Developing: New MI and FL Delegate Plan Under Discussion (No mail-in)

After finding out that a re-vote in Florida by mail-in is illegal.  A new plan for the seating of Michigan's and Florida's delegates is being discussed.

Michigan: Split the 156 delegates 50/50 between Obama and Clinton

Update: Correction on Florida thanks loree920

Florida: Seat all the delegates Florida would normally have but give them 1/2 a vote, resulting in a 19 net delegates for Clinton.

Superdelegates would be free to vote for whomever

More..

Here is the statement from Florida

Florida law prohibits election officials from authenticating votes cast in the Democratic Party's proposed do-over primary by mail, state officials said Thursday, a potentially fatal blow to the increasingly embattled plan.

''There's no authority under Florida law that would allow county supervisors of election or the state to verify signatures in an election of a state party,'' said Sterling Ivey, a spokesman for Florida's secretary of state and Division of Elections.

Halperin says this,

The betting: Florida and Michigan delegates, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign would all — some reluctantly– accept this deal.

Then it would be over to you, Barack Obama.

The splitting of Michigan's delegates Obama would be fine with but Florida's are a little more tricky.  I would assume that if Obama is comfortably in the lead nearer to the convention (perhaps after PA) he would agree to this.

It would also save roughly $10-$12 million for a new election in Florida alone.

•  Tips

  What do y'all think?

  by Unlabled on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:17:32 PM PDT

  •  I think

    this was what I thought would be okay a month ago.

    by Drewid on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:25:17 PM PDT

    •  Superdelegates

      pledged delegates are not a problem but I remember hearing that Clinton has also netted most of the Florida Superdelegates and this would had a huge sum to her delegate total.  

      by Kitty on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:51:09 PM PDT

      •  35 Supers

        This is the real story behind the story that most of the MSM except for the guy who does the delegate counts at MSNBC mentioned a few nights ago.

        The pledged delegate count would really be meaningless.  But Hillary wants all 35 super delegates which would narrow Obama's lead considerably.

        by ovelarde on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:06:14 PM PDT

        •  35

          Wow!  don't think that most kossacks know this

          by Kitty on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:17:54 PM PDT

          •  There are four FL superdelegates who have

            endorsed Obama, according to DemConWatch:

            Rep Robert Wexler
            DNC Allan Katz
            DNC Joyce Cusack
            Rep Kathy Castor

            Rep John Conyers is the only MI super to have endorsed Obama.

            by oscarsdad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:40:18 PM PDT

        •  The basis for seating the delegations might be

          to take back the one change Donna Brazille made in August, which was to make the penalty more severe:  not seat any delegates.

          The previous plan, however, was to seat half the pledged delegates in both MI and FL.  Not all with half a vote each, but half as many delegates with a full vote each.

          Importantly, the superdelegates were already not seated according to the original rules.

          As long as the only change is we go back to what would happen before Donna Brazille butted in, i.e. back to the rules that were in force when the Florida legislature voted for their primary date, the superdelegates should not be seated.

          by oscarsdad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:43:53 PM PDT

  •  It sucks

    I really would consider not voting, if they do that in MI - either revote, seat the delegates as is, or don't seat them - any one of those would be better.

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:32:27 PM PDT

    •  Why? n/t

      by Particle Noun on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:37:03 PM PDT

      •  Because not only

        won't I have a say, someone will be picking my vote for me.

        Thats worse than just being ignored.

        by FerrisValyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:47:03 PM PDT

    •  It's not fair, honestly

      I agree with you completely. I'd feel about the way you do.

      That said: the villain here is not the Clinton campaign, or the Obama campaign, or the DNC, or the Democratic party, or the United States.

      The villain here is the Michigan Democratic Party and state government.

      I have some sympathy for Florida's poor, sad Democratic Party. The Republicans in Florida pretty much did this to them.

      I have sympathy for the voters in both states.

      I have no sympathy for the Democratic establishment in Michigan. They caused this.

      Please direct your anger there, and not at anyone else. And please consider that your vote still matters; you may have lost your primary vote, and that completely stinks, but the people you might vote for in November did not take it away from you, and the country still needs the right President.

      by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:58:40 PM PDT

  •  I don't like rewarding FL and MI superdelegates

    with full votes. I feel that they caused the problem, they should pay the price.

    by davewill on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:44:48 PM PDT

    •  See a post I made above.

      If the deal is to go back to the rules in force when Florida voted on when their primary would be, the FL and MI superdelegates should not get seated.

      by oscarsdad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:45:38 PM PDT

•  Just make it be over.

  Please.

  by sheddhead on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:19:09 PM PDT

•  This is a fair deal

  as long as FL's vote is only counted half in determining the popular vote.  So Clinton would cut Obama's lead in the popular vote by only 144K instead of 288K.

  Obama's lead in pledged delegates is about 155, so losing 19 is a drop in the bucket.

  by IhateBush on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:20:04 PM PDT

  •  What does that even mean?

    The popular vote has no official significance at all.  

    by Mia Dolan on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:24:06 PM PDT

    •  The media makes a big deal

      about the popular vote. And the Clinton campaign also makes a big deal about it
      Such a deal made here should be under the understanding that Florida counts half in every way, including the popular vote.

      by IhateBush on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:27:28 PM PDT

    •  "Official" being the key word.

      If she has to, Hillary will use the popular vote to entice SDs.  Wait, what am I saying? That's already her plan.

      by madgranny on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:27:50 PM PDT

    •  The way it seems important is through bad logic.

      One "logic" is that in November, each state will be winner take all (actually only all but ME and NE, but who's counting).  So whoever wins the popular vote in each state during the primaries has the "magic" it takes to win the state in the general election, which is just hooey.  The winner of an Obama/Clinton in a primary or caucus doesn't necessarily do better against an unspecified Republican in the general election, let alone specifically against John McCain.  But that is why the MSM report "Clinton won Nevada" instead of the truth, which is that Obama won more delegates there.

      The other logic is worse.  "If we were a true democracy, the one with the most votes should win."  Well, if we were a true democracy we would take a popular vote on every individual issue, and we wouldn't have a President at all.  Nor is it at all likely that we will stop using the Electoral College any time soon and go to a simple majority vote, the 40 or so small states would throw a fit and they would win, particularly in the Senate.  So what the popular vote is truly should have no place in a discussion of American politics at the national level.

      by oscarsdad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:55:18 PM PDT

  •  Explain how picking where my vote will go

    is at all fair.  Please, tell me how its more fair to say "you are voting for __" as opposed to saying "your vote doesn't count"

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:33:24 PM PDT

    •  Would you rather have FL/MI not seated?

      by IhateBush on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:49:38 PM PDT

      •  Absolutely

        and I say that as someone from MI.  Its much more fair, than this stupid 50/50 split

        by FerrisValyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:56:25 PM PDT

      •  This seated or not seated is...

        Just a line that Clinton is using to put pressure on the DNC and make headlines with the media and probably ignorant voters.

        The matter is very simple and if people don't realize it then there is an obvious double-standard.

        If Clinton was in Obama's shoes, she could care less about FL and Michigan or at least not make such a fuss about it, especially if she knew that a vote in either state would cut her lead.

        The simple fact is that Florida and Michigan violated the rules and were punished for it.  However, the DNC made a big mistake as well.  Once the DNC disqualifed both states, it should have adjusted the total for winning the election.  It didn't so now we're fucked.

        by ovelarde on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:24:10 PM PDT

•  I predict

  that the Clinton campaign will negotiate in bad faith with the goal of sabotaging any possible solution.  That would have the effect of muddying the legitimacy of the whole primary process and allow them to appeal to the SDs from a strronger position.

  by bugscuffle on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:20:09 PM PDT

•  I read this part differently

  Florida’s existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention—but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

  To me this looks like the delegates voting for Clinton or Obama would be seated and the remaining delegates would split 50/50 while receiving only 1/2 vote.

  by loree920 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:21:08 PM PDT

  •  That's it! How could Hillary net 19 delegates

    if the delegates are divided 50-50?  

    by madgranny on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:30:09 PM PDT

  •  Don't know if I'd update?

    I am just trying to figure what they mean by existing?

    by loree920 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:30:44 PM PDT

    •  No you're right

      I read it incorrectly.  

      Half of Florida's delegates would be 105.

      50% is ~53 delegates for CLinton, 33% ~34 delegates for Obama, that's 19 net delegates

      by Unlabled on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM PDT

•  I'm fine with it...

  ...as long as the popular vote is halved similarly.

  Ray

  by Solari on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:21:24 PM PDT

•  That's utterly asinine

  50/50 split does nothing for the party or the candidates on the ground in either state. It's just back room dealmaking.

  by Olds88 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:21:33 PM PDT

  •  Michigan should be revoted

    but it appears the logistics make it very difficult to make this happen.  For example, when is the deadline for a voter to be eligible to vote in this primary?  Can people who voted in the Rethug primary earlier because they assumed the this primary wouldn't count vote now?

    I think Obama's people will be quite happy not having to redo Florida, it's one of the worst states for him demographically.

    by IhateBush on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:29:49 PM PDT

    •  Then don't seat the delegates

      or seat them as is - if a revote isn't in the cards, don't do this.

      by FerrisValyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:34:16 PM PDT

    •  Just go with a caucus

      We held a party caucus in Michigan in 2004. They are very cheap and would energize the base. You would have to be a registered Democrat to do it.

      If you did cross over to the GOP, for instance under the influence of the god damn stupid "Vote for Mitt" idea, you might not be able to vote since you already got a voice in the GOP primary.

      That should be relatively easy to settle-- it would be publicly recorded if you requested a Republican ballot in the January 15 primary-- the state should be able to provide a list to weed out crossovers.

      by Olds88 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:40:15 PM PDT

      •  If you think Hillary would go for a Cacaus

        you haven't been watching any Media for the last seven weeks.

        by Particle Noun on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:44:57 PM PDT

        •  It's not up to Hillary or Obama

          It's up to the state's to decide to hold a caucus or primary, and it's up to Howard Dean, as chair of the DNC, to decide what is valid and/or an acceptable compromise.

          by Subversive on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:46:52 PM PDT

          •  But they've repeatedly said

            they won't instute a plan not agreed to by both parties.  You can bet Hillary would put every pressure possible to prevent a caucaus.

            by Particle Noun on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:52:47 PM PDT

      •  This is unfair

        If you did cross over to the GOP, for instance under the influence of the god damn stupid "Vote for Mitt" idea, you might not be able to vote since you already got a voice in the GOP primary.

        People did the "Dems for Mitt" stuff because they assumed the Dems primary would not count.  If they believed that it would possibly count, they wouldn't have done it.  People shouldn't be punished because the rules changed in the middle of the game.

        by IhateBush on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM PDT

    •  It would be a new vote

      ...like a special election.  Having voted previously just wouldn't matter.

      by Subversive on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:33:54 PM PDT

•  yes

  just take this deal...

  I am getting tired of this.  That's HRC's plan anyway, to wear us down to the point of apathy.

  Democracy and the dems STRIKES again!  huzzah...zzzzzzzzzz

  by pooh74 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:21:55 PM PDT

•  Florida should be a 50/50 spilt

  Giving Clinton 19 delegates is to much considering she did nothing to earn those delegates.

  by AHiddenSaint on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:24:07 PM PDT

  •  It's really a trickle in the bucket for Obama

    He may well lose more if he were to redo that primary.    Michigan on the other hand, I think Obama would win.

    by IhateBush on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:31:07 PM PDT

  •  He'd probably do better in a revote

    But that's not the point. I think Clinton hit her ceiling in both Florida and Michigan in the first vote. The demographics of the original primary were skewed about as hard as possible in her favor. Michigan, with her as the only major candidate on the ballot, was similarly tilted.

    In both revotes, she'd probably do worse. I'd be willing to bet that Obama wouldn't be -19 in a Florida revote, nor would his popular vote deficit be as much as 1/2 the current Florida deficit.

    That said, I'd accept the compromise to get the whole thing done with.

    by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:03:34 PM PDT

•  Seems like this might be the path to go down

  Alot cheaper than do overs, and probably about the same result, in the end. We wouldn't be having a Florida primary in July, and still fighting. It would put us closer to getting this over with.

  Best of all, we could stop talking about it.

  by Sherri in TX on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:25:15 PM PDT

•  What does this do to the

  total needed to win the nomination?  Raise it from 2025 or whatever it was?  And, does it add new SDs that weren't around b4?

  by mengelhart on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:25:26 PM PDT

  •  Yes, the number would be raised

    To whatever 50%+1 of the new total number of delegate votes is.

    by SLKRR on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:29:16 PM PDT

  •  It was to go to 2208

    if all MI and FL delegates were seated but I don't know how many supers there are in FL.

    by xopher on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:43:23 PM PDT

•  It's not up to Obama

  It's up to Dean and the rules of the DNC.  And delegates cannot be seated without a valid primary or caucus.  Period.  Conversation over.

  by Subversive on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:25:37 PM PDT

•  Sounds fine to me

  I'm just sick of talking about it.  

  Would the superdelegates from those states just have half a vote, too?

  by SLKRR on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:28:22 PM PDT

•  Hillary's toast if this plan is true.

  Her only hope was a Florida redo and racking up about a 50 delegate win.

  IF supers are counted in both states, she'll gain about 20 delegates +19 pledged.

  This means she's still behind Obama by 100 total (including supers) and 142 with just pledged.

  by MJJLWolf on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:30:15 PM PDT

  •  How will Hillary spike this plan?

    I agree that accepting this plan pretty well means checkmate for Clinton.

    Re-votes gave her additional chances (realistic or not) to cut the delegate margin plus gave her a chance to put together a season-ending string of Texas (she won the primary portion), Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida.  

    If she exchanges re-votes for a net gain of only 19 delegates, it's too little and too late.  Consequently, she has to kill this plan even though it may not be that easy: How does she turn down a plan that nets her delegates?

    by IowaLibert on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:46:32 PM PDT

•  If both parties agreed to this and brought ....

  the plan to the credentials committee for appeal to seat delegates, and both sides delegates on the committee were party to the compromise, it would fly.

  by LoneStarLefty on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:30:36 PM PDT

•  I am very fond of

  many FL Kossaks but I have to say -- WTF is up with Florida's entire voting system?  The officials didn't frigging already know they couldn't do the mail-ins?  Could someone please find a competent election guru because I'm sick of fuckups from Florida.

  by gchaucer2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:32:45 PM PDT

  •  Me too, & I live in Florida

    To be honest I have so little faith in the system, I stayed a registered Republican for 15 years because I figured they'd less likely to make my votes "disappear" if they thought I was a (R)

    by bws on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:19:36 PM PDT

•  I'm deeply unhappy with this proposal

  New primaries of some form or another might have been bad for Obama, but in terms of party-building and energizing the base, they would have been invaluable, and well worth the cost IMO.

  Instead, we're back to arguing over whom to disenfranchize, and by how much. This is not by any stretch a "Democratic process."

  by maxomai on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:35:09 PM PDT

  •  But the reality is, there is only ~2.5 mos left

    to do this.  A primary or caucus or mail-in put together in a month or two has a high probability of having significant problems, which may be serious enough for the public to see the vote as illegitimate.    If HRC and Obama are squabbling about a FL do-over into July, we are getting very close to the convention (not to mention, the general).

    by msanthrope on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM PDT

  •  It's not "democratic"...

    but think of it this way.  The most important thing for right now is a definite END to the primary process.  Hillary is trying to cloud the process by asking the "what about FL/MI?" question and making it seem like she has a realistic path to the nomination...even though she doesn't.

    This is a great deal for Obama.  No net out of MI, a very limited Hillary gain from FL (Obama's got a significant delegate lead, so this isn't going to hurt) AND it takes the whole revote thing off the table.

    The worst outcome for Obama right now would be FL/MI revotes in June, because that just gives Hillary an excuse to continue after early May, when it will be abundantly clear that she's lost.

    And...Obama can "reluctantly accept" this deal "for the good of the party".  Win-Win!

    by rashomon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:45:01 PM PDT

  •  Energize the base in the GE eom

    by xopher on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:47:54 PM PDT

•  Is this to Say

  The results of the original January Primary would have netted Clinton 38 votes?

  by xopher on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:41:08 PM PDT

  •  basically

    excluding super delegates.

    There are 210 delegates in Florida and Clinton had 50% of the vote, Obama 33%.

    105-69 Clinton, 36 votes, roughly

    by Unlabled on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:47:39 PM PDT

•  My counter-proposal

  Following a formal, detailed, and empassioned apology to Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee, and the voters of their states, then in the absence of a new and valid primary or caucus, seat only the superdelegates of Florida and Michigan, and with only 1/2 of their usual voting strength.  At the same time, the restriction on candidates campaigning in Florida or Michigan should be upheld and even strengthened.

  Now that would be fair, overwhelming generous in fact.  Much more than Florida and Michigan deserve, but in the spirit of putting the past behind us.  Of course, again, it's up to Howard Dean as Chair, not Obama or Hillary, to negotiate a compromise or not on behalf of the established DNC rules.

  by Subversive on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:43:27 PM PDT

  •  Or even simplify it

    Skip the aplogy requirement as the Florida and Michigan state parties are unlikely to ever take responsibility for their actions in screwing everything up.  So that just leaves:

    No regular delegates to be seated without a valid caucus or primary (the existing rule).
    Seat the superdelegates from these states at half voting strength (compromise with a punishment).

    The advantage here is that after seeing whose votes got counted in their states, voters in Florida and Michigan will be even more motivated to fix the underlying problem by giving their state parties a much needed complete overhaul.

    by Subversive on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM PDT

  •  Fair for Michigan, maybe; Florida, no

    Michigan's mess is laid at the feet of the Michigan democratic party. I actually believe the opposite should be done, if we're compromising: seat delegates 50/50 and no superdelegates. Allowing the superdelegates a vote rewards them, it doesn't punish them. This doesn't do a lot to reenfranchise the voters, but nothing short of a revote does that.

    Florida's a different ball of wax: the Democratic party was put over a barrel by the Republican-dominated legislature and Governor. They really didn't have any choice but to move the primary, knowing it'd result in their losing the delegates.

    So neither the people nor the party did anything wrong in Florida. On the other hand, the original primary is a joke. So I'd accept the 1/2-vote pledged delegate thing as a way to break the logjam.

    by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:10:35 PM PDT

    •  Fair all around, and more democratic

      The previously held primaries in both states were not only invalid, they were unfair to voters in both states.  Declaring a 50/50 split is also patently un-Democratic and unfair to voters in both states.  

      As superdelegates don't actually vote until the primary, the results of their vote is mostly unchanged regardless of whether there were fair and vaild elections in their states.  In the absence of new primaries or caucuses, the votes of the superdelegates for these states are the only ones that are Democratic and fair.  And it is up to Dean and the DNC to decide whether they are valid.

      And Florida Democrats did screw up too, and are just as much to blame as Michigan Democrats, because they passed on multiple opportunities to fix the mess.

      As for whether giving superdelegates a partial vote rewards them, I don't think it does that exactly.  People have a right to vote, and superdelegates (if they are seated) have a right to vote as superdelegates.  The simple fact is that it is impossible for the voters of Florida or Michigan to vote if the state party declines to give them a primary or caucus to do that, and superdelegates aren't bound by this restriction.

      It may still seem like a reward to the superdelegates who are largely the same people who screwed everything up in these states, however in the end, they won't affect the outcome of the election that much, and by being the only people in their states whose votes count, it will help place the blame for this mess on them in future elections.

      by Subversive on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:30:43 PM PDT

•  Her Intent Originally

  Was to move the goal line, which this really doesn't do.

  So therefore I'm inclined to believe that Clinton will not go for it.

  by xopher on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:50:38 PM PDT

•  need to strip superdelegates

  the hrc cmap cares more about the sd's from these states than the pledged...those need to be stripped due to all this nonsense

  by oscarfrye on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:52:13 PM PDT

  •  And the superdelegates are likely responsible

    They're the party insiders who wanted the primary pulled in.  Fuck 'em.

    by CA Libertarian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM PDT

    •  I agree that the superdelegates

      ...are largely the same party insiders who screwed everything up, but I think if we could give them the vote and instead deny the regular delegates their vote (in the absence of a valid caucus or primary), it would more strongly motivate the voters in these states to rid their states of these total screwups.

      by Subversive on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:09:30 PM PDT

      •  Too subtle an issue to rely on voters

        What would really punish these turkeys is to deny them the power of being able to manipulate the presidential election.  There's a very clear message that goes straight to anybody who dares pull this stunt again.

        by CA Libertarian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:59:57 PM PDT

        •  Well, ok, what would really punish these turkeys

          ...is to make Florida and Michigan follow the rules, and not allow any delegates without a valid--let alone democratic--election.

          by Subversive on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:05:26 AM PDT

•  What about those Edwards' delegates?

  Obama could agree to accepting the Florida results only if Edwards has agreed to throw his support to Obama.  Then it's basically neutral on delegates, and Obama forces the issue with Edwards.

  Up the ante.

  by CA Libertarian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM PDT

•  This is not a fair deal for those in FL

  who didn't vote because they were told their vote wouldn't count.   If the point is to enfranchise voters of Fl estimating that Obama may loose less delegates (or a bearable number) does not accomplish that!

  by scotths on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:15:22 PM PDT