton | Arthritis Information

More Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton than anyone in primary history - 17 million. Interesting fact.

Jan

How many for Obama?

Pip

Don't know. The article didn't say.

Jan

It's unfortunate that we'll never know how Michigan would have voted since Obama wasn't on the ballot, and what the effect was on Florida with no campaigning. There's no way to fix that.I think we should have one national primary with all states voting at the same time. Why should Iowa have so much clout.

Jan

I thought they decided to give Fla and Mi 1/2 votes as a penalty?

Pip

Yes Pip, that's the agreement they came to after the party decided to break their own rules. But since Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot, Clinton will get half her delegates there and Obama will get none. So we have no idea how many people would have voted for him in the primaries in order to compare it to Clinton.THE DEMOCRATS CAN'T RUN A PRIMARY ELECTION WITHOUT F,N IT UP LOLI will not be voting for President this cycle, the first time since 1974. If living in Florida means the Democratic Party has the right to dismiss, then reinstate one/half of my primary vote, there is no reason for me to vote in the upcoming General Election in November. Florida and Michigan, the first two states taken over by thugs.

JustSay,

I thought the decision to move the Florida primary date up, was made by the Republican majority Florida legislature and the Republican Governor whom I'm guessin weren't too concerned about the consequences to the Democratic Party, who I thought forewarned Florida that if the primary date was moved up, the Dem delegates wouldn't be seated. I'm over here on the west coast, so haven't really followed this. Are you in Florida? Am I incorrect in how this played out? I can understand your anger, I'd be p****d too if my vote couldn't count.

I talked to my mom this week who lives in Florida if it was true that the state knew that by moving up the primary, this would happen and she said they knew and went ahead anyway. I don't quite get it - but if anyone has a good explanation, I'd like to understand.They knew in Michigan. They weren't supposed to be counting any of the delegates and that was known before the primary.Cathy,

The next time you talk to your Mom, or if anyone else knows, ask if Florida's Republican voters votes counted.

I think a lot of states wanted to move up their primaries. Here in California we normally vote in June, but they moved the primary up to Feb 5, they complied with the Party rules though. Not sure of the logic, states think they have more say or influence if they vote early. Sorta ironic though, with the Democrat candidates so close, California, with all its delegates, could have made a bigger splash if they had waited to hold the primary in June. Oh well, its all over now.

Joie2008-06-04 18:46:03The Republicans also penalized Florida and Michigan for moving up their primaries their delegates were each given 1/2 vote. This was done prior to the primary season. The Democrats chose to decertify the delegations all together..a procedure ALL the candidates, including Hillary Clinton, signed off on. It was only after Super Tuesday where Senator Clinton had assumed she would clinch the nomination that she began talking about Michigan and Florida.

When the Dem Rules committee met the recertified Florida at 1/2 vote per delegate. They had an election where all candidates were on the ballot and did not campaign so everyone was on equal foooting. Michigan was more complicated since Obama and Edwards both pulled their names off the ballot. The Michigan Dem Party put together a fairly complicated compromise looking at the umcommitted voters, exit polls and write in votes to assign 69 votes for Clinton and 59 for Obama..they then took those totals and cut them in 1/2 essentially giving Michigan the same 1/2 vote person as they did Florida.

The popular vote is even more complicated..there is no popular vote total for most of the caucus states which Obama won the vast majority, many overwhelmingly. Also the Michigan vote is scewed because Clinton was the only one on the ballot. So realistically depending on how you count it both candidates can claim a popular vote victory.

Joie - both the Rs and the Ds pulled this stunt in Florida. The Rs are also only getting a half-vote per delegate to the R Convention. It was highly publicized, and when I voted in the primary, I knew my vote would not be counted, but I wanted to vote for a woman for President once in my lifetime. I cannot believe that political parties (both D and R) have this much power - to negate my vote. My voter's rights have been compromised, and I am surprised Americans are letting this happen. I'm not one to follow how the parties work, who makes the rules/decisions, etc. so apologize if this is a stupid question. Who made the decision to move it up - was it the party or the state govt? It was a combined decision between the parties and the legistlatures. Both parties have been challenging the power given to Iowa and New Hampshire. The state's played chicken with the national parties and lost

Each national party sets the rules for how each state's delegates are assigned. they allocate the number of delegates each state gets to their convention. The parties get to choose their candidates however they choose to. Each state party gets to decide how they assign their votes...some use caucuses, some use primaries., texas uses both plus a convention. it hasn't been that long that some states did neither and each delegation could vote however they chose without regard to the people.

buckeye2008-06-05 04:49:40

JSNM-

The Parties have the power for the primaries because they can set the rules as to HOW their candidates get chosen. If the parties choose to pull a name out of the hat to choose their candidate they can do that. They allocate the number of delegates each state gets for their National convention. Each party allocates the number differently Even still no rule exists in either party that forces a delegate to vote at the convention for the candidate that won their district..and of course we all know that in the case of this years Dem pimaries the Superdelegates..people who are in no way bound by any election results ulimately put Obama over the top.

Keep in mind that Clinton, as were the other candidates, was well aware of what the rules in each state were and signed off on them. Her campaign thought that she would wrap up the candidacy by Super Tuesday so the problems with Florida and Michigan would be a moot point. She only became concerned about "voters rights" after it became appearant that she needed those states to win. And of course whe was totally uncincerned that the people in Michigan weren't even given a full slate of candadates to vote on because every other Dem candidate reacted to the rules and pulled the names. And you know the vote totals in Florida would have been totally different if the then fairly unknown Obama had had a chance to campaign.

I liked Donna Brazile's remark that "her momma told her if you change the rules in the middle of the game it's cheating."

Based on what everyone knew upfront, the delegates for Florida and Michigan should NOT COUNT. The only other feasible and fair thing they should have done was to hold another election in each state, allowing both candidates to campaign and be on the ballot. I don't buy the argument that they didn't want to go through the expense. All of this stinks. I don't think the committee did any service in coming up with this silly 1/2 delegate thing. Today we want a clear frontrunner with a mandate. Not some half-a**ed politically motivated decision that brings into question the legitimacy of the winner.In Florida in 2007, the Legislature passed and Governor Crist signed, the legislation to move the primary date up from February to January, in violation of parties rules, like buckeye said, they took a gamble and lost, the consequence being jeopardizing the seating of their delegates. This would not have become such a major issue had the Obama/Clinton race not been so close.

Here in California, I think (too early to research and too fog brain to remember clearly) voters voted to move up the primary from June to February. As a voter, I think its a little stupid, cuz we have to pay for 2 elections - in Feb and again in June. But hey, what do I know.

I still think there should be a NATIONAL primary so no state is given special clout like Iowa. THen all these hassles would not happen.

Jan

I guess it causes a problem with the current campaign strategies as the candidates cannot be in all states at once. Maybe they could just do a lottery to deterrmine the order. Or change they way they campaign.a National primary would cause its own sets of problems including the abiliy for lesser known and financed candidates to compete. If that had happened this year we would be having a Clinton- Guiliani battle in Nov

I would like to see uniformity in primaries and how they are held and counted. It doesn't make sense that some states have primaries and some have caucauses. And the whole "Super Delegate" idea is ridiculous. Makes it too easy for backroom wheeling and dealing for votes.

[QUOTE=Hillhoney]

[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more!
We hold primaries in my state, and I'm clueless as to how caucuses work. You all have to go somewhere and meet as a group? What if you're disabled? In California you can vote absentee and mail in your ballot. How does that work in a caucus state?

Constitutional Convention. Term limits for Congress and Scotus.

I saw an article suggesting dividing the U.S. into 4 sections and rotating which section goes first every four years. That way everyone would be first every 16 years. I think the Secretaries of State suggested this. Iowa and N.H. every time is no longer working. My opinion.

Jan

but unless you get all 50 states on the bandwagon for a proposal like that it is destined to fail. IA and NH so want #1 status that both have continually threatened to keep moving up their primaries

This is probably a really stupid q with a really obvious answer but.........what's the advantage of going first?The earlier the primary the more power you have over the ultimate candidate. AFter NH thefield (in both parties) is usually 1/2 of what it was prior to IA. You win in IA or NH and your candidacy gets a huge boost ie Obama and McCain neither of whom were #1 before their early victories. Its a power small electoral states don't normally carry. For the states it also means a HUGE boost in tourism dollars which in those states in the middle of winter is importantShe was stupid to run. I said so before and I will say it again. It wasn't enough to be First Lady. It wasn't enough to be one of 100 US Senators. Nope, she had to be President too. She should have concentrated on her Senate career and been famous in her own right. A very bad move. I was very disappoined she ran. [QUOTE=buckeye]

but unless you get all 50 states on the bandwagon for a proposal like that it is destined to fail. IA and NH so want #1 status that both have continually threatened to keep moving up their primaries

[/QUOTE]

let them.. they can be the NEW Michigan and Florida!!

I hate the entire super delegate system.. it puts all the power in the hands of a few..

frankly.. I think the electoral college is aged and unnecessary now with computers..

Computers would not change why the electoral college is in place

In a massive compromise during the Constitutional Convention The electoral college was put into place by the founding fathers. It was done so to prevent the populatio of a small number of states controlling who would be elected.

Going to a Direct popular vote election would require amending the Constitution which requires 3/4's of the State legislatures (38 in total). Not an easy task when the smaller states would fight it every inch of the way. They are not going to cede any more power to the California and New Yorks of this country