Originally posted by coven
The only B.S. of the whole situation is
1)Michigan developing a superiority complex and demanding that they be the FIRST to decide who runs for president.
No, you have it backwards. The problem comes from New Hampshire and Iowa demanding that they maintain their status as being the first states to hold
a caucus and primary respectively.
Michigan never demanded they be the first to decide. Iowa was Jan. 3, New Hampshire Jan. 8, and Michigan Jan. 15.
The real story about way they had to punish Michigan was because it was SOUTH CAROLINA who complained and was allowed to move up their primary to
before Feb. 5, and then Michigan jumped in front of South Carolina. The real issue here involved race. South Carolina was chosen to move up their
primary because they argued that a "black" state should go early, When Michigan jumped South Carolina, the DNC had to punish them.
2) Michigan not having Obama on the ballot leaving 200,000 plus michiganders with no option but Hillary or undecided.
Simple solution, Don't count the votes from Michigan as they felt it necessary to create their own rules for this election cycle.
Um, it wasn't Michigan's fault that Obama wasn't on the ballot. Obama took his name off the ballot to show support for those in Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada because those states complained enough to be given special treatment. By taking his name off in Michigan, he
pandered to the voters in other states, and benefited from the pandering.
If Florida rushed their vote the same decision should be made.
If people don't want to be equals they don't have to... but forcing superiority when their is none does have a tendency to have a reactionary
punishment (i.e. not having votes counted, as they were cast before the determined date of the vote)
That might make sense if Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada weren't given special treatment.
The bottom line is this. The DNC did NOT enforce their own rules, and instead gave Obama delegates from Michigan when he wasn't even on the ballot.
That's not in accordance with any legal principal. It's certainly not what the "Rules" Committee should have done. They should have enforced
the rules, right?