Obama supporter Michigan and Florida delegate proposal, seating from existing votes

[TheWebHead]

Okay, the problem the DNC has with this horrible situation they've found themselves in is that it would be ridiculously expensive to the party to revote in a primary, probably $25-30 million total for both states, and double that for advertising/ground game for each candidate. Clinton would have an unmistakable advantage because the party machines in both states favor her, and without time to establish that ground game in advance as Obama did everywhere else in the country, that tactical edge he had to counter her name ID would be mostly neutralized. Plus, we could spend millions in the next few weeks only to find Obama pull off a PA upset and essentially make continuing on for Hillary untenable.

So we have two votes, and this is how it would break down:

Florida's 185 delegates go 58-42 to Clinton, which come from the existing vote plus equally splitting Edwards, etc's voters. This would net a roughly 30 delegate advantage for Clinton.

Michigan's 128 delegates go 57-43 to Clinton, using Clinton's existing vote, giving all uncommited to Obama, plus equally splitting Kucinich. This would give a roughly 18 delegate advantage for Clinton.

So Hillary would get a total of about 48 delegates. In exchange, both would agree that the popular vote in those two states would not be recognized in national tallies.

Additionally, both would agree that whoever had the most pledged delegates at the end of the process, in the exception only of a tie, would be the nominee.

Finally, all superdelegates would agree that they, as a majority, would support whoever won the most pledged delegates, meaning they'd have some freedom of voting for whomever they want even if their districts voted in the opposite way (covering those who have already pledged), but would steer to some degree those still uncommitted.

This obviously would give Hillary a better chance of getting the most pledged delegates, though the odds are pretty slim, but would inhibit her efforts to try to overrule the will of the people and to stretch this out into an unwanted convention fight by using new rules of bigger states, momentum, etc. This also would placate FL and MI, thereby not severely hurting our hopes of winning those states in the general election.

[Horse with no Name]

1. Why split the votes?

Give Obama his votes and give Hillary hers and leave Kucinich and Edwards votes alone? You cannot "split" votes. How politically naive are you?
Or is this "the new math" that works out in favor of obama?

[TheWebHead]

5. a revote would remove edwards and kucinich's votes,

they wouldn't even be on the ballot, so a compromise evenly reallocating their votes isn't that big of a deal. The proposal certainly isn't naive, there's big concessions that would be made by both remaining parties, and the superdelegates, but it ends the stalemate and officially avoids a convention battle. The most often discussed idea would just be to evenly split the delegates at the convention, so the idea of simply splitting votes isn't something new.

[Horse with no Name]

6. But that isn't fair either

Can we go back and re-do the first primaries in Iowa, etc where the other inconvenient candidates were on the ballot?
Sorry no go.
If the "compromise" is splitting the votes down the middle, then it is a wash and they STILL lose their votes.
You CANNOT take the votes away from the candidates that received them in order to make your "math" work.

[JackORoses]

2. The elections that were held have damaged results

They will never be used to award any delegates.

The only way for that to happen is a valid revote.

[lligrd]

3. Might Work - Still Not Really Fair To Obama

but better than anything else I have heard proposed. Even a do-over now doesn't seem fair since it will look like they are only getting it due to Hillary deciding, when she is losing, that their votes suddenly matter.

Why did Hillary once agree they didn't matter? Do Hillbots have a good answer for that?

[Gore1FL]

4. Doesn't that disenfranchise the people

who didn't vote because they knew the election didn't count?

If that card is gonna get played, then it stays on the table.

Hillary won't go for it anyways, though, because she'll need way more than 48 delegates to even make a dent at this point.

[fujiyama]

7. No. MI's vote was a sham

and has no legitimacy whatsoever. What the hell kind of option was "Uncommitted"? I know several that skipped it. It wasn't worth driving to the polling place in crappy sub freezing temperatures to vote in some election that didn't have the candidate of their choice on the ballot...

So either scrap MI, or hold a revote. I'm less passionate about FL, because both were on the ballot. But I'm sure many there skipped too because they didn't feel their vote would matter.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Both were a sham, because in a democracy, candidates get to campaign.

[speedbird]

9. will Fla. and Mich. SuperD's be credentialed ...

with the current rules?