tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3185266790279271893.post1382439764443152063..comments2023-09-28T07:27:57.335-05:00Comments on democrat2democrat: Whittington proves he is unfit to serveMike Stagghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07341098766664384541noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3185266790279271893.post-46759205166122799312008-03-17T07:23:00.000-05:002008-03-17T07:23:00.000-05:00"It is widely believed within the party that Aucoi..."It is widely believed within the party that Aucoin and Cravins have the votes to force a run-off that might not include Whittington....<BR/><BR/>... All persons appointed may serve as temporary members until ratified at the first order of business by a majority vote of the Democratic State Central Committee."<BR/><BR/>If Aucoin and Cravins had the votes to make a runoff, why would those DSCC members vote for Whittingtons appointees? Such a vote should have taken place before the election for DSCC chair (according to the wording of the official rules of the party) and those voters could have simply said "no" to the appointments and the membership would have stayed at 169. <BR/><BR/>And then if the Chair would have ruled that they could have voted, the body could have challenged the ruling of the chair and again, if there really existed enough votes for the other two to make a runoff with 169, the ruling of the chair would have been overturned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com