home

A FL/MI Solution

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:59:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I like this Bowers proposal:

I would seat Florida's pledged delegates as is, and seat the pledged delegates from Michigan Clinton 73-55 Obama. From that point, I would strip both states of their superdelegates. This way, the voters of the two states are not punished, but the superdelegates who are responsible putting both states in this mess are. I actually think that this should become the standard punishment for states that flout the primary calendar: keep the pledged delegates, but strip the superdelegates with no possibility of reinstatement. I also really like the idea of superdelegates whining that they should be seated at the convention. That would be an hilarious press conference.

Indeed. No more superdelegates should be a standard now.

(By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only)

< AP Poll: Clinton Runs Better Than Obama Against McCain | NC Governor To Endorse Hillary Clinton >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A FL/MI Solution | 52 comments (52 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    For the future (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    I think Ausman is the one with an appeal pending now, where his main argument is that the ROOLZ say that the automatic delegates shall be seated at the convention. If he is correct, there is no choice but to seat the supers.

    Reminds me of law school and learning the difference between "shall" and "may"!

    I very much doubt. . . (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:03:41 PM EST
    we'll be seeing the superdelegates in the future, anyway.  If they remain in the system my guess is that they'll be required to vote along with their constituency (or state of residence for non-elected delegates).

    That eliminates the possibility that they'll "undo" the popular or pledged delegate will while continuing to slightly favor those states with lots of Democrats.

    There's nothing sacrosanct about the existence of the supers and indeed they're a fairly recent phenomenon.

    Illogical (none / 0) (#37)
    by mm on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:38:17 PM EST
    If they remain in the system my guess is that they'll be required to vote along with their constituency (or state of residence for non-elected delegates).

    This is kind of pointless, isn't it?  If they're required to go along with the popular vote, then they're just elected delegates.  There would be no point of having the super delegates.

    Parent

    Yes, there would be a point. (none / 0) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:45:07 PM EST
    It would mean that a disproportionately higher percentage of delegates would come from states with lots of Democrats.

    Is that a big enough deal to keep the supers around?  Is it even a good thing to have the more Democratic states have a slightly larger voice in the selection?  I don't have any opinion on either question.  But the math would be different if heavily Dem states were favored (in the current race I assume, without doing that math, that it would have favored Clinton).

    Parent

    If you want to reward voters (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:04:21 PM EST
    who voted for the candidate they wanted, then you should give Obama nothing at all in Michigan.  He CHOSE. NOT. TO. RUN. in the state and the result was that he disenfranchised voters who wanted to vote for HIM.  He did this to kiss Iowan backsides at the expense of Michigan voters.

    Neither he nor the Superdelegates should be rewarded for disenfranchising voters.  As it stands, we don't know how many of the uncommitted would have gone to Obama.  We'll never know without a revote, and to give Obama -- who stood in the way of a revote -- Edwards' voters is wrong.  Give him nothing.

    Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:11:49 PM EST
    I have to agree that this would be the fair solution. Seat FL as is, give HRC the delegates she won, and have the others be "uncommitted."

    Also, do not strip the SD's - just do the 50% solution.

    Ah, if only HoDo had a spine and a sense of fairness...

    Parent

    How do you find an 'uncommitted' delegate? (none / 0) (#16)
    by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    What's the selection criteria?

    Parent
    As I understand it, (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:23:53 PM EST
    "uncommitted" just means they have not pledged their support to anyone at the time. They would not be counted automatically for Obama at the time they are seated.

    Parent
    Right... (none / 0) (#23)
    by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:28:04 PM EST
    But the way we choose delegates for candidates is we find people who are really, really passionate about their candidate, then make them a delegate.

    How are we going to find people who are really, really passionate about nobody and yet still want to volunteer lots of time and effort to the Democratic party? How do we verify that a delegate really is passionate about nobody, and isn't a Clinton or Obama supporter who's trying to infiltrate the group? Do we set up some kind of jury-screening process, where each campaign gets to vet people? Who gets to be the judge? Dean?

    Parent

    No one can know what's in their hearts... (none / 0) (#32)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:34:50 PM EST
    but being uncommitted is just a way of saying, hey, I'm passionate about the Democratic Party and I've got an open mind. I'll support either candidate.

    The delegates could all say they're uncommitted but be secretly for Obama or Clinton, of course. But that would be true about any delegate.

    That's one of the flaws of this system, IMHO. One of MANY.

    Parent

    At min., they're better than BO's Dems for a Day (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:23:21 PM EST
    At least they've contributed to party health overall, whereas Dems for a Day were just used to fluff the score and game the system. (That wasn't what I pictured for the New Politics of Hope'n Change but it sure was different.)

    Parent
    I asked this earlier (none / 0) (#55)
    by wasabi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:29:08 PM EST
    Because I had the same concerns.  Find an activist who hasn't determined who their candidate is?  I never got an answer either.  However Florida is picking their delegates.  By which methodlogy, I'm not clear.

    Parent
    I'm inclined to agree (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:21:47 PM EST
    Edwards was still in the race and he might have gotten a sizable vote in MI, given his populist themes.

    Let the non-Clinton delegates be uncommitted, and let Obama persuade them to vote for him.  If he's really so inevitable, they will.

    Parent

    In total (none / 0) (#14)
    by DaytonDem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:20:36 PM EST
    agreement about the Michigan delegates. In addition to the points above look at Pa.'s Repug race. In a contest that is over McCain polled only 73%. So 45% of Michigan's voters were certainly not voting for Obama. There are votes for  Edwards, Biden et al in that mix.

    Parent
    You would make a good negotiator... (none / 0) (#36)
    by mcdtracy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:38:10 PM EST
    but Politics is the art of compromise.

    You position is as polarizing as the idea that the delegations should NOT be seated.

    It reminds me of this exchange:

    "I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me [Terry McAuliffe] definitively.

    "If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

    He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

    "You won't deny us seats at the convention," Michigan Senator Carl Levin.

    "Carl, take it to the bank," said Terry McAuliffe.

    "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

    Hopefully, an there will be an exploration of the a solution that all can live with... if not whole-heartedly.

    At some point, we want a nominee without the intervention of the "Supreme Court".

    Parent

    emptywheel (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:05:39 PM EST
    at FDL had the same proposal, only delegates at half a vote each IIRC. Can the DNC can decide for themselves how to seat MI? Because the district conventions there have been going her way. She'd take a hit on the supers, but she could end up with 60+% of the delegates there.

    Reform delegate allocation (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:09:02 PM EST
    None of this too-cute-by-half allocation of delegates by congressional district, losing all resolution in the process and ending up making districts with even numbers worth less than ones with odd numbers.  Give each district one delegate (winner take all) and allocate the rest statewide in a winner-take-all fashion too.

    Absurd: over penalizes Clinton for Obama's errors (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:13:36 PM EST
    When will the Dems make Obama stand on his own two feet? He capitalized and continues to crow about gains he made BECAUSE of his choices.

    And the "solutions" -- as I understand them -- put forth since Mr. Unity has petulantly done all he could to prevent a simple MI revote all go against the voters' themselves and penalize HRC as well.

    She lost out elsewhere too, but the Dems don't seem concerned about correcting that part of the scorecard. And why are other states that "broke the rules" not being punished too, nor candidates chalking up dels/SDs in their scorecard being stripped of that advantage?

    You don't have to be a MI/FL voter to be watching this closely. (I'm beyond disgusted by this.) Dems better be damn sure Obama delivers on his promise of new voters that will actually show up, be activists, donors and VOTERS in the GE. I don't think his hoardes will show.

    But what Dem idiocy is sure to drive away in punishing MI / FL for no rational reason is substantial.

    Instructing the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by glennmcgahee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:19:16 PM EST
    While we are all making our suggestions. How about getting rid of the caucus'. They are undemocratic. 1 man or woman/1 vote, secret ballot. period.You can have 1 primary also. Everybody votes on the same day.

    I totally agree. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:25:11 PM EST
    No delegates either. Direct democracy. This complicated system is outdated and dysfunctional.

    Parent
    I agree, but I think there are logistical problems (none / 0) (#41)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:59:01 PM EST
    Don't the states have to agree since they pay for the primaries?  I'm not sure to what extent this is a party decision and to what extent it is a state legislature decision.  I guess that the party could somehow run its own primary?  Not sure what the cost would be.

    Parent
    I guess that could work (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    though I'm wary of assigning all of the uncommitted delegates to Obama. I don't know how we untangle that one.

    In any case, I think this whole process is a farce, and I'm tired of hearing about delegates and not voters.

    Out of interest... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by outsider on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:26:58 PM EST
    We're always talking about whether FL and MI should be included or excluded, but...

    Does anyone know what the race would look like (who would have the most delegates, votes) if *all* the states that had disobeyed the Democratic calendar had been excluded, rather than just MI and FL?

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:05:35 PM EST
    Obama won IA and SC, and Clinton won NH and NV. I think he probably netted ~13-15 delegates between those contests, due to allocation weirdness, plus a few of Edwards' delegates jumped ship to him a few weeks ago. So he'd only lose a few if all those states were knocked out, whereas Clinton lost ~53 net delegates from FL/MI.

    Parent
    It would have been Super Tuesday states and .... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:46:56 PM EST
    I guess with no wins for Obama and thus no momentum, Clinton would have won big and won the nomination.  That's my guess.

    Parent
    SDs (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    I hate the idea of the SDs so don't take this as a post supporting them, but all the SDs from Florida aren't in the Florida legislature. So it would punish those not responsible SDs for the actions of others.

    Exactly.. it was the Republicans that set (none / 0) (#51)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:33:04 PM EST
    the date, not the FL Democratic Party. Someone needs to tattoo that on some of the DNC members. Preferably on the inside of their eyelids.

    Parent
    the only thing that will make me satisfied (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by nycvoter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:32:10 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan seated as they are (with no delegates for Obama for Michigan, he played his hand politically and that's that) with pledged delegates cut in half and superdelegates seated with half a vote each.

    A bit severe. . . (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:37:49 PM EST
    with pledged delegates cut in half

    don't you think?  Not to mention bloody?

    Parent

    Only if they make the process representative (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:55:42 PM EST
    Right now the Democratic Primary is more of a mess than the electoral college system. If the best candidate wins, it's in spite of the system, not because of it. Having superdelegates makes no less sense than allowing some states to select the the candidate via caucuses which underrepresent working and elderly Americans. It makes no less sense than having states in which open primaries allow Republicans to choose who will represent the Democratic Party in the election. It makes no less sense than having certain small states with little influence in the general election weeding out the field by voting before everybody else.

    Doing away with superdelegates makes no sense if we aren't willing to address the other deficiencies in our system.

    Although there's some truth to this (none / 0) (#43)
    by pie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:02:59 PM EST
    Right now the Democratic Primary is more of a mess than the electoral college system.

    We have never been in this situation as long as I've been voting.  It's gotten more people involved in the process.  Unfortunate that MI and FL took their actions, but this back-and-forth is way more exciting than past elections.

    I'm in a good mood though.  I may feel differently tomorrow.  :)

    Parent

    The first four states (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by pie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:04:59 PM EST
    would have been the first four anyway.  

    So I don't know if I agree with that.

    the super delegates should also be seated (4.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:06:53 PM EST
    the super delegates should also be seated

    no more rules gymnastics

    Dean and Brazile however should be stripped if they are SD's.

    Please don't strip Dean and Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    The idea of seeing either naked is icky.

    Parent
    This may be a reasonable solution (4.00 / 0) (#9)
    by democrat1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:10:52 PM EST
    now that the revotes are not doable. Better to resolve this now one way or the other.  I think Dean is a person of integrity unlike Donna Brazille.  He should announce a solution before it is too late.  This also helps in picking the nominee sooner as he wants to. But you can not remove the superdelegates.
    Whether one likes or not, they are there and they should be seated until the rules are changed

    "no more rules gymnastics" (4.00 / 0) (#15)
    by outsider on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:20:50 PM EST
    I quite agree with this sentiment.  But to me, no more rules gymnastics means applying the rules the DNC currently has for these situations.  They should follow those rules.  That means docking delegates from FL and MI by up to a maximum of 50%, and seating the rest as is.

    This is a blog that is partially about crime.  A central principle of criminal law is "fair warning".  That means you tell people in advance what the punishment is for disobeying the rules.  The punishment for going early in the primary calendar is a maximum 50% penalty.  Anything else is just making up the rules as you go along.

    Note that the 50% strategy involves seating some uncommitted delegates for MI.  Obama can't complain about this.  For again, he had "fair warning".  He should have known the maximum penalty for going early is 50%, not 100%, as was said at the time.

    Making up roolz as go long, etc. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Trickster on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:29:08 PM EST
    This is a blog that is partially about crime.  A central principle of criminal law is "fair warning".  That means you tell people in advance what the punishment is for disobeying the rules.  The punishment for going early in the primary calendar is a maximum 50% penalty.  Anything else is just making up the rules as you go along.

    Another central principle of criminal law is that the verdict is decided on a case-by-case basis.  There's nothing in these rules that sets out a mandatory minimum sentence.  So the rulesmakers, working under the existing rules, can decide at the convention to enact whatever punishment they choose.

    Parent

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by outsider on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:32:40 PM EST
    That's why I said they should dock a *maximum* of 50%, not a minimum...

    Parent
    this was posted on "another blog" (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:06:40 PM EST
    this morning:

    "Now, with Hillary's help, they're acting like "gee, how did that happen?" Uh, it happened because your state officials (the Republican legislature, in the case of Florida) chose to break the rules knowing full well that the price would be losing your delegates. Got a gripe about having lost your voice at the Democratic convention? Have a little chat with your state officials. But please, let's stop this little charade of pretending like losing your delegates was a big surprise. Hillary's own top advisers helped put the delegate plan into place. Everyone knew what would happen, but they did it anyway."

    I love the way he admits that the republican lawmakers were responsible but is happy to diss florida voters anyway.

    A nice example of "the New Politics" (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    If your elected representatives and state party leaders effectively disenfranchise you in a critical presidential election, your only remedy is to vote them out of office (if they hold elective office) the next time they are on the ballot.

    In other words, screw you.

    Parent

    the interest in strident enforcment (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:26:21 PM EST
    of "rules seems to be shrinking in direct inverse proportion to the realization that ALL the rules may not work in their favor.


    Parent
    That particular blogger (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:28:44 PM EST
    will never have my trust or respect again.

    Parent
    I quite agree (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:29:12 PM EST


    Parent
    It's basically an interim solution (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    On the way to the final solution you suggested yesterday.

    I have a suspicion that Bowers looks at the SDs and ....

    Well.  So how many SDs does Clinton lose here, and how many SDs does Obama lose here??

    The only punishment that can be applied here has to be free of any impact to the results.

    That's the problem.

    No Sale (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:28:25 PM EST
    Thinking about this further, I need to re-iterate, if you create a punishment, that punishment must NOT impact the results of the primary in totality.

    I get the sense that the reasoning goes like this:  "OK, we lost the PR battle on total disenfranchisement, we will lose the PR battle on a 50/50 solution, but maybe we can still eek out an advantage here no matter how small.  We can still wipe out the advantage Clinton would have with the SDs in these two states."

    And again, if none of this didn't impact the overall results, then there'd be no need to discuss it.

    I actually think (none / 0) (#38)
    by IzikLA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:42:43 PM EST
    This is the best solution.  It does hear the voters and penalize those that put them in that position.  It gives them both delegates.  Obama would still be ahead in delegates but it cuts into his lead and allows for the Popular Vote argument to lean towards favoring Clinton.  Fine by me.

    Only if SC and Other Early States are Punished (none / 0) (#42)
    by cdalygo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    No go with me and I hope Clinton Campaign feels the same.

    This nonsense about violating rules means nothing when other early states were not similarly punished.

    I thought the reason they were not punished (none / 0) (#48)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:09:06 PM EST
    Is that they only moved up to keep their place in line.  That is, they only moved up far enough to still be the first three (four?).  Positions they otherwise would have lost.  Am I wrong about that?

    Parent
    I do not agree with this at all as to Florida. (none / 0) (#47)
    by FLVoter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:06:59 PM EST
    The Florida Superdelegates are not responsible for what the Florida Republican legislature did.  When the primary was moved up, the choice of Florida Democrats was either to vote for or against moving the primary. But, in voting against moving the primary, they would also be voting against having a paper trail on the problematic Diebold voting machines put in place with Gov. Jeb Bush.  Florida Democrats tried to add an amendment to the bill moving the primary to Feb. 5. No surprise that it did not pass the Republican controlled Florida Legislature.  Any questions contact Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's office. She has spoken on this subject before.


    A slight modification (none / 0) (#49)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:22:04 PM EST
    This is a very good solution. Get rid of the SDs in FL and  MI. But in MI not all uncommitted should be  assigned to Obama. Both campaigns should be able to appeal to them.

    I've been saying they should strip the (none / 0) (#52)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:43:19 PM EST
    supers for months now. They were the ones responsible for this fiasco afterall.  Seems to me to be the most fair approach - only punish the people who broke the rules - not the voters who are in effect held hostage by both the State pols and the DNC.

    Punishing SD's... (none / 0) (#54)
    by lansing quaker on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:07:41 PM EST
    Not cute.

    Without the ardent support of Michigan's superdelegates going into the General, the base here will be very much affected if Hillary loses.

    Most SDs here are in the tank for Clinton, and Detroit/Michigan is always a political minefield.  L. Brooks Patterson loves to take swipes at the AA Detroit Machine, and it's not fun when Kilpatrick is in the mess he's in (or when Wright takes swipes at Patterson, for that matter).

    Knock Granholm, Levin, Dingell, Brewer, and Stabenow out, and the nom goes to Obama, I can easily see a very lax Dem base here in Michigan outside of Washtenaw, Wayne, and Genessee counties.

    The SDs here are needed to drum up the base.

    A FL/MI Solution | 52 comments (52 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment