FL-13: Lemonade From a Lemon

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections
Posted on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 11:35:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I agree with Stoller:

Here's a thought on FL-13 and voting problems. The FL-13 seat will be up to the House of Representatives. This puts both parties in a difficult situation. The Republicans clearly stole the seat and disenfranchised thousands of voters, but at the same time, the Democrats don't want to be seen as partisan in installing their own person through their control of the House. My suggestion would be for Pelosi to cut a deal with the Republicans. The House and Senate will pass, with Republican approval, some hard-core voting reform legislation that mandates all sorts of checks into voting integrity and vote-counting, including same day registration, paper trails, etc. And in return, the Democrats will seat the Republican in FL-13.

I heartily endorse this lemonade formula from Matt.

< More Silliness About 3rd Party "Centrism" | Pelosi Right To Take Time >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

FL-13: Lemonade From a Lemon | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I just hope (none / 0) (#1)
by aw on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 11:45:41 AM EST

they will be able enforce the deal after the Republicans install their guy.

I don't follow (none / 0) (#2)
by Al on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 11:47:20 AM EST

Why would the Democrats be seen as partisan if they are trying to right a very obvious wrong? The Democrats aren't at fault, and they shouldn't be afraid to use their mandate to clean up the elections process. That's why they have a mandate.

Why is it necessary to cut a deal with Republicans to push through voting reform legislation? Let the Republicans decide if they want to refuse to back clean elections, if they dare.

: Why was Al Gore seen as trying to (none / 0) (#5)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 11:58:16 AM EST

hijack an election when he got the popular vote nationwide and when the evidence is more people went to the polls intending to vote for Al Gore over Dubya in Florida (meaning he should have had the popular vote in Florida as well).
The popular will was Gore, the machinations by the noise machine produced the man who failed at just about* everything
(fn: Can't say for sure he failed as Governor of Texas. The executive branch is the weakest branch in Texas so it may have been a more ceremonial position- sort of like being the figurehead of the Rangers. The real people in power- the legislature in Texas, the other owners with the Rangers- were smart enough not to let him actually make decisions of consequence.)

States Issue (none / 0) (#3)
by ding7777 on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 11:52:50 AM EST

Would this even be legal? Voting is supposed to be a States issue (except for the Supremes giving the 2000 Florida vote to Bush)

I, too, do not believe it would be wise... (none / 0) (#4)
by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 11:54:26 AM EST

...for Democratic leaders to be seen "bargaining" over something every citizen has a right to expect: clean and fair elections with audit-able ballots.

Let the rethugs have it, if their candidate appears to have the most votes, and then slam through legislation banning electronic voting that leaves no paper trail.

In other words, let's do something the rethuglicans refused to do and keep it honest and above-board for all America to see. It would serve us ill to be seen trying to "bargain" for the democracy that is already rightfully ours.

: I agree it's not right (none / 0) (#6)
by aw on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 12:22:47 PM EST

But I guess this is where the old cliche about making law and sausages comes in.

Don't give them (none / 0) (#7)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 01:07:24 PM EST

a millimeter. They will find some way to use it later when the Dems won't "compromise" on one of their issues.

: Right on! (none / 0) (#10)
by theologicus on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 02:44:31 PM EST

No compromise on voting rights. Too bitter a lemon.

Don't do it. (none / 0) (#9)
by Ivyfree on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 01:48:45 PM EST

Oh, no. We don't give them a thing. 18,000 votes missing? Nope. Do a revote, if necessary; but don't hand them anything. Get in their faces and ask why they don't want fair elections.

No deal... (none / 0) (#11)
by desertswine on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 03:06:28 PM EST

And in return, the Democrats will seat the Republican in FL-13.

You don't "deal" away the rights of the voters. Uh uh.

revote is the only way (none / 0) (#12)
by Sailor on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 04:21:02 PM EST

compromise!? you mean like bush promised to compromise!? Mandate a paper trail in all coming elections AND do a revote so the will of the people can actually be seen.

You can't compromise with the republicans currently in power, see the last 6 years!

Who's telling Nancy Pelosi about this? (none / 0) (#13)
by MSS on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 04:28:34 PM EST

So who's going to let Nancy Pelosi know about this? And Ted Kennedy? And Russ Feingold? etc etc.

Pass it on...

Hmmmm (none / 0) (#14)
by MSS on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 04:30:24 PM EST

Hmmm

Just read the comments above, and if the Dems can get this election re-run due to the faulty voting machines, that would be the very best solution, indeed.

DO you really think ... (none / 0) (#15)
by Sailor on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 05:06:40 PM EST

... you can compromise with folks like this!?

FL-13 (none / 0) (#16)
by kmdala on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 05:46:59 PM EST

Democrats should not trade the way you suggest. If they traded the way you suggest that would tell the republicans that we, the democrats are weak, will not defend our rights even when we know that what we have done is right for us and the Anerican people. DO NOT TRADE WITH THE REPUBLICANS, DEAL FROM OUR POSITION OF STRENGTH.
They will cave in and even if they don't we will win in the end and stop this sorry excuse of a way to vote!!!

Just more appeasement (none / 0) (#17)
by The Ale and Quail Club on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 07:36:27 PM EST

You can only feed crocodiles so much raw meat before you realize you don't have any hands left.

If there's no re-vote, then no deals (none / 0) (#18)
by Kevin Hayden on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 12:49:57 PM EST

We have no right to deal away the majority wishes of voters. Seat Jennings.

We already have the power to pass effective voting reforms, though any state with GOP election officials can impede that process, even if we did deal at the national level.

The only difficulty is to stretch out the process till the new House gets to make the final decision.

If the GOP wants the seat, they can do the ethical thing and do a revote. Or they can scream foul when the winning Democrat is seated and see how much good that does.

If the Dems don't have the backbone to do the right thing, they'll continue to deal from an ethically-challenged position of weakness.