ok, so here’s another proposal designed to resolve the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegations. the premise here is that we offset the remaining uncommitted “superdelegates”, with 300+ uncommitted “regular” delegates. Here’s how:
1. Florida and Michigan get half the delegates which they were originally allocated. ALL OF THESE MUST BE UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES, individuals who have not contributed to either Clinton or Obama (or maybe any candidate), not have been active in their campaigns. Delegate candidates would need to sign a letter to that effect, and would be reviewed by both campaigns. They could be chosen at Congressional District caucuses, or by the State Committees.
2. The remainder of the delegates would be evenly divided among the other states and territories, etc, 3-4 delegates each (?) and must also be uncommitted. Due to the small number, the State Committees could, in most cases, select these delegates (as is done in Mass., which has two “uncommitted” addons in our delegate plan).
3. The Superdelegates from those states could go and be committed as they please.
So if the “Superdelegates” are talking about meeting in conference to determine the party nominee, why not balance it with 300+ seniors, labor activists, volunteers, local electeds and others who haven’t made a decision as yet (there are some, y’know). Let the two candidates make their pitch to them, and let’s see what happens.
Every state should be represented at the 2008 Democratic National Convention and representatives of every state should have the right to determine our next nominee.
Your comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc are welcome. No pride here, jump in and make it better!
Note: the author is a Clinton supporter and would prefer allocating delegates in accordance with the wishes of those primary voters, but …
laurel says
The FL primary results are fair as they stand, since everyone was on the ticket and there was record-breaking turnout at the polls.
<
p>Now MI, there we have a problem… But in that case, I’m not sure I like the idea of picking as superdelegates people who have not been involved thus far. Do we really want cheeto-brained folks making such an important decision for us? Unless MI has a primary do-over and regular pledged delegate selection process, I just don’t see how delegates (pledged or the extra supers you’re suggesting) can be fairly selected.
pipi-bendenhaft says
Let’s say if Claire Higgins, Mayor of Northampton, were to run in the Democratic primary against John Kerry (she won’t, she likes Kerry); but let’s just say she ran but in a Democratic primary in which all candidates were equally forbidden from campaigning; who do you guess would win more votes?
<
p>Now, perhaps you or a few others have heard of Claire, and she might be expected to poll well out here in Western Mass. but would you consider the playing field even or fair for both candidates? Would Kerry have an unfair advantage because of name recognition with Dems in Billerica or Southie or Marlborough or Lowell or Roxsbury? “Claire Higgins? We don’t know Clara Higgins!” (Apologies to the extraordinarily competent, decent, and somewhat shy Mayor for using her for this example.)
<
p>As a feminist, I find this line of thinking about accepting Florida as truly reflective of a fair contest runs contrary to my belief in equity. Women have traditionally been hobbled by the “familiar name recognition” hurdle which has historically advantaged men. I am not going to change my thinking about this as an issue of fairness simply because the outcome of this race advantaged a woman. It’s just not right on principle, in my opinion.
<
p>I am willing to accept a division of Florida delegates (at a 50% penalty for willfully violating DNC rules) at the early primary outcome, but not because I believe it is intrinsically fair, but because I think it is important to settle the issue so we can run against McCain. In an earlier comment on another diary or two, I suggested that the outcome will be that both delegations are seated at a 50% penalty, with Florida results as is, and Michigan split 50/50 (over the objections of Hillary Clinton who announced, at one point, that the results of MI should stand and she should get those delegates even with no other candidates’ names on the ballot. I am not sure how a candidate can rail about “disenfranchising” voters and accept a MI election as “fair”.) In that other comment I also suggested that no popular votes should count from those states since the elections were intrinsically unrepresentative. But we shall see what comes to pass.
<
p>(Nice to see you, Laurel, even as we disgree.)
laurel says
i think that clinton, obama and edwards already all had great name recognition prior to the florida primary. thus, i think it is a fair result.
<
p>i’ve been intreagued by the idea of splitting MI 50:50 clinton:obama. that really is the same as not seating any delegates, isn’t it? or are both camps banking on the hope that some delegates will defect to their side at the national convention, and so the ultimate split won’t be 50:50 in the final count?
they says
but is it fair to count them? you’re saying that states should be able to hold primaries whenever they want, even though they are trying to represent a national party which has an interest in pacing and selecting when each state votes. Apparently the states have their own rules about requiring them on the same day and so forth.
<
p>If the party seats them, then they give up all control for next election and it’ll just be confusion among all the states in a big free for all.
<
p>Here’s my suggestion:
<
p>If the results show that Clinton gets hosed by x number of delegates, and more of her supporters disenfranchised, then maybe Obama should be a man and tell a few of his delegates to stay home too, in solidarity. That’d be fair and save jet fuel, and not cost anything.
<
p>Same thing in Michigan, but based on poll results of something. The loser just tells some delegates to stay home.
laurel says
“you’re saying that states should be able to hold primaries whenever they want”. please stop.
they says
I know you aren’t saying that directly, but my point is that is what the action of seating them says to states, the message they get is that the party will not enforce its rules, so ignore them.
<
p>What do you think of my solution, as a Clinton supporter. Do you think Obama could agree to ask however many delegates advantage he has to stay home? Save jet fuel? Usually there will be some delegates that get sick and the party needs to find replacements, this year the Obama and the party could coordinate to not replace ten or twenty or whatever the difference is of his delegates.
<
p>It avoids the “states will be encouraged to do it next year” problem by having the problem solved by the candidates themselves, just this once, and still punishes the state party because they’ll lose their fun at the convention.
pipi-bendenhaft says
I think your proposal is anti-democratic and without merit. I have full faith in the thoughtful ability of both Clinton and Obama to work out a reasonable and fair compromise (whatever that may be) for the good of the voters, the process, and the Party.
<
p>Don’t worry, Democrats will work this out. We know there is too much at stake for our country for us to fail.
<
p>Thanks for your ideas.
pipi-bendenhaft says
constructive and serious to add to this topic, I look forward to your insight. In my opinion, however, misrepresenting the previous comment, and then responding to that mispresentation isn’t it.
<
p>But glad to see you are thinking about a variety of new subjects.
pipi-bendenhaft says
it is incumbent upon the candidate who reneges on her own signed pledge to not accept the delegates or vote totals from Florida to prove that the contest was fair and should therefore be accepted as is.
<
p>If Clinton wants the DNC and democratic voters in all other states to accept her claim that an election where all candidates were forbidden to campaign was comletely fair, an election that voters were told was a meaningless “beauty contest” and so didn’t vote, was full enfranchisement, I think Clinton and Clinton supporters have to do more than just say “I think” it was fair. Prove that it was fair, and that everyone who would have voted in a primary that counted, did in fact, vote. Prove that there was no “name recognition” advantage. Prove that if Obama had campaigned in Florida, he would not have shown the impact on the Clinton lead, as he has in about every state he has run in, since, and her “lead” would not have been different.
<
p>If you can show proof that it was fair, and represented full enfranchisement, I might change my mind about Florida.
<
p>About Michigan, Laurel, I am surprised, is it really more important to have Michigan represented and seated at the convention, or to “win” in an election that is simply not going to happen? There will be no revote – the legislature has already decided this issue. The practical and technical problems with a re-vote in either state are legion. I, frankly, think that it’s more important to seat Michigan delegates (even at 50/50 with a 50% penalty -which is more than they would have gotten under DNC rules they understood) to give Michiganers a voice at the convention (which is more than about the Presidential ballot) than to continue to fight to prevent the seating of any delegation because you don’t like the split.
<
p>This election isn’t a perfect system. If we were to say we that accept nothing but the full voice of the people, then why would accept a primary system that limits voting to certain hours of the day, or one day of the week. Why would we accept both primaries and caucuses? (This Democratic primary is not like Gore v Bush 2000, where Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college. Both Gore & Bush ran for the Presidency counting ballots cast in the same system, not one where Bush won using popular vote totals from “primary” states and Gore lost because he had to use popular vote totals from “caucuses”.) Why would we accept the votes of states that have more than one or two system for deciding delegates (Texas)? What about all those voters from caucus states who would have voted in a primary (say by absentee ballot, or a short visit to a polling site) but wouldn’t or couldn’t go to a caucus? How are their votes represented? In the name of full enfranchisement (not just of two states but of all states) why won’t Clinton or her supporters demand that all those primaries and caucuses be re-voted to provide a true reflection of the will of all of the Democratic voters? So a true “popular vote” total can be weighed at the end. She won’t because even her “principle” of enfranchisement has limits; even for her, “the rules are the rules”, however imperfect they may be.
laurel says
dem voters came out in record-breaking droves. if the turnout had been below normal, then yes i would be concerned that people had stayed home because they had been told it wouldn’t count. but apparently a surprising chunk of the electorate decided to be heard. the same thing happened in the WA dem primary, which didn’t count towards allocating delegates (that was done in caucuses). the vote would count for nothing, yet huge numbers of dems came out to vote anyway. i just don’t think anyone can say FL dems didn’t bother to vote.
pipi-bendenhaft says
According to a statistical comparison by Wharton Prof Greg Nini and author Glenn Hurowitz, as posted by Time Magazine’s Karen Tumulty.
<
p>
<
p>http://www.time-blog.com/swamp…
<
p>Any more questions? Still looking forward to that proof that Florida was true and fair and enfranchised all voters – not just Clinton voters.
laurel says
to your statement that the FL vote was somehow only fair for Clinton voters. whatever degree of (un)fairness there was was the same for all voters. or did someone nail shut to doors of obama voters and i wasn’t informed?
<
p>as Christopher says below, it is impossible to prove fairness. but we can get a general sense that FL wasn’t skewed one way or the other. in fact, one could say it was slightly skewed to favor obama since his national ad buy meant that his campaign ads were showing in FL before the primary. afaik, he was the only candidate to do that. personally i don’t think that was a big deal, but it is fair to mention i think, given what you said above.
pipi-bendenhaft says
said it was only fair to Clinton voters. It was snarky, sorry.
<
p>Your point was that everyone who wanted to vote did vote, and so the vote was fair, and that is clearly not the case. I provided proof to back up my argument, you have not.
<
p>You have made a number of such statements:
<
p>and:
<
p>You and Christopher have both made statements that you are unable to provide support for, other than your “general sense” or your feelings. Saying something is a fact (ie “in fact”) does not make it a fact. If you have any studies or reports that prove your statements then share them. You asked me for proof, I gave you a study to disprove your claim. I think this is a fair way to debate an issue. When I have asked for proof of your claims, and all I have gotten is phrases like “it’s impossible to prove.” That feels like a cop out and it feels unfair to me and to my willingness to engage on this question.
<
p>You and Christopher both have the right to support Senator Clinton. She is a fine candidate, and would make a decent President, but I do not support her for many reasons. This issue about Florida and MI revotes is one of those reasons, because her justification does not hold, based on all the facts and data I have seen. At least you recognize the “problem” with the MI vote, unlike Christopher who suggests that it was “fair” and should be accepted as is.
<
p>I am always willing to reconsider my views about a particular issue, I continually re-evalutate and test my beliefs because I feel it is intellectually important for me to do so. I am willing to change my mind about Florida and MI, but only based on evidence or a consistent argument on the principle of fairness. I have seen neither evidence nor principled consistency from the Clinton campaign to change my views. I’ve seen a lot of clever sloganeering about “letting votes count”, but I demand more than slogans that only apply to certain circumstances (fairness only to the 2.5 million who voted, not for the 2 million who would have voted but were told their votes were irrelevant) to make up my mind. And believe me, I am actually a fan of Harold Ickes and listen to his arguments because I think he is a brilliant guy and, unlike Carville, he isn’t taking this personally. But I have yet to read or see any Clinton campaign argument that meets my “reasonableness” or “fairness” or “consistent principles” standard on this issue. And I look for it.
<
p>As you know, I will condemn my own candidate when he takes a stand I think is intellectually or ethically unsupportable, inconsistent, or bankrupt. As he does on SSM, ugh. or on single payer. double ugh. (Her plan is better than his but both are irredeemably flawed, in my view, and leave too much money and power in the hands of the corporate insurance interests.) I recognize that he is an imperfect candidate and an imperfect human being. I support him because I agree with him on most of the issues. It is because of my intellectual conditioning, that I test my support and my beliefs all the time, so for me, our exchanges are not just a test of your views on this issue, but of my own. Again, sorry I was snarky, it was unworthy.
christopher says
What we do know is that voters knew what was going on and many voted anyway. We know that in FL all candidates were on the ballot. It is what it is and we can’t manipulate the numbers based on hypotheticals. Candidates had a choice to keep their names on the MI ballot and all but Clinton and Kucinich chose otherwise. Seat the delegations as is, then learn from our mistakes for 2012.
pipi-bendenhaft says
in the DNC holding Florida and Michigan to their understanding with the DNC, it is Clinton who is claiming that it is unfair that she should be held to her signed pledge to reject the outcomes of Florida and Michigan. It’s sophistry to break the rules (you signed a pledge to agree to follow) and when it’s advantageous demand the results be validated, and then suggest other’s should learn by their mistakes!
<
p>It’s like cheating on a test and when the teacher won’t retest the entire class, you actually demand an “A” and tell the rest of the class to learn from “their” mistakes. Camp Clinton never ceases to amaze me.
<
p>Clearly some in the Clinton camp are not interested in “fairness”, apparently don’t believe “fairness” is discernable, just interested in winning at any cost. I happen to believe fairness is not a theoretical or a hypothetical.
<
p>But I guess all this proves, ultimately, is that any agreement willingly and with full-knowledge of the outcomes that is signed by Senator Clinton is worth precisely the paper it’s written on.
sabutai says
Obama’s going to come out against SC, NV, and IA for breaking the rules by jumping the DNC schedule? Is he going to advocate for shutting out NH after it forced itself ahead of Nevada, contrary to DNC rules? No, breaking the rules is only bad when it doesn’t help you…
laurel says
tell Kerry, Kennedy & Patrick to switch their superdelegate support Clinton, who was selected by the majority of voters in their state? And what about Richardson, as well? The cry for fairness and democracy can certainly have a self-serving ring to it.
pipi-bendenhaft says
and Patrick switching to Clinton. If we agree that superdelegates should following the will of the voters as right and fair.
<
p>Happy to take superdelegates: Jay Inslee, Norm Dicks, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Ron Sims, Tom Foley, as well as undeclared: Pelz, McDonald, Mast, Macoll, Cote, Jim McDermott, and Rick Larsen from Washington State.
<
p>I have no problem with intellectual consistency on this issue.
laurel says
the obama campaign sets up this standard for superdels of “should vote with the populace”, but is happy enough to accept any superdel that disobeys that standard in their favor. but then they scream bloody murder at any maneuvering clinton does. the duplicity is saddening, especially so given obama’s message. on this point, there is no intellectual consistence from the obama campaign.
pipi-bendenhaft says
can we agree that it is Hillary Clinton who is contesting DNC rules (which she agreed to and sign a pledge to honor – why no Clinton supporter has addressed this issue of honoring her word, boggles me, if Obama did this, I would be up his ass) and demanding a revote in Florida and Michigan?
<
p>Obama has never, not once, ever, contested the results a New Hampshire. A race he lost, by the way, so this disproves your self-serving argument. The DNC, not Barack Obama, is the entity that is withholding certification of FL and MI. It is Howard Dean (remember him) who is Chair of the DNC who is the decider on who breaks DNC rules – not Obama, and not Clinton, not you, and not me. You can continue to try and blame Obama for this but the truth is, it’s the DNC who sanctioned Florida and Michigan, not Senator Obama. He didn’t take away their delegates, the DNC did, and Hillary Clinton surrogate Harold Ickes was on the DNC committee that voted not to award Florida and Michigan any delegates or count their votes (Yes, Clinton campaign inner circle advisor, Harold Ickes voted not to recognize the FL & MI elections, sorry).
<
p>To paraphrase you: “I guess following the rules is only good when it helps you…otherwise contest Florida and Michigan.”
sabutai says
Because what you’re saying is false. The people contesting the DNC rules are the officials in the states who are being ignored. Sure, Clinton is helping them for her own benefit, and the benefit of the Democratic Party in November. Furthermore, her “pledge” was not to campaign in either state, and she obeyed that unlike Obama who ran ads in Florida. Do not blame Clinton for the fact that voters liked her more in those states. It’s small.
<
p>Speaking of small, everyone on this board knows that the DNC is sanctioning those states. It is also public knowledge that Obama and his surrogates have poured a lot of time and energy to kneecap any proposal to give the citizens of those states a voice. No revote scheme is acceptable to them, as it would allow Michiganders and Floridians to express themselves, which Obama has realized is not in his interest.
<
p>Damage has been done in those states, and Obama does not care to repair it. And so go our hopes in November — not that anyone on Obama’s side seems to mind.
they says
If all those other states broke the rules too. What is special about those two? Does it have anything to do with Obama?
christopher says
No candidate, including Clinton, has any moral right to sign away the voice of the voters of these two states. She was wrong then and she is right now. It’s amazing what candidates will say to placate NH and IA, but I firmly believe that if the rules were consistently enforced there would be more respect for the rules overall. This will certainly teach everybody not to assume a quick process next time as the attitude was one of it won’t really matter anyway. Now it does matter and people profess to be shocked that it has become a political football. Next time there should be one date before which delegations will be cut in half if primaries and caucuses are held beforehand, with no exceptions or favoritism. As to your cheating analogy, it doesn’t hold water. The cheating student acted entirely on his own and the redo would only benefit him. Clinton was not responsible for the primary calendar and the solution benefits voters who did not cheat and not just her.
they says
without making them go to the convention. Obama can hear their voice and tell some of his delegates to stay home. That way the party still holds its ground, and the voice of the voters is heard, and there is proportional representation at the convention.
pipi-bendenhaft says
which is to come up with some novel “fair” solution that will divine and reflect the true will of the Democratic voters, but I think your remedy to create an additional set of 300 delegates to offset superdelegates (if I understand your proposal properly) causes more problems than it solves.
<
p>The problem is that we have a finite amount of time. Creating a whole new system that has not yet been challenged and tested within the window of time needed, I think, is not realistic. Clearly getting people to agree on an outcome of a set of rules that everyone already agreed to and signed a pledge to abide by isn’t working now – how would it be possible to abide by something that neither side has even seen, let alone signed, in the small window of time left?
<
p>I don’t think that your desire to make the system more democratic (clearly there are issues within our Party about the flaws in the current system) is misplaced or not well-founded. You have a point. And I agree that the more democratic the Democratic Party can make our system, the better. I just don’t believe the solution is to create a new system for this cycle. I think the only options are: a) Follow the rules as both candidates pledged and signed or b) figure out a way to split the difference, and move on.
<
p>I happen to think the solution is b). As an Obama supporter, I don’t believe it will change the outcome of this race after all the primaries & caucuses, but I think the risk is worth the need to move on and focus on beating McCranky (as another – lightiris? – on this site so well put).
howardjp says
I think the discussion got a bit sidetracked along the way so I’m glad you got back to the main point. It is late in the process and part of the reason is the lack of leadership at the DNC on this. I’ve supported Howard Dean in the past, and think he’s done some good things with the DNC, but they’ve been in the bunker on this one — unable or unwilling to actively facilitate a solution in two of the most important states for Democratic success in 2008. Got a call from the DNC about money the other day and told the solicitor, “not until Florida and Michigan get their representation at the convention”. Wonder how they are doing with raising money in those two large states.
<
p>Again, thanks for your comments.