Florida Do-Over? I Like It
Florida Governor Charlie Crist is floating the possibility of redoing the Florida primary, as part of a noble effort to try to throw the Democrats’ nomination process into turmoil make sure every vote is counted:
Florida Governor Charlie Crist said he’d support a repeat of the Democratic presidential primary so the state’s delegates can be counted at the party’s national convention.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said he’s open to the possibility. Primary elections are paid for by a state’s taxpayers, so the offer from Crist, a Republican, is “very helpful” because money is an issue, Dean said.
We’re here to help, Howard.
Since Rhode Island allows the “Unaffiliated” to vote in either primary, I’ll be doing my part as well. Hold nose – vote Hillary.
rhodeymark (923596) — 3/3/2008 @ 7:17 amHah. That would be fun.
Joe M. (5d215f) — 3/3/2008 @ 7:26 amDo I see a lawsuit? Under the Voting Rights Act? Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution? Do Florida voters have a right to a fair chance to have their electors consider the candidates of their choice?
nk (7b0075) — 3/3/2008 @ 7:49 amY’all are just racists.
JD (7b205c) — 3/3/2008 @ 7:56 amThat’s “all y’all”, JD. “Y’all” is singular, “all y’all” is the plural.
nk (7b0075) — 3/3/2008 @ 8:00 amMoreover, the whole thing should have been, “Might could be all y’all is racists?”
nk (7b0075) — 3/3/2008 @ 8:04 amI bet money is an issue – as in “We (the State) ain’t payin’ for another primary. You mooks want one, pay for it yourselves.”
mojo (8096f2) — 3/3/2008 @ 8:15 amThe Governor ought to make the Florida Democrats foot most of the bill for the new election. They are the ones who moved their primary, knowing the potential consequences.
If Obama has the money, he ought to at least partially reimburse the state for the costs of the election. It would be great PR for him, and should he end up winning this time around after losing to Hillary in the first Florida primary, it would absolutely drive a stake in her heart. His brain trust probably figures that by the time Florida re-votes it will be a done deal anyway, so maybe he should just hold on to his money.
JVW (85f15c) — 3/3/2008 @ 8:47 amActually this is brilliant. Suppose Obama beats Clinton in TX and OH. Offering a do-over in Florida keeps Hillary in the race, and the damage just keeps on coming.
How can you complain about that?
Another question: who gets to vote in Florida II? It has to be open to everyone, since everyone could have voted in Florida I. How many Republicans could vote for Hillary just to keep the race exciting?
More and more I’m liking this. Money? Florida money? who cares? I live in Texas.
Scott (412f3f) — 3/3/2008 @ 8:54 amHow would you prevent those who voted in the Republican Primary from voting in the Democrat redo? That would mean they voted in both primaries and if that becomes possible, the Republicans will need to disqualify 50% of their Florida delegates. Says so right in the RNC rulebook.
They will have to redo the Republican contest at the same time.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/3/2008 @ 9:04 amNah. Y’all is plural. Sure, a few million illterate boobs occasionally use it in the singular, as well as in the plural (no one uses it to be exclusively singular), but that just means they’re talkin’ wrong, it doesn’t mean the word is singular. Else we’d have to conclude that we and they are singular, too, just because a few pretentious boobs refer to themselves by the royal we, and a few ultra-PC ones use they to describe a singular person rather than – horror of all horrors – refer to the referent as either a he or a she.
Adding an initial all, by contrast, has nothing to do with singular vs. plural. That all really means “all,” just as “we all” means all of us, rather than just some. Example:
Xrlq (b71926) — 3/3/2008 @ 9:18 amThanks, Xrlq.
“y’all” is the second person plural, “all y’all” is the same as saying “each and every one of you.”
Interestingly enough, it used to be that “thou” (“thee” in the objective) was singluar and “you” was plural. So we’ve moved “you” to singular and now use a contraction to cover its old function.
Joe M. (5d215f) — 3/3/2008 @ 9:33 amI defer to Xrlq and apologize to JD.
nk (7b0075) — 3/3/2008 @ 10:17 amBack on topic, just what exactly obligates Florida to place the nominee of the National Democratic Convention on its general election ballot in November? Why can’t it make its own determination who the Democratic candidate is?
nk (7b0075) — 3/3/2008 @ 10:27 amYou can’t just dismiss all uses of “y’all” in the singular as by “illiterate boobs.”
Because I could just as easily dismiss anyone who uses “y’all” for any purpose as an “illiterate boob.”
Words don’t have inherent meaning. If this one is used by some as the singular, then that’s how it’s used, and that’s what it means when they use it that way.
Y’all is no more singular than “data” is singular.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 3/3/2008 @ 10:45 amSo I guess it would be incorrect to translate the Whitney Houston song as “Ah Will Always Love Y’All”, unless she loves everybody, right?
On the other hand, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” could be correctly rendered as “Y’all Can’t Always Get What Y’all are Fixing to Get”, since this is a hortatory plural.
This would be so unnecessary if Georgians would just learn to speak freaking English.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 3/3/2008 @ 11:41 am“Y’all” and “fixin’ to” are wonderfully useful.
I’m also fond of “irregardless,” though it serves for emphasis rather than any grammatical function.
And Glen: I can’t speak for the others but I’m from Texas.
Joe M. (5d215f) — 3/3/2008 @ 11:51 amIf Florida does this, Michigan will almost certainly be forced to do the same thing. This will keep both Clinton and Obama spending money on big media buys, and keep them pinned down to two states. Clinton will be so desparate she will likely do anything to keep Obama’s feet to the fire.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/3/2008 @ 12:10 pmThis is not about playing politics. It is, quite frankly, about preventing another Constitutional crisis.
If the Texas and Ohio primaries are close, neither candidate will be able to amass the necessary 2025 votes without Michigan and Florida. The DNC had told Michigan and Florida would not seat their delegates if they stuck with their early primaries. Two of the top three candidates pulled out of Michigan. In Florida many Democrats reregistered voted in the Republican primary based on the DNC’s edict.
If the DNC or the credentials committee seats these delegates based on the January primary results, there WILL be a lawsuit. Perhaps several. No suit of this nature can conceivably be settled before the end of the three day convention (Aug. 28). There is almost no possibility it could be settled by the filing deadline in all 50 states.
The Democrats would be left with no candidate on the November ballot, while the lawyers argue it out, threatening the very election itself.
Florida and I hope, Michigan, are attempting to resolve the problem before it is legally too late to have a revote.
The country doesn’t need another 2002 disaster.
Corky Boyd (a8cc75) — 3/3/2008 @ 2:13 pmIt is, quite frankly, about preventing another Constitutional crisis.
Yeah, but Corky, this would be a “Constitutional crisis” entirely of the Democrats’ own making. It was local Dems who decided to move the Florida and Michigan primaries up early — knowing full well the consequences for doing so — and it was the national Dems who decreed that they would be penalized and who leaned on the candidates to not participate in those primaries. That being the case, why should taxpayers be required to rectify the situation by paying for a “do over” in those states, and exactly whose fault would it be if the Dems have a party squabble which jeopardizes their chances to field a candidate for this election?
With regards to my comment in #8 above, The Campaign Spot on National Review Online reports that Obama raised $70 million just in the last month. Someone that awash in cash ought to dig down deep and sponsor the re-votes in those two states.
JVW (85f15c) — 3/3/2008 @ 2:34 pmConstitutional crisis?!? Which constitution? The US Constitution doesn’t say anything about how the parties nominate their candidates that I remember. Does the Democrat Party have a constitution??? If they do, it’s sure to be a “living” one – or a “living dead” one – so no problem!
And “you” isn’t just singular! It’s 2nd person singular AND plural. Except in Detroit where you is singular and “yous” is plural. Or is it the other way round?
Don (dedc03) — 3/3/2008 @ 3:33 pmJVW–for your information, the date of the original Florida vote was set by the legislature, which is dominated by the GOP. The state Democratic party may have been willing to have an early primary, but the final choice was not theirs to make. The same legislature also set the early date for the GOP primary. The GOP at the national party level decided to disqualify half of the Florida delegation, the Democrats at the national party level decided to disqualify the entire delegation.
The legislature is getting ready to hold its 2008 session. The main business will be cutting over $500 million dollars from the state budget because tax revenues just aren’t coming in like they used to. In such circumstances, I don’t think the legislature is going to be happy about funding an election if it doesn’t have to.
For the rest I will leave for thee to chat upon.
kishnevi (ba7408) — 3/3/2008 @ 4:41 pmOK, kishnevi, point taken that it was a legislative act, and it turns out that it was mostly sponsored by Republicans, with some Democrat help. However, that bill apparently passed the Florida legislature with only one vote against it in the Florida house and two votes against it in the Florida senate, so I don’t think that Democrats can claim to have been forced into this primary date.
Maybe the state ought to make amends and pay for part of the re-vote, but the local and national Democrats ought to pony up too since they are the ones who may end up desperately needing it.
Also, I can’t get too choked up about Florida having to cut $500 million from the budget when we in California have to find a way to cut somewhere around $10 billion while at the same time increasing taxes and fees by about $3 billion.
JVW (85f15c) — 3/3/2008 @ 5:34 pmnk – no apologies needed. I am a foul mouthed racist rube, just ask VOR.
Corky – Constitutional crisis like in 2002? What was going on in ’02? Methinks you are just smarting from an obvious self-inflicted wound.
JD (626b4c) — 3/3/2008 @ 6:13 pmJD, you must have forgotten: the Constitutional Crisis in 2002 was the Republicans picking up seats in a mid-term election, despite a GOP Administration. Surely the Framers had not planned for that.
JVW (85f15c) — 3/3/2008 @ 6:18 pmlanguage note: in olden times, english had two different second person, nominative case pronouns, just like spanish and russian. “you” was the more formal, either plural or for adult strangers. nobody says “thou” anymore, at least not on patterico.com.
back to the post: the train we’re on could be heading for washed-out tracks. if neither clinton nor obama can get enough delegates from the 48 states not including florida and michigan, litigation will doubtless ensue (heh) and the supreme court could end up picking the demo nominee. if you liked bush v. gore (which has no precedential value, per the per curiam), clinton v. obama could get your rocks off.
on the repub side, john mccain is the oldest horse ever brought out of a major party’s stable for a race of this nature, even older than reagan. say he gets nominated, the republicans all go home from minneapolis, and then…
mccain drops dead, cardiac, stroke, whatever. what happens then? does the vp nominee automatically take the top spot? do the delegates all go back to minneapolis? party bosses in a smoke-filled room, or…does the supreme court get to pick the republican nominee too?
i read a piece the other day about sarah palin, republican governor of alaska, under consideration as a possible running mate. she would be a refreshing alternative to the options currently available to a conservative democrat.
assistant devil's advocate (1754b7) — 3/3/2008 @ 6:23 pmDon days, “Constitutional crisis?!? Which constitution? The US Constitution doesn’t say anything about how the parties nominate their candidates that I remember.”
The US Constitution provides that the President of the US is elected not by a national popular vote but by electors in the Electoral College, chosen by each state in the manner each state sees fit. If the Democrats fail to choose a candidate by the close of their Convention because of legal wrangling, then it would appear to me they’d have to appeal for relief separately to each state, one by one, either to move the closing date for registering candidates or else to change the way each state selects its electors. I’m not an attorney, but I can’t imagine any court would agree to a nationwide postponement of the election in November whether the Democrats are ready with a candidate or not. I assume they will be; this discussion is all hypothetical. In any event, it seems to me as a layman that any lawsuit asking for a delay of the election on the basis of federal Constitutional issues would have to be initiated by a state, not a political party. As an aside, states like mine that are thinking about assigning their presidential electors on the basis of the national popular vote might want to reconsider whether it’s still wise to do that.
Iapetus (ea6f31) — 3/3/2008 @ 6:44 pmADA–I shall say “thou” to any wight I wish, I trow.
kishnevi (2b3e28) — 3/3/2008 @ 6:47 pmThe only thing more entertaining than the Dem vs. Dem lawsuits likely to arise would be a brokered convention where Hill/Bill steals the nomination from the shinyhappysparklyhopey one.
JD (626b4c) — 3/3/2008 @ 7:43 pmThere really isn’t anything to do over. Given a legitimate decision to withhold the Florida and Michigan delegates, that decision should stand. Just because someone says delegates should be seated, doesn’t mean there is a legitimate issue to address.
Rich A (c7d5ce) — 3/7/2008 @ 8:18 amOne could argue Texas should be a do-over, after all it might get a different result. So argue there was a problem, and therefore do-over.
An argument must have some validity, and must have some genuine grievance, to be carried forward and addressed.