March 12th, 2008
05:05 PM ET

Should Florida & Michigan count without revotes?

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/12/art.voteearly.fl.gi.jpg caption=" Miami, Florida early voting site."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It looks like Florida's Democrats hit a roadblock when it comes to finding a way to re-do their primary election.

Democratic members of the state's congressional delegation say they unanimously oppose holding a vote by mail. Although they say they are committed to working with the DNC, the 2 candidates, and other party leaders, they are against "a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind." Doesn't sound like there's too much wiggle room there.

At issue here is whether voters in Florida, as well as Michigan, will get another chance to weigh in on the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The party stripped the two states of their delegates after they moved up their primaries.

Obama is also expressing concerns about a mail-in vote in terms of "making sure that whatever we do is fair and that votes are properly counted and the logistics make sense."

Clinton won both primaries, but that was after all the candidates agreed not to campaign in the contests. Obama's name did not appear on the ballot in Michigan.

Here’s my question to you: Should delegates from Florida and Michigan be seated without redoing the elections in those two states?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Lee from Jacksonville, Florida writes:
How can anyone take the governors of Michigan or Florida seriously? Does anyone really believe they would be leading the charge for a redo if it did not further their agendas? This has nothing to do with the voters and everything to do with the Democratic establishment supporters of Hillary (Michigan’s Granholm) combined with the Republican supporters of McCain (Florida’s Crist) who prefer McCain's chances in a run against Hillary.

Roger from Dallas writes:
Jack, In a year when the Democrats could have literally put up a tree stump and be assured a victory, their petty, misguided egocentric personalities are going to destroy any chance we Democrats have of reclaiming the presidency. Michigan and Florida should not count; those were the rules set forth, which both campaigns agreed to. End of story!

Charlie from Chicago writes:
Here we go again: I do not like the rules, so let’s change them to fit the needs of another Clinton. This is almost as good as: What exactly is your definition of "IS"? The delegates should in no way be seated and for that matter it should not be discussed every night on CNN and the other stations. Cut the crap and get to the agenda, immigration, the economy, and saving the middle class of America.

RJ from Michigan writes:
The first vote should count and delegates should be seated. The dumb, silly, ignorant, short-sighted internal politics of the Democratic Party should not negate my vote as a Michigan resident. Democrats need to remember that every vote counts or else Michigan voters may choose not to vote for either candidate.

Melanie from Lake Wales, Florida writes:
My family and a friend, that's 4 people, didn't bother to vote for Obama because we knew our votes wouldn't count. Imagine how many more are in this position? So either it's not counted, or we get the right to vote!

Frank from Florida writes:
Are you kidding me? It can't be Florida in the news again regarding voting. This state simply cannot get it straight when it comes to voting. Remember the hanging chads? See ya again in 4 years.

Filed under: 2008 Election • Florida • Michigan
soundoff (244 Responses)
  1. John

    Actually, NO!! There are reasons why rules and regulations are placed within a particular party. The fact that the Florida and Michigan democratic leadership failed to recongnize their allegiance to those guidelines makes them liable to suffer the consequences.

    March 12, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
  2. For Obama

    The answer to that is simple NO! Barack Obama's name was not even on the ballot then and the next thing is that many democrats ' even come out to vote in Florida because they knew their votes would not count. Plus i'm sure many has change their minds now that they have seem some of Hilary's dirty tactics

    March 12, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
  3. Steve Wilson

    After all the praises John McCain received from Hillary Clinton, I think he should choose her as his running mate, since she is sure to loose to Obama...And, she is doing a great job making sure the democrats don't win in November, should she not be the winner of this contest.

    Wilson from PA.

    March 12, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
  4. Tom Picciani

    Yes. Let teh people vote. Why punish the voters for the mistakes of their representatives? If Howard Dean wants to punish anyone, send the superdelegates home! We don't need no stinkin superdelegates!

    March 12, 2008 at 1:52 pm |
  5. Robert, Columbia, MO

    They could be, if they are awarded proportionally to each candidate at the time they are seated. The proportion each should get should be the proportion of the popular vote or the proportion of the delagate count each holds at that time.

    March 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm |
  6. Jose, from Europe

    No change of pre-agreed party rules should be allowed in the middle of the race, and the governors of those states should be held accountable for the mess in which they placed millions of potential voters in their states. Those voters should oust them at the next election.

    March 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm |
  7. MIchael "C" in Lorton, Virginia

    Definitively not........the rules were established and they decided not to abide by the rules.......break the deal.......face the wheel of consequences. If they are allowed to be seated, it will only serve the political interest of Hillary Clinton........its over for Hillary; she knows that and so do the American people.

    March 12, 2008 at 1:57 pm |
  8. Jasin From Halifax NS

    I do not agree that they should be seated without atleast a revote. What I don't understand are these "disinfranchised" voters in Michigan and Florida; They procceeded to go ahead and vote dispite knowing well ahead that their vote would not count. Thats like walking up to a vending machine that has a big red "Out of Order" sign, you decide to proceed & to feed it money, then complain you are not getting anything in return. Why did these voters, and the Clinton campaign fot that matter, not make this issue well before now? Everyone needs a hidden ace Jack, I don't think for one second the Clintons would be crying foul if they had the delagate lead and the momentum.

    March 12, 2008 at 1:57 pm |
  9. Paulette Dallas,PA

    The DNC has to do something with these two states. I don't see HOW or WHY the DNC is able to tell states WHEN they can have their primaries. PA moved theirs up to April22 from early May. What happened to freedom of speech? After the debacle in 2000 in Florida I believe that if the DNC doesn't accommodate these states in some way – they are planting the seeds of their own selfdestruction! The DNC needs to look within and see what needs to be done in this election and future elections so that every vote casted counts.

    March 12, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
  10. craig in palm springs, calif.


    March 12, 2008 at 1:59 pm |
  11. Barbara


    I think so! The party should not have to waist the money for a redo just because a Rep. Gov. changed the election date and Sen Obama took his name off the ticket in MI. I guess he didn't want to run there!
    Dean needs to get off his soap box and support the voters. Wouldn't that be a nice change?

    March 12, 2008 at 2:00 pm |
  12. Enrique Olivares

    Logistically impossible for politicians to make this happen. Every day that goes by is another day wasted.

    Here is my suggestion:

    Michigan has 128 delegates. Clinton got 55% of the votes, give her 55% of the delegates. Clinton should concede the 40% uncommitted votes to Obama.

    Florida has 210 delegates. Clinton got 50% of the votes, give her the same percentage of delegates. Give Obama 33% of the delegates.

    But because both states broke the rules, the should be penalized. Reduce their delegates by half (just as the Republicans did).

    This means Clinton gets (approx) 53 Florida delegates + 35 Michigan delegates = 88 delegates. Obama gets 35 Florida delegates + 26 Michigan delegates = 60 delegates.

    That is a difference of 28 delegates. Must we spend $60 million to figure this out. That is over $2 million per delegate.

    Obama is so far in front 28 delegates will have no significant impact to his advantage over Clinton.

    I'll take 10% commission of the $60 million savings, thank you very much.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  13. David T., Toronto Canada


    It is difficult to argue that seating them without a re-vote is fair, because it categorically is NOT. This would mean that the election results, such as they are, would be recognized.

    If the issue is whether they can be seated or not, then divide the delegates equally between Clinton and Obama and invite them all to the party in August.

    Of course, Clinton wouldn't embrace this as a solution, since it doesn't buy her an advantage.

    Bottom line: it's already ugly out there! The only hope is that it fiasco is somehow resolved long before the convention.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  14. DM, Michigan

    If an equitable revote cannot be decided than YES the delegates should be seated! Obama has no interest in this and it is apparent to both FL and MI in spite of his double talk. These are 2 swing States, the Democrats will lose the election if FL and MI votes are not counted.
    Noteworthy is a discussion on the value of a caucus vs. primary. In TX and WA there were large disparities between the 2. A caucus does not reflect the "will of the people" because not all are free to participate. The Presidential elections are daylong voting processes that enable people who WORK to participate. The question is how well will Obama do in States where there is a daylong election process vs. a caucus?

    March 12, 2008 at 2:03 pm |
  15. Julia Hays from Pitman, NJ

    Absolutely not. The rules are in place for a reason. Plus, many voters from the two states did not vote because they figured their votes would not count. These two states should sit out of this game until they learn how to follow the rules.
    And Florida...really? Another election foul-up? Thanks.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:03 pm |
  16. Debra Canino

    The DEMOCRATIC PARTY wants to seat delegates that were not democratically elected (Michigan) Go Hillary!! They will have to re-vote and spend money that could be used paying off some of those foreclosures one hears them talk so much about. Obama will win anyway!!

    March 12, 2008 at 2:07 pm |
  17. JR Salazar

    Wait a minute, Jack. You mean to tell me those states are going count for SOMETHING after all? You're crazy.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  18. Dave from Mission Viejo,California

    No,no a thousand times no! Florida and Michigan did not the follow the rules – they should go to well, you know.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:09 pm |


    March 12, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  20. mi

    Absolutely not.

    This is what I get from the way Clinton is conducting her campaign:

    Rules do not apply to her. She can do whatever she wants in order to get what she wants.... “The end justifies the Means”. She reminds me a lot of how President Bush does not follow the constitution, or any kind of rule at all in order to achieve what he wants. And I have a huge problem with that.

    I really thought the American people were done with Bush and his kind of politics.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  21. Kevin From Peoria

    Howard Dean is taking cues from Limbaugh on this. Chaos is the rule. The Clintons have seized control of the party they are setting the DNC agenda not Howard Dean. The only question is whether this is silent support for the Clintons or evidence of being in over his head. He has not been decisive and now is forced to respond to the will of the Clintons as they define their advantage!

    Too little too late Now!
    Seat the delegates but who decides how? The DNC or the Clintons? that is the questions.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  22. Tara McKinney, Texas

    No! They were told what would happen if they broke the rules. They chose to break the rules. We reap what we sow now on with the show!

    March 12, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  23. LaTiffany Jenkins

    No, If we are going to do it over we should do it all over. Who is running this campaign stuff? Who ultimately makes these decisions? Is there any decency in american politics? I think not. Sen. Clinton has already had 2 terms in office. The american public should at least give obama a fair shot.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:12 pm |
  24. Ray Kinserlow

    The only way I would accept the validation of the Michigan and Florida delegates without a revote is if they were split evenly between Clinton and Obama.

    Ray Kinserlow
    Lubbock, Texas

    March 12, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
  25. Mary

    Jack, I feel that the votes and therefore delegates should be counted exactly as they were orginally cast. People had the opportunity to vote. They did so. They had their say. Now Mr. Obama wants a re-do, because he doesn't like the outcome. If he's raising so much cash, then he can pay for a re-vote instead of the taxpayers.

    Oh, and so all the bloggers that will respond to this know. Yes, I know Sen. Obama's name wasn't on the ticket in Michigan. It orginally was! He took his name off the ballot when he found out it wasn't going to count for delegates. That was his decision, not the decision of the party or the voters.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  26. onenibble

    Jack, yes the votes should count and the delegates should be seated.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  27. Deb from PA

    Split the pledged delegates in half and ban the state democratic leaders who created this mess. They are the ones who should be punished. Save money on a re-vote by splitting the delegates. Don't punish Obama for the States' problems

    March 12, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  28. Lelie, SanDiego

    Hillary won Florida hands down. Michigan should not count. A revote is probably the only logical solution to this whole mess anyway. But it would be a bigger concern if Hillary ends up losing Florida when she clearly won the first time.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  29. Bert, Iowa City, IA

    Counting Florida and Michigan votes without redoing the primaries would be a huge benefit to Hillary. If this happens, expect a large exodus of Obama supporters to a write-in or third party candidate or even to McCain, who, at least appears to be an honest joe compared to the Hillary tilt-and-whirl.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  30. Captain Noah , Magical Arc , Pa

    It's not that simple jack, like when we play musical chairs with the children when you take away a chair and the music stops.. there isn't a seat for you. it's the same with Florida & Michigan delegates the music has stopped.

    Captain Noah, Magical Arc , Pa

    March 12, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  31. David Kinney from Lexington, North Carolina

    No. There should be a revote. Disenfranchising voters is a very bad thing for the two states and the national parties.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  32. Bill, Quarryville, Pennsylvania

    If they're not willing to have it redone or a mail in type thing. Then they should be counted. I think they have to do one of the other.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  33. James in Cape Coral, FL

    Hell no! The people of Florida and Michigan never had a say in moving the primaries up, yet the people were punished. The DNC told the millions of registered democrates here that the delegates would not be seated, hence our votes would not count. Too many people, for reasons that were not our fault, never got to vote. With only one of the candidates on the ballot in Florida we also were given no choice if we did vote. How can it possibly be fare any other way then to do a total redo? Paid for by the people who screwed us to begin with, not the tax paying voters of Florida or Michigan who's government has again let us down.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  34. Nuwan Samaranayake

    All I care is that those people should not be penalized for what politicians in those states did. That is wrong. We need to get them participated in this process. Not because Hillary wants that. And Obama camp. should not talk against that too. How can this country preach democracy around the world if we don't follow it here. It is a real shame if we leave those two states out.

    Nuwan from Houston, Texas

    March 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  35. Elizabeth in Gregory, TX

    The people who should be seated are the ones who sold the idea of moving up the Florida and Michigan primary election date to the poor voters in those two states in the first place. Where should they be seated? In the principals office. This is a disgrace. Our voting system is being completely manipulated by politicians to sway elections. That's making all Americans sad because we know in the end our vote may not count because politicians keep changing the rules to make our votes and rules obsolete. No wonder our own kids don't believe adults anymore. There are no rules if it applies to that individual...... only if it applies to someone else.

    Gregory, TX

    March 12, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  36. Lori Sadowski


    The FL & MI delegates should absolutely NOT be seated without redoing. Obama was not even on the ticket in MI and did not campaign in FL. This is such a mess for the Democratic party. I live in MI and I think that FL & MI votes should not count. They didn't follow the rules and they knew there would be penalties. If Clinton wasn't such a power monger who really cared about the American people, the Democratic party and who can beat McCain in November, she would drop out of the race before the Democrats are so divided that McCain wins.

    from Battle Creek, MI

    March 12, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  37. Allen L Wenger

    No, Barack wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and nobody campaigned in either election. It looks like the Democratic party is trying to turn off their voters and insure a Republican victory this fall.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  38. Harry

    Either way, those votes would be irrelevant.

    Don't count them in the convention or watch the democrats lose in November.

    At this point, it no longer matters.


    March 12, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  39. Ronald Kepics

    Hi Jack:

    It's "THE HANGING CHAD" all over again. Michigan, well it's all that snow and ice. Maybe Florida and Michigan should be their own country. Michigan could be: "NORTH HANGING CHAD" and Florida could be: "SOUTH HANGING CHAD" ..

    In any event , the whole sorted mess is bound to be another nightmare.

    Ron K. San Diego

    March 12, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  40. W B in Las Vegas

    NO. they were warned by the DNC that their primary's would be invalid IF they moved them early. what part of "You Broke the Rules" do these people NOT understand? there needs to be some sort of revote for them to count. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan the first go around.

    the whole Clinton campaign argument for counting those two state's delegates as is, is just typical of their "Rules? We're the Clintons!!! WE don't need no stinking RULES!!!" attitude.

    it's one of many reasons why my wife and I would NEVER vote for Hillary.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  41. Anthony Cox-Minneapolis,MN

    No they should not rules are rules and they intentionally broke them. Jack you nailed it when you said any re-do vote or letting the votes stand as is would unduly undermine one or the other candidate. Many people you pointed didn't bother to vote because they knew it wouldn't count. The reason why Hillary is pushing for them is because she believes they will help her catch Obama in the delegate count and worse case scenario she can claim that Obama's nomination is tainted and not legitimate. Mark my words Florida and Michigan won't get seated as they shouldn't and Hillary and her gang will cry foul and say that Obama's nomination and probable presidency is tainted. Look, the Clintons are supposed to be the back bone of the Democratic Party and they will definitely break that backbone come convention time. There position is if Hillary isn't the nominee then Obama is not legitimate, etc etc.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  42. Carrie

    If a third-world country held an election where not all the candidates appeared on the ballot, candidates agreed not to campaign and voters were told this vote doesn't count - and then several months later the country decided to use those results anyway, the US would be the first to cry foul.
    The DNC should grow a spine. Tell Florida and Michigan to stop whining, schedule a primary election, allow the candidates to campaign and give everyone an opportunity to vote. Oh, and Florida and Michigan should pay the bill.

    Carrie, Wellesley, MA

    March 12, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  43. Nicki

    Wouldn’t it be better for Florida and Michigan to decide the next Democratic nominee, rather than the super delegates? Democrats should just admit that they’re in a fix, need a tie breaker, and do it already. It’s called problem-solving - seat the delegates, revote, whatever.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  44. Rosemarie Stone

    Florida and Michigan's vote should not count without a re-vote or some other fair formula applied. Barack Obama's name was not even on the ticket in Michigan. How do you consider that fair to deliver Hillary Clinton these delegates? In Florida, all Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign here. Since I am a resident of Florida, I know of several visits Hillary made to our State prior to the primary. In fact, news media published the fact that she held two private fundrasing campaigns in Floria on the evening of the primary. This, in essence, was stumping for votes. Again, this placed Barack Obama at a definite disadvantage. We either need a re-vote–not at the expense of the voters–or an equitable distribution of the delegates in order to get them seated at the DNC in August.
    Vero Beach, FL

    March 12, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  45. lou

    Its been stated over and over that both candidates have to agree on a final decision on what to do in this fiasco. Obama's camp will never agree to that so it is a moot point.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  46. John from Tennessee

    Yes,the voters voted in good faith. They made no agreement. Why should they be penalized? Not Clintons fault that Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan. No revote. Give Hillary her hard earned delegates.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  47. Richard, Toronto

    Those unseated delegates should be made super delegates for this season. While this might seem on the surface to be a reward, the amount of pressure the people of Michigan and Florida would exert on these freshly minted super delegates would be a form of Solomonic justice for defying the DNC and putting the party into this mess. It wouldn't cost a penny, and it would make for an interesting spectacle.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  48. Bruce

    Sure, why not? Russia, Cuba, Pakistan and Kenya are fixing elections. Why shouldn't we? And if she still doesn't have enough delegates you pull the supers into a back room and beat the crap out of them until they change their vote. Everybody else is doing it, aren't they? Welcome to the banana republic.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  49. rbrannan

    Florida Primary is a no brainer. The votes and delegates must be awarded and seated as is. Both candidates were on the ballot/on the playing field, and both were in the game/Primary and obeyed the same no-campaigning DNC rules. Howard Dean(an Obama supporter) says this would be an unfair disadvantage to Obama because Clinton had name recognition there.Many televised debates had been held and Obama had already won several states prior to this Primary. Floridians aren't that politically inept to not know what's going on in the rest of the U.S.. A Primary revote in Florida (mail-in or otherwise) would be a transparent device by the DNC/Dean to try to get more votes for Obama. If a Primary revote is allowed in Florida instead of awarding the votes/delegates as is, then revote all previous caucuses as Primaries since as the Texas 2 step proved, Clinton has a disadvantage in caucuses. Her core of working middle class and seniors are unfairly limited by a 2hour caucus framework. Therefore, to appease DNC/Dean's mind set, award and count Florida's Primary as is (supposed disadvantage Obama) and revote Michigan's Primary as a caucus (proven disadvantage Clinton). RB in PA

    March 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  50. QUEEN ESTHER ohio

    why should we reward them for exhibiting poor judgement and execution of a plan which they knew would end in a bad result. tell them to stop crying and get over it. i watched florida stop counting votes in 2000 and now its their turn to cry. i watched them hijack my country and deliver us to the devil. tell them to just sit in the corner that they deserve. they made this bed let them deal with it let their citizens next time throw the bumbs out who created this mess. let them clean up and then talk about what is right. have a nice day

    March 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  51. marylee atlanta,ga

    Come on Jack,didn't you learn how to follow the rules back in grade school? A rule is a rule! The states are the ones who are at fault here. The votes should not count!

    March 12, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  52. ward

    Yes they should I hope that this teaches the parties to follow the rules.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  53. Randy Rivas

    Absolutely! no matter how you do it! those votes should count, The Democratic party should'nt penalize the the voters of the state of Florida simply because some politicians wanted to get the jump on the country. they meant well! simply because the last time, The election was so close between Bush and Gore they wanted to avoid another debacle like before maybe next time they should put it to a vote of the people of the state of Florida which sounds silly but if it will make everyone happy then why not?.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  54. Chris Long Grove IL

    Whatever the decision is with FL and MI, it should be fair and abide by the rules. Michigan should definitely NOT seat the delegates as is. For God's sake Barack's name wasn't even on the ballot. Florida's a different story. At least do a caucus in Michigan. Of course, Hillary won't have any of that since she (for some reason) cannot handle a caucus. As long as it's fair, let's make the citizens of FL and MI count for something. Jack, you are the man, keep reporting the truth like you always do!

    March 12, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  55. BJ Smith

    Yes, but it has to be absolutely fair.It must also be done by both sides, not just by supporters of one candidate that is being touted at the moment.

    BJ Seminole, FL

    March 12, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  56. Joe in DE

    Yes. They should give Obama a few dlegates and call it done.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  57. Eric

    The rules were clearly established prior to the original vote- NO DELEGATES. Only after the corination flopped, does Hillary want a "re-vote" ...this is a clear example of democratic politicians re-defining rules of the game when they are loosing....POINT THAT OUT!!!

    Can you imagine the gleefull reporting CNN would provide should the same have happened with a Republican primary? The media would be crying foul then for sure....

    March 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  58. Sandi


    Yes, I do think the delegates should be seated without redoing the elections. Hillary had the foresight to include her name on the ballots knowing they may not count. Maybe she looked ahead and realized there would be problems so decided to get her name in the pot just in case. For the rest of them who just looked away and walked on by...ya snooze, ya lose!

    March 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  59. Bagger Vance , Palm Beach , Fla


    They can do a Mulligan in Florida because of the powerful GOLFERS LOBBY... but Michigan is gonna be a hardsell... it would be like reassembling a Detroit Automobile as it leaves the line.

    Bagger Vance , Palm Beach , Fla

    March 12, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  60. Elise

    In every aspect of our lives there are consequences. From driving down the right side of the road, to being a bully in the classroom. What makes the democratic party, and Hillary Clinton, think that rules should be ignored? From a 59 yr old, white, retired teacher, no they should not be seated. Let the elected members of the states that moved the date, knowing there would be consequences, take the hit and let the general population re-elect someone who can follow the rules. And no, I will not vote for a democrat to be elected if Obama does not win the nomination, no matter how much I want NCLB to go away.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  61. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    No and there should not be a redo either. This would set a precedent for the next time we have primaries;i.e. In 2012 Texas wants to move it's two step process up to Jan 4th so they can get more of the money from the campaign and the DNC takes away their delgates, there would be no choice but to redo or count them. My thought is that the people of Florida and Michigan should recall the Governors and oust all that set this in motion. What goes around comes around.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  62. Don in Grand Rapids, Mi

    N) count and NO Revote, These Democrats vilated arty rules, the voters knew that when they voted and the only reason Hillary kept her name on the ballot was to use this ploy to steel the nomination!

    March 12, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  63. Felton from "around the way"

    No..they definitely should not...RULES ARE RULES. !!.. the ones responsible for pushing up the primary dates should be the ones taking the heat...obviously they ignore the rules, so I guess they were "ready before day one".

    March 12, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  64. TRUTHSEEKER in Boston

    Yes they should be seated and they should be divided equally between Barack and Hillary. A very simple solution which is why it probably why it will be ignored.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  65. Tom, Avon, Maine, The Heart of Democracy

    If the delegates are allocated to the current percentages of delegates to candidates, it would seem fair.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  66. Tina Ft Worth

    No. They broke the law and when you break the law you need to pay the piper. They must do a recount and then go from there.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  67. Damian

    Of Course!
    Millions should NOT be disenfranchised – deprive of the right to vote'!

    And that it EXACTLY what will happen if the votes in Florida and Michigan are NOT either counted or re-done!

    It seems to be very clear that Obama is NOT in this for the people, but only for himself. Otherwise he would actively throw all his support behind the effort to ensure that the votes of the electorate in Florida and Michigan counted, one way or another.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  68. Fred Whipple , Shopnbag , Michigan


    As a native Michiganzer i would be okay with letting the origal count stand but, Florida is a different situation. most of the voting population is either on prescription medication or suffering from CRS...* CAN'T REMEMBER STUFF *

    Fred Whipple , Shopnbag, Michigan

    March 12, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  69. Elise Chapoton

    There are always consequences for our actions, from driving down the right side of the street to bullying in the classroom. No, the delegates from MI and Florida should not be seated. Let the elected officials who defied the rules and regulations and take the hit. Maybe they will not be elected for their next term in office. And no, I will not vote for Hillary if Obama is not the nominee. No matter how much I want NCLB to go away as a retired, white, older teacher.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  70. Wilma, in Georgia




    HILLARY 2008 !

    March 12, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  71. Doreen Gajewski

    Absolutely not. You can't change the rules after people voted thinking that the delegates would not be seated. I agree with Obama's position.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  72. April in texas

    Well well I will quote what Clinton said and that is " Hold her accountable" (she has said this a number of times at her rallys) and due to all parties signing and agreeing FL and MI would not count. Wonder if she will do as she stated then? Things that don't benefit Clinton does not mean the rules can change. I feel bad for FL and MI but that should be taken up with the political figures there as they are the ones who decided to move up primaries and they are the ones who if anyone disenfranchised them. Remember everyone will still be able to vote in the general election even those in FL and MI. Just remember when state elections come up again who really disenfranchised you folks.

    Obama '08

    March 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  73. WH, Illinois

    Yes!! I don't feel sorry for the people who CHOSE not to vote. That was their choice and no one forced it upon them to not take the time to vote. But I am completely against penalizing the people in FL and MI as they are not the ones who made a calculated, power-driven decision which caused the votes to "not count". The people should not be punished for that....Howard Dean and the governors should be held solely responsible for it.

    Since Obama's name was on the ballot in Fl, seat the original votes cast as they were. For MI, give Hillary the votes that she earned and give Barack the votes that were for the "uncommitted". The votes for Edwards could be split 50-50. Both candidates lost SOME votes due to their careless decision to not vote, but the Obama camp is making it out to be like the only person who lost a ton of votes was Obama. And the Obama voters are supposed to be the "educated" ones?? If you chose not to vote because you didn't think the votes would count, just exactly how educated are you??? That was a really, really stupid thing to do.....

    March 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  74. Grant from Reno, NV


    No, they shouldn't. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan! You have to lump him and John Edwards under the 40% who voted "Uncommitted." Here’s a voice for the Clintons to “carry to Washington”: I'm uncommitted to letting you get away with this. I'm uncommitted to the idea of having a president who will use both fear (the 3am ad, Muslim ambiguity, Ferraro’s racist words) and disenfranchisement as words to scare up support and votes. If Florida and Michigan are counted without a revote, I'm uncommitted to voting Democrat in November.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  75. Lori Iowa

    Sure and give all the delegates to Clinton. She is the candidate to beat in November. I am proud of her and all she stands for. She has run a great campaign and she will fight for me and my family. She will repair this great nation from the bonehead republican parties great destructive policy of the past 8 years. Rise Hillary Rise!!

    March 12, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  76. Richard Sternagel

    Why all the fuss over the Florida and Michigan delegates? Did they not know the rules and chose not to abide by them?Talk about accountability, where is it? All this because Hillary wants to win at any cost even if the Democratic Party goes down in Flames !

    March 12, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  77. Rosalynd

    Fl and MI should only count without a revote if they are split 50/50. If there is a revote, the DNC should take the route the Republicans did and take half the delegates away as a punishment for moving up the primaries. These 2 states should not be allowed to break the rules and get away with all their delegates for the convention.

    Orlando Florida

    March 12, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  78. Nicole from Milwaukee, Wisconsin

    The ideal of a democracy is that the will of the people be heard. The original DNC rule that contradicted this by stripping two states of their delegates, and thus the voters of their fair say, was a stupid and undemocratic rule to begin with. Should there be a revote to assign the delegates of these two states, ideally yes. If there's not, then the delegates should be seated anyway, record numbers of voters turned out in both states even though they had been told their votes didn't matter, clearly they wanted democracy to be served.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  79. Rosalynd

    Fl and MI should only count without a revote if they are split 50/50. If there is a revote, the DNC should take the route the Republicans did and take half the delegates away as a punishment for moving up the primaries. These 2 states should not be allowed to break the rules and get away with all their delegates for the convention.

    Orlando Florida

    March 12, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  80. Keith

    Should delegates from Florida and Michigan be seated without redoing the elections in those two states?

    How could you, Jack, when the results from the first election were meaningless, and EVERYBODY knew it?

    That includes YOU, Hillary!

    I know something has to be done because it's not the voters' fault... But, it must be fair to BOTH candidates.

    Stupid, arrogant, politicians, making stupid choices – as usual.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  81. bob

    Sure the count is 50/50. dot. com

    March 12, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  82. Troy from Springfield IL

    There is a fundamental problem with allowing the FL & MI delegates to count: If they do not enforce the current rules, in future primaries those rules will become unenforcable.

    Changing the rules for FL and MI sets a precident that other states may exploit. If other states choose to stray from the DNC rules, who's to stop them?

    It's bad policy to allow the FL and MI delegates at all.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  83. Davis - Minneapolis

    No: (1) Everyone knew the rules; (2) There was no campaigning in the states: (3) Obama was not even on the ticket. Why is this so hard for people to get. How is it fair to seat those delegates. I suppose it says something about the inherent unfairness of our system.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  84. Bernadette from Chicago

    I think we should skip the counts in these states. The money that may have been set aside for the revote could then go to Children's Healthcare. After all, children come first. Isn't that right Hillary and Barack?

    March 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  85. Jerry/Louisiana

    Absolutely not. Michigan and Florida shouldn't count, and they should not be given the opportunity to re-vote. The state leaders were well aware of the rules when they decided to break them. Allowing them to change the rules is like telling a criminal that we would pardon their criminal offense because they felt it was unfair to be punished for committing a crime. Now, what would the world be like if we did that?

    March 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  86. John in San Diego

    Jack, we all know that something will be worked out by the DNC and the two Governors involved. But we all also know that these same Governors and their legislatures were willig parties to making the bed they are now uncomfortable sleeping in. They disregarded the consequences to their constituents when they disregarded the Party's rules. The rules should be respected and everyone should be spared the expense of any sort of do-over.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  87. BEN from NC

    Jack, I dont think so because they should have their own voice heard. Doing that is not democracy, it is just like not having your voice heard in some countries like Cuba. If we are the United States we ought to do better. Let the people voice be heard.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  88. Jorge from Monterey, California

    No.... unless they are split 50/50 and then they can be seated!! that was an ilegal election! unless the DNC its ready to nominate a candidate based on an ilegal election!!

    March 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  89. Denise

    Here's the deal. These delegates should be divided amongst the candidates. Other than that, I do not think there should be a revote. These states knew going in, if they moved their primaries their delegates would not count. So, I am not understanding the crying now. It's like suing McDonald's for making you fat. They were told the rules.

    Louisville, KY
    Obama '08

    March 12, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  90. Nora. South Texas

    Obama was not on the ballet and he did not campaign in the other state. What about John Edwards, how fair is that to him, he is already out, how do we know what would of happened if things would of been done the right way in those states. Only one person gets an advantage if that happens, but what the heck maybe that is what this is all coming down too.

    March 12, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  91. Pat S

    I think the voter is being punished because of the decisions by state and party leaders. This is a theft. The voters are registered and have the righ to vote. I believe that right is much more important than a date on the calendar. The voters are the ones trying to stretch their hard earned dollars in an economy that is robbing them at the gas pumps and grocery shelves. The voters are the ones that have rising health cost. It is time the right to vote was honored by all.

    Pat S

    Warner Robins

    March 12, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  92. D.J.Lauter

    They should absolutely not be counted without a re-vote. Many stayed away from voting because they were told that their votes wouldn't be counted, so who knows who they would have voted for. Since Obama wasn't even on the ballot, he had no votes at all, and it isn't fair to count only Hillarys votes.
    Ojai, California

    March 12, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  93. kimberley

    no, is the U.S.A. not a democracy???

    March 12, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  94. Maria, Byron Center MI

    YES YES YES!!!!

    Defending DEMOCRACY should be the priority and people from Michigan and Florida have the same rights as the rest of the country.

    Yes, MI and FL officials broke the democratic party rules, but the democratic party should have them pay or it, why us citizens should pay?

    The right to vote and be heard through the vote, it's way more important to protect, than the rules of one political party.

    WE ARE NOT second class citizens.

    Maria, from Michigan

    March 12, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  95. Donna Richardson

    When you start denying votes because you think you have the right to tell each state when they can or cannot hold their primary, you are infringing on their rights and as a Democrat I find that really offensive. Why is the Obama campaign afraid to allow revoting in MI and FL? Are they afraid they will lose because he is running out of steam?

    March 12, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  96. Anthony

    I believe that the rule was made and any attempt to change is dirty politics! I initially voted for Sen. Clinton but wouldn't do so if forced to revote by mail or by another primary.

    Weston Florida

    March 12, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  97. George Wilson

    Even though I would like to see Hillary get the nomination, i don't think it would be democratic to seat the delegates unless there is a revote. There would always be the taint , or a bad taste should you just concede the delegates to Hillary without a revote. Whats fair is fair !!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  98. Randy Porter Mo.

    Yes. The last I heard was Florida and Michigan, both were still part of the U.S.. I not only think their votes should stand as is, but I don`t think it would be fair to the voters to have to re-vote. It`s not the average voters fault that this is happening. The DNC in all of their widom, has created an atmoshere of distrust. We all have the rifgt to vote, and they did. If it wasn`t going to count, then why did they even provide the voters with ballots? Why did CNNeven cover the democratic numbers in those two states? It`s only an issue, because Obama chose to take his name off of the ballot. I repeat. It was his choice to take his name off. The only one who cheated Obama was Obama himself.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  99. Karen - LasVegas

    NO!! They knew the rules. Both Obama and Clinton signed the agreement to not recognize both Florida and Michigan. Yet, Florida and Michigan chose to spend their tax payers money to hold the primaries anyway. Shame on them, no sympathy here.
    Why would any state follow the rules in the future if these two are allowed to break the rules? The voters knew upfront that their votes would not be counted. Hillary needs to stop whining like the spoiled brat that she is.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  100. Aaron B.; Champaign, IL

    Split the convention seats 50/50 and send their representatives to detention.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  101. Patricia

    Since the Florida legislature moved their primary vote to January they knew what they were doing to the Dems.So... I say that since Sen. Obama didn't campaign in either Florida or Michigan, he should be given a chance to campaign & yes, both Florida & Michigan should be allowed a "do over"...

    March 12, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  102. Roger

    yes or have them revote,jack ask obama why his people dont want a revote and have him explain himself where the people of these states can understand his reason to keep them out of the election.i am tired of seeing the news media giving him a free ride,jack you are very unbecoming when you mention the name clinton and automaticly turn into a rabid dog,i hope you have been vacinated,,,,,ROGER COLUMBIA LOUISIANA

    March 12, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  103. Marsha

    No need for a revote in Florida. They were both on the ticket, and neither campaigned. Michigan only needs a revote because Obama wasn't on the ticket.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  104. Dave from GA

    The very fact that we're all currently suffering under an administration that doesn't play by the rules makes it all the more embarrassing that the atmosphere has been created for this question to even be posed. The only decent way out of this mess is for Florida and Michigan to accede to the delegate ban until a nominee is chosen. Once that's done, the nominee should invite both delegations to be seated at the national convention, and to cast their votes in the spirit of party unity.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  105. Nanthu

    FL and MI are the problems for the DNC and not for others. The democrats must respect and follow the DNC and that will be the right way to solve the issues.

    The decisions of the state governments cannot be acceptable because those state governments failed to consult the DNC. The primaries are entirely an issue for the PARTY. Party set rules to follow and not to brake.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  106. Sterling Greenwood

    Not unless both states vote again on a level table.

    Sterling Greenwood
    Aspen Free Press
    Aspen, Co., 81611

    March 12, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  107. mitchell martin ark.

    no! too many michiganites and floridians accepted the punishment ,[for their state governments stupidity and political greed],and refused to vote,because they were told that if they did vote ,on those days,that it would not matter,and wouldn't count.florida should've known better after the 2000 debacle,and both states ,had they stuck to the rules,may have had a major say in who the nominee is.sorry,but greed can sometimes bring instant karma to those who are not careful!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  108. L.M.,Arizona

    No rules are rules what Connecticut and Arizona can decide to do their senator races over again to get rid of senators that don't represent them.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  109. Christian Chicago, IL

    They should be seated only if the DNC is unable to organize a primary or mail-in primary. If the DNC fails to do one of those three things, then they will pay by losing those two states in the general election and probably the White House as well. It's not good enough that the delegates be split up evenly between the two candidates because they would be nullifying the voice of the people and disenfranchising millions of voters who cast a ballot for their candidate. Keep in mind that this is the Republicans fault in Florida, not the people; why should the people be punished?

    March 12, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  110. Jed from Chico, CA

    We have become obsessed with this because the two states that violated the rules and must be punished are -Florida- and -Michigan-. If the two states that violated the rules were say Utah and Wyoming I doubt that many people would care. Should the rules change because those states have more people or because they're potetial battleground states in the fall?


    March 12, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  111. paul W.Dc


    Let the people vote. If you sustitute the names Florida and Michigan with the word women and then ask the question " should women's vote count "? the answer is pretty clear. People all over the world have died for the right to vote and many Americans have died to give that right to others. Nobody has to shed blood in this case, just shed the rules and let the people's vote count.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  112. Elariia, TX

    The Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated. Period. They broke the rules and knew the consequences of breaking them. What? Are rules meant to be broken? If Florida and Michigan get a revote, I'd like them to go all the way and conduct a revote for the 2000 election between Gore and Bush.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  113. Kris Koliwad

    They should not, for one reason. Edwards or Richardson would have won both Michigan and Florida. That would have altered significantly their decision to withdraw. Both are honorable people and they played by the rules.


    March 12, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  114. Jeremy

    Should their votes count! Are you kidding me? This is another underhanded attempt by the Clinton administration to try to hoodwink and bamboozle the American people. They couldn't win the battle with the rules in place. So now they are desperately seeking alternatives. These are the Bush/Rove politics we are all sick and tired of.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  115. Lee from Jacksonville, FL

    How can anyone take the governors of Michigan or Florida seriously? Does anyone really believe they would be leading the charge for a redo if it did not further their agenda? This has nothing to do with the voters and everything to do with the Democratic establishment supporters of Hillary (Michigan’s Granholm) combined with the Republican supporters of McCain (Florida’s Crist) who prefer a McCain's chances in a run against Hillary.

    It is laughable for the Hillary supporters to say Florida results should stand because Obama’s name was on the ballot. She is so disingenuous! Does she deny she had the enormous advantage of name recognition? And where was her demand for all voters to count BEFORE it looked like it might work for HER! NO redo—but an reasonable amended punishment might be to split the delegates 50/50. This avoids the expense, the potential for mischief and thievery, but allows MI and FL delegates to join the party in Denver. I cannot see another scenario that is both fair and accounts for the fact Michigan and Florida knew the rules and knowingly ignored them.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  116. Sam Foster, Katy Texas

    While I feel for the people in those states they need to be taking action against the guilty parties and not against the other 48 states and Mr. Obama that played by the rules. Their Gov. and party officials made this decision full well knowing, and accepting, the consequence. For HIllary Clinton to now use, and twist, these facts because she is losing is nothing short of an outrage. If the shoe had been on the other foot and Obama had held fundraisers in FL. and remained on both ballots? We would have gone back in a time a few weeks to the ranting crazy Hillary we all saw on television.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  117. Melanie, Lake Wales,FL

    My family and a friend, that's 4 people, didn't bother to vote for Obama because we knew our votes wouldn't count. Imagine how many more are in this position? So either it's not counted, or we get the right to vote!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  118. Jennifer

    The DNC has rules. They votes should not be counted as RULES ARE RULES!! It shows alot about the Clinton Campaign wants them to count even Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Do Rules matter anymore! What message do we send to the kids in this country when rules and laws no longer matter?

    March 12, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  119. ajks

    No delegates should be seated without a new election. The governing bodies of Michigan and Florida knew the consequences of their actions when they moved the primaries forward. They are like two little kids who have been told by the parents what will happen when if they do something wrong. They didn't think Dad and Mom would follow through with the necessary punishment. Sometimes we have to suffer the consequences of our actions for the good of everybody. If their states want to pay for new primaries, then the delegates can be seated. The only other realistic and fair answer would be to divide the delegates down the middle for each candidate.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  120. tco

    At this point, it may be better to seat the delegates without assigning them to any particular candidate and letting them vote for the candidate of their choosing on the convention floor. It certainly couldn't be any more chaotic than the mess the Dems have now.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  121. Dave Brooklyn, NY

    No. They shouldn’t be seated and they shouldn’t redo the elections either – rules are rules. If they aren’t going to count then don’t make them.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  122. Jerry


    As a former resident of Chicago-------


    Roselle, Illinois

    March 12, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  123. Norman- AL

    If the delegates are seated without some sort of re-do it would be time to get a raft and float to Cuba. The DNC set rules and the states disobeyed the rules. The voters should have their say in the contest and should punish then later punish thier local leaders for placing them in that position with a vote!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  124. Mike S., New Orleans

    No! Either revote or toss the results in the river. Anyone getting the delegates based on unrecognized primaries will never be considered a legitimate candidate. If they count Michigan and Florida as is, they might as well hand McCain the Oval Office now.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  125. Jeff / MO

    Hey Jack,

    We all have been taught from the time we were toddlers starting to play with other children that you have to follow the rules. So since these 2 states didn't follow the rules, I don't think they should be able to contribute in anyway to the election. I do feel sorry to a point for the people of these 2 states. But then again, who elected these 2 governors? You must sleep in the bed you made.....

    March 12, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  126. Ron Richmond

    Well, lets see, without them no one has the required votes, hmmmmm? I'm going to go with, only if they want someone to win!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  127. Jed from Chico, CA

    We should not lump Florida and Michigan together in the same category. Their situations are not identical.

    Florida has a strong case to make that all their delegates should be seated as-is. None of the candidiates officially campaigned in the state and all of them were on the ballot. The decision to move up the primary date was a decision made by a Republican governor and a Republican state government, plus the vote was tied to an important bill that updated the state's voting machines. Also playing in Florida's favor is that a proper primary will cost around $25 million and even if someone was willing to pay for it, there's no way it could be organized and executed by June.

    Michigan on the other hand made their decision with the Democrats running the show. Only Hillary and the snowball's chance candidates were on the ticket. A do-over in Michigan is also quite thrify compared to Florida. Unless they re-vote, Michigan should not be seated at the convention.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  128. Simone from New Jersey

    Absolutely not. Many people did not vote because they knew the delegates wouldn't be seated. How is this fair to them? And if they split the delegates, who are they representing? Michigan and Florida governments need to take responsibility for their poor judgement and set an example: when you agree to rules and then break them, you're out of the game. Period.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  129. Sandi from Grand Rapids, Michigan

    As a democratic Michigan voter, I really think we HAVE to do something to count Michigan. But not for the reasons you might think...

    What people in other states don't realize, is the fact that our Governor, Jennifer Granholm is a HUGE Hillary supporter. And it's common knowledge in Michigan, that when Jennifer Granholm's last term is up, because of term limits, she planned to work for Hillary.

    We did break the rules, but it's not like we VOTED to jump in early. Our state leadership, under Jennifer Granholm, decided to do it without our approval. Then, lucky her...her buddy Hillary ended up being the only one on the ticket!

    As far as the country goes, whoever wins, the loser can claim it could have gone another way if we don't count Michigan and Florida. And we don't need that.

    So please, count Michigan! Not as a favor to us, but as a way to teach Granholm & Hillary a lesson! Let the people vote, let the process work, and let's focus on getting the right Democrat in the White House. Go Obama!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  130. Kim NY

    This is a no brainer.It cost too much to redo the voting.and it would be unfair to give Hillary the votes she got in Florida without Obama getting the chance to campaign there.The voters in Florida based thier votes soley on commercials..or wait..didn't Hillary go there anyway ? Lets not let this wench steal the election .The only solution is to split the delegates that would have been available had the 2 states not broken the rules.half go to Hillary and Half to Obama.That way the states count or..Just leave it as it is,both states out and niegther count.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  131. jan

    The first vote should count. If you people really think Obama did not know his campaign ads were running in Florida,then I have some land in the everglades to sell you. Also, was there a blackout at CNN in Florida? Those people deserve a say in choosing the next president as much as you "upper income college bloggers" with your hand on the mouse 24/7.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  132. Tabitha R

    No way!! I can understand the voters frustration and anger, but I think that it is misplaced. The voters of Michigan and Florida should be angery with their party leaders in those states. They are the ones who disenfranchised the voters! Call for their resignations! They knew long before the primaries were held in their states that their votes would not count and they went ahead and moved up the date. This is another perfect example of politicians thinking that they do not have to follow the rules. We try to teach our children the difference between right and wrong, but apparently politicians think that they are above the people. We need to oust the corrupt and stand up for what is right. Greed caused this situation and now everyone has to live with the consequences. Citizens/voters need to get involved at all stages of the political process. Why didn't the voters say, "This is not right! My vote needs to count! If you move up the date, you silence my voice and that is NOT ok!" What's done is done. It is time to move on.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  133. Bill

    It was two different situations. Michigan should have a revote. Florida should not. It is that simple, but people want to focus on Florida. All the candidate appeared on the ballot in Florida and all had to follow the same rules. If Obama was unknown at the time he wouldn't have come in ahead of John Edwards. I don't believe pundits who say hundreds of Obama supporters skipped the Florida primary because they thought it wouldn't count. Come on they knew whoever won Florida would use it as symbolic victory!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  134. EJ in MD

    What a horrible lesson we are sending our young people! If your not winning and you have power just change the rules to suit your wants! If Hillary was ahead in the delegate count this would be a non-issue! Why else do we have rules. The elected officials from both of those states should be standing in the same unemployment line as Spitzer!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  135. Linda Lilly

    Michigan voters should "stick their guns"

    Many residents of Michigan feel that there should be a national primary. We were told by Carl Levin and Debby Dingle that our primary was being moved up to make this point. Senator Levin said that we are “the first log on the fire”. We got burned, but we knew the consequences of our actions. A do-over in Michigan would dilute our argument. We Michiganders should take our lumps, stick by our principles and keep pushing for a national primary in 2012.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  136. William Henderson

    Yeah I say seat the delegates. Just give them both half the delegates and give Barak the Uncommitted vote. No need to spend any money. do it fast like ripping off a band aid. Howard Dean needs to be presidential here or somebody does. Is there a President in the House?

    Bill H. Long Island, NY

    March 12, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  137. chuck cornett

    Jack, The DNC set up rules about this and Florida&Michigan chose to ignore them as well as the Clinton campaign what arroganceon their part.So now they pay the penalty for this.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  138. Linda Lilly


    Many residents of Michigan feel that there should be a national primary. We were told by Carl Levin and Debby Dingle that our primary was being moved up to make this point. Senator Levin said that we are “the first log on the fire”. We got burned, but we knew the consequences of our actions. A do-over in Michigan would dilute our argument. We Michiganders should take our lumps, stick by our principles and keep pushing for a national primary in 2012.

    Linda Lilly, Ann Arbor, Michigan

    March 12, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  139. Ro

    NOT without a revote. Too many didn't bother to vote in a beauty contest and it would not be an accurate representation. It's either split the delegates or conduct a revote. The rules were broken and no one should be rewarded for that debacle.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  140. Al Palmdale, California

    I think to include any weigh-in by Florida or Michigan would be a mistake. However, the citizens of those states should look at the persons, and reasons the dates were moved up knowing there would be a problem, and let them know what they think when these folks are up for re-election. If voters adapted this simple form of retribution, we could weed out the 'non-hackers', and get this country back on track. Might take a while, but then, there is a lot of clean up to do.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  141. Frank

    No they should not do any kind or re-vote!!

    The Democratic party leadership in each state should resign in discrace for screwing the voters out of their chance to have a say.


    March 12, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  142. Mary Thalison

    The DNC set the rules lets play by the rules. Mary Michigan

    March 12, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  143. Michael


    Listening to Florida and Michigan complain about their delegations is like trying to reason with a five year old child. Let me break it down for you, plain and simple. Your elected officials broke the rules, now you must face the consequences. If we bend the rules for you, we have to bend the rules for everybody, which would cause chaos in future primaries. Therefore, you should vent your frustration towards your representative, not one particular presidential candidate or party. To change this, show up in November and display your dissatisfaction through the power of your vote.

    P.S. Welcome to Obama's world of change through the power of the people. Read up and find out HOW and WHAT we are goiing to change so government can get some common sense back again!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  144. Al, Lawrence KS

    If Obama gets the undecided delegates from Michigan, then he should "In the interest of party unity" allow the delegates to count. The difference right now is about 50 or so delegates in Clinton's favor, and would not seriously effect Obama's delegate lead. Obama could be the party unifyer, and save the Democratic party the resources it will need in the fall election. Obama could become the moral winner and party healer in the back and forth over this issue.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  145. Keith

    Yes, the delegates must be seated in some manner, to not do this risks losing both of these states to the Republicans in the fall. The delimna if there is no revote, which looks more and more to be the case is how do you equitably seat the delegates.

    There was no sanctioned contest that represents the people, in MI Obama was not on the ballot; neither candiate campaigned; millions of voters in MI and FL did not participate because they were told it would not count. Therefore using the results in either of the states is just plain wrong to the democratic process. Either seat them based on proportion of the delegates and/or popular vote after all primaries are completed or split them 50/50.
    Keith – TX

    March 12, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  146. Michel Cyr

    I Think there should be an authenthic primary in Florida and Michigan.If not,all super delegates should have to put their votes behind the one who leads at the present;.In this way the people of these states could say that their vote counted.


    March 12, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  147. Kim NY

    LOL ...I love what Enrique Olivares posted above...the guy needs to run for office..maybe as an ambassador.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  148. Rex in Portland, Ore.

    Re-vote yes. Count without voting again? No.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  149. Maggie

    I'm 64 years old. I'v seen JFK killed, and also MLK killed, does Obama think , that this won't happen to him to. I hear people around , in the malls or supermarkets that he has a death wish.,but we all thought we have trouble , with the black gangs , just wait and see what happens when and if he becomes President, GOD HELP US

    March 12, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  150. AG, Erie

    So if Obama gets the nomination without Florida and Michigan delegates will Hillary Democrats start crying that he stole the nomination like the whole Party cries over Bush winning in 2000? Just a question for the hypocrites who won't let Michigan and Florida have a voice. Remember, back then Florida and Michigan had a voice in the election..... Wait, I just thought of it. That's why the Democrats don't want to count Florida. It's payback!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  151. Mary Mansour

    My opinion is that Michigan should be seated but Florida has something of the Mark of Judas about it. They should not be seated for at least ten more years as a result of stealing a national election in 2000 with the help of their governor (Jeb Bush) and that horse faced secretary of state Catherine Harris or as I call her 'Secretariat'. Don't mean to cast aspersions on that wonderful horse.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  152. Terry from North Carolina

    NO !!! These two states broke the rules and should suffer the consequences of their actions. However I am sure " back room politics " will enter into this one, a deal will be made and Clinton will reap the benefits. This is getting out of hand.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  153. Ed

    Sure, let's go ahead and seat them after they knowingly broke the rules. We let NCAA teams play for national championships after they break the rules, we let NASCAR teams race for the title after they break the rules, we let the Patriots play in the superbowl after they broke ther rule, why not let these states count in something a minor as an election? After all, it's not how you play the game, it wether you win or not that matters. When did Amercia turn into a Banana Republic?

    March 12, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  154. Chuck

    Jack, as far as I'm concerned those two elections were as bogus as
    what went on in Florida in the 2000 election. I am an independent, but
    up until recently I would have voted for whomever won the Democrat nomination.
    After a month of observing Hillary's shenanigans, I will not vote period
    if she gets the nomination unless Barrack splits with the party and
    runs as an independent, in which case I'll be happy to help campaign
    for him pro bono publico.
    She has reminded me once again that the Clintons will throw
    the rules out the window as they would a baby with its bathwater
    when it serves their agenda.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  155. Marion

    We must re-do the elections. To do otherwise is disinfranchising all those democratic voters who were informed enough to realize their vote wasn't going to count at that time. Also, the candidates weren't allowed to campaign so that was another reason counting the votes would be unfair. Hillary, a household name, vs. Obama, a relative unknown, made the playing field uneven. Obama's name wasn' even on the ballot in one of the states. The Clintons want to change the rules to suit their advantage.


    March 12, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  156. Ben

    The DNC obvioulsy thought this would go quick and that leaving out these states would bear no influence, in hindsite, they needed to work more with the states up front instead of totally shutting them out. However, Florida and Michigan shouldn't be allowed to sit at the convention, revote or not; the DNC should stand by their decision, and in four years, should use the lessons learned with other potential front loaders.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  157. gina dadomo, MA

    Hell no Jack, they knew the rules before they went for this , you can"t change the rules mid-stream.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  158. Kevin- Webster, MA

    Absolutly not ! Rules are rules. If they can 't include all the voters and all the canidates in a redo then abide by the original agreement. What about tax record reporting? That isn't happening either. Clintons should start playing by the rules or be rejected from the election. She cant have the point spread of the NY giants superbowl score as delegates either.

    Why not give McCain all the votes he got in 2000.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  159. Peg Duncan

    Absolutely not. I didn't vote because it didn't count and I wasn't aware that I could vote uncommitted. I'm sure many people in both states didn't bother to vote because the DNC said there would be no delegates. I don't believe there should be a re-do. There were rules and no means no and it seems ridiculous to spend millions of dollars when it won't really affect the results. Split the delegates 50-50 and be done with it.

    Traverse City, MI

    March 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  160. Roland Smith

    Sure is interesting how Michigan Snow Birds pick up all the good habits of their winter buddies in the Sunshine State. Michigan Birds don't even get all the names on the ballot! Seems to me Michigan and Florida made their own beds, and as for me, count me out of the fall election if they don't come up with an equaible solution.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  161. Jonathan from Toronto, Canada

    Aboslutely not, the two states broke DNC rules. To add to that, not all of the candidates (Obama) were on the ballots in Michigan. It's very simple: When the party tells you to hold the primaries on a specific date, you hold them on that date. It's unfortunate those voters are excluded but it's a problem they should take up with those who jumped the gun. Rules are meant to be followed, not broken.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  162. Abhishek

    Yes, both states should be revoted, but it should be primary not caucuses or mail in votes because then Hillary will loose.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  163. kevin

    Dear Jack, Absolutely not!! If they can't play by the rules,then the voters know what they need to do.The next time those hacks come up for re-election,VOTE THEM OUT!!!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  164. Bill in Virginia Beach

    Both Clinton and Obama agreed not to campaign in Michigan and Florida, and neither of them did. Both of them had their names on the ballots in both states, but Obam's people withdrew his name in Michigan; this was a tactially dumb thing to do, but it was thier doing. The people in both states voted in their primaries in large numbers on the day that they were able to vote so this original vote should count. Neither Obama or the DNC should be whining that there should be "take overs."

    March 12, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  165. Mildred

    Yes, I think Florida and Michigan need to have a redo on their vote. No one is going to be satisfied unless that happens. Keeping Florida and Michigan out was stupid to start with, but lets make something right now – cost – since when has that ever stopped anyone from doing anything – everyone has lots of money, that is everyone in the govenment.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  166. Vinnie Vino

    Sure, you get only one vote. Hillary won both states playing by the rules set by the DNC. If anyone should be punished for this mess let them sue the party's leadership in a court of law...

    C.I., New York

    March 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  167. Margaret DE

    The Michigan and Florida delgates should not be seated. They did not follow the rules. Off course Clinton wants these delegates seated. If she was ahead of Obama she would not be pushing for these delegates to be seated.. If they seat these delegates it is telling our children and grandchildren that you do not have to obey the rules. You can change them when it is not coming out in their favor

    March 12, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  168. greg

    Florida and michigan, it's an easy fix, Clinton and Obama were on the Florida ballot give them the delegates from Florida simple, Michigan simple give the delegates to those how were smart enough to stay on the ballot, by Obama removing himself from the ballot shows how stupid he really is I would not vote for someone that dumb.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  169. dorothy delong

    Jack I feel the two states should have the chance to vote again. I think all states should have the same way to vote not being able to vote twice in one election like Texas. I dont feel that all people understood their vote wouldnt count as a eldery person I wouldn't have .
    Dorothy DeLong

    March 12, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  170. cj

    This is ridiculous and once again Florida is in the mix.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  171. Sam of Miami

    Don't seat any Florida delegate. Enough of this nonsesnse from Florida. The state is always in the middle of some type of controversy. Remember election year 2000, and now again.
    I am a Floridian. I voted and know that my vote didn't count. Well, I can't blame people from other states that call us Banana Republic. They may have a point.
    Enough said. I am thinking of moving out of Florida to relocate to the United States of America.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  172. Dennis in Northwest Ohio

    Oh my goodness! We can't disenfranchise the voters in two states! No – we can't do that – so let's just disenfranchise voters in 48 states instead.

    No counting, no re-voting, no nothing.

    Can you imagine Hillary's ad as soon as that is allowed: "I'm the one that saved your voting rights!", instead of ,"I'm the one that urged the party to break the rules and violated my own signed pledge."

    To paraphrase Master Rove's pupil #1: "Let's learn our children real good. Let's teach 'em how to vilify their more honorable enemies so they can get ahead in life".

    March 12, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  173. mike from san jose

    no way, nobody made a pep about it be fore the primaries started,and i doubt that it would have made a difference had sen clinton been ahead in the race,and for her to claim victory in these races just boogles the mind,having said that they have to find a way to hold primaries in these states so the voters can have their vote count

    March 12, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  174. Erick

    Yes of course both Florida and Michigan should have their say in this election. Both Obama and Hillary will need to win in these Sates to have a chance in Nov and they both know it. The only question is will Florida and Michigan forgive them after being told to go to heck by the counrty. For the sake of the Democrats I sure hope so, but it could get ugly.

    Erick from Los Angeles

    March 12, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  175. Teri B., Birmingham, AL

    If the democratic party doesn't understand why votes count, in Florida no less, then we are truly, truly lost. Do we need Jimmy Carter to come and oversee elections in THIS country now? What the hell!?!

    I don't care what Florida's republican politicians did to tick of the DNC. What a pathetic way to rationalize giving Obama an advantage – not counting votes in Florida. Where have I heard this before?

    I wish Al Gore would jump in and take charge of this issue. He may be the only person with the credibility and neutrality to resolve this situation.

    Besides, do you think voters in Florida and Michigan are going to be fine with being disenfranchised and vote for either democrat? Can we PLEASE stop shotting ourselves in the foot and savaging our own party and principles?!?

    I'm starting to think McCain deserves to win if Democrats are this hopelessly stupid and lost.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  176. JoAnn in Iowa

    Florida and Michigan did not follow the rules which were very clearly laid out for them. They should be seated, but should not be allowed to change the outcome of the race. Split their delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama. It would save a lot of hassle and a lot of money. If there are no consequences, in 2012 there will be a rush to hold primaries in December!

    March 12, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  177. Mike

    I think you should split them down the middle. 50% seated for each. That is going to likely be the effect even if they do have ellections.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  178. R from NY

    Jack, both states went ahead and had their democratic primaries early before any agreement was made with the DNC, so they should face the consequences by being left out. However, I worry that should there be no doover, the superdelegates will take it on themselves to decide the candidate for President regardless of what the voters say. Moreover, so many Democrat voters made the effort - often in horrible weather - to go to the polls and vote, and I also feel that they have a right to have their voices heard.

    March 12, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  179. Burt

    Yes. No one campaigned there. Everyone was at an even-keel. Senator Obama didn't buy the votes with a 4-to-1 advertising bufget! The people SPOKE ALREADY. Do you want to keep sending them to the polls until Senator Obama gets the results he wants?

    March 12, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  180. Mia - Florida

    Why not? This is Hillary Clinton we're talking about!

    So what if Barack Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and he (the lesser known candidate) was unable to campaign in FL, which severely handicapped his ability to compete there?

    Hillary Clinton is a true patriot. What's important here is that SHE WON, and if she says that this is about "making sure the people of MI and FL have a voice," I believe her! Don't you?

    March 12, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  181. Stephanie from AL

    The Michigan and Florida state legislatures disenfranchised their voters... not the DNC, not Senator Obama and not Senator Clinton. The state officials knew the penalty and moved their primaries forward anyway. It's unfortunate that the vast majority of democrats, those not superdelegates, have to pay for their state officials actions. I'm not certain if the states should be allowed to revote or not. In a way to not allow their votes to count is undemocratic – but in another way it sends the message that it is ok to break the rules... we'll change them to suit the few.

    March 12, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  182. Derek Wayne, NJ

    Jack, no way in hell! Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in michigan and he wasn't allowed to campaign in florida! The only way to make this count is to have a revote and enough time for both candidates to campaign in both states.

    March 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
  183. Beth, Bethany,CT

    Are you kidding? What kind of an ELECTION is it when only one name is on the ballot?? Sounds more like crowning a queen to me!

    March 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
  184. Mr. Russell

    Well unfortunately the voters must pay for what their elected officials do. That's WHY we vote. That's the people's way of holding thier leaders accountable.

    March 12, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  185. dave in calgary

    How about we get Hillary to stand in front of an auditorium of college students and make her case for counting them as-is. Maybe she'd get the same laugh as the President of Iran did for trying to sell the "we have no homosexuals in Iran" position. Y'know... there is a point where a person's extreme, unmitigated gall is the overt sign that they are simply an idiot – she's almost there, in my opinion.

    March 12, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  186. Daniel Fauth

    The votes from Michigan and Florida should not count. It was known well in advance of the voting that there was an issue with the dates of their primaries and that their votes would not count. If the rules are suddenly changed, it would be a bad precedent.

    If something is done, it should be a whole new vote with both Clinton's and Obama's names on the ballot.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  187. Andrew Dibner

    I think the only fair way to have Mi and FL delegates seated is through a re-vote. The cost should be paid by the candidates, the DNC and any open system raising money from the interested public. It would be wrong to just seat the delegates who voted too early because it was a botched up set of circumstances. No clear instructions or representation of candidates.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  188. bobbette Orgill

    We say we want every vote to count. Redo the elections in Florida and Michigan and count the votes!!!!!!

    March 12, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  189. mary olds

    It is not the people's fault for the government's mistakes! Yes, they should be seated and counted. After all it is are country! Hold the government accountable!! Mary Olds, Minnesota

    March 12, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  190. Franc

    No, they shouldn't be seated. The DNC told FLorida and Michigan that if they held early primaries, there would be consequences. These are consequences: their delegates can't be seated. Time to grow up!

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  191. Gail M. Morgan

    Are you kidding?! No.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  192. Chris from upstate NY

    In actuality, Hilary should not have been able to be elected in either state, if the votes were not going to count, no one should have been able to be elected. Yet, to change the rules after the fact is beyond unfair. As afar as the super-delegates, sense when did the regular voter become so benignly ignorant that the Democratic party felt that an elite "super" intelligentsia was representative of all the people? Both issues are making me reconsider by 40 year stint as a democrat. Eek, is there anything else out there?

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  193. hulio coley

    Absolutely not! Unless there's a do over,and there just has to be.
    First off let me say that this is all the fault of the chairman of the DNC. Howard Dean, what an idiot. No wonder his run for president faded so quickly.
    Seeing as both campaigns have raised upwards of one hundred million dollars, maybe the solution is they split the cost of the re-vote evenly.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  194. Barbara

    Absolutely NOT!!! First, Obama wasn't on the ticket in Michigan. Second, the candidates were not permitted to campaign in Florida, therefore I am sure most of the residents of Florida did not know who Obama was when they voted. The people of Florida were not educated with all the facts before they had cast their vote, how can anyone truly decide who would be better for our Country without all the facts? If I remember correctly, didn't the media report that Clinton had several private dinners with hundreds of people in Florida, but they were not considered campaigning, they were just large dinner parties. The Cintons should consider writing a book and it should be titled "How to Take Advantage of the System in 10 Easy Steps." I have to ask, weren't the Republicans the ones that created the mess in Florida, I'm not sure about Michigan? Why are they not being asked to foot the bill for another election, or at least make a sizeable contribution? Thanks Jack, for raising the same questions, I always seem to ask myself after watching all the election coverage.
    P.S. I don't think you are old!!!

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  195. robert--virginia

    It would be obvious to a 5 year old that changing the rules of the election months after the event would be absurdly unfair. The sole purpose would be to benefit Hilary Clinton because she is losing by the rules that she and everyone else agreed to before the rimaries started. If this was being proposed by anyone other than Bill and Hilary Clinton it would get zero consideration. There were no other candidates on the ballot in Michigan for goodness sake.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  196. Evelyn

    As an educator, when my class syllabus clearly says a major assignment may not be turned in late and when a student asks me to take the assignment late and should I do so, what message am I sending, what am I modeling? Florida and Michigan need to grow up. Their assignments are late. Period. And life isn't fair.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  197. Patti

    Florida and Michigan both knew the consequences of moving the date of their primaries. So now they need to live with those consequences. Have the legislatures of those states explain to their constituents, and to us the reason why they changed the date. I'm sorry the votes don't count, but it is a local problem.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  198. Alicia from Miami

    A re-do at this time would be a fiasco. If this was such a MAJOR issue, why wasn't it a MAJOR issue in January before FL and MI held their primaries. This makes no sense. The politicians knew and agreed that the delegations would not be seated, but now because the Clintons are losing they want to change the rules. That's not fair. My question to Hillary is this: If she cared so much about the FL and MI voters, why didn't she complain loudly in JANUARY.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  199. js

    This is a Democrat party election, not a REAL US election. There is no disenfranchisement as other people are stating it, stop suggesting that it's anything similar to depriving AAs or women voting rights in REAL US elections. Give me a break and cut the hyperbole.

    By being a Democrat or voting in their primaries you are subjected to the rules outlined by the Democratic parties, not the US government. By voting, you there or participating, you are submitting to their rules. Part of those rules is to have well-spaced out elections across the country. If you don't like it, don't vote in the primaries or don't become a part of the party.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  200. Marjorie, Milwaukee, WI

    Yes, for Florida. Maybe not, for Michigan. To require a new election in Florida is to let the Republicans once again do to Democrats what they did to Al Gore. It was a Rebublican legislature and governor who moved up the primary date. Moreover, the results of the Florida primary were fair. Both names were on the ballot. Neither candidate campaigned in Florida. And Obama was just off his South Carolina victory and so had the momentum, but did not win. Michigan is a different story because both names were not on the ballot. However, that is Obama's fault, since he removed his name. A new election in Michigan would correct this and would uphold the DNC rules.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  201. nick

    I think that they should be seated split down the middle. All the candidates agreed the vote was not going to count and to spend millions of dollars just to prolong this festival of ignorance. would absolutely kill the democratic party if its not dead already.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  202. Shosh

    Yes, the votes should remain as is in both Florida and Michigan. Senator Obama and Senator Edwards took their names off the ballot in Michigan. They had a chance to put it back – they did not. The candidates followed the rules and did not campaign. Hillary won. Don't forget that the uncommitted votes that was overwhelming, went to both Obama and Edwards. We voted, we MUST not be disenfranchised, leave the votes and seat the delegates of Florida and Michigan. LIVE WITH IT.

    Ann Arbor, Michigan

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  203. Sonjia

    If Michigan and Florida is to be counted the delegates should be split down the middle. The rules were set from the beginning and each canidates should abide by the rules. The voters should be mad at their represenatives of there state for breaking the rules. What is that teaching our kids? It's ok to change the rules in the middle of of the game.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  204. Andres

    OH Jack... Before Barack was even in the running the candidates had agreed to play by the rules, everyone except Hillary of course, after all her name was on the ticket in Michigan all by itself and she did announce she would be in Florida after the results were in, of course she knew she was winning there too... I wish people would show more integrity and stop the "winning at all costs" attitude that just serves to make this country and this system look like a mockery. If the people of Michigan and Florida have a gripe, they should take it up with the officials that pushed to move elections forward in these two states and sit them down. Is this country really 232 years old?

    You can't just make up the rules as you go along, unless your last name is Bush of course.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  205. Lee from Boston, MA

    Had Obama won Michigan and Florida, do you think Hillary Clinton would be pushing to seat these delegates? HA!

    Not only should we NOT seat the delegates, we should strongly encourage Michigan and Florida to secede.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  206. Jim

    Both names were on the ballot in Florida and if the Republican Governor and legislature set the dates . How can you not count their ballots? Who is in charge there and how can they be allowed to not count every ballot.
    Michigan is a little different someone removed their name from the ballot? Who forced him to do that? You still cannot throw out the peoples vote because some stups in the DNC in Washington says its the right thing to do.
    Thank you,

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  207. paulette f watson

    No the votes should not count. Rules are Rules,and they exist for a reason. Some people seem to think that they never have to follow rules nor accept the fallout as a results of breaking rules. It is quite clear in my mind, that the CLINTON's are not interested in the people of FLORDIA OR MICHIGAN. You see, they will do anything to win . Maybe I should say to steal. Just picture this Bill Clinton running around again in the white house, with no job. The red telephone will be ringing all the time because Bill will be in trouble someplace.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  208. MIchigan voter

    Well, since my vote didn't count I might just change and vote Republican when the real election takes place. That goes for all the Michigan representatives who are seeking re-election.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  209. Cheryl Roe

    The Michigan votes should not be counted unless there is a well designed redo. All of us in Michigan knew that the primary votes would not count. As a result of that many Democrats did not vote because their candidate was not on the ticket. Others voted in the Republican primary to choose the least objectionable of the Republican choices. The votes cast for Clinton in January do not reflect the will of the Michigan voters.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  210. Gary Marks

    The candidates knew the rules when the process began. The elected leaders of Michigan and Florida knew the rules when they changed the dates. The voters in those states understood the rules and knew their votes would not affect the outcome. Everyone understood the rules. Anyone saying a vote doesn't count now is correct. Those were the rules established before the contest.

    I grew up learning to respect rules. I think our leaders and politicians should do the same.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  211. s. giller Washington DC

    To have a revote in Fl. or Michigan would be like asking jurors who sat on a first trial, to be the same jurors hearing a retrial. Of course that would not happen, because those jurors would be considered tainted. In order for voters to vote differently the second time, they would have to be admitting they were wrong the first time they voted. People do not easily admit they were wrong, (Hillary still hasn't admitted her war vote was wrong) So the revote would not be a level playing field, but would start out with a huge hurdle for Obama to overcome. Of course that's why the Clintons want it.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  212. Dan

    Jack I believe they should seat the delegates 50/50 right down the middle so Florida, Michigan and Clinton. Also then those states can quit whining about whos going to pay for the revote

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  213. Glenda

    There should not be a revote in the Fl. and Mi. primaries. The delegates should be divided between each candidate. This is equally fair to each candidate.


    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  214. DJD

    No. The rules of the game was made clear from the start in more than enough time for all concerned to be aware. So, ignorance is no excuse. And, speaking of ignorance - why is always Florida that gets it wrong!!!

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  215. Carlos Jean-Gilles

    The rule of law and our love of freedom are what make us American. No matter what a rule is, some will not like it. If these votes were to count, we would only be pandering to the wants of the few, which can never be totally satisfied. On the other hand, if we count them, we will chip away at the core values that bind us together as a nation. In the short term, that might be of great help to Hillary, but in the long term it would hurt us all around the world: "Look at the Americans! They cannot live by their own rules in an election, so how can we trust them?" We would look like hypocrites.

    If Hillary Clinton wants to seat those delegates now after agreeing not to seat them, let her be penalized accordingly by splitting the Florida and Michigan delegates evenly between the two candidates. This will not make everyone happy, but it makes sense, especially because Hillary is not at all likely to do much better than she did the first time around.

    St. Louis, MO

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  216. Joe from Novato CA

    NO! Either don't count 'em or split them down the middle, so as to seat the delegations. The Dems in Fla got screwed and end-played by a Republican Gov and legislature, who've got to be laughing in their beers at this point. In Michigan, Obama wasn't even on the ballot; "uncommittteds" still won 40% of the vote.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  217. Sue

    Is Obama so sure of himself that he would think the votes would change here in Florida if there was a do-over? We voted and our votes should count. Perhaps it was a good thing the candidates didn't campaign here; it was nausiating watching them in other states. Don't exclude our votes; this is America and our votes should count just like everyone else's

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  218. ashraf

    Delegates from Florida and Michigan should not be seated. DNC issued ruling that if you don't abide by rules than your delegates will not be seated. Let's not give these states such a leverage that they would decide the nomination. It is like being rewarded for breaking the rules. Rules were clearly explained to them. Also How Hillary can claim victory when she was also told of the rules, now she has the guts to come out and say results should stand. This is true nature of her campaign, ever deceiving.Both states should not be seated.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  219. Darrin - Columbia, TN

    In no way should Florida and Michigan count without a revote, and to think of it, they shouldn't even count regardless. Both states knew what they were doing when they moved their primary dates up, now both want to avoid the consequences. They should be taught a lesson.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  220. Jim in NH

    What and let the state of Florida screw up yet another election?

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  221. Fay

    Fact check: The rules ALLOW for revotes in Florida and Michigan. Come on, people, get it straight!!!

    March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  222. Ronald L. Waldron


    The candidates were not to campaign in Florida and Michigan.

    How ever Florida had a hugh turn-out. The voters were contacted
    by people for Hillary, told to get out and vote.

    Is that not campaigning against the rules all complied with
    except for Hillary.

    It is well know in Florida that a campaign was conducted.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  223. April, TX

    Florida and Michigan knew the DNC rules when they decided to vote early. Barack was not even on the Michigan Ballot. So, NO there delegates should not count. Whenever Florida is involved there is alwasys CHEATING. Go Obama

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  224. Bonnie

    Anyone ever heard of the popular vote. Oh no - that would be way to democratic and reflect the will of the people and not the will of the DNC or RNC elite.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  225. William Ramsey

    Those responsible for moving up the primary elections in defiance of the national parties are the ones directly responsible for the current conundrum. Each state had their own opportunity to influence the outcome of the process but knowingly and willfully chose to throw that opportunity away. In unilaterally imposing their wish for greater influence over the candidate selection process (read that more media cash and local politico photo ops) on the remaining members of the electorate, they squandered precisely what they purportedly sought. The current sniveling is a further unflattering testament to their character as well as the poor political judgment. Come November they'll be over it.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  226. Linda-- Marengo, Indiana

    Absolutely not. Rules were in place and all parties agreed to them before the actual campaign began. If Bill and Hillary can’t play by the rules on this issue, what else is likely to happen if she is (they are?) elected? If the Democratic party caves in on this and allows these non-votes to count, I will abandon my party and vote for John McCain. (Just a thought: what tune would the Clintons be singing from their podiums if the results had been different?)

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  227. Overby

    Of course the votes shouldn't be counted. They knew the rules going into this mess and didn't care if their votes were counted then, so why let them do it now? These Democrats go from blunder to blunder.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  228. Jessica in Alabama

    The Florida Democratic party was right to put the ball back in the DNC's court. SHAME on the DNC for penalizing THE PEOPLE 100% instead of a less harsher 50%. Florida's vote should stand as is because the playing field was EVEN. WHY did Obama take his name off the Michigan ballot in the first place? Is is becuase he already knew he would lose that state to Hillary and nothing could muck up a possible bid later for the votes to count in Michigan than having only one name on the ticket? The wider Obama's lead gets the softer he gets on letting those poor voters in Michigan and Florida count.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  229. HDS from Oklahoma

    NO. I think they should split the delegates according to the percentage of total delegates at the time of the convention. Another words if Obama has 51% and Clinton 49% then you split them accordingly. That way both stats are seated at the convention. Let's not kid ourselves, if Hilary had won the nomination at the end of the super Tuesday she would not have given a second though or even cared about "disenfranchised" voters of MI and FL.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  230. Mary

    Absolutely Not. The people who made decision to ignore their own agreements with the DNC should be held accountable by the voters. Many did not vote because they thought it didn't count. It is a mess, and the only way to seat the delegates is to split the delegates evenly and move on. Otherwise, the rule of law in any instance is pointless.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  231. Tony Brown

    Sacred rules? Let the people speak and vote.
    I think rules were made to be broken, remember the Boston Tea Party. Our country is based on fixing bad rules, like allowing women to vote!

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  232. mike

    john your comment is incorrect. i live in orlando fl an the decision to move the primaries up was made by our governor charlie crist who just so happens to be a Republican. now to answer the question on the votes counting. i think they should count. all that has happened is they we voted early. so what. what difference does it make what day we voted. our votes should not be taken way because a single politician broke a rule. charlie crist is at fault so make him take the responsibility for this an the people of florida.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  233. jef - Dallas, TX

    Enrique Olivares is a genius. I love it.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  234. Josh

    I think they should punish the Representatives and not the Voters. It wasn't the Voters decision. The only thing the Voters did wrong was putting these Representatives in office. Every vote counts! The fact that this is even a question baffles me. Why do we have to keep being punished for what these heartless, greedy, and errogant politicians do. Why cant we just get a good person to look out for our interests. Why dont we use common sense in todays society. Sorry for the rambling, im just tired of what most politicians put HARD WORKING AMERICANS through. We need major change in this country and we are not getting it. Mind my words, no matter who we put in office we still have the same puppetmaster and nothing will change. We keep putting the same types of politicians in office. We need to stand up and make a difference and put people in office that WILL change whats going on in this country. I love my country and love my fellow americans and god bless everyone, even those dirty little politicians.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  235. Brena

    No. As with any contest the rules must be followed. They should however have a re-vote. I understand the concerns with a mail-in. There has to be a way that the voters can show up to vote, and it be as cost-effective as possible.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  236. Sox Fan

    The rules were simple to follow and the penalties clear. No sour grapes needed. The DNC should allow delegates based upon the popular vote in the other 48 states. Completely fair.....

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  237. jerry butler

    They definitely should. The voters took the time to go to the polls to vote, their vote should count. If the democratic leadership wants to strip anything away from anyone let them strip something away from the arrogant fools who went against their rules, not the voters!

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  238. Shylah Ross

    Why is this even a question? The idea of counting these elections as valid got thrown out the window when Obama's name did not appear on the Michigan ballot. What is Senator clinton thinking? This is not fair– has she been sneaking plays out of Karl Rove's book?

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  239. Joseph Buonanno

    I can't believe that these voting problems always happen in Florida!
    Count the votes in Florida, and stop trying to stear the election the way the politicians want it. Since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, we need to have a re-vote there. Not rocket science, make sure that all peoples right to vote are enforced.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  240. Mike - Sammamish

    Sure! Let's set rules and then reward the person that breaks the rules by nominating them to represent the party as the Presential Candidate. Can anyone spell "integrity"? Or doesn't that matter to the Democarats anymore? And my mother used to say to me "cheaters never win". She died too soon to have known the Clintons.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  241. Robert Daniels

    The Democrats can't do anything right.

    McCain '08.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  242. Dale Simmons

    Yes,Hillary was independant enough to go against the will of the party to put her name on the ballot. While others buckled under pressure and said we are going to skip the states because they moved their elections dates up against the will of the Dnc. All the other candidates had the same opportunity. The ballots shoud count. If they insist on another election then Obama has enough special interest groups money to pay for it.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  243. Tom

    Your voted counted, why shouldn't mine?

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  244. John Buchanan

    I think that all delegates should be seated. 50/50 to both Candidates because they broke the rules originally in the Democratic Process as stated by the DNC.

    March 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm |