If you cut the Florida delegation in half, you must do same in Michigan- Correct?

[KittyWampus]

If the penalty for Florida is to halve their delegate count, wouldn't it only be fair to do same to Michigan?

Okay, here is the actual DNC rule regarding punishment for states that hold primary early-

Under no circumstances should the full delegation from either state be seated.

DNC rules call for any state breaking the rules to lose half their delegation. This thing about barring them completely was by a vote of the DNC last fall - it has the option of imposing stricter sanctions than those called for in the rules. But in no case should the 1/2 rule be thrown out.

[gristy]

1. yes

[FARAFIELD]

2. I heard (from a souce)

That she did not want the uncommitteds from MICHIGAN to vote on the first Ballot. OUCH.

[ossman]

5. Yeah. Hillary wants all MI votes for her, but Obama gets 0. So 0 people voted for him?

[Yael]

11. 45% of Michigan's voting democrats went out on a bitterly cold day and said "not her"

They were Edwards people, Obama people, Kucinich people, etc...

No write ins allowed, so no way of knowing.

[Johnny__Motown]

16. Uncommitted was only 40%, and I was one of them, voted at 7:30am in 4" of fresh snow

and had to walk up hill both ways...

[Yael]

18. Thanks for correcting that.

Does it not go 45-55 now as the others weren't viable?

That may have been my mixup.

[housewolf]

26. I don't know if it's a "given" that Obama will get all of the uncommitted votes

It makes sense to me that he would, but they may work out something else about them.

[housewolf]

22. Actually Obama did win about 5 delegates from MI... there must have been some write-in votes

or something.

Plus Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd & Mike Gravel were on the ballot and they all won some votes, too.

[Gore1FL]

33. those were Supers

Rep. John Conyers (MI)
DNC Lauren Wolfe (MI)
DNC Robert Ficano (MI)
DNC Eric Coleman (MI)
DNC Virgie Rollins (MI)

[housewolf]

36. Ohhhh... thanks for that info

I guess I need to work on my numbers a bit more, then.

[Andy823]

8. I heard the same thing.

No voter could write the name of their candidate, and they were trying to get it so that if you voted you could only vote for the "names" on the ballot. Somehow they changed that and allowed the "uncommitted" vote. Any write ins would be void!

[Andy823]

3. I think so.

Of course there will be "some" who disagree, and will fight it tooth and nail! :shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

4. Michigan has a compromise on the table. Obama accepted. Hillary rejected.

The DNC will choose.

[KittyWampus]

6. There was a compromise about the percentage split between Hillary/Obama. But not number of actual de

delegates.

[Johnny__Motown]

13. it is a 69-59 split

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/fl-mi-by-numbers.html

[Johnny__Motown]

7. It is a bit different because Obama was not on the ballot.. You would still need to deal with that

The MI compromise nets Hillary 10 delegates, she is so far behind that it doesn't matter

[KittyWampus]

9. Yes, but what is the number of overall delegates? The original number and the ultimate number

if they halved it as penalty.

[Johnny__Motown]

14. Here is the link I have been using..

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/fl-mi-by-numbers.html

[WeDidIt]

10. Delegates will be cut in half for both

You can count on Obma taking about half the Michigan delegates, too, because of the DNC requirement for no campaiging or participating. The distinction between the two words being that one remove their name from the ballot if possible.

[TexasObserver]

12. Each state is entitled to cut whatever deal it can get with the DNC.

If Florida is willing to make a deal, then it will. Such deal will not bind either the DNC or Michigan in their dealings. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what Michigan does. They will either get a deal they negotiate, or they will get whatever the DNC gives them. Either way, they don't get more than the DNC gives them.

What Hillary wants and what Hillary gets are two very different things. She hasn't been getting what she wants the entire primary season. In the end, she will get whatever the DNC decides, and her wants have little to do with it.

[KittyWampus]

15. Thanks, it seems if the democratic party in Michigan & Florida accept a compromise

Hillary just has no case to go forward.

[Johnny__Motown]

19. Each state has a compromise they want to present, If the RBC accept she can't do much

[KittyWampus]

28. that's what I though. The only way to continue a challenge in that case is for a VOTER

from FL or MI to challenge decision.

But still, if party establishment has accepted a compromise- that settles it. Any challenge brought wouldn't be worth a bucket of warm spit.

[Johnny__Motown]

29. it also avoids a fight, and settles things quickly enough for Mr. Gore to announce the decision

at the joint fundraiser he is hosting that evening.

[TexasObserver]

34. Yes, once the deals with both states are cut, Hillary's angle is finished.

There goes her talking point.

It will be gone by next Sunday, bet on it. This gets settled Saturday and finished Sunday, June 1st.

The last primary is June 3rd, so in nine days, it will all be over. Add maybe a week beyond that for supers to fall into place, but two weeks from now, Hillary's candidacy will be DOA.

[Diamonique]

17. Actually I don't think that would be fair.

First let me state that I'm an "uncommitted" Michigan voter.

If Michigan had had all the candidates on the ballot like Florida , I think it would be fair to halve our delegates.

But we didn't. So most people didn't even bother to vote in Michigan. IMO between that and being forced to vote "uncommitted", that should be enough punishment for Michigan's voters. Taking what we managed to squeeze out of the mess and cutting it in half would be double punishment IMO.

My "uncommitted"' vote was for Edwards, but I wouldn't mind if they put it in the Obama column.

I'm sure no one agrees with me on this, but

1) I don't think either state's delegates should be seated. Stick to the original game plan. Everyone (states, campaigns, and DNC) knew the rules going in.

2) Since it's obvious that they're going to seat the delegates anyway and let both states get away with breaking the rules, I think half delegates for FL and full delegates for MI is fair -- under the circumstances.

Just my opinion, fwiw.

[KittyWampus]

20. Thanks, this is exactly the information I was looking for. Your point is well taken

and I might support Michigan keeping its full slate of delegates.

Although I think it still needs to end up that MI delegates face some sort of reduction. Just for appearance of fairness.

[Johnny__Motown]

24. I am also an Uncommitted voter from Detroit. I think the RBC can accept the compromises

each state is proposing.

Obama's lead is large enough that it won't change the outcome. A net of 28 for Hillary still leaves her about 133 pledged delegates behind.

It punishes both states, but not severely

It gives us (and our candidate) the ability to say that we gave both states what they asked for



I would like to see the SD punished more than the voters, but that won't happen

[gristy]

32. I think your suggestion is the direction the DNC is headed

It makes sense to me.

[housewolf]

21. Here's my take on the numbers

If they give both FL & MI 1/2 of their pledged delegate counts (no super-delegates) and apportion the delegates according to the actual vote percentages:

Obama will need 101 delegates and Clinton will need 240 (out of 341) to win the majority.

In that scenario, the total delegates needed will be 4233; a majority would be 2117. Obama currently has 1976, he picks up half of what he won in FL (37) and half of what he won in MI (3) (apparantly there were some write-in votes that gave hin a few delegates) giving him 2016, so he would need 101 to win the majority.

Hillary currently has 1776, she would pick up half of what she won in FL (57) and half of what she won in MI (40) giving her 1876, so she would need 240.

The available delegates that make up the pool to fill the "needed counts" encompass the pledged and unpledged delegates from the final 3 elections, the uncommitted pledged delegates (including the ones from MI), the 7 remaining Edwards delegates and the remaining super-delegates (except FL & MI which wouldn't get any in this scenario).

This is just one scenario and there are other scenarios out there but I think this one has a good chance of being adopted. We'll see.

[KittyWampus]

23. thanks! I was just wishing to see what possible "new numbers" would look like. Please see post above

yours though.

Is it really fair to halve Michigan's delegate slate? Weren't they already punished by not having all candidate's name on ballot?

[dbmk]

30. Obama will not accept getting that little from Michigan.

[L0oniX]

25. For Obama half of nothing is nothing...O yea that's really democratic and fair.

:evilfrown:

[krispos42]

27. Sounds fair to me

Florida had 211 delegates with 26 supers, Michigan had 156 with 29 supers, 367 total.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_superdelegates%2C_2008#Unseated_superdelegates_from_Florida_and_Michigan

There is now no remotely fair way to count the votes and thus apportion the delegates based on what occured in those two states.

Either those 367 delegates don't get counted at all, or they are allocated according to the proportions that the candidates got in straight primary votes (no caucuses) in the other states and territories. That latter would be roughly equal, I believe.

In other words, total up all the primary votes that each got, figure out who got what percentage of that total, and allocate the 367 votes accordingly.

[BeatleBoot]

31. No. As a Party We Need to Give Obama Over 50% of the Votes

Even if he didn't show up.

[gristy]

35. Your post makes no sense

Please explain why Obama should get over 50% of the votes. What % should he get? Please justify.
Your comment in the body of your post is in conflict with your subject line, so I don't understand. Further, are you not aware of the rules that all the candidates agreed to abide by?

[Johnny__Motown]

37. I think someone forgot the sarcasm icon

[wileedog]

38. No we have to give him 0% because that clearly and accurately depicts the people of Michigan

The hypocrisy levels of her campaign are utterly historic.