An Alternate Solution for Florida and Michigan.

The Democratic Party has a problem.

Two states decided to play chicken with the DNC and nobody swerved. Now there's a gigantic accident with too many innocent bystanders injured. But what to do? With the Rules Committee meeting soon, it is a subject that is sure to be tossed around with even more regularity this upcoming week. I'd like to propose what I would like to see, though obviously my opinion (in the grand scheme) carries about as much weight as the photons carrying this message to your eyes.

1) No superdelegates. At all. For either state. None. They're all out.

To put it bluntly, state party insiders got us into this mess. Why, precisely, should we exempt them from the punishment? Honestly, I have no idea which way the supers would break and I don't care.

Michigan tried this before in 2004, but pulled back when McAullife threatened them. They should have realized that the DNC wasn't going to back down.

Florida didn't even bother trying to keep a straight face when they presented an amendment to reverse the decision to move the primary date before Feb 5. Don't take my word, take YouTube's. At least pretend like you care, guys. There was even a point, when it was apparent that Florida was going to be moved up, that the DNC was looking for additional states to add to the NH/IA early state mix. They asked states to apply. Florida didn't bother to.

Both states gambled that it was better to vote early and risk having delegates removed than vote late and have the nominee already decided. In the realm of all-time ultimate backfires, this was a doozy, since had they held their primary in March, they would've been saturated in ad revenue and rally cash.

The party insiders gambled. They lost. They get the walk of shame off the convention floor.

2) Florida, the Republican solution.

While it was merely a beauty contest, it was a verified primary with all parties on the ballot. There were important referendums that brought out the vote. I can concede giving it some weight. I think the Republican strategy of splitting the delegation in half (to penalize but still represent) would work with Florida.

According to Algere's diary, which assumed full representation, that would put it at 53 for Clinton, 35 for Obama.

3) Michigan, the really, really muddled solution.

As I've said before, I think Obama's removal of his name from the ballot was deft politics. That's not a typo; I didn't mean daft. It sacrificed votes that were established as being irrelevant (by everyone, including Clinton) for material votes in other contests. Of course, everyone assumed that the margin of delegates in the end would be enough to allow for representation later, but everyone knows what happens when you assume.

Interpreting the results is much more difficult. There weren't any pressing referendums like Florida. Candidates were missing. In fact, the election was basically Hillary versus Not Hillary (featuring some little guys on the bottom of the ballot). Hillary won by 15.

Again, referring to the figures quoted in Algere's diary from... somewhere that quoted thegreenpapers.com, the breakdown would be 73 Clinton, 50 unpledged, 7 Dodd/Kucinich.

Since Edwards (the only other candidate to receive delegates outside of Michigan) has backed Obama, I would suggest that the block of unpledged delegates, the "Obama/Edwards" block, go to Obama in full. Algere's diary suggests splitting the unpledged; I believe that to be disingenuous. When your primary is "Hillary" versus "Not Hillary", you don't split the "Not Hillary" vote and give half to Hillary.

Again, since rules were broken, the delegate count should be split in half. That would go about 37 Hillary, 25 Obama, 4 to Dodd/Kucinich.

*

Is this solution perfect? No. But it does diminish the use of disenfranchisement as a RNC talking point, since the solution matches their own. It commutes the voter punishment from the maximum to the minimum, punishes severely the idiots who got us into this mess and sends a message to future states not to buck the party (especially if you don't at least honestly try to get approval).

The overall delegate change isn't what Hillary supporters are going to want. Based on Algere's diary, you'd see a 105-69 advantage in FL, a 101-27 in MI. I doubt the DNC is going to give Hillary 110 extra delegates at this point, even though it won't close the delegate gap. This system still gives her the advantage (+18 in FL, +12 in MI). While I could never prove this, I believe that Obama would've closed the gap caused by Hillary's natural recognition advantage had campaigning been allowed, probably to about those margins. I don't believe the contests, as performed, represent the outcome that would have occurred had they taken place on Super Tuesday or afterwards. But complete disenfranchisement is the death penalty of politics and should not be used lightly.

We're in this situation because of hubris on the part of the states, carelessness on the part of the DNC and apathy on the part of the electorate at large. Let's resolve this and move on to the general election with the nominee.

Tags: compromise, Democratic Primary, Florida, Michigan, My First MyDD Diary (all tags)

Comments

8 Comments

This is the best Hillary is going to get

She should take this, if it is offered.

by ArtVanDelay1774 2008-05-26 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: An Alternate Solution for Florida and Michigan

Excellent solution.

by ragekage 2008-05-26 08:00PM | 0 recs
On Supers

I couldnt agree more.  They should be 100% punished.  Thats all I really really want to see.

As for the rest, Im pretty much in agreement as well.  There is no 'perfectly fair' solution which balances punishment of the states, reward for the voter and normal delegates and the candidates themselves.  Compromise will rule the day.

My guess is you'll be pretty close to spot on when the chips fall regarding pledged delegates.

Although, I do not think the DNC will sanction the supers at all.  Since the supers are an insiders club I am willing to bet the DNC takes pity on their super kin and they are not punished at all while the pledged are done in at 50%.  This of course will piss me off mightily, but at this point, whatever, lets get it done and behind us.

But no solution will appease either sides die hards, so this issue still wont be done in some corners forever.

by pattonbt 2008-05-26 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re:

This is a reasonable proposal.  I'm sure that some here will never agree to it.

by rfahey22 2008-05-26 08:05PM | 0 recs
Supers & More

Supers probably can't be punished.

Their authority to vote derives from the DNC charter and stripping their votes was beyond the authority of the RBC.  

Any arrangement that doesn't fully seat Michigan and Florida will give rise to lifelong accusations of the nominee's illegitimacy.  Already in this strongly pro-Dem environment, we have reliably blue Michigan swinging red half the time in its polling.  That's an embarrassment.  It's polling even worse for Dems than Ohio, when historically, it should be even bluer than Pennsylvania.  

25% of Florida Democratic voters say they will not vote Democratic if the party nukes their vote.  This applies to both the presidential nomination and downticket races.  

Even the primary race aside, the longterm fallout from urinating on two major states to make an example out of them for the sake of the "sanctity of the calendar" (!) is immense.  

For some reason though, I am thoroughly convinced that Howard Dean and Donna Brazile don't care an iota.  

by BPK80 2008-05-26 08:25PM | 0 recs
And FYI

Even with your proposed breakdowns (that I wouldn't agree with), a rules-authoritarian approach cannot overlook the penalty in Rule 20 for candidates who "campaign" in either state.  Per the rules, Obama would get 0 delegates from Florida and arguably 0 from Michigan.  

It's not discussed too frequently but I think the threat of this penalty is the reason Obama hasn't been more magnanimous towards seating Michigan and Florida.  

I'm not sure what the point is to seat the delegation but to make sure, at all costs, that their votes don't change the outcome.  "You can vote but you can't make a difference" is a contradiction.  The very essence of voting is an expression of will to make a difference.  

by BPK80 2008-05-26 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: And FYI

So Floridians who voted for Obama can't make a difference because he arguably broke a rule (even though he received pre-clearance)?  And, what if it is the case that Clinton ran commercials in Mobile, AL that fed into the FL panhandle (this is where such commercials would reach; I can't recall if the Clinton campaign did in fact run commercials in AL before the FL primary)?  You see how the rules you just set out for yourself do not serve both the interests of the voters and the interests of the candidates.  They are necessarily in conflict with each other.  

by rfahey22 2008-05-26 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: And FYI

Yes, I believe you are pointing out exactly the problem with Obama relying on a technocratic rules-authoritarian approach.  The same rigid adherence to the rules (without regard for their appellate procedures and delegations of authority to discretionary committees) would punish him as well.  

by BPK80 2008-05-26 11:25PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads