What do you think?<br><br>
In my opinion, the states knew they were moving earlier than the earliest allowed and were told that delegates will not count. They did it anyways. This is how I understand anyways, I know this is how it happened on the Republican side. They could have kept their primaries after Feb 05 as per the Democratic convention instructions, and nothing would have been lost.<br><br>
This happened on the Republican side, as well, and delegates were lost. It was a choice made with the possible consequences known,<br><br>
There was a warning and a punishment that was ignored. This is the primary reasoning for me.<br><br>
The candidates said they recognized this and would not campaign there... so the elections might have turned out differently if full campaigns were launched by both parties. It would be massively unfair to fight and change the rules AFTER the election has been held. Far more unfair than a punishment given that was told could be given for a specific action that didn't need to be taken.<br>
If there was a problem, it should have been fought before, not in retrospect. It was not a surprise afterwards.<br><br><i>"The major Democratic presidential candidates all signed a pledge not to campaign in either state before their primaries. Most of the major candidates, except for Clinton also removed their name from Michigan’s primary ballot."</i><br><br>
If the people feel disenfranchised, they should look at their state's committee that decided to move the election up to have the headlines separated from other states, and have fought the decision.<br><br>
What do you think?
In my opinion, the states knew they were moving earlier than the earliest allowed and were told that delegates will not count. They did it anyways. This is how I understand anyways, I know this is how it happened on the Republican side. They could have kept their primaries after Feb 05 as per the Democratic convention instructions, and nothing would have been lost.<br><br>
This happened on the Republican side, as well, and delegates were lost. It was a choice made with the possible consequences known,<br><br>
There was a warning and a punishment that was ignored. This is the primary reasoning for me.<br><br>
The candidates said they recognized this and would not campaign there... so the elections might have turned out differently if full campaigns were launched by both parties. It would be massively unfair to fight and change the rules AFTER the election has been held. Far more unfair than a punishment given that was told could be given for a specific action that didn't need to be taken.<br>
If there was a problem, it should have been fought before, not in retrospect. It was not a surprise afterwards.<br><br><i>"The major Democratic presidential candidates all signed a pledge not to campaign in either state before their primaries. Most of the major candidates, except for Clinton also removed their name from Michigan’s primary ballot."</i><br><br>
If the people feel disenfranchised, they should look at their state's committee that decided to move the election up to have the headlines separated from other states, and have fought the decision.<br><br>
What do you think?
