Home More advice Politics & Law
If the votes of Florida and Michigan aren't counted, would you consider them 'disenfranchised' voters and why ?
The current tallys in either state cannot be the basis for seating the delegates, especially Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot. I agree the whole situation was handled badly, but it isn't like the DNC didn't give them a chance to move the date back. What other measures could they possibly have taken in order to enforce the rules. Rules that both states agreed to, and then broke.
What if california decided they were going to hold there presidential election on the last tuesday of october, instead of the first in november? Do you really think their votes should count, since they are breaking the rule (in this case the constitution). When you are part of a much larger organization, you can not pick and choose what rules you will follow and not follow.
That being said, they will come up with some way to seat the delegates, but it cannot be based on the voting that already took place.
They should just seat them with 50% going to Obama, and 50% going to Hillary.
There is no real "fair" solution to this.
Of course they would be disenfranchised. It's kind of a no-brainer. Not counting their delegate votes simply because they changed the dates of their primaries is absurd. It punishes the voters, not the state parties. Certainly if the DNC is worried about ill will between Clinton and Obama supporters, throwing out the delegate votes of two very large battleground states would not help matters.
