Seat the FL and MI delegations, 50% Obama, 50% Clinton.

[Ravy]

Neither will be closer to their goal of a majority, but the states will be represented.

Obama would gain some since he didn't really get 50% of the voters, Hillary would gain some because the Superdelegates would count. The Democratic party would gain because they would not have to tackle a tough issue that would upset about half of their constituents whichever way they decided this thing.

The candidates should agree to this and remove it from being an issue.

[Not Me]

1. I disagree.

The rules say that my FL vote didn't count. Okay, if that's the case, then without a majority, the superdelegates decide.
Let the chips fall where they may, and after this fiasco passes, Dean had better revisit the rules.

[Ravy]

5. Your vote *wouldn't* count. They would be assigning the delegates

in a manner which was not based on your vote at all, but still allowing seating the delegations with no significant effect on the outcome of the race.

[MNDemNY]

2. By all means, disregard the VOTES and seat delegates

according to some made -up formula. NOW that's Democratic! gobama?

[Renew Deal]

6. The other option is to not seat them at all.

There was no legitimate campaign there. It's not Obama's fault.

[MNDemNY]

11. The rules say don't seat them, everyone knew the rules, don't seat them.

But to impose an artificial tally, is just stupid.

[Renew Deal]

25. I think they should be seated after the nominee is selected.

Chances are that the candidate with the most pledged delegates minus FL and Michigan will get all or most of the supers. The other candidate should drop out. Then the florida and michigan delegates may be seated.

[Honeycombe8]

27. I agree. When is a Dem. Party decision a decision? Until it changes its mind?

The two states and the Party had a chance to work it out, and this is what they came up with: The states defying their party's rules, and the Party decreeing that such defiance would result in delegates not being counted.

Decision made. The Dem. Party AND the states should live with their decisions.

[Ravy]

32. As I said in the OP, the candidates would have to agree on this one,

It would be wrong for the DNC to impose it now.

[Honeycombe8]

45. The candidates DID agree. All parties involved agreed. Decision made. nt

[Ravy]

48. Stay the course, you say?

This is not going to end well without a compromise all can live with.

[bellasgrams]

41. The voters had no say in the decision and as American citizens

their votes should count.

[Obamanaut]

55. The voters can have a say by sending home all the incumbents

who are running for reelection in November. They bought their tickets, let them take their ride. Other than that, leave everything as it is.

[Ravy]

8. The alternatives stink even more.

Even as it is, Clinton would not gain that much, she would have gotten 3 delegates (out of 210) closer to the goal of getting half of the delegates (she would receive 108 delegates, 105 of which simply count towards the added total number of delegates to win).

She would gain a few superdelegates, Obama would gain a few pledged delegates he didn't really earn by the vote totals.

[cd3dem]

54. Obama wants the voters to decide, unless they are from Florida and Michigan

[ShortnFiery]

3. Yes, the delegates would go to the Convention but show equal representation.

IMO, a viable solution Ravy. Thank-you. :hi:

[Renew Deal]

4. Here's what I think could and should happen.

When the voting finally ends, we will have a pledged delegate leader. The supers will go over to that person and they will clearly be over the top. Then seat the delegates.

[rocktivity]

7. DING DING DING! Ravy, you're our grand prize winner!

The states get to seat their delegates, yet get punished for breaking rules they agreed to. The voters get represented; the DNC's power isn't encroached. Everybody saves face, yet justice is served. An excellent compromise!

:bounce:
rocknation

[Barack_America]

10. Or apportion them according to the national popular vote...

Same goes for Michigan. Seat the delegates, but not according to the results of their "elections", in which nobody campaigned and some people weren't even on the ballot.

[MNDemNY]

13. No, a moronic grasp at the appearance of representation.

[Ravy]

17. You don't want them seated, so I guess you are an Obama supporter

who would rather compromise with republicans (Obama's stated position) rather than Democrats.

Hmmm.

[MNDemNY]

18. No, you are being trite. The rules were laid out well beforehand.

If you think I am a BHO supporter, you a grossly mistaken.

[Ravy]

20. The DNC also said the candidates could agree to seat the delegates...

so what I am proposing is entirely within the rules.

[MNDemNY]

23. They can be seated, but to impose any artificial count is just silly.

[Ravy]

31. Without a compromise, one candidate or the other would be advantaged.

This compromise advantages them both to some degree, yet still punishes the state's behavior.

[suston96]

9. 50% to 50% ? Nonsense. The votes are counted. Allocate them per the votes cast...

John Conyers told African Americans to vote "uncommitted". They did. The "uncommitted" can choose Obama at the convention.

The DNC violated the Democratic Party Charter. Every Democrat participates equally and every Democrat's vote is counted!

"The National Convention shall be composed of delegates who are chosen through processes which (i) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include affirmative action programs toward that end, (ii) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the presidential nominating process, . . . (v) restrict participation to Democrats only . . . ."

Democratic National Committee, Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, Art. Two, 4 (emphasis added). <450 U.S. 107, 118>

Is there something about this part people don't get? "The National Convention shall be composed of delegates who are chosen through processes which (i) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate- " Read it yourselves:


http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i1Dy8P2UOcoJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf+Democratic+Party+Charter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

[Ravy]

12. The votes were not that far off from it anyway...

Going to the mat about it is going to hurt is in November, no matter which way it is decided unless there is a compromise.

[suston96]

16. Ignore and trash over 2 million Dem voters in Florida and Michigan and you expect them to stay put?

I cannot print what they will say to the Democratic Party. They will vote straight down the line for the Republican or others. Or stay home.

[rug]

14. No, they should cut cards.

[Birthmark]

15. Not a very good idea

Keep trying, though, I'm sure you'll find a better way to alienate Floridians. Heck, it's not like the Democrats actually *need* to win in FL in November.

[Ravy]

19. Not seating delegates at all would *really* alienate them (us) since

I am a Florida voter.

[Birthmark]

22. I'm a FL voter, too.

But ignoring the primary result and making it 50/50 is just as bad, imo.

[PassingFair]

26. I'm a Michigian Voter

And our legislators and our State Party Leaders
knew exactly what they were doing. If you could
have heard the "Don't worry, they'll seat us
anyway -- THEY'LL HAVE TO" smug talk they used,
EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, you'd be throwing up a
little in your mouth now, too.

I hope they DON'T get seated.

I'm for a RE-DO.

[dcindian]

21. Let them run some caucuses

They should let them try again though the two states should be scheduled 1 wk after the last primary. And then they both should be moved to the last date for 2012.

[Honeycombe8]

24. That would be okay. But really, they should not be counted at all because of prior decision....

by the DNC. Is a decision a decision? Or is it sort of a decision, until and unless we change our mind?

The two states and the Dem. Party had a chance to work this out, and the way they handled it was for the states to defy their party, to which the party responded by decreeing their delegates would not count.

The decision has been made. It should stand.

So even splitting their delegates is changing their prior decision, and shouldn't be done. The Dems really need to start sticking to their decisions. This is part of the problem with the Dem. Party.

[suston96]

29. The DNC violated the Democratic Party Charter. See my quote upthread.....

Every Democrat participates and every Democrat's vote will be counted.

[PassingFair]

30. It's not like they were "punished" after the fact, though.

They KNEW that the price of holding the primaries
early was the loss of delegates.

They didn't CARE.

The party didn't "respond" to the states actions by removing the
votes. The states acted in full knowledge of the terms.

[Honeycombe8]

44. The Party responded to the states' upholding their legislatures' decisions to move

their primaries up to early dates.

Regardless of whether the legislatures had informed the Party of what they were going to do, or whether they had actually done it...the Dem. Party's actions were in response to the states' actions.

[PassingFair]

51. Nope.

I was in some of those meetings. We could still have held
a caucus. We did not have to break the rules.
The state chairs voted to do it anyway.

[GoldieAZ49]

28. I agree, and have been saying this all along, at least they are seated but do not

affect the outcome.

Party leaders agree, Pelosi summed it up best:

She said the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan allocated on the basis of voting in primaries there last month, as the Clinton campaign has proposed. Mrs. Clinton got more votes in both places, although neither candidate actively campaigned there and Mr. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. The party had penalized those states for holding their primaries earlier than the party wanted by stripping them of their delegates to the convention.

“We can’t ignore the rules which everyone else played by,” Ms. Pelosi said.

The article covers all of it, Super Delegates and party leaders endorsements (not going to happen) and a brokered convention:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th&adxnnlx=1203175378-T4tcQ7iM%20z2wQ2510NUfog

Lets hope the party doesn't clutch defeat from the jaws of victory!

[bellasgrams]

42. It was BO's own stupidity to remove his name. He didn't have to

Four names remained on the ballot. Only a newby would remove their name.

[GoldieAZ49]

43. irrelevant who was on the ballot NO DELEGATES

were alloted because they did not follow the guidelines

what part of this is beyond your comprehension?

btw, it is spelled newbie

Fortunately the party leaders disagree with you...at least they have common sense.

[rzemanfl]

33. Make last year's Spring Training games count towards the

standings, do the playoffs and World Series over. Same with the NFL pre-season, hey! another Superbowl!

[Ravy]

35. Make the Patriots forfeit all games from the last four years

for taping the walkthru practices.

To stay with a sports metaphor, you know.

[sueragingroz]

34. I would do that for MI but not FL

MI didn't have all the candidates on the ticket. FL did. And Obama "campaigned there" against the rules.

[Ravy]

36. True enough. Hillary would just lose 3 pledged delgates though.

She would gain Superdelegates... and this mess could be behind us.

Seems fair.

[dogman]

37. Disenfranchisement by any other name is still disenfranchisement.

Should we just take it to the Supreme Court?

[Ravy]

38. I think we should try to avoid that. Without some sort of compromise

this is bound to not end well.

[dogman]

39. It is already bad.

I have come to regret a couple of things I have done in the recent past. One is my vote for Obama in the Democratic primary for the Senate. The other is support for Dean as the DNC chair. Both have failed at those jobs, You seem to have missed the obvious in my comment about the SC. You seem to seek that role by giving a solution that removes the principle of "one man, one vote", just as they did in the 2000 election.

[Ravy]

40. This is a party primary, not the government.

I don't think they are bound by the Constitution.

[dansolo]

46. How about this solution

Don't allow the delegates from MI and FL to participate in the first vote. Figure out the new majority that is needed without MI and FL. If one candidate exceeds that total after the first vote, they are the nominee. If not, allow the delegates from MI and FL to vote in any subsequent votes.

[Ravy]

47. The majority figure they are using now is without MI and FL, I believe.

They would have to add to it with MI and FL.

[LisaL]

49. Oh jeez.

Obama did not get 50% of vote in neither Florida nor Michigan.
Why exactly should he get 50% of delegates?

[Ravy]

50. So that Hillary can get her superdelegates, and

the voters in those states may not hold it against us so much in November. It lets both organizations (Clinton's and Obama's) be more effective in building their organizations here (I live in Florida) before the convention.

[grantcart]

52. I heard it supported on MSNBC today for the first time

[catagory5]

53. Obama gets killed in FL

Florida 2008 Presidential Election
Florida: McCain Leads Clinton and Has Bigger Lead Over Obama
Monday, February 18, 2008
Advertisment

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows John McCain holding a six-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton and an even larger lead—sixteen percentage points—over Barack Obama. It’s McCain 49% Clinton 43% and McCain 53% Obama 37%. This dynamic is the opposite of what we have found in most other states where Obama typically outperforms Clinton in general election match-ups.

The Florida results for a Clinton-McCain match-up are fairly similar to other battleground states--the race is competitive, Clinton does better among women than men, and McCain leads among unaffiliated voters.

However, the poll contains hints that suggest the controversy over Florida’s convention delegates may be hurting Obama. Most notably, just 55% of Sunshine State Democrats say they would vote for Obama over McCain. Thirty-one percent (31%) say they would vote for McCain. These results are especially striking given that Obama leads McCain among unaffiliated voters in the state.

Florida was stripped of its seats at the Democratic National Convention as a penalty for holding its Primary before February 5. The candidates did not campaign in the state and Hillary Clinton handily won the popular vote. Now, Clinton is calling for the Florida delegates to be seated while Obama disagrees.

The survey also shows that McCain leads Obama by twenty-six points among women. Women are Hillary Clinton’s strongest demographic. McCain leads Obama by twenty-five points among Senior Citizens, another demographic group that is generally supportive of Clinton.

In the end, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, it is likely that most of the Democrats currently unhappy with him will come home and vote for their party rather than John McCain. However, it is always problematic for a candidate to begin a campaign without the solid support of voters from within his own party.

Obama currently outperforms Clinton in Oregon, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Nevada. These same dynamics are also found in national polling. In Missouri, both Clinton and Obama are essentially even with McCain.

Rasmussen Markets data just prior to the release of this poll showed that Republicans were a very slight favorite to carry Florida in the general election (current prices: Republican 55.0% Democrat 45.0%). Among Democrats, the Markets give Obama a 71.5% chance to win the nomination while expectations for a Clinton victory are at 28.4%.

[Yossariant]

56. Top down democracy?! Sick.

Dismiss the voters altogether and just worry about -- the candidates, the delegates and the DNC.

:puke:

[tandem5]

57. exactly!

[tandem5]

58. Outrage over the small group of super delegates and their power over the voters...

No outrage that small groups of people introduced and passed measures to disenfranchise millions, no outrage that small groups of people went out of their way to use a harsher sanction that disenfranchised all the voters of those states when the default rules allowed for half the delegation to be proportionally allocated. Who cares what's fair for the candidates??? Where are the advocates for the American voter?!!