Would You Support This Proposal To Seat MI and FL Delegations?

[Lincoln Republican]

Would you, especially Democrats, support the proposal that the Michigan and Florida delegations get seated at the convention, and that Clinton and Obama each get 50% of the votes from each delegation?

Is this proposal fair?

Is this proposal reasonable?

[Person Man]

Michigan and Florida lose half, but are seated and all non-Hillary delegates are seated for Obama in Michigan.

[Padfoot]

No I don't think that proposal is reasonable at all because it doesn't do anything to solve the problem IMO.  The issue at hand is that FL and MI voters are having their voices suppressed so arbitrarily splitting the state's delegation doesn't do anything to solve that. 

I've posted my preferred solution here  I wouldn't have made another thread if this one had been started when I was working on it.

[Torie]

Splitting the delegates equally renders the two states moot. That is the Obama "solution."  But changing the rules after the game is played is a bridge too far. It's ludicrous, just ludicrous, and unfair, and I am amazed Dems are taking a redo seriously. There is no way in heck to do a fair redo. For example, in Michigan, Clinton is pushing to keep voters out who voted in the GOP primary, even though a couple of hundred thousand Dems and independents in Michigan voted in the GOP primary, because there was no Dem primary. Lots of Dems in Florida didn't vote at all, and that is why more Pubbies voted in that primary than Dems contrary to the usual pattern.

[Meeker]

I'll support whatever will shut everyone up so we can move on.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Splitting down the middle would defeat the purpose of counting them, and it would screw Hillary who would certainly gain a large amount of delegates from Florida and possibly Michigan.

Michigan and Florida lose half, but are seated and all non-Hillary delegates are seated for Obama in Michigan.

This would make the most sense.

[Verily]

Splitting down the middle would defeat the purpose of counting them, and it would screw Hillary who would certainly gain a large amount of delegates from Florida and possibly Michigan.

Michigan and Florida lose half, but are seated and all non-Hillary delegates are seated for Obama in Michigan.

This would make the most sense.

It still wouldn't make sense on the Michigan side as tens of thousands of people stayed home or voted in the Republican primary simply because Obama wasn't on the ballot. It's a re-vote, nothing or an even split in Michigan, nothing else is fair. For Florida, that's fine.

[J. J.]

I'd actually prefer a re-vote, in the same form used before.

I fankly think that Obama, if he leads in terms of elected delegates, will lead by less than the Hillary net gain from FL/MI.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Personally, I think they should just seat Florida's delegation per their initial vote, which had rather strong turnout.  I don't see much reason to have the state vote again, especially when the outcome is not likely to be significantly different the next time around.

As far as Michigan goes, I think a revote is in order.

If I was a Clinton strategist, however, I'd want a revote in both states.  It may result in a net loss of pledged delegates for her, but at this point, it should all be about wowing the super delegates.  That happens best with a convincing win in Pennsylvania, followed shortly after by convincing re-wins in Michigan and Florida.

If I was an Obama strategist, I'd be quite satisfied with the way things are going—no revote in either, with the situation just being dragged out as long as possible.

[Lincoln Republican]

This proposal to split the Michigan and Florida delegate votes 50/50 for each candidate has been floated by various Democratic luminaries.

As I see it, this proposal would serve two purposes.

1.  It would seat the delegations, thereby at least giving these states representation at the convention.

2.  It would still be a form of punishment to these two states in that the net gain or loss for both candidates would be 0.  Neither would be any further ahead or behind, really giving these delegations no clout at the convention.

However, if the Democratic National Committee is to be taken seriously, they should stick to their original policy of stripping these delegations of their representation.   

[Person Man]

Or they should only be seated if they can decide the nomination at the election level.

[Aizen]

If the two extremely retarded states are too stupid to revote, then this is what I'd like in order from most perferable to least

1) Seat only the superdelegates
2) Split Michigan 50/50 and cut Florida in 1/2
3) Allocate uncommited to Obama and cut Florida in 1/2

I'd be fine with any of those. If Florida gets fully seated, I'll be pissed but I'll get over it. Maybe. I just want it to over!

[Padfoot]

If the two extremely retarded states are too stupid to revote, then this is what I'd like in order from most perferable to least

1) Seat only the superdelegates
2) Split Michigan 50/50 and cut Florida in 1/2
3) Allocate uncommited to Obama and cut Florida in 1/2

I'd be fine with any of those. If Florida gets fully seated, I'll be pissed but I'll get over it. Maybe. I just want it to over!

No way.  That's the worst option of those three.  The superdelegates are the ones who are responsible for creating this mess in the first place.  Consequently they deserve to be punished the most.  If any delegates from these two states are seated none of them should be supers.  MI and FL voters didn't have any say in when their primaries would be.  It was the state legislators who were egged on and assisted by the superdelegates.

[elcorazon]

no. obama needs to come out and say that although he supported the notion that the democratic committee was trying to keep control of the timing of the primaries, he now realizes that the entire system must be overhauled.  In the meantime, with such a contentious battle for the nomination it is only right that both states get an opportunity to express their preferences in the battle for the nomination.  And he should do whatever is necessary to facilitate some sort of revote which will allow Both states to have delegates seated.

This is especially unfortunate because it is important NOT to reward those states for breaking the rules, but nevertheless the alternative of not allowing the people of FL and MI to be a part of the process is even worse.

Seating  people based on a compromise and not a vote is not really much better than not seating them at all.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It's clear that it's time to change the current Democrat system, that's for sure. We can only hope that it happens before 2012.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll support whatever will shut everyone up so we can move on.

Then you have nothing to support as there is no possible solution that will shut everyone up.  The best one can hope for is a solution that leaves everyone disgruntled about the same amount.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'll support whatever will shut everyone up so we can move on.