3253 minus mich & fl ..divided by 2..+ 1 should be the total...not 2025

[SoCalDem]

That number is infinitely "reachable" by either candidate, and would require no "finagling"..

It allows the will-of-the-people to prevail, with NO interference on either side, from "super (connected) delegates..

The number ends in an odd number, so there is little likelihood that there would be a tie..but if there were a tie after ALL primaries/caucuses were OVER, a secret ballot from all declared delegates would be all that was necessary, since some of the delegates would be from people who were there for people who may have dropped out before the convention..

It's all so 5th grade-simple..and transparent

3253
-366 Mich 156 Fla 210
2887 divided by 2 + 1 = 1444

Delegates* - This number includes pledged delegates
• There are currently 3,253 pledged delegates


.................

If the party wants to reward its "special friends", let them give out VIP tickets to a big ole buffet and let them all sit up front at the convention.....and hey... free valet parking :)

[LiberalFighter]

1. Your math is all wrong!

That 3253 does not include Florida and Michigan.


On the issue of unpledged delegates or as everyone has labeled them... super delegates:

First, they do not have any more of a vote than the pledged delegates. Unpledged delegates can change their support anytime until they vote at the convention. Obama and his supporters may be harming themselves by making this an issue. Consider that putting a lot of focus on the SD's that may irritate them to the point of not being as wiling to switch their support to Obama.

Second, SD's are not winner take all. Neither are they allotted proportionately based on the state vote and shouldn't be. The ability of the candidates to convey their message and convince the delegates to support them should have weight. Super delegates will have more interaction with the candidates one on one depending on whether they are federal elected, governors or DNC members. SD's will have better insight to the candidates.

Third, SD's come from different states representing different backgrounds. That difference in backgrounds makes it difficult for all SD's to readily agree as a block. US Representatives are more likely but not necessarily going to give serious consideration to Democrats in their district. US Senators and Governors to the Democrats in their state. DNC committee members will be influenced by their constituency within their district and other influence. The congressional districts that did not elect Democrats. But then why should those districts have as much representation? Or states not represented by Senators or Governors? Even with the pledged delegates the number alloted to each congressional district is not the same. They are based on past election results of those voting for the Democratic candidate. Our district receives 2 delegates fewer than the district with the most number of delegates because of that.

Fourth, the nomination process is not the same in each state. In my opinion, SD's offset the lack of inconsistency between the states. Some use the caucuses which may or may not allow non-residents, voters that are not Democrats or follow the same procedures as a whole. Some use primaries that may be open to all voters or closed to those that are registered as Democrats. And some states use a hybrid of primaries and caucuses. At the beginning of this year I was of the opinion that they should all be primaries. Even to the point of advocating regional primaries that are rotated. But after researching and understanding that this is a nominating process and the nomination is based on party rules which the states and constitution has no control I came to the conclusion that caucuses should be held in each state. Provided specific procedures are followed to prevent Republicans, non-residents and other spoilers from participating. County parties or the state parties would be responsible for paying the cost of the caucuses. Reducing the cost to states that hold presidential preference primaries separate from their regular primaries.

[kentuck]

2. So we are going to throw the Florida voters overboard?

Their 1.5 million votes are meaningless?

[LiberalFighter]

3. Based on the current situation their votes don't count.

If they agreed to hold caucuses their delegates would be seated and eligible to vote. The DNC even offered to pay the cost of conducting those caucuses.

They still might be seated and vote if the other delegates pass a resolution at the convention.

I didn't research it completely but it was my understanding that under DNC rules states that schedule their primaries earlier than allowed lose their SD's and half their pledged delegates. Apparently there is another rule that allows a state to lose all their delegates. I don't know why they lost all of their delegates. Maybe Florida and Michigan should at a minimum have half.

Those rules were voted on by DNC committee members from each state. Those DNC committee members were elected by state convention delegates or appointed by state party officials. Each state had input on the rules and they knew the rules.

As for 1.5 m voters. They aren't all Democrats and they definitely aren't all Democratic members. At best they might be voters that usually vote Democratic.

BY THE WAY My response to the OP was that she was using the delegate count that already had Florida and Michigan not included and subtracting their delegates again. Except, her use of 3253 was only pledged delegates and the 210 for FL and 156 for MI were their combined pledged and unpledged delegate count.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

10. Unless they want to have another election

where candidates are allowed to campaign in the state... yes.. If the folks in FLA are pissed maybe they should talk to their state party..

[tomreedtoon]

32. Yes, because there IS NO FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!

You haven't heard? They're all working for the Republican Party. That's why they did the early vote and freaking GIGGLED about it! You were deluded. You believed that those people were actually Democrats. They haven't been real Democrats since Bob Graham was exiled to the Senate.

[samrock]

4. Well

If I was a democratic voter in either Florida or Michigan I would say FINE!! Ya dont want my vote to count in your primary.. You can just do without it in Novmeber as well.... F^%^ You!!!

[RunningFromCongress]

5. So you always break the rules then bitch about the punishment?

[samrock]

6. The voters did not break any rules!!!

The voters VOTED!!! Count the VOTES!!! Florida voters had their votes STOLEN in 2000 .. NOW you want to do it to them again!?!? Hehehe IF Obama won 50% to 33% you would sure want them to count!!!

[Nederland]

7. The voters elected people that broke the rules

Sucks for them, but there you have it.

[samrock]

8. Huh??

The voters voted for Clinton and Obama.. What rules did they break????

P.S. Think I will make up tee shirts.. sooo when people ask WHY I will not vote in Novemnber I can say ..

SUCKS FOR THEM! BUT THERE YA HAVE IT!!!

[Nederland]

9. Clarify

The voters elected people to their state legislature, and those people broke the rules. My point was that the voters are not completely blameless here. The voters chose people to represent them, and those representatives thought they could break the rules without consequence.

I have no problem with seating delegations from these states, but you have to run another primary and re-vote to be fair.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalFighter]

19. I advocated that the pledged delegates be allowed to vote BUT

keep the unpledged delegates out in Florida and Michigan.

The unpledged or super delegates had the influence to decide when the primary would be held.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

11. Nobody is saying they dont want your vote.

In fact the party has offered to hold a vote where both major candidates will be on the ballot *and* allowed to campaign... The DNC has even offered to pay for it..

[samrock]

12. Hmmm

And with a state DOMINATED by the Republicans.. This could all come about sayy in Mid May or so... There does NOT have to be any permission given by the state to allow this to happen???

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

13. No permission by the state

but the state arm of the democratic party has to buy in..

Face it Having an election where the candidates are asked to blackout the state (FLA) or where only one major candidate in on the Ballot (MI) is not right..

[samrock]

15. well

I would be surprised IF the state republicans to NOT try to stop this just to make mischief.. BUT the change of the election date was made possible by the republicans.. IF every democrat and said NO don't do this the republicans STILL could have forced the change as they control all branches of government down there.. and I can NOT help feeling most Obama supporters would have been fine with this if the vote was Obama 50% Clinton 33%..

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

17. Umm you dont seem to get it

Primary dates are *NOT* set by the elected legislature/governor/or judges... They are set by *PARTY OFFICIALS* Short of chaining themselves to the doors of polling places there is not a damn think the pukes in FLA could have done if the party in that state had the good sense to move the primary back one week!

Many states have different primary days for the parties, sure most do it the same day but thats just convention nothing to do with the government.

AN the way you feel is probably valid and I can guarantee you if the score was O 55 H 33 Hillary would not be crying for 'all the votes to be counted' nor would her supporters on DU

[LiberalFighter]

21. Actually the presidential preference primary dates are set by the state legislature.

BUT state legislative members are strongly guided by their state parties to set the date.

State parties can without legislative law set their caucus dates and even hold them on a different date than the Republican party.

The cost of Presidential Preference Primaries are generally picked up by the state while the caucuses are by the state or county parties.

[samrock]

24. Don't

you need to have increase police coverage near polling stations?? and other such logistics that would spend/use state utilities???

and maybe JUST maybe the democratic party of Florida was SICK and tired of such small states as Iowa, New Hamisphere and South Carolina getting such a BIG say in WHO gets to be president.. I THOUGHT the U.S. constitution allows each state to decide HOW to hold there elections??

and LOOK at what happened.. 3 day before Florida primary Obama had a HUGE win in South Carolina that served as the ignition of the fuse of his rocket.. IF Florida HAD been allowed to be legit you have had a LOT less attention paid to it.. Clinton would have gotten a big momentum boost.. Many of the democrats down in Florida are transplants from the NE.. Sooo IF the DLC HAD said it was OK.. Obama would have been forced to spend more time/money in Florida.. Odds are Hillary would STILL have had a significant enough win to squash any momentum he got from South Carolina going into Super Tuesday..

[SoCalDem]

14. 3253 + 796 supers = 4049.... 4049 divided by 2 + 1 = 2025

It does include Mich & Fla

[LiberalFighter]

18. No it doesn't

Check out The Green Papers

Without the sanctions there are a total of 4414 delegate votes requiring 2208 to win the nomination.

With the sanctions there are a total of 4048 delegate votes requiring 2025 to win the nomination. (My total is 4045. I am missing 3 from the SD's in my spreadsheet)



In addition Florida's 210 and Michigan's 156 delegates include the unpledged delegates.

FLORIDA
District Delegates - 121
At-Large Delegates - 40
Pledged Party Leader- 24
Unpledged Delegates - 25

Total - - - - - - - -210

MICHIGAN
District Delegates - 83
At-Large Delegates - 28
Pledged Party Leader-17
Unpledged Delegates -28

Total - - - - - - - -156

[SoCalDem]

20. I took my figures from CNN's page & followed what everyone on TV has said

2025 needed..

at this point who knows anymore..

rules are for chumps I guess..

we need a "what-EVER" emoticon :hi:

[LiberalFighter]

22. I was using CNN at one point but their numbers weren't adding up.

Then I found out they were counting Washington twice. Now I believe their numbers add up for what they have and they don't count Washington twice but they still have Washington in both the primary and caucus section with number of delegates.

It was only after using a spreadsheet that I found the problem.

[SoCalDem]

23. Their page shows delegates from the caucus only..

the primary is non-binding (kind of a waste of time, eh? ) and shows zero delegates..

At this point all the math starts to look fuzzy..

I am just a minimalist, I guess..

Why make things harder than necessary :)

[LiberalFighter]

29. Really people shouldn't make a too big a deal about the counts right now

States have different ways of conducting their presidential preference elections. Some are hybrids. Personally, I'm the type that believes results should all be derived from a procedure performed the same way.

One of the problems is that not all of the pledged delegates are determined on the day of the primary or caucus. They might do the district delegates on that date and the at-large at a later date. Or the results won't be confirmed for about a month.

[mohc]

25. Keep in mind

With the passing of Tom Lantos the initial superdelegate total has changed. We are actually down to 4047 total delegates now (not including FL or MI), meaning 2024 delegates are needed to win the nomination (not the 2025 originally).

[SoCalDem]

27. I forgot about that.. I also wonder if Lieberman's has been deducted

from the totals I got off CNN's page.. that would reduce it by one more..794 "soooopers"??

[mohc]

28. I am fairly sure

He was never included in the initial count. It was just that the MSM finally realized this fact recently and reported it as if he had been removed. To be a superdelegate you actually have to be a Democrat, not just caucus with the Democrats in the Senate, otherwise Bernie Sanders would be eligible too.

[LiberalFighter]

30. Yes, that's true. If they elect someone before the convention

will that spot be reslotted?

We had Julia Carson die and there is a special election later next month. I noticed that Indiana lost a SD I figured because of that.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. There will be a special election in June to replace Lantos

his democratic successor will be a superdelegate.

[mohc]

33. I am not sure about that

Someone more knowledgeable than I will have to look into this, but the official Superdelegate slate is announced by the Secretary of the DNC on March 1 (per Rule 9A of the DNC's delegate selection plan). While the rules allow for filling a vacancy due to death, and this is the only exception for Superdelegates, I am not sure how the timing works. Meaning had Lantos died after March 1, that would indeed be a vacancy due to death in the state's Superdelegate list. But Lantos will not be on the list produced on March 1, so I do not know if that counts as a vacancy.

[goodhue]

16. this is a very good point!