Earlier today Kagro X writes:
So Harold Ickes is right. This was a violation of the bedrock principle that a vote has to be counted as what it was, not what we wish, guess, or hope it was.
Kagro analogized to the distinction between courts of equity and courts at law:
What the RBC did today, it did sitting as a court of equity. But the RBC does not, ordinarily, have jurisdiction to sit as a court of equity. It sits, to complete the analogy, as a court of law.
Why that analogy and the argument fail, below.
The analogy fails because even in a court of law equitable principles apply. Clinton agreed prior to the MI election that the MI vote would not count and Obama changed his position (removing his name from the ballot) in reliance on that agreement. Even in a court of law, Clinton was "estopped" from claiming any delegates from MI. She would receive absolutely no delegates.
But, of course, we are not talking about courts of law or equity. This is a political decision. And while that decision is supposed to be decided within the rules, again, under the rules, Clinton and Obama were to receive no MI delegates. Whatever the authority of the committee, Clinton was not entitled to a single delegate.
The MI votes Clinton received were no more legitimately hers than were the uncommitted votes Obama received. Just as bedrock as the principle that "a vote has to be counted as what is was" is the principle that the election has to be within the rules. The election was illegitimate because it violated the rules as to its date and under those rules the election was not to be a basis for awarding delegates. It is also bedrock that the ballot must be accurate. A ballot is inaccurate when it does not contain all of the candidates names.
It is as wrong to assume that those who cast a vote for Hillary would have voted for her if Obama's name had been on the ballot as it is to assume that those who voted "uncommitted" would have voted for Obama had his name been there. We will never know.
So while under the rules Obama may be entitled to no delegates, neither was Hillary. The fact that they both ended up with delegates is again recognition of the fact that this is a political, not legal, decision.
Someone, like Clinton, who seeks to benefit from a violation of the rules and was entitled to no relief is in no position to complain through surrogates about an award which gave her more relief than she was entitled to and more relief than her opponent.
The Committee made the correct political decision.