The Rules in Florida & Michigan
One of the things that’s baffled me this election season is how so many don’t seem to grasp the fact that Hillary Clinton did not break the rules by not removing her name from the ballots in Michigan and Florida.
Thankfully, Zuzu of Shakesville has put up a post explaining this and a few other things that have cropped up in plain ole English that I’d like to recommend to everyone.
Popularity: 2% [?]
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader. You can also subscribe to the comment feed for this post or leave a trackback to your site.
Comments
What these states did is cut in line. The appropriate response would be to send them to the back of the line. Kicking them out is an absurd overreaction sure to cause more problems than it solves as we are seeing (threatened protests at the convention, massive revenge/punishment voting and general ill will towards the DNC).
As for undermining the rules by seating the delegates, I disagree. I don’t remember what happened in Michigan, but Floridian Republicans are the ones that pushed through the date change and got the Democrats to agree by attaching something the Democrats wanted (getting rid of the touchscreen machines IIRC) to it. To me, this qualifies as a reason to exempt them from the rules without fundamentally undermining the rules.
For example, we have rules against causing the death of other people with the general punishment being imprisonment for a set length of time. Failing to put everyone who causes another’s death in prison does not undermine the rules against killing others for there are reasonable exceptions to those rules such as self-defense.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
But the two states did break the rules. To seat their delegates could send a message to other states that they can break the DNC rules without consequences.