A Modest Proposal for Michigan and Florida:
A means to the end of resolving the current primary dilemma.
Here is the problem – if we continue to punish Florida and Michigan, we as a party, and Howard Dean as our party’s Committee leader will be WILLING pawns in the biggest Republican dirty trick since Watergate. We risk all of the gains we have made in the last few years by turning both states more Democratic and by electing more Democrats to more offices in those states.
And we risk losing a presidential election we should win, we can win, and we ought to win if we are not hamstrung by our own foolishness.
A number of things appear certain at this point – the race for the Democratic nomination is close, and likely to remain so through the end of the Spring. The question of what to do about Florida and Michigan remains, and presents a thorny, but not impossible problem for the candidates, the Democratic National Committee and the voters.
But the resolution might be simpler than everyone thinks. It remains to be seen if Hillary Clinton can amass enough delegates to close the gap with Barack Obama. It is without question that is an uphill struggle for her campaign – Hillary herself has acknowledged that.
So – there are two possible outcomes --- Barack Obama maintains his current lead or improves on it – or Hillary closes the gap and takes the lead in delegates. Either outcome allows us to resolve the question of Florida and Michigan without a re-vote or without disenfranchising the millions of loyal, committed, and valued Florida and Michigan Democrats.
First off, I am not a supporter of either candidate at this time – I support both and would be deeply proud to have either as my president.
Let us be clear: this was the plan and intention of the Karl Rove, Roger Stone, George Bush crowd: to force the democrats into an untenable position and make Florida impossible to win in the general election and to boost their modest chances in Michigan. New Hampshire and South Carolina both committed the same "crime" but received a slap on the wrist – the Republican Party exercised moderation (who knew they were capable of that?) and only punished those states partially.
The Democratic National Committee opted for a disproportionate response that fit neither the crime nor the severity. They failed to recognize 3 things:
- The primary calendar changes were initiated, controlled and orchestrated by Republican officials in those states.
- Large blocks of Democrats in those states opposed those changes; some went along, but only after substantial and significant concessions and changes were made (hello, paper trails in Florida? It’s a start people!).
- New Hampshire and Iowa do not have some sort of inalienable right to hold the earliest primary.
Granted – those Democrats who went along with this mess have some significant culpability. They are guilty of, at minimum going along with a very foolish Republican plan, and at maximum sabotaging their own party. But those Democrats are party leaders and pols – they are not rank and file Democrats.
State Democratic officials in both states were foolish and confrontational. But the Democratic National Committee boxed itself in with a disproportionate response and an inflexible position.
What’s the risk? Major voter alienation in two key states that we could, should, and will win IF we get our act together.
How?
Punish the Democratic party leaders who acted in bad faith, but NOT the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan.
Allow the MI and FL state delegations to be seated and to vote, but not to be the deciding factor in the contest to be the nominee, which is likely to be decided for one candidate or another long before the convention. Remove the credentials of ONLY those superdelates and pledged delegates who played a role in supporting the primary calendar changes and leave the rest. Governor Granholm of MI who DID NOT VETO the Republican legislation to change the primary date, or those party legislative leaders from Florida who got it in their head that this was a good idea and supported the Republicans. In this discussion it is often lost that these same State-level representatives, city council members, Senators, party chairmen, etc. that worked with the Republicans on this disasterous plan are the same people that Florida and Michigan will be sending as members of their delegation. So -- weed out the miscreants, but not the entire delegations, make the process fair, open and even appealable.
So – seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, minus those Democrats who participated in breaking the rules, like Governor Granholm. Have the credentials committee go through a careful review of the delegations and make a one by one determination for each delegate -- pledged, unpledged or superdelegate -- and determine what role, if any, they played in this fiasco. And force the MI and FL delegations to vote last during the actual convention.
I agree that we cannot allow the primary calendar to be controlled indefinitely by two states – but it is also reasonable that the Democratic Party, which included representation of both Florida and Michigan, can and should set rules and guidelines and expect them to be followed.
The problem here is that the rules were set reasonably and fairly, but that they COULD NOT be followed, and we are in large part punishing a group of people for something they had little control over -- if any. We are punishing voters in those states for having leaders that "went along" with a dumb idea.
Isn’t this giving in? Wouldn’t we be doing what Florida and Michigan want and rewarding bad behavior?
No. Because we have to go back to the possible Spring scenarios for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.
A. Mrs. Clinton pulls off some major victories and passes Mr. Obama in the delegate count. Seating the Florida and Michigan delegations adds to both their delegate counts, obviously more for Mrs. Clinton, giving Mrs. Clinton a chunk of additional delegates, as we say in Louisiana "lagniappe." But she's won already, and it doesn't matter -- it's marginally unfair to Mr. Obama, but if he lost in the 48-state race, he'll have to accept losing those 2 as well.
B. Mr. Obama maintains or increases his lead. In this case, again, seating the Florida and Michigan delegations increases both their delegate counts (we presume Obama gets a small number as well), adds a larger chunk to Mrs. Clinton’s count, but does not change the outcome overall. This would hold true in any scenario in which Mr. Obama leads by enough to offset Florida and Michigan, which is looking fairly likely. This scenario is again, marginally unfair to Mr. Obama who wins by a smaller margin, but still wins -- plus looks very cooperative and has a chance to make friends with the Florida and Michigan delegations and possibly win some of them over.
So what happens, is both delegations (minus their most at-fault delegation members) get to vote, but neither State determines the outcome of the convention.