Passing on the word

[netmouse]

from novapsyche

The national party voted to strip Michigan of delegates as a penalty, but party leaders in the electoral-vote rich state have expressed confidence that they will be seated at the convention.

None of the candidates, including Clinton, will be campaigning here, and none have authorized write-in campaigns–-which means that, under state law, their supporters cannot cast write-in votes for any of them.

But if at least 15 percent of the voters in a congressional district opt for the "uncommitted" option rather than voting for Clinton, delegates not bound to any candidate could attend the national convention--a development that could allow Edwards or Obama supporters to play a role in candidate selection there.

Personally I think disallowing write-in capaigns if they are not "authorized" is the biggest clusterfuck part of this. I mean, we're supposed to be able to do write in campaigns for *anyone*, aren't we?

Anyway, I will seriously consider voting for "uncommitted" in the primary on Tuesday.

Comments

[drakenul.livejournal.com]

I am all for this as well. I simply think it would be too funny for Hillary Clinton to lose to literally nobody to pass up on it. But the idea of spiking the GOP did sound pretty good to me for a while too.

[madkingludwig.livejournal.com]

The problem with "spiking the GOP" in the Michigan primary is that, should you manage to get the GOP to nominate the most right-wing creep imaginable, insane, draconian, and mentally retarded, there is no guarantee, between the way the GOP and the Dems run their respective campaigns, that they won't just get the goofy SOB elected. This causes the plan to backfire.

[madkingludwig.livejournal.com]

Besides, voting for a Republican invalidates the promise I made to my Mama when I was but a little boy - I promised I wouldn't go to Hell when I died.