UCI Debate over Democratic Primary Elections

Normally, I am not one to attend after-school events but I decided to attend a debate between UCI professors tonight. The topic was the Democratic National Committee stripping Florida and Michigan of their voting delegates. This was due to violating party rules by scheduling their primaries too early.

There were two sides to the debate... but other than that I couldn't really tell you who was for what. They seemed to blur both sides often and it was especially hard to decipher through the Q&A section.

I thought that one side had valuable arguments about the individual rights of a voter and their disenfranchisement of not having their vote counted. On the other side, the individual state's right to have a different system of rules and laws as long as the the voters in that state are treated as equals was a valid point. The problem with the debate was that they didn't have cohesive arguments that linked why the rights of the voter conflicted with the rights of the state. Also, they needed to address more in depth of what the actual law was that these states violated and why it was important. That would have cleared up a lot since most people in the room did not have a law degree and therefore, might not have known all of the aspects of the debate.

Debates are fun but only when you can follow the arguments at hand.