Insist on paper ballots and proper monitoring and ram the results down their fucking throats.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

paper ballots aren't going to happen, even a revote in 09 would be "too soon" to make that happen in all voting areas in all 50 states. or even 3 states, or 1.

a few months ago i would've laughed if you'd told me Serious Thinkers were seriously advocating a "revote." but i guess now, quoting Lorne, 'we do that.'

... ram the results down their throats some other way. There are plenty of smart people thinking about this, and there's bound to be money. Honestly, I think it gives us leverage.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

'Bama man sez, thru the estimable Brazille, 'No do overs!'

One wonders why...heh...

As to voting machines 'n suchlike...We CA people with the truly excellent Bowen in charge have no serious problems. Not that she can't handle anyway.

Which just leaves 'Mr. Hopey' on the wrong side of the right...as usual.

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

That’s the major thing I take issue with. Put aside what the opposition might think or do. Giving in to that impulse means they are already controlling your behavior, and that is defeat. Instead, by your own lights and morality, decide what is right, or at least what is optimal, to do to deal with the problem at hand. Do the right thing, and then afterwards figure out what to do about Rovians. They will always attack, no matter what you do, so the best that can be done is to be sure that you’ve done the right thing.

So what is right to do with MI and FL? Might help to start with what we all agreed was wrong, and that was the disfranchisement of the voters. (At this point, blame is irrelevant; the state DCs, the DNC, the candidates for not standing up and voicing an opinion early on, whatever; that’s something to chew over as part of making sure it doesn’t happen again and we can do that after the election, not now.) If disfranchising the voters was the fundamental wrong, then it seems straightforward that the clearest way to right the wrong is to have another election; to replace like for like.

What other course is there? Do nothing? Why, when the dominant opinion then was that disfranchisement was wrong, and that is still the dominant opinion now? As to those who will not have the option to vote for the candidates who would have been on the ticket in January, that is a truth that cannot be improved upon. My first choice, Gore, never ran. Too bad for me. My second choice, Edwards, never got traction and is likely – though not necessarily – gone. That he is gone for Michigan and Florida voters now makes reality for them the same as it is for me and everyone else. We can’t build a time machine; the best we can do is the best we can do, starting now, with what we have to work with. Sounds trite, but it is simply the truth.

I cannot follow an argument against the re-vote on a moral level. It is to argue that no mistake can ever be rectified. Why ever not? I would argue exactly the opposite; that it is the greatest moral wrong to not re-vote. Isn’t it always the correct moral choice to try and make right, as much as is humanly possible, that which has been done wrong?

The “not democratic” argument holds no water at all. This is not a general election, and procedures followed in the primary process are neither precedent for nor necessarily based upon the legal restrictions covering a general election. In choosing a nominee, there is no requirement on a party for “democratic” principles to be obeyed, or even considered. Like all political parties, the Democratic Party is a fraternal organization with the full legal authority to determine its own internal processes including the means of candidate selection. There is no legal or moral requirement for it to be done by “democratic“ means, and in fact it rarely has been done strictly by popular vote.

The role of superdelegates is precisely the function of traditional party political decision making, and that is to make the decision based on their best estimate of who will be the most effective candidate whether that coincides with the will of the rank-and-file party voters or not. In a year like this one, where non-party voters have had a substantial role in election outcomes, the role of the party loyalist superdelegates becomes a crucial one of maintaining the authenticity of choosing a candidate for the Democratic Party by Democrats, rather than allowing the choice to be made by hangers-on or outside-the-party subversives.

Not having a re-vote, deferring the decision to the Credentials Committee or to the actual Democratic Party itself, the Convention of Delegates sitting as a Committee of the Whole, to decide what to do about seating MI and FL delegates based on flawed elections, will in no way appear to be more legitimate than holding a second election. Never fear, there will be plenty of drama through the summer whether there are re-votes or not; baring an emotional meltdown by one or the other this primary is quite likely headed for the convention or near to it even with a re-vote, and either way it likely won’t be pretty. This is the Democratic Party, not to be confused with any organized political party. Cacophony is the default function; it’s a feature, not a bug.

rove with effective republican strategic thought; he alone did not perfect the modern bush conservatism/republican model of theft, cheating, lying, graft and corruption. still- i remember 2000, and i know a bit about what took place "on the ground" there. short version: republicans were way more ready to push narratives on "low information" types about "what should happen" than dems. obviously. how else could we have arrived at the point in which *not* counting all the votes is more legit than counting them all? the enormity of that travesty stays with me, always.

if there is a close call in the general this time, rovian thinkers will be likely salivating. there will be no need to have Brooks Brothers riots, FOX news, or the SCOTUS. it will be a simple matter of tossing around some "rules" that don't always matter or didn't previously apply, combined with "and the dems did it in (whenever)!" that will be enough.

bah. never mind. democracy is dead here, and mostly the voting exercise is a sham. i'm sorry that only those of us who've been disenfranchised can see how that happens. otoh: sooner or later, it will likely happen to all of you. enjoy the revote theatre. it's not like it really matters. other, select, nonelected not accountable to anyone people, who don't vote in FL and MI, will eventually and finally pick "our" nominee.

Just asking. Hope so. Miss it when I don't get smacked around a little.