The Florida Michigan Vote Solution
wpedon id=8560

About the Author

author photo

Ohg Rea Tone is all or nothing. He is educated and opinionated, more clever than smart, sarcastic and forthright. He writes intuitively - often disregarding rules of composition. Comment on his posts - he will likely respond with characteristic humor or genuine empathy. He is the real-deal.

See All Posts by This Author

The Florida Michigan Vote Solution


I am almost amused at the political posturing by party political party leaders in Florida and Michigan. Charlie Christ, the Governor of Florida, is particularly outspoken. These folks don’t do anything that does not have some political advantage. This 2008 election process has not gone according to anyone’s plan and everyone is posturing after-the-fact. The solution is simple and practical – the States should pay to have another election.

Here is the problem. Michigan and Florida moved the dates of their Presidential Primaries up on the calendar so they could presumably have more clout in choosing the party nominees. The Democratic Party said ‘No, we will not honor these processes.” The States forged ahead with their vote. The candidates did not campaign in those states. Barack Obama’s name was not even on the Michigan ballot. Now the Democratic Party finds itself in a precarious position. Neither of the two remaining candidates are likely going to gain enough delegates for the nomination without Florida and Michigan.

Votes were cast, choices made. Some say in a meaningless, or at least uninformed, process. Some say the people voted so the votes should be counted. Some say the elections should be held again to grant fairness to both candidates and to the voters. Some say that the process was not valid – and some voters stayed home because of the presumptive invalidation.
My notion is the only fair process is to hold another election. The real question is just this, who will pay for another primary election? (Some estimates of cost are as high as 20 million dollars.)

The Government leaders in both Michigan and Florida are whining around, posturing as protectors of Government funds, saying the Democratic Party should pay for another election. These are sophisticated people who have a clear understanding of the value of having the election in their state. They know it was never just about having the power of choice. It is also about the money spent and money generated in their State by candidates.

There are two very high-powered, well financed candidates left in the Democratic Party. Florida and Michigan would be wise to pony up and pay for another election. States invest hundreds of millions of dollars in building convention centers and sports complexes to attract big events. They want big events because of the money that is attracted to the state. Is there any even that would be bigger than bringing the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to town for a month or two?

The political leaders in Florida and Michigan know this. They know how much money the Democratic Circus brings into the State. The tax revenues from the economic windfall will more than pay for the election, not to mention the support of local businesses and jobs.
They should stop the political posturing and act in favor of their State economy.


There Is 1 Response So Far. »

  1. Wouldn’t having another primary (not election) be changing the rules in the middle of the game? The legislature knew the Party rules when they thumbed their noses at the DNC; so now they get to have a do-over? How nice but where do you draw the line now? The point of having rules is so everybody has the same chance as everybody else; changing the rules after the game begins is called cheating, isn’t it? That’s how I was raised to believe, weren’t you?
    Isn’t that how Bush Derangement Syndrome got its start in 2000, when the FL Supreme Court (illegally) changed the rules after the election took place? Then when that didn’t help they changed the rules again, and then again, until finally the US Supreme Court told them they couldn’t do that and they had to reconsider all their renegade rulings?
    A Presidential election was almost stolen there due to changing the rules after the game started.
    I know it is popular to say it was stolen but really, how can someone steal something they owned? Bush did have more votes in every recount; and even a year afterwards, when the NY Times, The Washington Post, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Miami Herald Tribune recounted all the votes again and again (and again), Bush still had more votes than Algore.
    Those two states (MI and FL) refused to play by the rules so now they should have to wait for the Convention in August to crown Billary; and they will, so don’t worry. There are still plenty of rules to keep the game on an equal playing field. Shouldn’t there be an even playing field?

%d bloggers like this: