Sorry, couldn’t resist. (For you kids, that’s a reference to an ancient scandal from the 20th Century)
Saul Anuzis (former Michigan Republican Chair, and member of the Credentials Committee that awarded both MI at-large delegates to Romney) tries to put the controversy to bed:
Statement by Saul Anuzis:Oh yeah? That might satisfy readers out there who are willing to take the word of Republican spokes-critters as Gospel, but not your intrepid kossack reporter! Below are excerpts from the rules that Saul is referencing. See if they line up with his statement. I found these at Jack Hoogendyk’s blog, Core Principles. Jack Hoogendyk is a former MI state Rep. and SW MI Tea Party leader. I am assuming Jack is reporting the real rules. The business about substituting 2 for 14 is due to the RNC cutting the Michigan delegation as punishment for holding the primary early. Emphasis below is mine.
At the February 4th State Committee meeting held in Lansing, the Credentials Committee unanimously passed the procedures for allocating Michigan’s delegates to the National Convention in the event that the RNC imposes the 50% penalty on our delegation.
We agreed that if only 30 delegates would be designated as voting delegates, the Michigan Republicans would send 2 from each congressional committee and 2 at large. We agreed that the two at large delegates would be taken from the top of the slated delegations as submitted by the candidate who received the most votes statewide.
Last night the Credentials Committee met via teleconference and voted to apply the rules as passed unanimously on February 4th which results in the 2 at large delegates be awarded to the statewide winner, Mitt Romney.
There were no changes in rules or procedures, the Credential Committee only ratified the existing rules as previously passed after some made erroneous claims to the media that the at-large delegates would be split.
The Credentials Committee Memo to the RNC states, on Page 4:So — did you follow that? The at-large were to be proportional, that was in the rules submitted to the RNC, and the proportional calculation as worked out by Jack Hoogendyk, mind, not your humble reporter, would be one for Santorum and one for Romney.
“Now, however, an at-large slate of two (2) National Convention delegates and alternates will also be selected to complete the “officially recognized” listing of 30 National Convention delegates and alternates from Michigan. The allocation of this “officially recognized” at-large slate of two (2) National Convention delegates and alternates shall be calculated in accordance with Rule No. 19C(2). of the State Rules by merely substituting “two (2)” for “fourteen(14).”Follows the actual Rules as adopted by the Michigan Republican State Committee on August 13, 2011, and subsequently submitted to the RNC as the official process in a February 7, 2012 Memo.
The math is as follows:
Vote is 410,523 Romney, 378,136 Santorum. Since no other candidate met the minimum threshold of 15%, these votes are the only ones tabulated for purposes of establishing the Statewide Proportional Allocation, per Rule 19.C(2) as provided below.
Thus, for PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION ONLY:
410,523 = 52.0533% Romney
378,136 = 47.9467% Santorum
788,659 = 100.0000% Total
Substituting “Two” for “Fourteen”, per the February 7 Credentials Committee Memo as submitted to the RNC, the math is:
2 “Officially Recognized” Delegates:
52.0533% or 1.0411 Romney
47.9467% or .9589 Santorum
Again, using the .5 Rounding calculations in the Rule 19 C (2) as required below, the Total is:
1 Romney “Officially Recognized” Delegate
1 Santorum “Officially Recognized” Delegate
RULE 19 C (2) of the STATE RULES for the Michigan Republican Presidential Delegate Selection Process:
C. Determining the Number of Delegates and Alternate Delegates to be committed to Each Presidential Candidate Except as provided in Rule 19E, National Convention delegates and alternate delegates shall be elected based on the votes casts as uncommitted or for each respective Republican presidential candidate of the Republican Party’s total statewide vote at the Presidential Preference Vote. The determination of these allocations shall be made as follows:
(1) The Republican presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) who receives the most votes in the Presidential Preference Vote for a congressional district shall be allocated the three (3) National Convention delegates and three (3) National Convention alternate delegates for that particular congressional district.
(2) National Convention at-large delegates and at-large alternate delegates shall be elected on a basis that insures that the proportion of the at-large National Convention delegation that is committed to each Republican presidential candidate equals, as nearly as is practicable, the proportion of the statewide vote that was cast for each respective presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) at the statewide Presidential Preference Vote. The determination of these proportions shall only include the votes cast for that particular Republican presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted), if the total vote cast for that particular Republican presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted), equals at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total statewide vote cast for all Republican presidential candidates (or, if applicable, uncommitted) at the Presidential Preference Vote (hereinafter the “Threshold Vote”).
The State Party Chair shall assure that the proportion of the at-large National Convention delegation committed to a particular presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) is equal to the proportion of the statewide Presidential Preference Vote. That number shall be determined by dividing the total statewide Presidential Preference Vote received by each presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) by the total statewide Presidential Preference Vote cast for all Republican presidential candidates (or, if applicable, uncommitted), not including within the total statewide Presidential Preference Vote those votes cast for any candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) that did not equal or exceed the Threshold Vote. The resulting percentage for each candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) shall be multiplied by fourteen (14) and rounded to the nearest whole number (.5 and above rounds up, below .5 rounds down), which shall be the number of delegates and alternate delegates that that candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) shall receive from the at-large National Convention delegation. If as a result of rounding off to the nearest whole number, there are more than fourteen (14) delegate and alternate positions assigned, the number of positions shall be decreased to fourteen (14) by subtracting the necessary number of positions from the Republican presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) receiving the fewest votes cast at the Presidential Preference Vote. If as a result of rounding off to the nearest whole number, there are less than fourteen (14) delegate and alternate positions assigned, the number of positions shall be increased to fourteen (14) by adding the necessary number of positions to the Republican presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) receiving the most votes cast at the Presidential Preference Vote.
So, unless the MRP Credentials Committee has “extra double secret probation” rules other than the rules that they themselves reported to the RNC — it is inescapable that they are acting completely arbitrarily, and Saul is full of it.
Spin, spin, smoke and mirrors!
More from Anuzis:
“There were questions raised at the time the memo was drafted as to whether the legal language used was accomplishing the goal of the committee and we were advised that it was, but now it is clear that the memo did not properly communicate the intent of the committee,” he said in a statement. “The committee convened again last night to affirm that the intent was clear and that the memo was inaccurate.”OK — does the language quoted in my main article seem to any of you to be ambiguous? Something that competent people would need to be “…advised that it was…” accomplishing the goal, when it was actually, and on its face doing the exact opposite of what they intended? Take your pick:
That said, Mr. Anuzis declared the controversy “much ado about nothing.”
“While we all regret the error in the memo, it does not change what was voted on by the committee, which was to award the two at-large delegates to the statewide winner,” he said.
1) This committee is dumber than a box of rocks
2) More and faster spin from Anuzis
Actually, those are not necessarily exclusive options…