Why was there no protest over the GOP with FL and MI?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's rarely mentioned that the GOP penalized the two states too now. Granted, it was less strict, half their delegates as opposed to all, but on principle is that much different? Is it OK to use a common analogy to count blacks' votes as only half of a vote in an election? Is "disenfranchisement" OK if done on a lower level? And if there was nothing wrong with FL and MI deciding to hold their primary at that time, wouldn't any penalty be unjust?

[Meeker]

Because Republicans don't care when you disenfranchise voters. Duh.

But really, if the Republican contest was turning out to be so close I'm sure the respective campaigns would've started complaining about the penalization. Just like if the Democratic contest wasn't close then no one would care about Florida and Michigan.

[Padfoot]

the other thing to remember is that FL was winner take all and I don't think McCain was ever behind after he won there so there was no reason for him to complain.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

the other thing to remember is that FL was winner take all and I don't think McCain was ever behind after he won there so there was no reason for him to complain.

Oh oh but it's not about who won those states but the principal of the thing!

[Mr. Morden]

NH and SC were penalized too.  Every state holding a primary before Feb. 5th was penalized by the GOP.  They have no special exemptions for IA or NH or any other state.

The thing is that no one ever expected that either nomination contest might turn out to be so close that the *delegates* of any one state might tip the balance between one candidate and another.  What the states holding January primaries were hoping for was that they would be influential because of the momentum that they'd provide, not that they'd provide a decisive number of delegates.

The party leaders in those states gladly traded half their delegates for the ability to be more influential because of momentum.  And in fact, MI and FL were probably much more influential on the GOP side by voting in January than they would have been if they'd voted on Feb. 5th.  Back in December, Tim Noah explained better than I can how people tended to view these things up until just a month or so ago:

http://www.slate.com/id/2179500/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is how people tended to view it before the closeness of the 2008 Democratic contest turned it into a delegate counting game.  Now that it's an actual delegate counting game, two states not getting their say is a big controversy.  (It was a minor controversy before because the states didn't even confer any momentum, since the candidates didn't campaign there.)  On the GOP side, it's all irrelevant, since the delegates for FL, MI, NH, and SC wouldn't change the outcome anyway.

[muon2]

NH and SC were penalized too.  Every state holding a primary before Feb. 5th was penalized by the GOP.  They have no special exemptions for IA or NH or any other state.

The thing is that no one ever expected that either nomination contest might turn out to be so close that the *delegates* of any one state might tip the balance between one candidate and another.  What the states holding January primaries were hoping for was that they would be influential because of the momentum that they'd provide, not that they'd provide a decisive number of delegates.

The key is momentum, which is not always a win. In Iowa, Huckabee had momentum from the win, and Romney lost momentum by losing to Huck by 9%. The twist was that McCain got a boost by placing 4th, nearly reaching Thompson's 3rd place total. McCain's move up helped provide additional momentum into NH. IA and NH have regularly provided momentum not just for the win but for beating expectations.

[TomC]

This probably isn't the best place to ask, but I've been wondering- on the Dem side, if MI and FL count- either the earlier vote or a redo- does that change the 2024 number needed to win?

[Mr. Morden]

This probably isn't the best place to ask, but I've been wondering- on the Dem side, if MI and FL count- either the earlier vote or a redo- does that change the 2024 number needed to win?

Yes.  You need to win a majority of the delegates that count.  So if more delegates count, then the majority of that number would be a larger number.

[minionofmidas]

I find it particularly ironic how the states that wanted to get an unfair advantage over other states by voting early, now want to vote at the very end of the primary season, thus achieving their original purpose by a different means.

Anyone else in favor of stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegations to the Electoral College as a deserved punishment?

[Verily]

This probably isn't the best place to ask, but I've been wondering- on the Dem side, if MI and FL count- either the earlier vote or a redo- does that change the 2024 number needed to win?

Yes.  You need to win a majority of the delegates that count.  So if more delegates count, then the majority of that number would be a larger number.

And, by the way, it's back up to 2025 with Bill Foster's win, and will be 2026 assuming Jackie Speier and Andre Carson win their special elections, as is likely.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The only reason MI and FL matter now is because the Democrat's race is so close. If Hillary had run away with it, then no one would care about it.

[Jake]

1. John McCain has the nomination wrapped up without needing Michigan and Florida. This is obvious.

2. All the candidates were on the ballot in Michigan.

3. All the candidates campaigned in Florida and Michigan

4. Other states jumping up were penalized.

So essentially, the RNC cut their delegations in half and it was business as usual. I'm glad our chairman wasn't effing stupid because we completely avoided the mess the Democrats are in (and still would've avoided it if the contest was still being contested).

And the disenfranchisement argument doesn't carry much weight. Delegate allocation is unproportional in both primaries anyway (Florida already had more delegates than New York despite having a lower population).

i know he is smarter than he acts.

This quote fits in this thread well.

[Mr. Morden]

This also raises the question: How much does the "disenfranchisement" controversy hinge on the fact that the two states are getting *zero* delegates, rather than just suffering a 50% penalty?  Is a penalty OK, as long as the state doesn't lose *all* of its delegates?  I mean, if it's "unfair" for a state to suffer any kind of penalty based on the timing of its primary, then what about the fact that the DNC gives delegate bonuses to states that vote in May and June?  The states voting in February and March are being penalized for going early.  But is that OK because they're still getting something?

If so, then why not just give Florida and Michigan, say, 10 delegates each, allocated based on the January primaries?  That way, the votes from both states would "count".  They just wouldn't count very much.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This also raises the question: How much does the "disenfranchisement" controversy hinge on the fact that the two states are getting *zero* delegates, rather than just suffering a 50% penalty?  Is a penalty OK, as long as the state doesn't lose *all* of its delegates?  I mean, if it's "unfair" for a state to suffer any kind of penalty based on the timing of its primary, then what about the fact that the DNC gives delegate bonuses to states that vote in May and June?  The states voting in February and March are being penalized for going early.  But is that OK because they're still getting something?

If so, then why not just give Florida and Michigan, say, 10 delegates each, allocated based on the January primaries?  That way, the votes from both states would "count".  They just wouldn't count very much.

That's basically what I'm saying. It's pretty silly to protest the DNC penalty and not say anything about the GOP penalty.

[Jake]

If so, then why not just give Florida and Michigan, say, 10 delegates each, allocated based on the January primaries?  That way, the votes from both states would "count".  They just wouldn't count very much.

1. Defending the way Democrats allocated delegates to later states is pointless. I'm not here to pat Howard Dean on the back.

2. I'd say your plan solves the disenfranchisment claims, but it's obviously not going to solve the political issue at stake.

[Erc]

The Republican primaries still mattered, to both the campaigns and the media---they were hard-fought battles that, in the case of FL, decided the outcome of the nomination.

On the Democratic side, by stripping all of the delegates (and forcing both campaigns not to work there, even to the point of removing Obama's name from the ballot), it was never actually a contest.  If only half had been stripped, we could debate all we want to about whether that's fair or not, but the result (whichever way one goes) would make some sense.  Here, we're left with either stripping them of all representation (a bit extreme), or seating them as they are after no campaigning in the state (and with the possibility of a lot of the 'Uncommitted' MI delegation going to Clinton), which is hardly representative either.

In the end, though, as has been pointed out...it only matters because the delegate count matters for the Democrats.  Had the Republicans fought out to the convention, there would have been a fight about seating the MI delegation, for example.  And, in the end, now that McCain's won, all the delegations will probably be seated fully.


I am a little bit miffed that MI & FL are effectively getting rewarded for their intransigence---they get to have a say anyway (and a much, much larger say than they would have had had they had their primaries on Feb 5), despite breaking the rules.  And, given the rigamarole involved in all of this, it may be impossible to enforce these sorts of penalties in future years...and the process will move into December.

[12th Doctor]

the other thing to remember is that FL was winner take all and I don't think McCain was ever behind after he won there so there was no reason for him to complain.

Oh oh but it's not about who won those states but the principal of the thing!

The election was held.  I suppose if you want to throw another few dozen McCain delegates at the Republican Convention then that's fine, but Clinton certainly won FL fair and square... and if you want to seat Michigan delegates from Clinton, then I'm cool with that too.

[jimrtex]

It's rarely mentioned that the GOP penalized the two states too now. Granted, it was less strict, half their delegates as opposed to all, but on principle is that much different? Is it OK to use a common analogy to count blacks' votes as only half of a vote in an election? Is "disenfranchisement" OK if done on a lower level? And if there was nothing wrong with FL and MI deciding to hold their primary at that time, wouldn't any penalty be unjust?

New Hamsphire, South Carolina, and Wyoming were given the same penalty, and the penalty that was applied was set out in advance.  The GOP had a simple rule that if delegates were determined prior to February 5, you would lose 1/2 their delegates.

On the Democrat side, the penalty was made much harsher (according to the "rules", states that went early would only lose 1/2 their pledged delegates, and all of their superdelegates), and it was waived in the case of Iowa and New Hampshire.  Under the DNC original "rules", IA, NH, SC, and NV were given a specific January date, and IA and NH should have received the same penalty as MI and FL.

In addition, the Democrats tried to penalize the candidates for campaigning in the Florida and Michigan causing them to resort to such backdoor tricks as permitting their name to remain on the ballot in Michigan (or not); having a Democrat governor and senator in Michigan holding a press conference urging Michiganders to vote in the primary, and then in response to a question acknowledge that they personally would be voting for Clinton; or making national cable buys that would just happen to be aired in Florida.

[Mr. Morden]

In addition, the Democrats tried to penalize the candidates for campaigning in the Florida and Michigan....

Not quite....if by "the Democrats", you mean the DNC.  The original rule was that the candidates would be penalized for campaigning there.  But the DNC changed that, so that FL & MI would get zero delegates, but there would be no sanctions against the candidates campaigning there:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Florida_primary_found_noncompliant.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reason the candidates made the pledge not to campaign there wasn't to appease the DNC.  It was to appease Dems in IA, NH, NV, and SC (the "four state pledge").

[minionofmidas]

This also raises the question: How much does the "disenfranchisement" controversy hinge on the fact that the two states are getting *zero* delegates, rather than just suffering a 50% penalty?  Is a penalty OK, as long as the state doesn't lose *all* of its delegates?  I mean, if it's "unfair" for a state to suffer any kind of penalty based on the timing of its primary, then what about the fact that the DNC gives delegate bonuses to states that vote in May and June?  The states voting in February and March are being penalized for going early.  But is that OK because they're still getting something?

If so, then why not just give Florida and Michigan, say, 10 delegates each, allocated based on the January primaries?  That way, the votes from both states would "count".  They just wouldn't count very much.

I think one delegate per state is plenty.