Why shouldn't Michigan and Florida been allowed to be moved up?

Their votes should be counted! The voters themselves did not make the mistake. Why should they not get a say in the nations primaries?

Homie, you must be one heck of a poet, based on the poetic license you take with your grammar! "Why shouldn't ...been"???

But to the issue at hand, the DNC made a ruling, and the state Dem. Committees are BOUND by those rules. Why those rules were made? To prevent the states from jumping ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. There was a stampede to be the first or the second or the third or just to be ahead of the Super Tuesday to be more relevant.

A noble sentiment, perhaps, but one that inevitably led to chaos. In a land of 50 states, several territories and a District (of Columbia, of course), we need rules for who goes when. The DNC decided to move up Nevada and SC to better reflect the diversity and the base of the party.

While you might feel that Michigan is just as diverse, and Florida is even more so due to the large Hispanic community, that is not your decision to make. Nor is it the decision of the appropriate state legislatures, local caucuses or Santa Claus. Those who feel they should be empowered to make such decisions ought to run for the key offices of the DNC (and RNC, incidentally) and affect those changes they desire from within. Or, start their own parties.

The good thing about having small states like Iowa and New Hampshire start the process is that it levels the playing field for candidates without big money backing. They can get around the state in a personal way and if they are lucky, like Huckabee, they can pull off an upset and start to get donations and build up their campaign chests.

Iowa was the catalyst to Obama's success. If the primary season had started in Florida or Michigan, he probably would have lost big as a relative unknown and Hillary would have wrapped up the nomination early on.

I do agree that all of the really small states should have their voices heard before super tuesday, but michigan and Florida should not. The concept is to allow small states to have a disproportionately large say in the nomination process (by going first and setting momentum) because they will have next to no say in the general election.

Michigan and Florida jumping up destroy that entire concept.

It you are going to do that, you might as well put texas right behind them so we can make their results irrelevant too.

Regarding Iowa, Not a true point. Iowa was always in the group of "small states" ahead of super tuesday.

Well, I think the whole system is screwd up and would personally like for everyone to vote on the same day. That being said, you would have to ask the RNC and DNC that question. They are the ones that make the rules, and I couldnt even to begin to explain the reasoning behind it. I think though that the legislatures broke the rules knowing the consequences, and should probably have to live with those consequences.

I live in PA and had no say in who the republican nominee would be.

MI and FLA broke the rules knowing the consequences.

All the other Democratic nominees did what was politically correct....They removed their names from the ballots....BUT not Hillary! Why should Hillary and FLA and MI be rewarded for breaking the rules?

The Democratic Party should stand their ground. All the candidates did sign an agreement to the rules.

The fact is every member of the Democratic legislature voted to move the primary to January 29 so why are they whining about it now.

They already do in Iowa and New Hampshire, where plenty of retirees and blue collar workers live. There were plenty of Hispanics in Nevada.

How dare they expect their votes to get counted... Reminds me of 2000 election a bit.

The Supreme court sure did vote in a keeper didnt they. Do not dissent to loudly - Im sure a Fema camp is waiting nearby for those who choose to use their brains.

Iowa moved theirs up before the accepted Dem deadline, but they weren't sanctioned. If Iowa wasn't, FL and MI shouldn't be either.