Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A compromise on FL-MI?
Each time we seem to take a step closer to a revote in FL or MI, a day or two later we seem to take two steps back. Just as the "mail in vote" seemed to be gaining traction in FL, it now appears unlikely to happen given opposition from the entire FL Democratic congressional delegation.
Here are the ideas I've read about as options:
1. Hold a new vote, primary style
2. Hold a new vote, caucus style
3. Hold a new vote, mail-in
4. Seat the delegates, splitting them 50-50 for HC and BO
5. Only seat the delegates after nominee is decided
6. Seat the delegates according to elections results.
As has been widely reported, #1 main problem is cost and each week that passes the time needed to pull it off gets more challenging. #2 is opposed by the Clinton camp since they've performed so badly in caucus states. #3 is looking like is has lots of holes now. #4 would be opposed by HC campaign because they need to cut into Obama's delegate lead. #5 would be great except here we are in mid-March and there are still two candidates. #6 ain't going to happen unless the nomination is in someone's hands already.
I would propose a two part solution based on #4 that guarantees MI and FL are at least seated at the convention: Howard Dean and the DNC should pledge that the FL and MI will be seated at the convention no matter what happens. The only fair way to do this would be to require that the two state's pledged delegates be allocated 50-50 (option 4), however at the same time freeing up the superdelegates to support either candidate. However, the 50-50 solution is not final. If either state can find a satisfactory way to hold a new primary before the convention, then the delegates will be re-apportioned based on that vote. (apologies if this has been suggested already).
Why this is good for all involved: For FL and MI delegates and party members, it allows them to make preparations to get to Colorado for the convention. For Hillary, at worst she would pick up a net gain of 10 superdelegates and she can continue to try to negotiate with the states to run new primaries. For Obama, he loses the 10 superdelegates but this would prevent a nasty convention fight with the credentials committee on this issue, something that would be a devastating way to end this affair for the party. It also possibly makes it more acceptable for party leaders in MI and FL to do nothing on a re-vote.
I don't know. It seems like we need some sort of compromise on this. If you don't agree, tell me what you think should be done. It seems like any solution/compromise must:
- clearly not benefit one candidate over the other
- be reasonably fair to MI and FL voters
- be legal
- be affordable
- be done before the convention
Last thought: Rock, paper, scissors?
If you enjoyed this post, please share with other readers by clicking on the 'recommend this' link below. If you want to be smarter, don't go to my blog but rather I'd suggest you read FlyOnTheWall's blog.
Comments (20)
Offer to seat them 50/50, no supers for either state. Otherwise, no deal. I suspect this is what Dean intends to do.
The DNC rules have to respected. Making concessions for these states now says that the rules are optional. Don't like the rules? Fine. Disobey them and then bitch about it later until you get your way anyhow. This is why, even if the results had been based on fair contests, the delegates should not be seated. It legitimizes the vote that took place which was clearly prohibited per DNC rules. Dean is no fool, he knows this very well. He's not going to (or at least shouldn't) let these states run roughshod over him. Remember, this is the first Presidential election for him as DNC chairman.
Beyond that, the Michigan results cannot be used. Obama was not on the ballot, plain and simple. The Florida argument isn't really any better. Wasserman-Schultz and her ilk want to argue that the GOP did this to them. I call shenanigans. They voted for it unanimously. There was no campaign, the vote was not sanctioned, the vote doesn't count.
The time to wring hands over voter disenfranchisement was before they jumped the gun. The only reason the Clinton campaign is making this an issue is because they're losing. She didn't object to voters being disenfranchised when she signed the same agreements as everyone else. She didn't think it would matter. She thought she would have this wrapped up by Feb. 5th. Oops.
Voters need to take this up with their representation. They did this to them and this is why the supers absolutely cannot be seated. They are responsible. Ironically, if they had abided by DNC rules they could have voted on Feb. 5th and their vote would have been very significant indeed. Capitulating to this gambit is the last thing Dean et al should do. If he holds fast on this, I guarantee the rules will be taken seriously next time.
I consider seating the delegates 50/50 to be an exceedingly generous concession made primarily to appease the voters of MI and FL. Honestly, it's not necessary. They were warned. Why should their violation of rules that every other state abided by be rewarded? For what reason are they deserving of this special treatment? Why is MI or FL more important than CA for example? Schwarzenegger wanted to do the same thing, but he wisely abided by the Super Tuesday rule.
It's absolutely ridiculous that we make exceptions for rule breakers, especially now that the game is afoot. This is a nation based on the rule of law, not the whims of individuals.
March 13, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
For all the reasons mentioned, I'd agree with that as a good solution. It addresses the underlying cause for what brought us to situation while recognizing that there is no way to reconcile seating the delegates in the proportions they were selected since there was effectively no campaign in either state. I've wondered why we can't seat the delegates, allow them to participate in convention activities, but simply not count their nomination votes. But the 50/50 option has exactly the same outcome while allowing FL & MI voters to feel like they were not entirely shut out of the convention.
March 13, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that MI and FL can't just get all the delegates back without consequences. However, I think freeing the superdelegates doesn't dramatically change the election and it's really the pledged delegates that are the concern here.
Perhaps as part of the agreement, FL and MI Democratic parties have to agree that they will agree to back legislation in each state that pushes their primaries back to acceptable dates in 2012.
March 13, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you disagree with DF, that nulling out the MI/FL SD votes would be an effective deterrent for future states to play chicken with the DNC? I suppose one could say that nullifying the entire delegations (50/50 after all, effectively gives those delegations no say in the nomination) is pretty harsh. But they will get seated, in spite of having fouled up the 2008 contest. The one option that is completely out of the question is to seat the delegates as selected in the January contests. Barring a revote, there's going to have to be a compromise on the delegates' powers at the convention.
March 13, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you'd have to get the HC and BO campaigns to agree on any compromise like this and there's no way that HC would allow the SDs not to count. I think Obama can give a little in order to resolve this.
From the perspective of the Obama campaign, a resolution to this issue is worth giving up 10 delegates. And I think if FL and MI were guaranteed that they'll be seated that the calls for re-votes would diminish.
March 13, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the O and HRC campaigns will have to agree to any solution the DNC comes up with, including the 50/50 split compromise? I'd think the DNC could resolve this just by working with with the states, regardless of what the candidates prefer, since it was under DNC rules that they've been denied seats. Sheesh... I'm thinking there's just no solution out there that both sides will agree on. I was hopeful for the mail-in revotes, but now O's campaign is getting reluctant to OK it. (The mail-in solution seemed like a win-win to me...)
March 13, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't disagree more. The only thing that really matters now is the superdelegates.
March 13, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep but 10 delegates doesn't change the election - and Obama comes off as generous. She's gonna need something like 75 - 100 extra delegates to come close to catching him.
March 13, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't think he should give ground on the supers. He didn't create this mess, why should he or the rest of his supporters across the nation be punished for it?
March 13, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Urbanito:
I agree with you (in fact, I posted nearly this same conclusion a little while ago).
What must NOT be done is to punish the VOTERS of Florida or Michigan for the miscues of the politicians they elected.
It should be up to those same voters to express their displeasure at the polls the next time they elect officials - and to turn out those who risked disenfranchising their votes in the first place.
March 13, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it really possible for anyone to negotiate this sort of compromise now?
My understanding is that the issue of "seating" delegates will finally be the purview of the credentials committee, which is not yet constituted. (Its membership will depend on how the primary goes.)
So as much as we might like to have this resolved, I'm not sure who has the standing to negotiate it.
March 13, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dean has already tossed the ball back to the states to work out a solution: (1) either a re-do of some kind, or (2) wait till the convention and ask the creds. committee to settle the matter.
Dean has also made clear one thing: the DNC will not seat the delegates under the current status. As you may have noticed, even Clinton knows this and is beginning to acknowledge that her mere demanding the delegates is not going to work. It may even work against her if she does not let up and work towards a fair solution. Giving her Michigan is clearly unfair.
March 14, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is time to accept Florida because so many other similair races went her way. 1.7 million voters turned out. The key words are;
VOTER INTENT ON ELECTION DAY
I think we all may look back on the stab Hillary in the back approach as an abject failure. Obama's camp needs to reconsider peace.
It's never easy to forgive but it is very powerful when it is sincere.
Is Obama able to work across the divide or is he not? Hillary is accross the divide right now.
Does he find the third way? Does he have the answer? or is it a myth? Does he make peace or does he drive the wedge? We'll know soon.
What is your role?
March 14, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The 50-50 split is the worst solution.
What is says is that the voters don't count, but we will make sure that the political muckity mucks get to be on the convention floor and have their pictures taken with folks.
This is worse than no seating at all, because it encourages bad behavior from the people who ENGAGED in the bad behavior.
March 14, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Matthew Saroff has a good point! Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution here. The compromise that makes the most sense to me is the on Mark Halperin wrote about yesterday.
http://thepage.time.com/details-of-a-possible-delegate-plan-under-discussion/
50/50 split of the MI pledged delegation, which I think can be justified by HRC winning 55% of the popular vote, and each FL vote counting for 1/2 vote, much like the Republicans did. Given the super delegates in each state's role in this mess, I think they should be penalized even more heavily, they don't count at all, or count for 25%, but no compromise is going to be perfect. Getting a deal is the most important thing, and the longer this issue festers, the worse it is for the campaign. It also gives credence to worries that Democrats do not know how to govern.
March 14, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Splitting the delegates 50-50 is essentially the same as stripping FL and MI of their delegates. It just allows party members to travel to the Dem convention, something everyone wants to happen.
With a 50-50 split they still have no real say in the primary. (that's the point of the punishment)
March 14, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
MI and FL are separate problems and need separate solutions. The Democrats can take a cue from the GOP and do what they did, reduce the Florida delegate count to 50% and split the remainder according to the results of the primary. This punishes Florida for their infraction while giving them a say in the nomination, but at a 50% discount. The popular votes would also be allocated as per the results. (Hillary finished 55% to Obama's 33%, Edwards 14%). Edwards should be allowed to give his delegates to the others as he sees fit.
Obama would get 16 less committed delegates than Clinton but would gain a lot of good will for resolving the problem. Hillary gets to shut up re: Florida. The FL superdelegates (reduced by 50%) still remain free to vote their conscience.
Michigan is a separate problem because only Clinton was on the ballot. A re-do is a must there. Seems like they are trending to a caucus, the cheapest and quickest to do, short of a mail-in, which nobody seems to want. If Hillary wines about a caucus, she becomes the bad apple.
So, a FL settlement give Clinton and edge, an MI caucus give Obama an edge. A compromise that everyone can live with, except maybe Clinton who is greedy and wants all of Michigan, unfairly of course.
March 14, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to amend my solution to FL to align with WineDarkSea's (Peace, Homer!). Keep the same number of delegates in FL but reduce the value of their vote to 1/2. Same as superdelegates. No new primary, no caucus, no mail-in, no cost to anyone.
March 14, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rock, scissors, paper was my idea!!!!!!!
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/report-clinton-campaign-may-tr.php
Urbinato, you are a dirty, dirty plagiarizer, and I will prosecute you in the Canadian courts.
March 14, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Low voter turnout was CLEARLY a factor in Michigan. Not having Obama and Edwards on the ballot resulted in abnormally low poll numbers for a state with only 50 fewer delegates than Florida. However, looks like they're on track for a revote anyway.
Florida is a lot trickier, because all the names were on the ballot. Here's where Edwards comes into play. Adding Edwards and Kucinich's delegates to Obama puts Obama/Clinton within 2 points of each other. That makes a 50-50 split a lot more palatable, IMHO.
Of course, Clinton wants to ignore Edward's share and focus on the 50/33 split. However, as she has said time and time again, delegates can change their minds. I'm confident that the negative tone of her campaign, combined with Obama's surge in momentum, popular vote lead, pledged delegate lead and likely SD lead, many would vote differently today.
She knows this of course and can only desperately hope for the least likely of all scenarios... that the delegates be seated "as is" with no penalty at all.
Good luck with that!
March 14, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment