Stephann -> RE: Dean Says Florida, Michigan Must Solve Primary Issue (3/12/2008 12:33:50 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen quote:
ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen I'd be more sanguine if people who aren't democrats would butt out of party business. This is Presidential politics. It's AMERICAN business. Nope. This is democratic party business. We make the rules. We cast the votes. You're welcome to poke your nose in it as soon as I'm welcome to start poking around in how the various state GOP's change their primary rules every 4 years in an attempt to favor their prefered candidate. Of course I could start posting the ballot access rules the GOP has that prevent candidates they don't approve of from ever even getting on the ballot. Why did Colbert only try and get on the democratic ballot in SC? I already know the answer but its really none of my business so I have stayed out of it. Just as this matter is none of your business. The assumption that only registered Democrats have a vested interest, or a right to express an opinion in how their primary is operated is as absurd as the suggestion that the comedien Stephen Colbert had genuine political aspirations. Fortunately, it won't be the Party that presides over the country. There was no 'law' regarding how the primary was run, though; it's protocol set up by the party bosses. How a party works, is (in fact) in the hands of the members of this party (this statement shouldn't be confused with stating that the business is only the concern of people in the party! I can say anything I like, but unless I'm willing to register as a Democrat, and work my way up the political food chain, all I have to offer is whatever sway I might pull with the random reader/listener.) Seems to me that the people hurt most in this are the voters in Michigan and Florida. It's not a question of who's names were on the ballots; the voters were told, ahead of time, their votes wouldn't count. Thus, I don't see any reason a new vote, where they are told their vote will count shoudn't be in order. I'm sure the DNC could scrounge up a few million bucks to enable their party members the chance to weigh in; it's not like Hillary or Obama won't/don't have the opportunity to campaign there again (their time having had been spent elsewhere during that time frame.) To suggest it's 'cost prohibitive' suggests that there's a numerical value to maintaining Democratic party membership; if I was an independent or conservative democrat in either state, I'd think twice about voting for either candidate in the upcoming election. My suggestion has nothing to do with demanding the democratic party behave as I think it should, as I'm a registered Republican. It has everything to do with saying that everyone, everywhere, has the right to let their vote be cast and counted, regardless of party affiliation. It doesn't make sense that the party, given the amount of time between now and November, can't come up with a suitable plan to resolve this matter, that enables everyone who is eligble to cast a ballot to do so. Stephan
|
|
|
|