FL and MI members of DNC will be seated

[elixir]

Things are moving closer to recognizing Fl and MI in Denver.


<snip>
The Democratic National Committee said Tuesday that Florida and Michigan members will be seated on the three standing committees — including the critical Credentials Committee—at the party’s 2008 national convention, a position that could affect the selection of the Democratic nominee.

While both states were stripped of their delegates to the convention, according to the DNC’s interpretation of party rules, members from those states will be seated on the Credentials Committee. The Credentials Committee, which can meet prior to convention, resolves disputes over whether to seat delegates at the convention.

“The DNC interpretation is that there are 186 members of the Credentials Committee and both states are seated on the standing committees,” said DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton.

<snip>


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9350.html

[BeatleBoot]

1. As well they should be

[saracat]

2. SO frigging what? Can they VOTE? Will the votes be counted?

[tekisui]

3. It looks like FL,for sure.

MI was ruled unconstitutional, I don't see hoe they'll be seated, or counted anyway.

I don't think those states will change the outcome, however. No matter how they are seated and/or counted.

[MaineDem]

4. On the committees only at this point

But each state's reps won't be able to vote on that state's challenge.

[mohc]

5. I had been wondering about this myself

There are 183 total votes on the committees, 186 members with 4 members that only have a ¼ vote. Florida has 8 members and Michigan has 6 members, and neither one will be able to vote on the seating of their delegates. They will however be allowed to vote for seating the other's states delegates, so FL can vote for MI and MI can vote for FL. This means the total number of votes in the challenge to FL will be 175 and the total number of votes in the challenge to MI will be 177. This makes the target number 88 (technically 87.75 because of those ¼ votes) to control seating of FL and 89 to control seating of MI (again technically 88.75). One might assume that members from either state would back seating on both delegations, but we have to keep in mind that 3 of the 8 members from FL will be selected by the Obama campaign and may not be as supportive. MI on the other hand will have no members selected by Obama, so perhaps all of its members will support seating the delegations. Based on previous contests, Obama should control 70.5 (including the 3 spots in FL), and Clinton should control 60.25 (including 3 from MI and 5 from FL). There are still 23.25 spots to be filled and another 25 that are filled by DNC. The remaining 23.25 spots are likely to split fairly evenly, and even a worst case scenario for Obama would have him picking up around 10 spots. That still leaves him well below the target. Much like the superdelegates will be able to provide the margin in the full contest, the 25 DNC members in the end will provide the margins on all the standing committees. The DNC members may very well end up splitting as much as everyone else, in which case Obama will control the committees, but thats not an assumption I think anyone can make. Many here have implied that since the DNC was behind removing the delegates in the first place, that the members on the committees would back this idea too. This would mean Obama already has enough spots to control the committee, but I think it would be foolish to take the DNC members for granted.

[SanchoPanza]

6. .... in the Standing Committees

And the reports generated therein must be approved by the seated Delegates and Super-Delegates.

What will happen, if this goes to the convention:

1) There will be a motion to seat FL/MI within the Credentials Committee
2) Seats held by Clinton delegates will vote yes. Florida and Michigan will not be able to vote.
3) Seats held by Obama delegates will vote no.
4) Seats held by Dean appointees will lean no.
5) Some compromise will be reached, probably involving a 50/50 split for both states just so they aren't left out of the floor process.

OR

5) A Majority Report will leave the Committee without seating FL/MI.
6) A Minority Report will leave the Committee seating FL/MI.
7) Seated Pledged/Super Delegates will vote to approve either report on the Convention Floor.
8) Whichever report is backed by the most Pledged/Super Delegates will be approved.
9) The person who has the most Pledged/Super Delegates wins. Nothing changes.

The first path is preferred. It accomplishes nothing, which will happen regardless, and has the added virtue of not creating drama on the Convention Floor.

[elixir]

7. Read the article, it comes to a different conclusion.

[SanchoPanza]

10. I have, and have been following this for a few weeks.

The Politico article basis its scenario on Sen. Clinton building a majority on the committee on two very big ifs, which I don't see happening (and neither, coincidentally, does Politico, based on the tenor of the article):

1) Persuading the required number of DNC appointees to seat the states as is. The number she would have to persuade would vary depending on the outcomes of contests between now and when the Committee meets, but it's mathematically impossible for her to avoid the DNC appointees completely. As it is for Obama, coincidentally.

She would have to persuade people who have been browbeaten by the Florida State Party in the national media for months, and who did not make a good faith attempt, by any reasonable metric, to maintain compliance. Plus, in keeping with public and private comments on the matter, Dean has no doubt appointed Committee Members who will be sticklers for the rules, to maintain the DNCs impartiality. Such people would, on the whole, not be in favor of seating delegations which are prima facia in non-compliance. Unlike Superdelegates, there are rules governing these committees. They've just been pro forma for the past 28 years.

2) The reports issued by the Committee still require approval in a floor vote by the Convention.

Sen. Clinton has the number of votes needed to issue a minority report if she does not win over the majority of Committee members, and the floor will vote on approving one or the other. But therein lies the Catch-22. In order to get either report approved, you need the approval of the majority of the Pledged and Super Delegates. If it comes down to the point where she needs FL/MI, the majority of delegates will deny this. If she gets the majority of delegates, she won't need FL/MI anyway.

So, basically, FL/MI will be solved either through a compromise so the Convention can not appear in disarray, or through the D/SD contest. It provides neither candidate with an advantage that doesn't already exist.

[Perky]

8. ANd the voters are still disenfranchised. These are the one that should not be seated.

not the pledged delegates.

[MaineDem]

9. This only concerns the standing committees not the delegates. n/t