KPCC Election 2008

A Delegate Situation

Posted on March 12, 2008 1:47 PM

Way back in 2007, when states were jockeying to see who could hold the earliest and therefore most (it seemed at the time) influential primaries, both Michigan and Florida moved up their Democratic primaries (to 1/15/08 and 1/29/08, respectively).

These dates were earlier than was allowed by Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules. The DNC had warned both states that if they did this, their delegates would not be seated at the nominating convention in August 2008. The states chose to move their primaries anyway. In Michigan, the decision to move the primary was made by the state Democratic party. In Florida, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a law moving the primary date.

Because the assumption was that the states' delegates would not be seated, many of the Democratic candidates did not actively campaign in Florida or Michigan. Several campaigns, including the Obama and Clinton camps, signed a pledge that they would not campaign in those states.

In Florida, all the candidates remained on the ballot. In Michigan, Obama was among several candidates who withdrew their names from the ballot; Clinton did not do so. Clinton won both primaries.

Fast-forward to today. There is a debate raging about what should be done regarding Florida and Michigan's delegates. (An interesting article on this from today's New York Times.) The most likely options appear to be:

Don't seat the delegates at the convention, as was stipulated originally by the DNC when the states chose to move their primaries
Split the delegates 50/50 between Clinton and Obama
Hold in-person do-over elections
Hold mail-in do-over elections

Any form of do-over elections would cost money, and there are also debates about who would pay for them.

Beyond that, there are arguments aplenty about what would be most fair - to the candidates, to the voters in Florida and Michigan, to the other states who followed the DNC's rules, etc.

What do you think is, overall, the fairest way to address Florida and Michigan's delegates in the Democratic presidential race? Why?

Comments (8)

arturo sandoval:

Seat the delegates as voted, I am sick of Barack Obama's whining.

Posted by arturo sandoval | March 13, 2008 1:28 PM

Nancy S:

If there is a re-vote of any kind in Florida and Michigan it will give those 2 states more power and influence than they might have had even if the votes in January counted. This would be exactly the opposite outcome intended in the first place. The real punishment for breaking the DNC rules will be for them to have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the nomination. Therefore, I say cut their delegates by half or even to a quarter and split them 50/50 at the convention. That way they will have no effect on the outcome. Any other solution would reward their defiance!

Posted by Nancy S | March 13, 2008 1:35 PM

Katie G:

Although I voted to have a do-over.
I think the DNC should really stick to their guns
and not seat the delegates at all.

Posted by Katie G | March 13, 2008 7:13 PM

Katie S:

It will cost over $12 Million per state to re-vote and the new results would still be debatable.

Why does everyone in this country think the rules don't apply to them? The 2 states did not follow the rules, they did not play fair. Their delegates should not be seated. No votes should count. The DNC has already ruled.

How many people could you feed in your fund raisers with $24 Million?! Let's get things in perspective in this country.

Posted by Katie S | March 15, 2008 8:47 PM

Grandma 100:

If the first comment, by 'Arturo Sandoval', is by the famous Cuban trumpeter Arturo Sandoval who lives in Florida I would say:
1) I loved your movie and the music in it and have touted it to friends and family and seen it more than once.
2) I am sick of your comment. It would not be fair to seat the Clinton delegates 'as voted'. Clinton didn't comply with the DNC rules as set up and put her name on the ballot. It would be fair to let the voters vote again, but it seems this would be too expensive; mail-in ballots leave out a lot of people, and may be too expensive also. Someone suggested to divide the delegates, giving more to Clinton than Obama; this would seem to be silly; why more to Clinton? Perhaps dividing them in half would be the best choice. It is certainly a dilemma -- no wonder it is taking so long to resolve.

Ideally, probably Dean should have stopped the discussion as soon as it came up, reminding people that delegates would not be seated if the states did not follow the rules. (But then we are back again to how frustrated the Floridians would be at the main election, and maybe not vote as protest, or something.)

If it is the same Arturo Sandoval, I thought you were a Republican although I may be wrong; but it would explain why you might want Clinton to be the candidate; Republicans seem to think they can beat her more easily than Obama. (Whining is not the word for trying to get things stright and it is rude.)

Posted by Grandma 100 | March 18, 2008 5:48 AM

Jimi Mosey:

Since the Republican party was responsible for passing legislation in the Florida legislature (they hold a majority) that moved the primary, it seems vastly unfair of the Demo party to ding the Florida voters for this slight. This information does not seem to make it to bloggers as evidenced by the comments here. This appears to have been a conscious effort on the part of the Repubs to have the Demo primaries put into this turmoil. Actually, quite smart on someone's part if true. Still, the Demo party condemned the action anyway. No one has put caucuses on any of the lists for do-overs. It is much cheaper to caucus than to hold a primary and would resolve this issue. I hear the hew and cry of the Clinton campaign, but this would be an equitable and cost-effective solution. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Posted by Jimi Mosey | March 18, 2008 12:28 PM

Karen M.:

The whining in this case has been by the Clinton campaign and they are transparently duplicitous.

When she was parading around as the "inevitable" candidate, Hillary Clinton didn't care about the voters in Michigan and Florida. Contrary to her comments recently on Morning Edition, she signed the same agreement that Obama did in which they agreed to not participate in either election. In January, she characterized those elections as "beauty contests". Now that she actually has to compete for support, she wants to change the rules.

Some would say that Clinton was "smart" to keep her name on the ballots; others would say that it shows that she never had any intention of doing anything but that which would benefit her personally.

When he was on the DNC, Harold Ickes voted to exclude the results of the Michican and Florida primaries -- and publicly said so. Today he's a Clinton advisor and he's blaming Obama for the consequences of his own actions? Since his candidate was the presumptive winner at that point, he just didn't care. If he had done his job on the DNC, he would have proposed a solution for Florida when the Republicans forced the early primary.

Posted by Karen M. | March 21, 2008 8:47 AM

Rick P:

It has already been 'addressed'. Rules were set, the states consciously broke them and by doing so accepted the clearly-stated consequences of doing so. We are done. The Clintons' phony protests are just their usual dirty politics. If the situation was reversed, they would be the first ones yelling 'Rules are Rules!'. But, the only rule they have ever recognized is 'Whatever it takes to win!'.

Posted by Rick P | March 24, 2008 10:34 AM

	© 2007 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RADIO 1570 E. COLORADO BLVD. PASADENA, CA 91106-2003 626-585-7000 TERMS OF USE \| PRIVACY \| CONTACT

A Delegate Situation

Comments (8)

Post a comment