Friday, May 09, 2008

Buchanan: Why Not A Revote?

On MSNBC, Pat Buchanan is at it again. Why not let Florida and Michigan revote? Buchanan says this every time he's a guest and with a twist of a smile at the corners of his mouth.

Why not have a revote of all the Primaries for the Republican Party since the Republican Party also punished the same states for altering the Primary date?

Oh, we know the outcome of the Republican Primaries when Romney dropped out, Huckleberry withdrew, Edwards suspended his campaign, and Ron Paul remains the only other contender despite John McCain being the presumptive Republican nominee?

Florida and Michigan already voted. The state representatives consisting of both Republican and Democrat Party representatives in Florida and Michigan determined by majority vote to move up the dates of the state Primaries.

Democrat representatives in Florida had the opportunity to take two courses of action at the time the Primary date came up for a change.

One, they could have rejected the measure to move up the date. They didn't have to vote yes on the original bill - to change from electronic voting machines to paper ballots/scanners - they could have withheld their vote until that amendment altering the Primary date was removed from the bill.

Same with Michigan. The bill put forth could have been rejected by Democrat Party representatives.

Another option was for the state Democratic party leaders - knowing the votes of real people (hopefully there was no fraud) were at stake per the National Democratic Party's punishment - could have held their own *** Primary.

What would have happened: the state Democratic Party, not the state taxpayers, would have had to pay for the Primary.

The Democratic Party in these two states chose neither of those options, and allowed the election to go forward on the earlier date contrary to National Democratic Party rules.

Rules which were agreed upon by all one-year in advance of Primaries.

Now, the same representatives in these states want another chance at a bite of the big apple?

Not only did they want to early vote to have an effect on the outcome of the national nomination process, now they want to be the "last" ones to vote or re-vote - to have an effect on the outcome of the national nomination process for the Democratic Party?

That's nice. Every state should get to revote then so every state's voters can feel they made a bigger impact than every other state - early on and later on.

What arrogance.

If Democratic voters were aware that the state Party reps had these other options and didn't take these other options back in February, they should have protested then.

In Michigan, Barack Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. But neither were any of the other candidates' names on the ballot. There was a selection noted as uncommitted.

Why should Hillary Clinton get the majority of the popular vote there when the uncommitted category included 4 or 5 candidates lumped into one?

In Florida, none of the candidates were permitted to campaign there, and many voters simply didn't even turn out to vote because they were aware of the the effect of the rules in place.

Weren't they disenfranchised?

If the two states were permitted to revote at this time, now, after results of all other states' primaries are known, that would be the worst disaster in the history of the United States.

Knowing the results, and with less candidates than originally entered at the early Primaries, would enable Florida and Michigan to change the rules of an Election in mid-stream.

That is opposite every basic tenet of the election process in this country.

Why should a state even hold one election if the state is just going to permit a revote based on a political Party's inability to handle its own affairs?

Why do the two majority political parties have all of this power?

Let the independents in on the Primary process in all of the states and you'd see an immediate change in the political party power structure in this country.

And ultimately, maybe that's the kind of change that's needed.

No comments: