From MyDD, why the Florida and Michigan delegations will (and should) be seated:
DNC Delegate Selection Rules: Florida & Michigan
True or False?
1) The DNC Rules state that pledged delegates elected by Florida and Michigan voters must be excluded because those states scheduled primaries before February 5, 2008.
FALSE: The DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.
2) The mandatory penalty for a state holding a primary before February 5, 2008 is exclusion of that state’s delegates from the Democratic National Convention.
FALSE: The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state’s pledged and alternate delegates. Unless otherwise provided, the other half of that state’s pledged and alternate delegates will be seated at the convention.
3) Any attempt to seat 100% of the pledged or unpledged delegates of Florida and Michigan at this point is “changing the rules.”
FALSE: The DNC Rules explicitly contemplate that excluded delegates will eventually be seated at the Convention. For states in violation of the timing rules, the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provide remedies to reinstate all of their delegates, both pledged and unpledged.
4) Florida is not entitled to reinstatement of its delegates because the Democrats in the Florida State Legislature did not make efforts to keep the state’s primary in compliance with DNC Rules.
FALSE: Evidence that that a Republican majority in the state legislature set the primary date in violation of the DNC timing rules in spite of efforts by the state’s Democratic legislators to keep the primary in compliance is grounds for appealing a DNC decision to strip a state of its delegates.
Though Florida has a 2:1 Republican legislative majority, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee ruled that the Democratic minority did not make sufficient efforts to keep the primary date in compliance with DNC Rules. The Florida State Party disputes this factual finding. The State Party argues that the Democrats in the legislature were robbed of meaningful power to stop the Republican effort to set an early primary date because Republicans drafted the controlling legislation and packed it with other unrelated issues which the Democrats in the legislature felt they could not in good conscience oppose.
5) The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee has taken action and is unable to change the sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan.
FALSE: The Rules and Bylaws Committee has the power to lift any and all automatic sanctions along with the power to impose and modify additional sanctions. The Rules and Bylaws committee also has the power to create its own committee to create an alternative process for delegate selection should the state party not cooperate or be unable to resolve the issue on its own. The Rules and Bylaws Committee failed to use the tools it had to independently resolve the matter in good faith before Florida and Michigan voters went to the polls of the ill timed primaries to express their candidate preference.
6) Hillary violated the DNC Rules by keeping her name on the Michigan ballot.
FALSE: Nowhere in the DNC’s Delegate Selection Plans is there any suggestion or command that any candidate remove his or her name from a ballot in a state that is in violation of timing rules. This is why Obama and Edwards were on the Florida ballot, in spite of its primary also being before February 5.
7 ) Hillary manipulated the process by being the only candidate who kept her name on the Michigan ballot.
FALSE: Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel also kept their names on the Michigan ballot. In fact the decision of some candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot was a tactical move designed to curry favor with Democratic Party officials in Iowa who were concerned that the significance of their first-in-the-nation status was being diminished. The risk paid off handsomely for Obama.
Because Edwards and Obama were not on the Michigan ballot, that election cannot be considered a legitimate expression of voter preference of a presidential candidate.
FALSE: According to the Delegate Selection Rules & Bylaws, “Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters…” The Michigan ballot included an option for “uncommitted” to ensure that voters could express a presidential preference or uncommitted status consistent with this rule. Nothing in the Rules requires a state to allocate delegates to candidates who voluntarily remove their names from the ballot as John Edwards and Barack Obama did.
9) The primaries in Florida and Michigan are invalid because voters were under informed due to the lack of active campaigning.
FALSE: Voters in Florida and Michigan were very well informed. They had ample access to newspapers, television, books, radio, and the Internet. They could have availed themselves of over a year of coverage of the 2008 election. They could watch every campaign commercial on YouTube. They had the same opportunity as the rest of America to watch 17 televised debates.
Moreover, nowhere in the DNC rules does it specify that candidates must campaign directly in a state to make its primary a legitimate expression of voter candidate preference. Voters in Alaska and Hawaii never get visited by the candidates.
10) All the candidates signed a pledge to the DNC not to campaign in the states violating primary timing.
FALSE: The candidates signed no such pledge to the DNC.
11) Hillary violated the rules against campaigning in Florida and Michigan.
FALSE: Jurisdiction over determinations of whether a candidate shall be considered in violation of the relevant rule (Rule 20 C.1.b.) lies with the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Because the Committee has not ruled against either candidate, it is false to assert that either candidate is in violation.
12) Hillary signed a pledge that she violated by remaining on the ballot in Florida and Michigan.
FALSE: The only pledges signed were between the candidates and the state party chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. More to the point, they were not binding on the DNC, which is the only organization that has authority over seating delegates. Thus, these pledges are not controlling over the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates.
13) Hillary’s activities in Florida and Michigan look suspicious, between fundraising and holding a victory rally in Florida.
FALSE: Hillary acted well within the letter and spirit of the rules. The rules stipulate that candidates can fundraise in states violating the timing rules and that fundraising activity is not considered impermissible campaigning. Further, the prohibition on campaigning in any state ends as soon as the primary in violation concludes. Hillary’s victory party was within the rules because she did not appear at a campaign event in Florida until after the polls closed.
14) Barack Obama would likely win more delegates if there were a new contest.
FALSE: The rules provide that a candidate who campaigns or holds press conferences in a state in violation of timing may not receive any of the pledged or unpledged delegates from that state. Because Barack Obama campaigned in Florida when, on Sunday September 30, 2007, he held an impromptu public news conference in Florida, when he bought television advertising time on stations in markets which included much of Florida, and when he ran a campaign in Michigan to encourage voters to vote “uncommitted,” Barack Obama may not be entitled to receive any delegates from Florida or Michigan.
15) Reinstating any of the delegates from either Florida or Michigan would be a travesty against democracy and fair elections. It would be cheating.
FALSE: There are many good and valid reasons for the DNC to have rules regarding delegate selection timing, but none of these reasons relate to ensuring that primaries accurately reflect voter preference. None of these involve the preservation of democracy.
Neither Clinton nor Obama has the power to reinstate the delegates unless they already have won 50% plus 1 of the total delegates. Therefore neither has the power to cheat. This matter lies in the hands of the DNC’s Rules & Bylaws Committee which is neutral.
Were Obama to gain control of the Credentials Committee at the DNC, he would have the power to exclude the delegates from Michigan and Florida. That would be a biased effort to disenfranchise two large states. That would be a travesty and one the Republicans could easily exploit in November.
16) Hillary has changed her position on Florida and Michigan now that she may not receive 50% + 1 of the total delegates need to win before the pledged delegate primaries conclude.
FALSE: From the beginning of the Florida controversy, Hillary has consistently stated that if she wins, meaning securing 50% + 1 of the total delegates, she will reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegation at the convention if the DNC fails to resolve the problem on their own before such time.
Obama has changed his position now that seating the Florida and Michigan delegates would put Hillary in the lead. In August of last year he said that resolving the delegate issue was not his job (”I’m like a player on the field. I shouldn’t be setting up the rules” ) and in September he suggested to Florida donors that if he were the nominee whether he would seat in the state’s excluded delegates, declaring that he would “Do right by Florida voters.”
Currently the race for pledged delegates is so split that neither candidate will receive the 50% plus 1 delegates they need to seal their nomination before the Convention. Obama now wants to set the rules and insists that the DNC must refuse to seat Florida and Michigan’s delegates, even though DNC Rules clearly provide remedies to include them. His arguments are not based in the rules and are not in the interest of democracy or the Democratic Party, but only in the fact that those delegates reflect a greater nationwide preference for Hillary Clinton.
17) A new primary or caucus would settle the issue in a fair way that would maintain party unity.
FALSE: A new primary or caucus that complies with timing rules would have been fair if the date had been set before people started voting in Iowa. Once people started voting, each subsequent primary or caucus was affected. The campaigns have campaigned and spent money in reliance on this calendar. The candidates, campaigns, and electorates are not the same today as they were before voting began. Any new contest would be on an unlevel playing field. It is unnecessary, an insult to the voters who already voted, and unacceptable.
Sources:
2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention (hereinafter “DNC Rules”), Rules 19-20, Sections C. 4-9, Section D.
DNC Rules, Rule 20, Section C.1.a.
DNC Rules, Rule 20.C.5-7 provide several remedies including empowering the Rules & Bylaws committee to implement processes to seat the delegates from an offending state
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.7.
DNC Rules, Rule 20 C.6-7
DNC Rules, Rule 13 A.
DNC Rules, Rule 19 B., Rule 20.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html?hpid=topnews
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/ obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking
OB will be the official Dem nominee for the 2008 presidential election?
TRUE
Absent MI/FL, Obama will be a legitimate Dem nominee for the 2008 presidential election?
FALSE
Where’s a link to the original article? I can’t find it on MyDD and Googling doesn’t bring it up.
lambert - the link is the first 3 words…
From MyDD
by the way…will you approve my account at corrent please?
As a disenfranchised MI voter, thank you for laying the matter out so clearly, particularly the matter of Obama breaking the spirit if not the letter of the no campaigning requirement in both states.
I would only add the major injustice of having 5 states break the precious rules and only two of them getting punished.
Wait, this is about you having a vagina, isn’t it?
you rock, susie. i love you.
Hillary’s new video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDU9xKNo-zo
Yay! Rules!
Ever since my first head-on collision with the lovely boys over at LGM, I’ve been challenging anyone who insists that Hillary broke the rules, or is trying to change the rules, or the rules say that Florida and Michigan lose out, tough titty to READ THE RULES.
Curiously, no one ever takes me up on that.
LGM = Little Green Martians?? Oh, never mind, I know who you mean. I took them off my blogroll when they went into high-assholery several weeks ago.
the big problem with FL and MI is that if it goes to the rules committee, whoever loses out at this point will see the result as illegitimate. that’s the next looming train wreck for the democratic party. the way out was holding a revote in those two states, but now it’s clear that won’t happen. (and frankly, i wish my candidate, obama, had insisted more strongly on a revote, rather than playing it both ways).
it’s also clear to me that the existing FL and MI votes are not fair and should not be counter. MI didn’t even have obama on the balllot, counting a vote like that is analogous to counting a soviet style election. but also both FL and MI have another problem: the voters were told the vote wouldn’t count, which depressed turnout (FL and MI are the only states where dem turnout was lower than rep). an election where people are told their vote will not count beforehand is not a real election. i have personally had union elections ruled invalid for that very reason.
once again, i am struck by the blindness of the partisans in this fight over issues like these. earlier susie said that she didn’t think the obama people really appreciated how serious the FL/MI issue is, and i agree. a lot of obama supporters don’t realize what a potential train wreck this is for the party. but i also get the impression in sites like this one that clinton supporters don’t realize what a train wreck going to the rules committee and ultimately the floor of the convention on FL/MI is also a train wreck for the party.
maybe this is wishful thinking, but i still think the mess can be avoided. i predict that the clinton-obama race will be decided in june, after the last primary/caucus. no one wants to go to the convention, so once all the votes are held, i predict the supers will commit en masse to a candidate thus getting the other one to concede. then, with no fight at the convention, no side suffers by passing a resolution to seat the FL/MI delegates.
the big problem with FL and MI is that if it goes to the rules committee, whoever loses out at this point will see the result as illegitimate.
As opposed to doing nothing, which would also be seen as illegitimate?
There’s no good way out of this, but the Rules Committee does have the authority to seat them, or reduce the nuclear-option penalty to the penalty provided for in the rules. We probably wouldn’t be having this problem had they just stuck to the penalty provided for in the rules.
It’s unfortunate that there has been so much misinformation spread about the rules that perfectly valid and within-the-rules actions are being dismissed as illegitimate.
In future Democratic primaries any candidate or state that bothers to follow the DNC’s rules is a fool. And not many will. If you create a paper tiger don’t be surprised when you’re treated like a paper tiger.
Btw - all of you Patrick Henry’s out there so concerned about every vote counting will of course demand that every vote cast in caucuses count too, right? Every time you point to vote totals and add in MI and FL to “prove” Sen. Clinton is actually ahead or all but tied you do understand that the “totals” you are claiming are bullshit, right? I mean those of you with so firm a grasp of the rules must understand the gross undercounting of caucus voters that is par for the course and seeing as you are all such good “count every vote” patriots who find it difficult to sleep at night knowing people are being “disenfranchised” you will demand “every vote count”, right?
Or does every vote only count if it favors Clinton?
Obama’s present lead in actual votes actually cast by voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses is somewhere between 2 – 3 million. So, we are going to count every vote, right?
Bob, a large part of the problem with Florida and Michigan lies with the inexplicable (and I do mean inexplicable, since no basis was ever articulated for it) decision of the Rules Committee to bypass the standard penalty of 50% of delegate strength and go for the full 100%. Sure, they had the right to do that, but deviations from the standard should be supported and explained, given that there are political ramifications.
But do go ahead and keep advocating for the most draconian penalty imaginable, if that will be a comfort to you when Florida goes for the GOP in the GE.
zuzu: If every vote counts will you demand an honest accounting of votes from caucus states? Until the whole MI, FL shitstorm began I never made an issue of the grossly incorrect way popular votes are tallied in caucus states. I accepted all the imperfections of the system because they tended to cancel each other out. Only after Clinton’s supporters began demanding “every vote count” did I point out the extreme undercounting of votes which is the norm in caucus states. If you want some ideal system where every vote counts, then by all means include the MI and FL delegations but also count popular votes in caucus states correctly.
Clinton really only gains significantly in popular vote in the two disputed states, not in delegates. She plans on using the gains in popular vote to press superdelegates to overturn the vote of the rabble – you know those “activists” she has so much contempt for – and hand her the nomination the old fashioned way; party bosses deciding what’s right for the rest of us.
This entire argument from so called progressives appalls me. Nominate Clinton at all costs: that’s all it’s based on. Seat FL and MI and Obama has roughly the same lead in pledged delegates he presently has but Clinton gains an edge in the popular vote which she will in turn use to press her case with the superdelegates. You are either willfully or ignorantly demanding democracy today in order to overturn democracy tomorrow.
Make no mistake; Clinton is in no way, shape or form demanding all votes count. What she is demanding is those uncounted votes which strengthen her case with the un-democratic unelected superdelegates count, while those uncounted votes which weaken her case with the democratic elected delegates don’t count.
If, as you and so many others hear keep claiming, you only want to see to it that every vote counts, you will of course demand an honest counting of votes in caucuses. I won’t hold my breath.
As opposed to doing nothing, which would also be seen as illegitimate?
of course not. as i said above in comment #10 the only way out to avoid the legitimacy problem is if obama or clinton concedes before the convention–and i suspect that is what will happen. after june 3rd the supers will commit, thus clinching it for someone and thus avoid the rules committee fight. there used to be another way, holding a revote in MI and FL, but my understanding is that it’s too late for that now. so now we’re left with a pre-convention concession or a train wreck.
zuzu: If every vote counts will you demand an honest accounting of votes from caucus states?
I’d like to see that, yes. One of the big problems in figuring out who’s voted for whom comes about because we have caucuses, and the caucus totals haven’t all been released yet because reporting is done on a state-by-state, voluntary basis.
Better that we do away with caucuses entirely, IMO. They’re undemocratic, subject to manipulation, and unless there’s some kind of standardized process for counting the delegates and recordkeeping, difficult to keep track of.
so now we’re left with a pre-convention concession or a train wreck.
Or a floor fight. Or having the MI/FL delegations seated by the Credentials Committee. Or having the Rules Committee reverse its decisions to strip delegates, whether they reinstate them all or simply penalize at the standard 50% level.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: neither one of these candidates can honorably drop out unless the other one wins fair and square. They’re both engaged in historic candidacies, and they both are representing something larger than themselves. The winner *must* be seen to be legitimate, and you don’t get legitimacy if you force your opponent out prematurely or if you decide not to bother counting entire states or you try to get the superdelegates to make a decision before they’re ready.
I realize that the DNC would like nothing more than to avoid a showdown over Florida and Michigan by having Hillary drop out, but what they don’t understand is that she *can’t* drop out until Obama beats her, because otherwise it looks like she’s letting the bullies in the party push her aside to make room for a younger, less experienced man. And since he can’t seem to get it together to beat her, the party is going to have to deal with all of these hard questions that they’d rather have avoided.
Frankly, Howard Dean could have avoided a lot of pain had he just gone ahead and done a revote in Michigan.
Better that we do away with caucuses entirely, IMO. They’re undemocratic
actually, both primaries and caucuses are undemocratic. the purpose isn’t democracy, it’s to give the appearance of democracy while also rewarding party insiders. even in primaries, there is no concept of one-person, one-vote. districts that have historically voted democratic get a disproportionate number of delegates, and districts that have historically voted republican are penalized with fewer delegates. your vote counts more if you happen to live in a place that voted for kerry in 2004. if the system were about democracy, it would be a simple popular vote. we wouldn’t even be talking about delegates.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: neither one of these candidates can honorably drop out unless the other one wins fair and square
yes, and the way you win under the current system is by getting a majority of the delegates. if the supers all pledge on june 4th then we will have a fair and square win under the current system.
the system is crap, don’t get me wrong. but at this point is really is impossible to change it because every reform is viewed through the lense of who it will hurt or help in this current primary battle.
Why are you so sure the supers will all pledge on June 4, if they haven’t done so yet?
Oh good1 I’m from New England and we were terribly disappointed with the Super Bowl loss. Now we will be able to use Clintonian Mathematics and recoup the Lombardi trophy because we got more touchdowns and scored more points.
Would somebody please let NY know?
I am disappointed in both candidates when it comes to MI and FL. I think they have both displayed selfish pigheadedness on this one. I think some kind of a deal like: Hillary gets the FL delegates as voted and MI runs a caucus - would give both states full representation and give each candidate a degree of advantage in one of the states.
The big issue is not losing these states in the general election if we can avoid it. But seriously folks, counting MI votes for Clinton only? That’s not even a reasonable idea.
Why are you so sure the supers will all pledge on June 4, if they haven’t done so yet?
i’m not sure, it’s just my prediction.
the reason they haven’t done it yet is because there is some power behind the “let everyone cast their vote” argument. superdelegates, as a concept, are not democratic, but they’re all public figures who are mostly themselves elected and want to at least nod in the direction of democratic process.
Oh good1 I’m from New England and we were terribly disappointed with the Super Bowl loss. Now we will be able to use Clintonian Mathematics and recoup the Lombardi trophy because we got more touchdowns and scored more points.
Probably not the analogy you really want to go for, given the inevitability argument that New England had up until they lost.
superdelegates, as a concept, are not democratic, but they’re all public figures who are mostly themselves elected and want to at least nod in the direction of democratic process.
Which also makes them unlikely to hop to and choose a nominee before the questions about Michigan and Florida are settled, or before the convention. After all, in the six weeks between Texas and Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama lost some of his sheen; it’s a long, long way between June 3 and the August convention. Either one could fuck up in that time, and despite all the “oh, the long primary means we can’t focus on McCain” handwringing, that’s crap. There’s nothing stopping either one from doing so, except maybe the idea that doing so might give McCain the opportunity to get free press coverage.
Which also makes them unlikely to hop to and choose a nominee before the questions about Michigan and Florida are settled, or before the convention
no, because there is tremendous pressure to on them to close it out before the convention. but hey, i guess we’ll find out soon enough who is right.
one more thing i should add: you’re acting as if the rules committee and credentials committee will be viewed as some universal arbitors of legitimacy in this matter. every other institution in this process has been questioned by whichever side has the disadvantage, if it goes on for that long, why wouldn’t those committees in the convention as well? the credentials committee and rules committees are comprised of delegates chosen by a formula that reflects the proportion of pledged delegates that were elected during the primany process. because obama has the lead in pledged delegates by a margin that clinton cannot plausibly make up in the remaining contests, this means that a majority of the committees will probably be obama delegates. the only wild card are the 25 at-large delegates appoined by howard dean. if the pledged delegate count is close enough, they could plausibly be the deciding vote. except that dean himself is opposed to seating the MI and FL delegation. i think it’s highly unlikely that the clinton campaign could win that battle in those committees. once people realize that, the clinton people will question the legitimacy of the committees and, once again, we are faced with a process where the loser argues the process is illegitimate.
the only way to avoid a legitimacy problem is to have a concession prior to the convention. which is why it will happen in june. mark my words.