Amazon.com Widgets

Should the primary wins of Michigan and Florida have officially counted for Hillary Clinton even though they violated Democratic National Committee scheduling rules?

Should the primary wins of Michigan and Florida have officially counted for Hillary Clinton even though they violated Democratic National Committee scheduling rules?
  • When people go through the trouble to vote, then their votes should be counted.

    First, whoever decided that a national committee should schedule state primaries were full of themselves. I think that if a person goes to the trouble to vote, then they deserve to have their vote counted, regardless of what scheduling rules a party committee has arbitrarily decided on.

    Posted by: TrainLock
  • Yes, the primary wins of Michigan and Florida should have counted, because it is only fair that each state's votes count.

    Each state makes up the United States of America. Because of this, each vote should count for the primary elections, and this should have included the votes for Michigan and Florida during the previous elections. The wins for those states should have counted as wins for Hillary Clinton. It is unfair to exclude them.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • A vote is a vote. It shouldn't be discounted because someone failed to fulfill their responsibility.

    In a democratic society - every vote should be counted. There should be no scheduling or other roles that could discount any votes. It is very unfair to think that my vote may not count just because someone did not cross all the T's or dot all the I's.
    What should have happened is that the voters would be allowed to vote again, or the rules should be changed or not made of important in terms of something as trivial as scheduling.

    Posted by: laceydoesit
  • This is a debate between the will of the people vs. the will of the party. As an American, I have to side with the people, because votes should be counted, no matter the situation.

    Politics is politics, and that means debate and disagreement. Sometimes the disagreement is even within a party that shares the same ideology. Infighting is a normal part of human behavior. However, when it affects those on the outside, it becomes a problem. This is what happened with the primaries. While the Democratic party was fighting it out, the voters of Michigan and Florida (the two states in which I live) ended up becoming disenfranchised. The right to vote is, what I consider to be, the most sacred of our rights. When this is violated, the debate is lost. People's votes need to be counted regardless of the party situation, and the repercussions of Florida's and Michigan's disobedience should be dealt with internally, whether it is through discipline, or a change in both states' party leadership.

    Posted by: EBaker
  • I believe that they should count because they were wins in her favor.

    Hilary Clinton clearly won the primaries in both of these states and the primary wins should go to her. The people voted for her and their votes should count regardless of what the schedule was. Voters are being ripped off just because of some stupid schedule. We have freedom to vote in the country so that we can voice our opinions and select which candidate we choose.

    Posted by: l0nerkatz999
  • The primary wins in Florida and Michigan should have officially counted for Hillary Clinton even though they violated Democratic National Committee scheduling rules.

    The primary elections in both states, Florida and Michigan, were fair. The results were a reflection of what democrats think in those states and they very clearly expressed the support of Hillary Clinton.
    The problem of scheduling was a problem that the Democratic National Committee should resolve while leaving the innocent voters out of it. Those are technicalities that should not affect the will of the people.

    Posted by: l0olllooi
  • Yes, since these scheduling problems are technicalities, and the whole primary scenario is out of date anyway.

    There was a lot of prejudice against this candidate behind the scenes. The primary situation is a lame one that's outdated anyway, so these scheduling technicalities are bogus and need to be ignored.

    Posted by: AlondraH
  • Yes I think the primary wins of Michigan and Florida should have officially counted for Hillary Clinton even though they violated Democratic National Committee scheduling rules.

    I don't quite understand voting procedures. I am a non voter, and proud of it. However, I do understand that votes are votes. I do believe they should have been counted. I don't understand all the regulations, and I think I am meant to feel that way.

    Posted by: LorenaH
  • I was a firm supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic caucuses and primaries, but . . .

    I was a firm supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic caucuses and primaries, but rules are rules, and Michigan and Florida were both penalized for breaking them.

    Ultimately Barack Obama won the nomination because he received in excess of 2,117 delegates at the Democratic National Convention to win!

  • Hillary Clinton's primary wins in Michigan and Florida should not have counted, because they violated the established rules.

    Clinton and her campaign team should have followed the rules of the Democratic National Committee if they wanted the wins to count. It is unacceptable in a campaign to simply ignore the rules, and then ask for special treatment.

    Posted by: BoorishKraig93
  • These rules are in place for a reason. Breaking them, by either party, results in no clear way to distinguish a front runner.

    Without the rules in place for members of both the Democratic and Republican parties, United States citizens would be subjected to constant campaigning and commercials from both sides. Though to an extent, this is already the case, ignoring these rules only makes it worse. Enforcing the rules delineates a clear candidate choice by voters.

    Posted by: NimbleGreg
  • Laws are meant to be obeyed.

    If the primaries violated scheduling rules then they should not be counted. The rules were put into place for a reason. People may change their minds about candidates and scheduling would make a big difference. Anything related to politics needs to obey rules as there is so much skepticism about politics anyway.

    Posted by: MycaMy
  • The primary wins of Michigan and Florida should not have been counted, because they violated the Democratic National Committee scheduling rules.

    We live in a society of rules. If the rules are not followed, the rules have no value. Long before Michigan and Florida scheduled their primary elections, the Democratic National Committee let them know that the earlier schedule violated the rules. Michigan and Florida went ahead with their early primary and, justly, were not counted.

    Posted by: JamieM
  • No they shouldn't have been contested. As somebody from Michigan I would of looked at that has a slap in the face.

    Our election system is a joke as is. If they are going to complain about two primaries that in the end really didn't mean anything it would be nothing but a waste of time and money. But then again that's all the politicians in this country are good at is wasting time and money.

    Posted by: deceitfulx
  • I disagree because they violated the rules.

    If the Democratic National Committee violated scheduling rules then the wins should have not officially counted. With politics I believe that all the rules should be followed, or our votes shouldn't count.

    Posted by: RemusMiny

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.