The following is a timeline offering insight as to how we got into this quagmire with Florida and Michigan. It dates back to 2002.
This is a first draft and there are bound to be some missing elements which I will fill in as they are brought to my attention and as they are deemed appropriate. If you feel something needs to be added, please e-mail me or post a comment below.
Florida & Michigan Timeline
Jan. 19, 2002: Michigan Senator Carl Levin testifies before the DNC and asks for a rule change to break the lock that New Hampshire has had on the presidential nominating process. The DNC unanimously votes him down.
February, 2003: Michigan Democrats call DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe to inform him that they will move their primary date up to coincide with New Hampshire. Participants on the call include Senator Carl Levin, Congressman John Dingell and DNC member Debbie Dingell. McAuliffe, who had also previously supported changing the primary calendar, states that he can not support Michigan because he is bound to uphold the rules of the DNC.
March, 2003: Michigan explores moving its 2004 primary date up to coincide with the New Hampshire primary.
Sometime in 2003: Michigan agrees to not schedule an early primary in exchange for Terry McAuliffe's support of a resolution calling for the formation of a DNC commission to examine the presidential nominating process and propose recommendations.
Sometime in 2004: Michigan's DNC delegation drafts a resolution establishing a Commission on Presidential Nominating Timing and Scheduling.
July 25, 2004: The Democratic National Convention in Boston approves the resolution.
March 12, 2005: The CPNTS meets for the first time in Washington, D.C. and discusses the history of the early nominating window and the new challenges the Party faces.
May 14, 2005: The CPNTS meets in Chicago and hears from State Parties and individuals on their proposals to alter the existing system.
July 16, 2005: The CPNTS meets in Washington, DC and offers groups and organizations an opportunity to go on the record regarding the early presidential nominating process. Transcript is here.
October 1, 2005: The CPNTS meets in Washington, DC. Transcript here.
December 10, 2005: The CPNTS held its final meeting. Minutes here. The final recommendations of the committee were as follows:
- Preserving the first-in-the-nation status of Iowa and New Hampshire but adding other states in the pre-window period.
- Adding 1 or 2 new first-tier caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire, and 1 or 2 new primaries between New Hampshire and the opening of the window for all other states on February 5, 2008.
- Having the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee determine which states should be added, using the following criteria: racial and ethnic diversity; geographic diversity; and economic diversity including union density.
March 11, 2006: The DNC reviews proposals from states wanting to join Iowa and New Hampshire within the pre-window period. South Carolina, which had previously held early contests, and Nevada, a newcomer to the presidential primary process are considered early favorites to host.
April-June, 2006: RBC meets monthly to evaluate state applications to host contests within the early pre-window time table. In total, 11 state Democratic parties submitted extensive written presentations and testified at length before the RBC. The RBC was guided by the Commission’s recommendation that racial and ethnic diversity; geographic diversity; and economic diversity, including union density, be highlighted in the selection of new pre-window states. Florida did not apply at any time to be one of the states that would be allowed to hold its primary prior to February 5, 2008. Michigan did submit an application to be one of the new early “pre-window” states alongside Iowa and New Hampshire. The State Party proposed to conduct either a traditional tiered caucus or a Party-run primary.
April 28, 2006: Michigan State Central Committee adopts a 2008 Delegate Selection Plan based on a February 9, 2008 “State Party-run primary” with in-person voting centers, vote-by-mail and internet voting following a 30-day public comment period. (In the past this process has been called a “caucus” by the State Party, or a “firehouse primary.”) The February 9, 2008 Party-run primary allocates delegates and alternate positions among presidential preferences. The 2008 Plan is submitted to the DNC RBC for its consideration.
July 22, 2006: RBC recommends to full DNC that Iowa caucuses take place no earlier than January 14, 2008; that one caucus be held between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, and that the caucus be held in Nevada, a state with a significant and growing Latino population, a sizeable Asian American and Pacific Islander community, a strong organized labor presence, and in the western region of the country where the Democratic Party was making electoral gains. The RBC further recommended that one primary be held between the New Hampshire primary and the opening of the window on February 5, and that that primary be held in South Carolina, a southern state that has prior experience in hosting an early event and a state in which African Americans represent a significant share of the Democratic electorate.
August 19, 2006: Based on a recommendation of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, the DNC approves a calendar which allows Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina to host early nominating contests in January of 2008. The measure is passed with near-unanimity (only New Hampshire votes no). Florida and Michigan delegations support the measure.
January 23, 2007: Legislation was introduced in the Florida legislature to move the date of the state government-run primary from the first Tuesday of March (March 4, 2008)to January 29, 2008, which would violate the Party’s rule on timing.
Early 2007: On hearing that Florida may move up its presidential primary date, a number of states begin examining the primary calendar to see where they can move up dates as well. Illinois, California, and New York all move up to February 5th, 2008, prompting as many as one dozen other states to rush to re-schedule primaries for the same day in order to "remain relevant."
April 5, 2007: RBC Co-Chairs write to Democratic members of the Florida congressional delegation notifying them that the proposed legislation has passed the Florida House of Representatives and is pending before the State Senate to move the date of the primary. The letter details automatic sanctions in the rules for states which violate the rule on timing. The letter concluds by urging congressional representatives to use their “leadership and influence to oppose and help to defeat the state legislation that will put Florida’s presidential primary in violation of DNC rules.”
March-April, 2007: DNC officials and Florida Democratic Party officials hold discussions about the status of pending legislation and what activities the DNC can engage in to try to influence Democratic state legislators to bring Florida’s system into compliance with DNC Rules.
May 7, 2007: DNC officials and Florida State Party officials meet in-person in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the pending legislation and strategies about how to cope with the legislation which was expected to be signed into law.
May 21, 2007: Florida officially moves its primary date up to Jan. 29, 2008. Democrats in the Forida legislature join Republicans in passing the bill.
May-early June, 2007: With assistance of DNC officials, Florida Democratic Party develop a plan for an alternative, Party-run 100% vote by mail process that would be scheduled for a date complying with the rules.
June 10, 2007: The Florida State Democratic Executive Committee votes to make the January 29, 2008 primary binding and to draft a Delegate Selection Plan based on that primary.
June 15, 2007: DNC Chairman Gov. Dean met with members of the Florida congressional delegation.
June 27, 2007: Michigan submits state legislation to move its primary up to January, 2008 , which violates the Party’s rule on timing. The legislation also provides a mechanism for the government to record those voters who take a Democratic ballot, thereby meeting the Party’s rules standard of “declaration and recordation.”
June 30, 2007: RBC considers the proposed Michigan 2008 Plan and hears presentation from State Chair Mark Brewer on internet voting. RBC postpones taking a formal vote on Plan until its next meeting in order for the State Party to provide more detailed information concerning the internet voting component.
July-early August, 2007: Discussions between DNC and FDP officials continue. The DNC develops a proposed State Party-run caucus system, with congressional district caucuses to take place after February 5, 2008. This system fully complies with the DNC’s Rules and affords an opportunity for all Florida Democrats to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee. The DNC offered to pay approximately $880,000 to implement the caucus system.
August 4, 2007: The Florida State Democratic Executive Committee adopts a 2008 Delegate Selection Plan based on use of the January 29, 2008 primary, the plan is submitted to the RBC on August 7, 2007.
August 11, 2007: In-person meeting is conducted between DNC officials and Florida State Party officials, including RBC Co-Chair Jim Roosevelt, State Chair Karen Thurman, and several Florida DNC members. During that private meeting, the DNC officials informed the FDP representatives that, if the State Party persists in its refusal to adopt an alternate plan complying with the rules it is likely that the RBC will not only allow the automatic sanctions to go into place (50% reduction in pledged delegates and a 100% loss of unpledged delegates), but would likely use its authority to further reduce Florida’s delegation to zero (0) delegates.
August 25, 2007: The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee meets to consider the primary date move by Florida. The RBC offers Florida a 30-day window to re-schedule its presidential primary in compliance with rules. Failure to comply with the rules would mean docking Florida's nominating delegates by 100%. The move is also directed as a warning to Michigan, which had been considering moving its primary ahead of New Hampshire. The Republican National Committee issues similar warnings to the states on behalf of its own nominating process.
RBC considers Michigan’s 2008 Plan for a February 9, 2008 Party-run primary and finds the Plan in “Conditional Compliance.” The only deficiency indicated at the time was Committee staff’s desire to more fully evaluate the internetvoting component.
August 28, 2007: RBC Co-Chairs formally notified the State Party in writing of the RBC’s finding of Non-Compliance. Pursuant to the Committee’s Regulations, the State Party was given 30-days upon receipt of the written notification to submit a revised Plan that complied with the rules.
August 31, 2007: The Democratic Parties from the four states sanctioned by the DNC to hold elections in the pre-window period - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina - issue a pledge to all of the Democratic candidates to honor the DNC rules and not campaign in any other states attempting to break DNC rules by holding early elections.
August 30, 2007: Legislation establishing a January 15, 2008 state government-run presidential preference primary passes the legislature and is signed into law by GovernorJennifer Granholm on September 3, 2007.
September 2, 2007: All candidates agree to the pledge.
September 4, 2007: The Democratic legislature and Democratic Governor of Michigan officially moves its primary up to January 15, 2008. Democratic officials call the early state's pledge put forth by Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina a "gun to the head."
September 11, 2007: Pursuant to state law, Michigan State Chair Mark Brewer submits to the Secretary of State a list of presidential candidates whose names should appear on the January 15, 2008 primary ballot. Chair Brewer names all eight (8) Democratic presidential candidates.
September 23, 2007: Florida Democrats affirm early primary vote, shrugging off the DNC's recommendation to come up with an alternative to the scheduled primary date.
September 27, 2007: Karen Thurman, Florida Democratic chair, vows to stick with the decision to move up the state's primary despite DNC threats to strip Florida Democrats of their delegates. "There will be no other primary. Florida Democrats absolutely must vote on Jan. 29."
September 29, 2007: Florida Democratic Party State Chair Karen Thurman notifies the RBC Co-Chairs that the FDP is reaffirming the Plan previously submitted based on the January 29, 2008 primary. Chair Thurman’s letter acknowledges that the FDP spent months considering potential Party-run alternatives which would have complied with the DNC Rules, but that the FDP does not consider any of these alternatives to be acceptable.
October 5, 2007: RBC Co-Chairs formally notify the Florida State Party that the Plan remains in Non-Compliance and that the delegate and alternate reduction imposed at the August 25, 2007 RBC meeting is now in place.
October 9, 2007: Most Democratic candidates remove their name from the Michigan ballot in order to reinforce the previously signed "early states pledge." Because Florida law requires a candidate to be on the primary ballot in order to be on the general election ballot, a similar move cannot realistically be done in that state.
October 10, 2007: Senator Clinton defends the decision to leave her name on the Michigan ballot. States that, "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything,"
October 16, 2007: New Hampshire, in a move to defend its first-in-the-nation primary status, explores the notion of moving its primary up to December 2007, due to actions by Michigan and Florida. This sets the entire presidential nominating calendar in flux as a move by any single state could trigger a chain reaction among other states.
October 31, 2007: Pursuant to state law, State Chair Karen Thurman submits to the Secretary of State a list of presidential candidates whose names would appear on the January 15, 2008 primary ballot. Chair Thurman names all eight (8) Democratic presidential candidates.
November 8, 2007: The Republican National Committee strips 50% of Florida and Michigan convention delegates as a consequence for breaking presidential nominating rules, along with South Carolina, Wyoming and New Hampshire.
November 21, 2007: New Hampshire announces that it will move its primary up from January 22 to January 8, 2008.
November 27, 2007: Michigan State Executive Committee votes to amend its 2008 Delegate Selection Plan. The amended Plan allocates delegates and alternate positions among presidential preferences using the results of the January 15, 2008 state government-run primary. The amended Plan is submitted to the DNC RBC for consideration.
December 1, 2007: RBC meets to consider requests from Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to hold their respective caucuses and primaries on different dates than provided in the rules. The representatives of each state Party testified before the RBC that the date changes were necessary to preserve the spirit and intent of the goals of the early pre-window period. The representatives further acknowledged that the date changes were necessary because other states had scheduled events in the pre-window period. The Nevada State Party Chair testified to the RBC that the Nevada State Party had concluded that it was in its best interests to hold its caucus on the date provided in the rules, but that it supported the requests of the other three (3) states to move.
RBC considers Michigan’s amended 2008 Delegate Selection Plan based on the January 15, 2008 state government-run primary. Committee found the Plan in “Non-Compliance” for violating Rule 11.A. Under the authority of Rules 20.C.1, 20C.5, and 20.C.6 RBC imposed a 100% loss of delegates (pledged and unpledged) and alternates.
December 3, 2007: RBC Co-Chairs formally notify the Michigan State Party in writing of the RBC’s finding of Non-Compliance. Pursuant to the Committee’s Regulations, the State Party is given 30-days upon receipt of the written notification to submit a revised Plan which complies with the rules.
January 7, 2008: The 30-day time period for the Michigan State Party to submit a revised and corrected Plan expires. RBC Co-Chairs formally notify the State Party that the Plan remains in Non-Compliance and that the delegate and alternate reduction imposed at the December 1, 2007 RBC meeting is now in place.
January 15, 2008: Senator Clinton wins Michigan primary.
January 29, 2008: Senator Clinton wins Florida primary.
February, 2008: Calls to seat Florida and Michigan are ignited, claims of disenfranchisement are made.
February 9, 2008: Date of originally planned Michigan State Party-run primary featuring in-person voting centers, vote-by-mail, and internet voting.
Early March, 2008: Discussions resume between DNC officials and Florida State Party officials about holding an alternative Party-run process before June 10, 2008 which would comply with the rules. These discussions include, among other things, consideration of a new state-run primary taking place in the spring of 2008 funded by the state; a new state-run primary taking place in the spring of 2008 funded by private contributions raised by the FDP; and a Party-run vote-by-mail process, taking place in the spring of 2008.
In the course of these discussions, the FDP submits to the DNC, in March 2008, for informal review and discussion, a written plan for an alternative, party-run vote by mail process in which ballots would be mailed out to all Florida Democratic voters on May 9, 2008 and returned to the FDP for counting by June 3, 2008.
Michigan legislation is drafted for the state government to conduct a new Democratic only presidential preference primary in either May or June 2008. The primary will be conducted by the government, but paid for by the State Party. The legislature adjourns without taking action on the proposal to conduct a second Democratic primary.
March 11, 2008: Democrats representing Florida in Congress released a joint statement, effectively ending the mail-in re-do primary. "We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated. Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.”
March 17, 2008: Florida State Party Chair Karen Thurman announces that after careful consideration of various alternatives, it is logistically impossible to conduct an alternative Party-run nominating event before June 10, 2008.
Florida DNC member Jon Ausman files two (2) challenges seeking the reinstatement of Florida’s delegates.
April 2, 2008: Gov. Dean meets with Florida State Chair Karen Thurman, Sen. Bill Nelson and members of the Florida Democratic congressional delegation. Following the meeting, the participants issue a joint statement that a delegation from Florida will be seated at the Convention.
April 4, 2008: The Michigan State Party announces that it is logistically impossible for the State Party to conduct an alternative Party-run nominating event before June 10, 2008. The same day, DNC Chairman Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Carl Levin, Cong. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, DNC member Debbie Dingell, and UAW President Ron Gettlefinger released a joint statement that a delegation from Michigan will be seated.
April 8, 2008: Jon Ausman, Florida DNC Member, issues a memo to the DNC calling for seating at least 50% of the state's delegation.
April 17, 2008: DNC at-large member Joel Ferguson files a challenge seeking the reinstatement of Michigan’s delegates. The challenge seeks to reinstate all unpledged delegates with a full vote each and all of the pledged delegates with a half vote each.
April 25, 2008: The RBC Co-Chairs notify Committee members that the RBC will meet May 31, 2008 in Washington, D.C. to consider the Ausman challenges as well as a challenge concerning Michigan filed by Joel Ferguson.
May 12, 2008: Through Michigan Democratic Party State Chair Mark Brewer, Michigan State Executive Committee files a challenge seeking the reinstatement of Michigan’s delegates. The challenge seeks the reinstatement of all delegates (pledged and unpledged) with a full vote each. The challenge requests the 128 pledged delegates be allocated 69 to Sen. Hillary Clinton and 59 to Sen. Barack Obama. At the same time, Joel Ferguson formally withdraws his challenge filed on April 17, 2008.
May 31, 2008: The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee will meet in Washington, DC to consider appeals made for the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/27/opinion/main4129478.shtml
It seems that calls for Hillary to exit gracefully are starting to mount.
Posted by: Joe | May 27, 2008 at 11:37 AM
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Posted by: stevie314159 | May 27, 2008 at 01:12 PM
I'd like to add just a little bit of detail as to why Michigan jumped ahead in regard to this part of the timeline that you listed:
August 19, 2006: Based on a recommendation of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, the DNC approves a calendar which allows Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina to host early nominating contests in January of 2008. The measure is passed with near-unanimity (only New Hampshire votes no). Florida and Michigan delegations support the measure.
Here is a link to a letter written by Carl Levin & Debbie Dingell to the DNC in Sept. 2007 with some of the relevant passages pasted below.
http://www.michigandems.com/Levin-Dingell%20Letter.pdf
As noted in the letter on page 2, the original calendar that all parties agreed to was:
• Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;
• Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;
• New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and
• South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.
Subsequent to the agreement made on August 19 establishing the calendar,
Iowa moved their caucus date to January 3.
New Hampshire jumped ahead of Nevada to the second spot and scheduled their primary for January 8, and South Carolina pushed their primary ahead to January 26.
So essentially, 3 of the early states violated the agreed-to calendar without sanctions.
And that opened the door to all the rest of the action taken by Michigan, and probably Florida as well.
From what I understand, there has been a long-standing disagreement among the state parties about the order of the calendar, and with positioning Iowa and New Hampshire first and second in every election year.
Posted by: suekzoo | May 27, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Interesting - I wonder what the future will hold in terms of early primaries in the future.
It seems that this had something to do with the fact that Super Tuesday was so big this year - there have never been nearly so many states voting on Super Tuesday. Personally, I think it was a few too many, as it prevents candidates from spending much time in any of them. Then again, I also think the six week gap before PA was too long, so I guess a happy medium is hard to find.
I guess that long gap was also caused by states moving up to Super Tuesday and earlier.
One little correction: you said that on November 21, 2007 NH moved its primary up to January 8, 2007. That should be 2008.
Posted by: Jack | May 27, 2008 at 01:51 PM
I have never seen such a mess.
Hang the cost. The DNC should take control of voting in future.
Keep it simple.
Phone or online vote of registered Democrats only (each voter given an individual password on registration).
Popular vote wins.
Votes counted at DNC headquarters.
Posted by: Blame | May 27, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Sorry that I don't have a link, but I recall Howard Dean saying that the four early states were not sanctioned when moving their dates up because they were within the window agreed to by the DNC. It would have been an issue and subject to sanctions if they had a.)not already been one of the approved early states, and b.)scheduled sometime outside of the Jan. timeframe.
Posted by: LindaS | May 27, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Another key point missing from the timeline with regard to Michigan, especially. Michigan's primary was ruled to be unconstitutional by a Federal Court. (link http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/26/215446/853)
Posted by: Karoli | May 27, 2008 at 04:24 PM
Linda, I remember hearing Dean say that, too, but as I read through the links Mr. Super provided, what seems clear is that NH was angry at being moved from 2nd place to 3rd, while several other states (Michigan included) saw it as a "moral victory" to have finally gotten the DNC to move NH out of their coveted spot at the meeting that took place on Aug 19, 2006. This link seems relevant in that regard:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/dnc_in_chicago_6.html
I know that NH leap-frogging over Nevada back into 2nd ticked off Carl Levin which he addresses at length in the letter I linked earlier. I think that the DNC allowing that to happen is what led to several other states pushing forward to Super Tuesday, and also resulted in that big gap of time before PA.
As I have said before, as a Michigan voter, I understand the argument that the leadership here made, and don't really disagree. Michigan has been struggling for a long time now, and so I can understand why they were pushing for us to get a lot more national attention. Where I part agreement is when we got dinged 100% of our delegates, it seemed like too great a price to pay.
Posted by: suekzoo | May 27, 2008 at 04:40 PM
Karoli: Michigan's primary (i.e. the vote itself) was NOT found to be unconstitutional. A clause in the law authorizing the primary was found unconstitutional. That clause had to do with who would be eligible to have the voter lists from the primary. The law as written said the lists would go to the two major parties. The ACLU filed suit on behalf of the Green Party and others for access to the lists.
Here is the relevant information from The Detroit News:
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Federal judge: Michigan's presidential primary law unconstitutional
Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau
DETROIT -- A federal judge on Wednesday ruled Michigan's presidential primary law unconstitutional and blocked the state from giving voter lists from the Jan. 15 election to the state's major political parties.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing on behalf of several small political parties, that the law's provision giving the list of voters' partisan preference only to the Democratic and Republican parties violated the rights of other parties.
Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said the ruling may have ended any chances of a new Democratic election to resolve the ongoing dispute over the state's delegation to the Democratic National Convention. The state party, he said, needs the list to ensure that no one who voted in the Republican primary in January votes in any new Democratic contest, as required under the national party's rules.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/METRO/803260443/1361
Posted by: suekzoo | May 27, 2008 at 04:47 PM
Mr. Super,
I got the impression on the news tonight that the RBC meeting on Saturday is going to be televised live. Is that true?
Posted by: suekzoo | May 27, 2008 at 05:48 PM
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/in-the-breathle.html
Interesting, there was "another" Mr. Super-like person out there who was an impostor :)
Posted by: Joe | May 27, 2008 at 05:50 PM
I'm wondering why the actual certified votes of MI and FL should be discarded even though the only thing the DNC is discarding are the delegates. Are we pretending the vote did not occur?
And before you claim popular vote has nothing to do with the race, then you are assuming the rule is that the superdelegates cannot consider it. Unlike a caucus having "estimates" that the Texas two-step and this blog has proven unequivocally faulty, the MI FL votes are not estimates. Let’s stop arguing in circles when you know you are just playing stupid for convenience (hopefully).
The unconstitutionality can be corrected by simply providing the lists to the Green Party and others. I would imagine the Green Party and others are fully aware who is not registered to their party, so there will be no insider information. If the Republicans then sue for privacy (which would be hypocritical considering the non-private voting in other states with the caucus), then the original vote will have to be accepted and Obama will regret trying to use Michigan as a political pawn.
Posted by: Truth | May 27, 2008 at 07:53 PM
"The unconstitutionality can be corrected by simply providing the lists to the Green Party and others."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/METRO/803260443/1361
"Chris Thomas, the state's top election official, said even if the judge had ruled that the list should be made public, the state would have withheld it from release. The law included a "nonseverability clause," which voided the entire statute if any part of it was invalidated by the courts. Under that clause, Thomas said, the state would have kept the list private in order to protect voters' privacy."
Posted by: suekzoo | May 27, 2008 at 08:16 PM
Joe ain't thinking straight. Until he can tell us how many voters (I don't care who they may have supported) refrained from going to the polls to vote, in other words, did NOT vote, because they had heard they're votes weren't going to count anyway, then neither Joe nor anyone else can claim it is fair to seat the delegates based on popular MI FL vote. The mere attempt to seat delegates who represent would-be-but-weren't-there voters represents to me the epitome of a country that has lost the fundamental understanding of "democracy". What is democratic, is how MI and FL chose to support the DNC's calendar rules. If we the voters could, like MI and FL would like to do now, reverse our supporting votes, Bush would have been evicted from office years ago. Joe obviously shares Billary's desperation.
Posted by: John | May 27, 2008 at 08:21 PM
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/05/27/mcclellanbook_0527.html
Interesting new book about Bush. What's mentioned there really explains a lot, but it makes me wary of any future ambitions by Rice.
----
John: I seem to be getting confused with a lot of folks, lately? I don't think I ever said that there was a fair way to handle FL & MI. Did you have me confused with a Hillary supporter? (Because I'm not one.) :)
Truth: "I'm wondering why the actual certified votes of MI and FL should be discarded even though the only thing the DNC is discarding are the delegates."
I cannot count the popular vote as a valid metric because it does not exist.
There are states that voted that have no popular vote totals at all. So I can't use that as a metric. I believe Mr. Super lists them among the "myths" somewhere.
I'm not convinced that, even if we counted them, Hillary would come out ahead. That said, it WOULD be interesting if the DNC changed things in a future election to work off the popular vote. But I would think it more advantageous to them to mirror the US electoral map more accurately in order to truly predict electability.
Posted by: Joe | May 27, 2008 at 08:37 PM
You missed a couple of significant points in the timeline:
Friday January 25 (1 day before South Carolina and 4 days before Florida): Hillary issues a press release that calls for the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates.
Sunday January 27 (1 day after South Carolina): Hillary announces she will travel to Florida on the day of their non-sanctioned primary to hold fundaisers and show her commitment to seating their delegates.
Posted by: APoxOnBoth | May 27, 2008 at 08:42 PM
Joe:
Some of your comments (especially your conclusion, stating that Obama used MI as a political pawn) make you sound very biased, but I'll take you for your word.
I still don't understand those who do not take into consideration the unprovable, though highly likely factor, that many voters did not vote because they didn't think their votes would count. If that is true -- if you can find one individual in MI and one in FL who, because their kid had a soccer game on the same day, did not go vote at the primaries because he/she thought it wouldn't count, then how can you possibly call it fair to count FL or MI votes or seat their delegates (who are frequently influenced by their constituents' votes)? I'm trying to answer your question, "why the actual certified votes of MI and FL should be discarded."
I agree with your comment, "it WOULD be interesting if the DNC changed things in a future election to work off the popular vote". But even if that happens one day, if the same thing happens again and states go against the very rules they voted for, how can we (democratically) count any of their votes and claim to be fair to the individual voters?
Posted by: John | May 27, 2008 at 09:21 PM
John said: Joe:Some of your comments (especially your conclusion, stating that Obama used MI as a political pawn) make you sound very biased, but I'll take you for your word.
John, Truth said that, not Joe. The name of the poster is below the post, not above.
Posted by: suekzoo | May 27, 2008 at 09:41 PM
John says: If that is true -- if you can find one individual in MI and one in FL who, because their kid had a soccer game on the same day, did not go vote at the primaries because he/she thought it wouldn't count,then how can you possibly call it fair to count FL or MI votes or seat their delegates (who are frequently influenced by their constituents' votes)? I'm trying to answer your question, "why the actual certified votes of MI and FL should be discarded."
John, I live in Michigan. I know a whole lot of people who did not vote in the primary. We were having a brutally cold day on the west side of MI, so quite a few skipped it due to the weather.
Posted by: suekzoo | May 27, 2008 at 09:49 PM
Joe, you are making a simple solution more difficult than it needs to be. State order determined by lottery. Give me your reason for New Hampshire and Iowa's need to be first. If the order is completely random, there will not be a breaking of the state date lineup.
I think Michigan has an extremely valid point for wanting to have a chance of getting more attention in general. Oil is a huge problem and Motor City claims it is ready to mass produce alternate fuel cars (think EV1 years ago), but the main energy supply stations (gas stations) refuse to offer a way to make these alternate fuel cars viable. Now I can just dismiss the people being laid off by the thousands as "stupid people" that should just accept their community should be devastated. Should I belittle IT employees losing their jobs to India? Perhaps if there was a lottery, MI would have landed first of the 57 states well before 2012.
This is not rocket science. The DNC is just making it so. Howard Dean mainly, because the timeline proves it was temporarily handled in 2004. The signs were there and the DNC decided to ignore them.
Just like ignoring that if McCain picked a woman VP (Meg Whitmann possibly), Obama has about a 1% chance of winning. The only hope is that McCain probably can’t figure out this simple fact (even though I personally despise picking a VP this way myself).
Posted by: Truth | May 27, 2008 at 09:52 PM
suekzoo / John - only hurricanes are a reason to question a vote.
The path John is going down is ridiculous however. Michigan voters were not stopped from voting .. period. Whereas we are trying to include all the certified votes, it sounds like John is making an argument to disenfranchise the entire primary. Good job.
Posted by: Truth | May 27, 2008 at 09:59 PM
suekzoo: Thanks for the entlightenment.
Joe: Sorry, thought you were 'Truth'.
Truth: Read my messages to Joe, and don't sound so desperately supportive of Billary.
Posted by: John | May 27, 2008 at 09:59 PM
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD90UD7RO1
There's now a memo from the DNC: per Democratic party rules, FL & MI delegates have to lose at least half their vote.
Posted by: Joe | May 27, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Truth:
suekzoo himself says "I live in Michigan. I know a whole lot of people who did not vote in the primary." So it wasn't a kid's soccer game, it was the weather. But let's take that off the table; who the hell are you kidding? Most of the candidates weren't on the ballet! You really mean to tell me potential voters weren't disenfranchised BEFORE Obama, as you with such obvious bias claim, used MI as a pawn? Yes, lots of folks voted AGAINST Hillary in MI, but you cannot sit in your puddle of self-righteousness and tell me that all voters who would have voted, for example, for Edwards, showed up on a cold winter day at the polls to vote "no vote". Bullcrap. Get over it. She lost.
Posted by: John | May 27, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Anyone can consider popular vote in any way they want to for their own purposes. But there isn't really a good way to combine popular vote from 50-some odd primaries and caucuses and firehouse caucuses and ... Each held with its own set of rules about who can participate and how ballots are cast and so on.
For example, consider the "popular vote" totals among WV, CO, MN. WV was a primary, in a state with 28 pledged delegates. CO and MN were both caucuses in states with respectively 55 and 72 pledged delegates. All three had similar margins in the vote measured as percentages, but the vote counts are vastly different:
WV: Clinton +147000 votes, +12 pledged delegates
MN: Obama +73000 votes, +24 pledged delegates
CO: Obama +41000 votes, +17 pledged delegates
Despite CO and MN being much larger states, WV counts more in the "popular vote" simply because the primary election format allows more people to participate. It makes no sense to just add the vote totals of these states.
I suppose you could try to compute approximate vote totals in various states according to what they might have been if all states held, say, closed primaries based on formal party registration, with early voting but no mail-in ballots, etc. But the uncertainties in doing so would surely be so great that the resulting numbers would be virtually meaningless.
Nothing stops anyone from taking into account any combination of popular votes that particularly strikes their fancy. But in so doing they would just be inventing their own system, which is just as skewed in its own way as the delegate system or anything else available for this primary system.
In fact, given the patchwork of election laws in the various states, I'm not sure it would really be possible to put together a uniform popular vote system if you wanted to.
Posted by: hmd | May 27, 2008 at 10:09 PM
hmd--many reasonable arguments such as yours have been made here, but Truth just doesn't want to, well, hear the Truth!
Posted by: LindaS | May 27, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Truth: Don't worry. From what I've seen, McCain could do better picking his advisers and cabinet if he used a blind monkey and a dartboard. If the media is right about those 3 VP picks, the closest he came was that Indian guy I can't remember the name of right now.
He just sent Carly "chainsaw" Fiorina to talk to a bunch of geeks who despise her (rightly or wrongly) for destroying HP and its geek-friendly research culture. Then he sent a Comcast lawyer to talk about Net Neutrality (Comcast is one of those _causing_ the problem). And he's said that Ballmer would be a tech adviser, even though Microsoft is starting to falter (they're by no means dead or even dying, but they're losing their grip).
If you want to see how his choices fare in a free-for-all discussion, look at this:
http://news.slashdot.org/news/08/05/27/1546204.shtml
As for how to do primaries, I _don't_ have a problem with states going by lottery or whatever. The problem is just that they need to get state cooperation for everything and that turns into a huge mess and entrenched interests.
But I think we all know the problems better than the solution :)
Posted by: Joe | May 27, 2008 at 10:23 PM
As a Michigan voter, I am not at all uncomfortable with Michigan not counting this year. We needed to solve our problem with the DNC long before now. Many people here have worked on this issue many months, going back to last summer and fall. We were unsuccessful in getting our leadership to change their position, take the DNC 100% penalty at face value and reschedule the firehouse caucus we normally have for Feb date we had originally. The vote in Michigan was not fair nor representative. All the candidates signed pledges to not count Michigan. A lot of voters stayed home because we all knew our votes wouldn't count. Some voted in the Repub primary just for fun, and for a 50% count of their vote.
One thing I have totally disagreed with when the negotiations were underway a couple months ago for a new vote was allowing either of the candidates a say so in the method of a new vote. I thought Michigan should have submitted a plan to the DNC for approval, and once received, the candidates could handle campaigning here any way they wished. I think they had too much influence over the negotiations, when I really think they both should have had none. But that's just me...
Posted by: suekzoo | May 27, 2008 at 10:25 PM
John: No worries, I get confused a lot probably because I post a lot :) I never liked having the name below the comment, it goofs me up sometimes, too, because it makes the name look like it's associated with the wrong comment.
Posted by: Joe | May 27, 2008 at 10:26 PM
"suekzoo himself"
LOL....Suekzoo is a female. Her name is Sue, she lives in the Kalamazoo area, hence suekzoo. :o)
Posted by: suekzoo | May 27, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Truth: Read my messages to Joe, and don't sound so desperately supportive of Billary.
- John
you with such obvious bias - John
You really want to claim bias with your consistent use of the word Billary?
Posted by: Truth | May 27, 2008 at 10:56 PM
"hmd--many reasonable arguments such as yours have been made here, but Truth just doesn't want to, well, hear the Truth!" LindaS
Do you know the difference between facts/truth and an editorial? Certified votes are a fact, but extrapolating an estimated vote is a point of view. This is not hard, you just wish to make it so.
Should we assume only states like California can have a real vote because truly harsh weather is scarce.
"As a Michigan voter, I am not at all uncomfortable with Michigan not counting this year." - suekzoo
What you are proposing is actually biased to your cnadidate, but you just want to ignore that fact. There might be 55% of the voters that take the opposite view.
Posted by: Truth | May 27, 2008 at 11:11 PM
"What you are proposing is actually biased to your cnadidate, but you just want to ignore that fact. There might be 55% of the voters that take the opposite view."
View it any way you'd like. Shrug. I'm just advocating that we stick with the last deal that everyone knew, accepted, and did not augment prior to any vote being cast. That seems reasonable.
Posted by: suekzoo | May 27, 2008 at 11:24 PM
suekzoo: My apologies for the gender assumption.
Truth: listen to suekzoo. She's being reasonable about this.
You're right that I have a bias, as do you. But even if I didn't, I don't think I could wish, in good conscience, for the DNC to reverse a ruling that both MI and FL supported which said that their votes wouldn't count. You don't seem to see the hypocrisy of such a reversal. Let me repeat: if only one potential voter chose not to vote based on the ruling that, by a democratic ruling, her vote wouldn't count, she would be doubly disenfranchised if suddenly she were told her vote would have counted, had she voted. This is just plain democratic logic.
And by the way, Truth, 55% doesn't make a majority. It's 49%. That's how Bush was elected once--oh yes, with the help of a biased supreme court in FL. But where do you get your statistics, pray tell?
Posted by: John | May 27, 2008 at 11:43 PM
> Sue, she lives in the Kalamazoo area
Sue from Kalamazoo? That makes it easier to pronounce your name, somehow :)
Anyhow, I was half hoping that Truth would've found a better source for that thing about the other candidates withdrawing from MI to make Hillary look bad than an Iowa newspaper I couldn't have named even after growing up in Iowa. I would've expected news of a scandal like that to get reported a little more widely, somehow.
Err, wait, they're not actually a newspaper? I just Googled, and they're an 'online only' news site.
I browsed it a little, but the only interesting thing I found was this (really old) story about the Iowa caucus numbers and why there are no official vote totals for that state that we could use to calculate a popular vote:
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2168
Posted by: Joe | May 27, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Joe, techies are notorious for hating the top dogs such as Microsoft (some justication, but over amplified). The beloved Google is becoming the enemy. Fiorina’s biggest problem is the support of guest workers, but don’t forget the majority conservative view on that might be different than a Democrat. Fiorina had a Clinton like image; strong woman CEO of a large company that was pushed out. Sound like an appealing story to a female Hillary supporter? Don’t argue the validity of that, because you know how I feel about it. But that doesn’t change how effective it can be. Keep in mind Obama has to make up ground against McCain, not just hold it.
But I did go with an off the cuff Meg Whitmann. When “giants” such as cdnow.com could not prove solvent, Whitmann can be partially credited with giving the business sense to back the creator’s project to battle through more established forces such as Yahoo (Auctions). Might be that business sense (over economic sense) McCain/Obama so desperately need.
You are seeing McCain as a fumbler, but I guarantee you Obama is being seen the same way by many over his inconsistent comments over the past few weeks. If Obama can’t keep his story straight in a long distance, heavily delayed debate against someone some claim can be outsmarted by a monkey, what does that say about Obama?
New topic, I’ve really had to question my view of Carter as a great foreign affairs rep the past 24 hours. So now, Clinton (disgusting Obama revision), Carter (Iran, Palestine, Israel, Hamas), Johnson (Civil Rights), Kennedy (Brink of War, medical records, Cheating), Truman (bombed Hiroshima without batting an eye), Roosevelt (medical records would not pass), and Wilson (medical again) are all disqualified as great Presidents. Democrats sure like to destroy their own party. Reminds me daily why I chose to be an Independent.
Side note: suekzoo, Joe, Will & Ed are not my enemies. Others I seriously have to bite my tongue (backspace in real life could be really useful).
“McBush”, age and skin cancer are really going to be ineffective as a heads up. Skin cancer=death (same train of thought as Chuck Norris?). Talk about morbid.
Posted by: Truth | May 28, 2008 at 12:04 AM
I'll be honest: I've gotten less worried over the whole issue because:
A) It appears they _can't_ seat more than 50% of the vote.
B) It won't change the outcome, realistically.
So they have two real goals here:
A) Make sure they don't EVER do it again (deprive all the supers in those states of their vote?).
B) Try not to make the voters too mad (give the delegates 1/2 votes, exactly like the Republicans did).
C) Make the campaigns happy (this is the hard one; I'd kinda like to see Obama be generous enough to eliminate all of Clinton's arguments, even if that means the uncommitted are left uncommitted).
But I really don't want to see this drag out, either. Even if the media and McCain already treat Obama as the presumptive nominee.
Posted by: Joe | May 28, 2008 at 12:08 AM
In answer to the earlier question the reason they picked those four states was to get a feel for the direction of the Country. This while trying to save some of the expense to the Candidates.
By doing so the Candidates could make a measured decision on where they needed to improve their run for the primary.
One state in the northeast, one in the middle of the bellwether states, one in the west and one in the south.
This would allow all 9 or 10 candidates to compete. I understand the logic. You might be able to move them around a bit. Although I have heard of people moving to Iowa just because of the election cycle.
This method doesn't favor any one Candidate.
Posted by: Dave | May 28, 2008 at 12:46 AM
I do feel that starting the Primary before Presidents day though is a waste. They will be running for 2012 as soon as this is over.
Posted by: Dave | May 28, 2008 at 12:48 AM
The arguments that are being made at this stage in the campaign regarding the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates are essentially self-serving and dishonest. This issue has nothing to do with counting votes, or any of the other arguments Hillary and her supporters have brought forward. It is time she and her supporters understand that Hillary lost because of Hillary. This was a self-inflicted defeat. If these people are going through some sort of grieving process, then perhaps they should seek therapy.
For Billary to suggest that it is appropriate to talk about who has won more Electoral College votes, when the General Election has not been held yet, is patently absurd. The only votes Hillary won are votes cast in the Democratic Party primaries. Just as absurd and moreover irresponsible is the broader suggestion that there is some sort of conspiracy afloat. But, we must remember this all comes from the same guy who was ready to argue about the definition of the word “is.”
Posted by: Character Counts | May 28, 2008 at 01:09 AM
John: no offense taken whatsoever! :o)
Joe: my real life last name rhymes with Sue and Kalamazoo. It's quite humorous!
About Clinton not taking her name off our ballot, our Governor Jennifer Granholm used it to make political hay. She was an early Clinton endorser, held rallies here for Clinton, and stated more than once that Clinton was the only candidate who "didn't abandon Michigan." I don't know how well that played with Chris Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich, but to a lot of voters, it looked like a pander and opened up a lot of speculation about her desire to get a job with a Clinton administration. She is term-limited out in 2010.
http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/01/granholm_urges_voters_to_back.html
As far as what is going to happen at the RBC meeting, I think there will be some kind of settlement and seating of both states. But, there will still be some kind of sanction. We can discuss all day how many of the committee are Clinton supporters, how many are Obamacans, etc. At the end of the day, these people will set a precedent this year, and they have to take the long view, I'd think. They are not going to want rogue states in 2012, and lord knows, there will be if MI and FL are restored to wholeness as though none of this b.s. happened. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Posted by: suekzoo | May 28, 2008 at 01:15 AM
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264
There you go. The author also contributes to the Huffington Post. She has proven contact with Chris Dodd and the Democratic Party.
Joe, are you really going to argue for a newsPAPER? Mr. IT? You do realize most of that is just the Associated Press being reprinted in many trades? Ever feel like you are reading the same exact story over and over again? Don’t worry, Obama has burned quite a few bridges so I’m sure if he is elected new stories will appear.
This story is an example of the media not vetting Obama the way they should (sound like Bush – Iraq – McClellan?) Barack has become so used to not being called on his inconsistencies that he repeats them:
"My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka." Obama 10/2/02
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php
“I had an uncle who was one of the -- who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps” Obama 5/26/08
Hmm, grandfather, great uncle or uncle? Auschwitz?
Can you honestly make heads or tails of Obama’s foreign policy as of late? I’m not sure if he wants to
invade a country (Pakistan)
threaten the nuclear option (Iran all options on table) - not threaten the nuclear option (Iran obliterate)
stop the embargo (Cuba – not effective) - continue sanctions (Iran-effective) - continue the embargo (Cuba leverage)
support inspections (Iraq speech) - not support inspections (Iraq vote)
talk to terrorist groups (MEND) - not talk to terrorist groups (Hamas)
talk to leaders that support terrorists (Chavez-FARC) - not talk to leaders that support terrorists (Chavez-FARC)
read the report (Iraq) - not read the report (Hanford)
talk to Ahmadinejad (Iran) - bypass Ahmadinejad (Iran).
Expect unilateral negotiations (N. Korea) – expect multinational negotiations (Iran)
He’s just making this up as he goes. It stopped being cute a long time ago. It is easy to just complain. That is why even I have offered alternatives such as secretly negotiating Israel’s right to exist and Arab nonproliferation with Israel’s nuclear arsenal as the carrot (but Carter just blew that) --- real lower/middle class tax relief with a 0% tax bracket to replace the 10/15% brackets (which supposedly make up a fraction of the collections anyway) --- 3 year (interest only) + 30 year (fixed) refinanced loans to level the housing situation ----- Social Security 4.2%/4.2% reduction with cap removed (/4.2% is the economic stimulus).
Joe was asking for votes earlier – if we team up we could show national support and have to be taken seriously ;) His state is red / mine blue – crossing aisles/uniter. We may need to get Sue in so we can create a distance vote. But I draw the line at Blame because I just can’t stand loosing (sorry, my backspace is temporarily broken).
Posted by: Truth | May 28, 2008 at 01:20 AM
"Let me repeat:" - John
You can keep repeating it all you want because it is the weakest argument I have heard yet.
Posted by: Truth | May 28, 2008 at 01:23 AM
Hmm, grandfather, great uncle or uncle? Auschwitz?
Truth, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he had multiple relatives serving in WWII. I did. I had a grandpa, 2 great uncles, and 2 uncles who served. The Auschwitz was a misspeak. I don't see that as serious as mixing up the Sunni and Shi'ites who are part of what we are dealing with today.
Posted by: suekzoo | May 28, 2008 at 01:44 AM
Can you honestly make heads or tails of Obama’s foreign policy as of late? I’m not sure if he wants to
invade a country (Pakistan)
threaten the nuclear option (Iran all options on table) - not threaten the nuclear option (Iran obliterate)
stop the embargo (Cuba – not effective) - continue sanctions (Iran-effective) - continue the embargo (Cuba leverage)
support inspections (Iraq speech) - not support inspections (Iraq vote)
talk to terrorist groups (MEND) - not talk to terrorist groups (Hamas)
talk to leaders that support terrorists (Chavez-FARC) - not talk to leaders that support terrorists (Chavez-FARC)
read the report (Iraq) - not read the report (Hanford)
talk to Ahmadinejad (Iran) - bypass Ahmadinejad (Iran).
Expect unilateral negotiations (N. Korea) – expect multinational negotiations (Iran)
Are you suggesting that the "one size fits all" approach of Bush & McCain is the best way to go?
Posted by: suekzoo | May 28, 2008 at 01:57 AM
The point with Auschwitz was he had 6 years to correct it. The internet talked about it, but the media didn't want to address it along with his other comments such as Selma that show he is trying to rewrite his history (on purpose) because he thought he could get away with it, because he usually is allowed to. He chose (lied) Auschitz because it makes his story connect better.
“as serious as mixing up the Sunni and Shi'ites who are part of what we are dealing with today” suekzoo
“We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan” Obama
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-gaffes-on.html
You mean something like that? Hillary is scary smart. “I want someone in the White House I will not have to retrain” Senator Murray from Washington proven by the MAJOR Obama Hanford gaffe.
Posted by: Truth | May 28, 2008 at 02:14 AM
"Are you suggesting that the "one size fits all" approach of Bush & McCain is the best way to go? " - suekzoo
The Democratic leaders and Obama have already proven your entire statement false the past two weeks. Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan. We are arguing about McCain and Obama who are both tripping over themselves. Why not put Clinton in there as a ringer? Even her enemies respect her inside out knowledge of subjects. They may disagree on the approach, but agree she knows her stuff better than anybody.
Also, McCain was a huge detractor of Rumsfeld's policy. Obama supporters are going to have to learn how to disconnect the two if they want others to give Obama the same respect. Do you want me to hold Samantha Power's view of Obama's fake campaign promise on Iraq withdrawal as concrete? Oh wait; she was his subordinate so it would be naïve of me not to. Bush is not the subordinate of McCain.
Posted by: Truth | May 28, 2008 at 02:23 AM
Truth
When are you going to get it. Rightly or wrongly Hillary lost. It is over. Finished. She is no longer a choice. Period.
If you don't like Obama you could lobby for him to change his policies, or vote for McCain, or you can hibernate until 2012, but Hillary is not going to be the Candidate however good your arguments appear to you.
Posted by: Blame | May 28, 2008 at 04:03 AM
Truth writes: " Michigan voters were not stopped from voting .. period."
False. My son voted for Obama as a write-in. His ballot was discarded.
Posted by: Tony in MI | May 28, 2008 at 07:23 AM
What I am having the most trouble with, is the language stating that the MI and FL elections, "did not count", "were not santctioned", etc.
How can that possibly be? If the Democratic party agrees to participate in a state-sponsored election, with state-provided voting machines, results that are certified by the state secretary of state and conducted according to state law (incidently something is not illegal if the law at the time permits it. You can't park in a legal parking spot, have the city come along latter in the day, put up a no parking sign and give you a ticket. It was legal at the time you parked).
Then it is a legal, valid election and the results must be respected. The DNC can impose santions, but the results cannot be discarded. Also, if the state sanctions an elction then U.S. law must be followed, including the voting rights act and equal protection clauses. So, I would think that any "compromise" delegate selection plan has to reflect the will and intent of the voters. Truely unfortunately that BO took his name off the ballot in MI, but how do you award delegates to someone who provided no way of discerning voter intent?
Posted by: Gregory | May 28, 2008 at 08:51 AM