For the past month I’ve heard nothing on the news except how unfortunate and unfair it is that the Florida and Michigan Democratic delegates won’t be seated at the National Convention. If I understand it correctly, the decision was made to move the primary elections in these states forward by months, in order to directly influence the decision regarding who the democratic nominee would be. The Democratic committee declared that this maneuver was unfair, that these elections would not be recognized, and in the end – no votes would count!
In other words …
The decision was made by individuals in Florida and Michigan BEFORE THE ELECTION that the votes of a few million people would not count. This was not something discovered later. The thought at the time was that by holding an early vote – even one that didn’t count – a pattern would be established that would lead to the clear leadership of one candidate over another, thus making these two states to appear mature and wise.
That didn’t happen. The candidates are deadlocked, and the two states look amazingly both infantile and senile at the same time.
Excuse me, but this leads me to ask a few questions.
If there is such concern for the voting rights of the people in Florida and Michigan, wouldn’t it have been better to voice these concerns before the initial elections?
If there were no great concerns about the voting rights in these two states before, what changed? Who benefits by their voting again?
If it’s going to cost many millions of dollars to hold re-elections, shouldn’t this money be charged against the people who are responsible for the debacle in the first place?
If I lived in Florida or Michigan, who would I sue for cheating me of my voting right?
In other words …
The decision was made by individuals in Florida and Michigan BEFORE THE ELECTION that the votes of a few million people would not count. This was not something discovered later. The thought at the time was that by holding an early vote – even one that didn’t count – a pattern would be established that would lead to the clear leadership of one candidate over another, thus making these two states to appear mature and wise.
That didn’t happen. The candidates are deadlocked, and the two states look amazingly both infantile and senile at the same time.
Excuse me, but this leads me to ask a few questions.
If there is such concern for the voting rights of the people in Florida and Michigan, wouldn’t it have been better to voice these concerns before the initial elections?
If there were no great concerns about the voting rights in these two states before, what changed? Who benefits by their voting again?
If it’s going to cost many millions of dollars to hold re-elections, shouldn’t this money be charged against the people who are responsible for the debacle in the first place?
If I lived in Florida or Michigan, who would I sue for cheating me of my voting right?
No comments:
Post a Comment