Let us summarize what the problem is:
In their efforts to synchronize primaries and caucuses, the Democratic Party
of the US drew up an advisory plan for schedules. The schedule presented to
the states was supposed to assist in determining the nominee sooner rather
than later so that the eventual nominee could begin campaign sooner and raise
the most funds. And, the number of delegates required to clinch the nomination
was based on that schedule being adopted by all states.
However, campaigns draw a lot of money into states with their attendant
industry. Also states clamour for notoriety for their unique problems such as
Michigan's loss of auto industries and because Florida's past election woes make
it ripe for another bout with self expression jitters. New Orleans wants to
keep attention on its recovery after the hurricanes. You name it, the states
want it. So forgive state democratic officials for being over-zealous and not
wanting to take too much of a backseat to Iowa and New Hampshire.
This scenario inevitably made for a prospective impasse. The national
democratic party officials were a bit short-sighted and frankly did not anticipate
the onerous affect of such deadlock. Plus, they did not anticipate a two-way
contest between Hillary Rodham and Barack Husein, two very tenacious and
prolific candidates.
So one of the solution that I will suggest to them is that since the
de-limiting number of delegates required for nomination was based on all states
participating according to the advisory schedule, it will no longer be valuable
to maintain that same number if the delegates of two or more states were to be
ignored. It is mathematically flawed. And since none of the candidates
campaigned in Florida and Michigan in keeping with the spirit of agreement, then
neither of the candidates should be penalized. So it comes down to recognizing
the voters of Florida and Michigan and the fault of their state democratic
party officials. Should the voters of Florida and Michigan be beholden to the
infringements of their state party officials????? That is the $65,000.00
question.
If we agree that such dis-enfranchisement would not hold muster in any court
of law, we must therefore devise a way to honour the voters of Michigan and
Florida. One of the ideas is that the states re-do their primaries and
caucuses. This idea runs against some problems of funding. The states are averse to
funding the same exercise twice because that is both foolhardy and unfair to
the republican voters of the states. The National democratic party is also
averse to the funding because it felt dishonoured by the state party officials
and it wants to honour its bargain with the contesting candidates Husein
Obama and Rodham CLinton.
Therefore, and I suggest, the national democratic party hold meetings with
the two candidates and share the following: SInce it is the desire of both
candidates that the voters of Florida and Michigan be honoured (because they
will be needed in the national elections), and since funding is limited, these
entities are advised to fund a re-do:
The CLinton Campaign - 35%
The Obama Campaign - 35%
The national Democratic party - 20%
The states' Democratic parties - 10%
The percentages of funding can be reviewed to mutually-satisfactory levels
but I believe the idea is proficient and benign as to Democratic party
fortunes.
Haruna Darbo.
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
|