The Instigator
claypigeon
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
wingnut2280
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

For the sake of the Dems, the delegates in Florida and Michigan should NOT be counted at the DNC.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 811 times Debate No: 2761
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

claypigeon

Pro

Welcome all. Before we begin I would like to state that I am an Obama supporter so take that into account with my arguments in case of bias.

A. Background

The nomination of a president is a very complex system. It has evolved from a celebrity type selection process with our founders to the current party based system. This is due to many reasons; some being obsolete into today's flat world, some being more relevant, and some being slightly relevant. The point is that we selected a nominee within a political party framework.

The DNC (democratic national committee) attempted to oversee the current nominee process. Certain states were picked to go first for various reasons. The most important being that campaigning in these small states is more effective than T.V ads so the "better" candidate and not the "richer" candidate should prevail.

Our country has moved up the nominee process in recent years. The DNC attempted to limit "early" primaries and caucuses by selecting certain states to go before a certain date. Before any primary or caucus dates were set it was clarified that any state who holds a nomination process before a certain date would not be able to participate (send delegates) to the Dem convention to elect a nominee.

Two states, Michigan and Florida, moved up there nomination dates in defiance of the DNC rules.

Michigan went first out of these two states. All the major democratic nominees besides Hillary Clinton withdrew their name from the ballot. All the major nominees agreed not to campaign in these states w/o permission from the DNC.

Florida went second and neither candidate could withdraw their name from the ballot. Hillary was in Florida idling on the tarmac as the polls closed and she gave a speech that was announced two days prior to the election. Obama played a television ad on CNN, though he did get permission from the DNC to do this after CNN informed Obama they could not pull the ad in only one state. Both candidates campaigned here to a degree imo.

Assuming one gives all of Michigan's non-hillary votes to Obama and one divides Florida's up as the tally came in, there is a 67 delegate net gain for Hillary. Obama currently is leading by over 100 total delegates and many more pledged delegates than that according to realclearpolitics.com

The state's can hold a new primary by party rules that will count but the cost is prohibitive (approximately $6 million).

B. Arguments

1A. It is unfair for these two states to move up their process and to not get punished as was laid out. If we allowed this to happen then any state could go first instead of the balanced few chosen by the DNC. Therefore campaigning would be less effective and the candidate w/ the most money for T.V ads should win more often.

1B. If states don't have to follow party rules then the DNC will crumble.

2. One cannot divvy up the votes fairly. The primaries gave a biased result at the time they happened compared to what normal results would bring. In a place where no or little campaigning occurs, the person with the initially most known name tends to prosper. Hence, more people would vote for Clinton than if campaigning occurred. What about in Michigan where Obama got no votes but uncommitted got 44+ %. Do we give all the uncommitted delegates to Obama? What about Edward's supporters who would have voted for him? Do we disenfranchise them at the behest of other MI and FLers?

3. In the election I assume we will be going against John Mccain who attracts many dem and independent voters. If we do not count MI and FL delegates the DNC still has the moral high ground with their electorate as a rule was knowingly broken. If the DNC caves in many, myself included, will be upset at the weakness of the DNC administration and will switch sides. The presidential election will be lost if the DNC unconditionally reinstates FL and MI.

(I will ad that if by some miracle the MI and FL delegates would help Obama reach the nomination such that they make his total be 2025 or more delegates and these states are still reinstated I will vote Mccain unless something more pressing comes up).
wingnut2280

Con

You haven't considered any median option. The Dems should do with the delegates what the Republicans did. The Republicans cut the delegate count in half, punishing the states while simulataneously avoiding the winner's contreversy.

But, due in large part to the Democratic Party's ignorance, this can't happen now because the election has already happened and the results are skewed as you mentioned.

So, they should rehold the primaries and count half of the delegates. The Clinton supporters want them counted while Obama's people argue they shouldn't be. This political, self-interested squabble can only be solved by copying the way the Republicans did it originally. Punish and avoid the contreversy.
Debate Round No. 1
claypigeon

Pro

These states can hold new primaries and this is all part of the DNCs rules. If they re held the primaries that would be fine but the fact is the cost is prohibitive and they cannot rehold the primaries w/o leaving out vast amounts of military and absentee voters. A primary held today would be unfair for the residents of the states due to this.

The reason I haven't advocated a median option (as I have considered them) is due to this impossibility of holding a fair primary and b/c if the DNC backs down all hell breaks loose as I explained in my opening argument. Why won't other states not follow DNC rules if FL and MI get away with it? If the DNC compromises at all on this issue they will be rightly viewed as weak and hypocrites. It will be anarchy between the party and the states. Why follow a rule if it will not be enforced.

I think we are arguing two different issues. I can understand that you think the DNC should have severely penalized but not disenfranchised the states that held illicit early primaries (perhaps by following the republican model). This is not what our debate is about. We are debating whether the DNC should currently allow the already illicitly nominated delegates to the convention.

I've already explained the consequences of backing down. The dems lose the election as they are viewed as weak by independents who McCain attracts. The party crumbles due to no enforcement of rules. Future elections will be decided more so by money and less so by quality, and we cannot divvy up the votes fairly.

We cannot hold fair primaries due to absentee and military ballots and the costs. Also the electorate's opinion has changed from then so polling now doesn't get the same results as before. The only solution imo is to uphold the ban.
wingnut2280

Con

There is no reason to believe that punishing the states reasonably and practically would make the party look weak. This is terminally non-unique as the republicans have accomplished this exact scenario and not suffered the consequences you mention. If anything it would build the realtionship between the dem and states by taking down this big brother type of relationship.

There is no way implementing the reasonable median option would cause the party to lose the election. No voters would vote against Obama because of party disputes with the states. If anything, voters would be less disenfranshised as the squabble comes to a reasonable and peacable end, alleviating a childish situation and making the party look stronger.

We can most certainly hold the primaries again. While they would need a certain amount of notice, the states can get funding from the dem and their own funds to rehold the primary due to the dispute. It would take time, but even after Obama's W in Wisconsin, this nomination is likely to go to the convention.

I agree that we can't capture the results from that specific day. But, getting honest and reflective results from a different time is better than the alternative of counting skewed delegates or not counting them at all.

I don't need to argue the opposite of your point, just prove your point wrong. Just because you argue "delegates shouldn't be counted" doesn't mean i need to argue the exact antithesis. There are numerous ways to defeat an argument. Not to say that I have done that, but I have advoacated an alternative to your position.

So, reholding the primaries is the best option for reasons that I stated in round 1. None of the impacts you claim will happen because the republicans did the exact same thing and didn't suffer those consequences. Also, reholding the delegates would make the dem look stronger by alleviating a messy political situation and building relationships with states. We don't get state-party anarchy because the states still get punished. FL and Mich can rehold their primaries with excess state funds and dem party funding. Abasentee voters can be reached in a reasonable amount of time, which is allowed by the lengthy process this nomination has become.
Debate Round No. 2
claypigeon

Pro

I see one main area where we differ in this debate and that is in retroactive decision making and in proactive decision making.

The DNC has already stated that the states that move up their primaries too far ahead will not get any delegates. The Republicans did not state this. They stated that there would be a punishment and a blanket punishment was that the states that moved their primaries ahead lost half of their delegates. The major difference in these two parties responses is that the Republicans never stated that all the delegates would be lost though the DNC has. That is what maes the situation different for the two parties and incomparable for this issue. Had the DNC not already stated the punishment then fairly punishing a state might work. Since the punishment was already stated, any retracting of punishment looks weak and makes it look like the party is pandering to get votes.

And what type of big brother relationship are you referring to between the parties and the states. The parties make simple administrative rules in order to function that don't infringe on that much liberty. A state purposefully broke the rules so they are punished. What is so Orwellian about that.

I agree that in policy debate if you prove a median option you would win the debate. But on here it is convincing others that wins debate and bringing up jargon and saying "I win b/c i don't need to argue your antithesis etc. doesn't help convince people. You sounded like a whiny fourth grader there, no offence. I still argue that the median option is terrible.

If we held primaries again, which we can't due to cost, we disenfranchise so many voters that cannot participate before the nomination. Absentee voters, military voters, and others who cannot get time off or their vote cast. BTW the entire DNC's surplus funds won't even pay for Florida reholding a primary. Where is this money going to come from, lala land? Plus we disenfranchise voters who won't vote b/c they already did (protest voters). And we don't give the candidates time to campaign in the state so we still have the same bias as before w/ the better known nominee (which is still Clinton) having a huge advantage. We cannot hold the primary again w/o silencing many people's voices. We cannot undo the stated punishment lest the party look weak and that it is pandering to voters. There is no median option. There is count or do not count. I hope I have proven that counting the delegates is suicidal. Reholding the primaries is not effective at this point due to cost, disenfranchisement, and simply time and fairness.

We still get state by state anarchy as states can now compare whether the punishment is worth the cost of losing some delegates. If this happens the primary season will drastically change and as stated in my opening argument, we lose the benefits having small states go first bestow upon us.

The DNC was dumb in its punishment of Florida and Michigan. Retracting their STATED punishment now allots to political suicide. States must follow certain rules for a party to function. If the rules need not be followed anarchy occurs. In the interest of fairness and utility we should not count the MI and FL delegates unless they follow the rules. There is no median option and the republican party is not comparable to the DNC here as stated above. This is where we differ the most and I hope you can follow my description of the inherent difference. Good luck and good debate.
wingnut2280

Con

wingnut2280 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
claypigeonwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
claypigeonwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DJBruce 9 years ago
DJBruce
claypigeonwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by zander 9 years ago
zander
claypigeonwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03