What the ?

The Democrats truly are a bunch of hypocrites.  How do they explain that they do not want to "disenfranchise" anyone at the polls by asking for Voter ID, yet they want to ignore the voters of Michigan and Florida in favor of how a few delegates/super delegates would vote?  Their logic doesn't make any sense, which in the case of liberalism is always understandable.

I agree with you completely on the Voter ID.  You need ID to fly on a plane or to pick up a prescription.  How hard can this be?  Disenfranchise is one of those words that bug me.  Feels like we should be talking about fast food joints.  Another is "fear mongering".  I think you can get some down at the seaport, next to the fishmongers.

Imagine the outcry from Democrats and the media if the Republican candidates were bickering about something like this.  The double-standard is alive and well.

The same Democratic Party that sued in 2000 to make every vote count in Florida, has blocked any votes from counting this year.

Anyone who is against Voter ID is actually in favor of cheating at the polls.  There is no sound argument against Voter ID.  With all the activities that require some form of personal identification these days, to NOT require it for the important act of voting is ridiculous.

The Milwaukee Police Dept. investigation found a number of problems with that election and recommended Voter ID as the best fix to the problem.  Even if they did not find evidence of organized fraud at that time, it shows that the possibility exists.  There are always people looking for an edge and if the possibility exists than they will eventually take adavantage of the flaws and cheat.  Voter ID must become law.

Ok then, we’re all in agreement here that the Republican’s superior setup produced the best possible candidate?

(Sorry, couldn’t help myself ;-)

There are a lot of issues in this thread, but I definitely get the theme.

Democracy is messy business. It is inevitable, and in the long run, it is a good thing, because it is how our political system evolves.

The primary system for both parties is flawed; everyone wants to have a voice on the nominee while it still matters. So it’s easy to understand why the party officials in MI and FL decided to take a chance and break the party rules. The party is enforcing those rules. Changing the rules after the fact would obviously be unfair. That’s pretty easy to understand isn’t it?

Voter fraud at the retail level is a concern, but in all honesty, how many fraudulent votes do you think are actually cast? Enough to throw any race?

The real problem is what we saw in Florida and many states in 2004 – fraud at the wholesale level.

Under the late Lee Atwater and his protégé Karl Rove, the Republicans have developed a bag of techniques that aim to disenfranchise entire blocks of voters. (One of the commentors here actually suggested, apparently is seriousness, that college students should not be allowed to vote, because they vote the wrong way.)

Voter suppression is a strategy that goes against democratic, and dare I say - American values. Voter ID is the direct descendant of Jim Crow. The obvious intention is to discourage minorities from voting Democratic - let’s just be honest, can we?

So, enjoy the squabbles of the Dems, but watch for the party to come together around taking the government back from the corporations who are driving us into bankruptcy and war on Iran.

Jeff:  I don't think either party gets it right 100% of the time, but that's just because I'm not in charge.

The Democratic Party is definitely suppressing or disenfranchising large numbers of voters this year by not allowing votes to count in the states of Michigan and Florida.  This was a childish argument between the states party officials and the National Party and the punishment does not fit the offense.  Finally, with the Super Delegates, they can vot completely on their own and could even put in place someone that hasn't even campaigned for the office by brokering a deal.

Having the Primaries/Caucus/Super Delegate/Combo/Party Convention Deals drag out over all this time is somewhat entertaining, but having a National Primary is very appealing to me.

Ed, the idea of a national primary is very seductive, but the only way it could work is if we had public financing of campaigns. I fully support this. (I am guessing you might not.)

Without public financing, how can any candidate, especially an unknown, be expected to gain awareness in 50 states, considering the hundreds of millions of dollars that would require?

If we could agree(!)on a system of public financing, (and a standard process for registration and voting), I would completely support a national primary.

We need more than two parties, but we will never get there until we have public financing.

I would also support public financing.  But, I would insist on voter ID.  There is no real, rational reason for any eligible voter not to have an ID.  We need ID to get a drink, fly, pick up a prescription and so many other things.  Money that the Democrats spend on cigarettes and liquor to bribe people for their votes could be better spent on making sure everyone has an ID.