Do you agree with this on Michigan and Florida?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The news that the Democratic National Committee had stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates -- or rather, that they'd been stripped of the right to have their delegates seated at the convention -- was treated somewhat lightly when the decision was announced.

Of course, that was before two candidates cleared a thousand first-ballot delegate commitments, and one's team started calling for those delegates to be seated.  Democrats in Michigan and Florida would probably agree.

There can be only one fair conclusion to the problem:  if both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama survive until August, Michigan's and Florida's delegates must not, under any circumstances whatsoever, be seated at the Democratic National Convention.

The DNC set a rule:  Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina would be authorized to set their primary/caucus dates before Feb. 5th.  Any others doing so would risk their delegates' seating arrangements in Denver.  Michigan and Florida broke that rule, and the DNC enforced it.  But Hillary Clinton's name remained on the ballot in those states, and while she did not actively campaign in either one, neither did Obama or John Edwards.  No matter how hard her campaign spins them, those victories mean only incrementally more than nothing if the DNC maintains control over its nominating process.

And maintain control it must.  It cannot be denied that Michigan and Florida voters have been deprived of their chance to help decide this nomination, but the responsibility for that deprivation lies not with the DNC, but with the powers that be in those states.  Ultimately, the DNC is in charge of the Democratic Party's presidential nomination process, and to reverse a ruling like this one on such a critically important issue -- its own presidential nomination rules -- would be to divest its power to whichever candidate could garner the most insider influence over time.

To give Michigan and Florida delegates their seats in Denver would give those two states their voices back, that much is true.  But to do so at the expense of all the other states that waited their turns, those that took part in Super Tuesday and those still waiting to hold their primaries, would be a black eye to the entire nominating process.  It's a process with quirks, and anachronisms, and plenty of intrigue, but in 2008, more than any year in recent memory, it is working.  Living.  Breathing.  Functioning.  Michigan and Florida missing out because they moved their primaries before Feb. 5th is a fair and democratic part of that process.

Let's not break the process before it's had a chance to work all the way through to the end.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes. Exactly.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes. Exactly.

[Eleden]

Yes. Exactly.

[Aizen]

...Yes

[Frodo]

I agree completely.  Rules are rules.  When Michigan and Florida broke them, they knew full well that there would be consequences. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree - and I agree somewhat with the Republican side (Michigan was kinda pushed in, but whatever) - there's talk about Michigan Dems. holding a caucus though, so that they can get their delegates seated.

[perdedor]

Yes. Exactly.

[Flying Dog]

Yes. Scew us.

[ottermax]

No, there should be a caucus for Michigan and Florida voters in March or April. They are big states that deserve to have a voice. We shouldn't sit the delegates from the January vote however.

[Aizen]

Michigan can't afford to spend money on a caucus though. Is it fair that the DNC pays for them because they were retarded and moved their primary up?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Michigan can't afford to spend money on a caucus though. Is it fair that the DNC pays for them because they were retarded and moved their primary up?

You could argue it was Michigan Republicans' idea, although the Democratic Governor signed the bill and the Democrats in the legislature didn't oppose it.

[Mr. Morden]

I agree with some of it.  Of course, you also can't deny that the DNC has enforced its rules rather arbitrarily.  They initially said that Iowa would not be allowed to vote earlier than Jan. 14th, and NH would not be allowed to vote earlier than Jan. 22nd.  But NH refused to go along with any arrangement that had them voting after Nevada, and both IA and NH basically said "screw you guys, we'll vote whenever the heck we feel like it", and the DNC folded, and allowed them to do so.

But of course, all of that happened before anyone started voting or caucusing.  To retroactively make the contests in Florida and Michigan count after the fact would be absurd.

And I don't even think it would really give the voters in those states "their voices back" in a way that's fair to everyone in each state, since thousands of voters presumably didn't bother voting because they didn't think the contest would count.  Florida and Michigan had lower voter turnout on the Dem. side than the GOP side, in contrast to pretty much every other state...I don't think that would have happened if it had been made clear that those primaries would count, even if neither Clinton nor Obama had campaigned there.

[Gabu]

Regardless of what has happened, the worst possible outcome would be to simply seat the delegates from the January votes.  The citizens were told over and over that their votes would not count, so to now after the fact say "oops sorry it actually did count" would be monumentally unfair to absolutely everyone both in and out of the states.  Either schedule a revote or just don't seat the delegates.

[Mr. Morden]

Michigan can't afford to spend money on a caucus though. Is it fair that the DNC pays for them because they were retarded and moved their primary up?

You could argue it was Michigan Republicans' idea, although the Democratic Governor signed the bill and the Democrats in the legislature didn't oppose it.

It was pretty much a bipartisan effort.  On the Dem. side, Carl Levin has been urging the Dems in the legislature to move up the primary to as early as possible for a long time (regardless of DNC rules), in order to break the influence of IA and NH.  At the time, a lot of people were saying that it was Clinton allies in the legislature who were pushing for an early primary.  I'll see if I can dig up some of the relevant quotes from Ambinder at the time the Jan. 15th primary was passed.....

[Flying Dog]

I would love a caucus, though. It would be so much fun. I should look up the old Michigan caucus rules to see what they are.

Also, Obama would be likely favored, but it could go either way.

[Mr. Morden]

Here is the thread in which I tracked the Michigan primary drama a few months ago:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=55501.msg1329785#msg1329785

There are some links to dead articles, but here's some of what I wrote back then:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure if it's a coincidence that Granholm, a Clinton supporter, advocated the early primary.  Union people and Edwards supporters were pushing for a Feb. 9th caucus, but they were outvoted in the legislature.

[ottermax]

I don't think people realized in November or January that the race would be so close.

[Flying Dog]

Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer has said, "Everybody involved, the candidates, the DNC, and we, need to remain open-minded, so if someone comes up with a creative way that meets everyone's interests, we can do that."


The Clinton supporters, Granholm, Stabenow, Kildee, Dingell, and Levin are all nay-sayers. But in the end it's up to the MI Democratic Party, and ultimately Brewster.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Michigan can't afford to spend money on a caucus though. Is it fair that the DNC pays for them because they were retarded and moved their primary up?

DNC wouldn't pay - state party would.

[Smid]

Yes.

1. Michigan knew it wouldn't have its delegates counted if it went ahead, but it did it anyway in a big "up yours" to the DNC.

2. Voters stayed away from the polls after being told their vote wouldn't count. This could have materially affected the outcome, especially given the high un-committed vote.

3. Clinton was the only one of the major players whose name actually appeared on that ballot paper. Obama couldn't have won Michigan because he did the right thing and withdrew from the ballot. It's hardly fair that because Clinton was the only one of the major players who decided to run in Michigan, that she be awarded the delegates. That would be rewarding her for being undisciplined.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Michigan can't afford to spend money on a caucus though. Is it fair that the DNC pays for them because they were retarded and moved their primary up?

You could argue it was Michigan Republicans' idea, although the Democratic Governor signed the bill and the Democrats in the legislature didn't oppose it.

Michigan and Florida Democrats are to blame for this mess. They should either pay for a doever or get no delegates. Even in the first case, maybe they need to lose their superdelegates, since those people are probably the most at fault.

[7,052,770]

the D primary/caucus system is broken and needs complete restructuring.

[Padfoot]

Regardless of what has happened, the worst possible outcome would be to simply seat the delegates from the January votes.  The citizens were told over and over that their votes would not count, so to now after the fact say "oops sorry it actually did count" would be monumentally unfair to absolutely everyone both in and out of the states.  Either schedule a revote or just don't seat the delegates.

I agree.  Seating these delegates is like playing a soccer scrimmage at the beginning of the season and then trying to make it count for your official record after winning it so that your team has a good enough record to get into the end of season tournament.

If they want to seat their delegates there needs to be a new vote, otherwise they get nothing.

[J. J.]

OK, here it goes:

1.  Assuming that the DNC had the authority to set the rule (I have not checked), FL and MI delegates should not be seated under the current rules, procedurally.

2.  It is possible for the DNC to rescind or use the motion amend something previously adopted the rule and then ratify the delegate selection, procedurally.   (See Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th edition, 2000, pp. 119, p. 293 ff. It is the one the DNC uses and it is not online.) 

3.  The credentials committee can also attempt to resolve this, right before the convention (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, pp. 595-6).

Option #2 has the effect of unleashing a whole bunch of Clinton delegates on the Convention, but it could be done within the rules, unless they actually put that in the bylaws (and I don't think they did).  However, politically, Clinton can say, "Hey, we're letting the voters decided this through there directly elected representatives." She can say this in the case where she has a majority of the delegates, but a minority of the pledged delegates, without FL and MI.

Option #1 has the effect of restraining a whole bunch of Clinton delegates from voting.  Obama can say, "We are playing by the rules as they were adopted."  The problem here is that the rules, as they were adopted, say that those super delegates get to vote on the nomination.  You can't complain about the super delegates without looking like a complete hypocrite, which you really don't want to do if you're running for President.

So basically, for Obama to win this issue, he has to either have enough delegates, including super delegates, to win even if FL and MI are in (#1) or Obama has to have elected delegates, including MI and FL, but excluding the super delegates.

Option #3 depends on the makeup of the credentials committee, and could lead to a floor fight.

There is a fourth option, to hold a primary or caucus in FL and MI.  That is expensive and the state parties can't afford it; so unless the DNC steps in with a couple of checks, it won't happen and the time frame is rapidly running out.

Personally, I prefer #1.  Expect for #4, I don't see how this can do anything but hurt Obama, politically.  He'll either have to face a potential loss at the hands of the super delegates or permit the elected delegates, including MI and FL, to vote, or prepare for a floor fight (which could be reminiscent of 1968).