MyDD :: The real fairest solution on Michigans delegates

The real fairest solution on Michigans delegates

by wiscogirl101, Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:24:40 PM EST

So I've read a diary that comes up with a "solution" (and I put solution in quotes because what it is is greediness) on the Michigan primary.

First, I think nearly 90% of the Democratic party agree Michigan should be seated but not as is where Hillary gets her delegates (and popular votes) and Obama gets 0.

Of course you have a few who prefer the unfairness of that, but its not going to happen.

Now I've read from...Ickes I think..or Wolfson ..and a diary here..that not only should Hillary get her 73 delegates from January...but a part of the 55 'uncommitted' as well.

Thats not going to happen either. Hillary doesn't deserve them those were by people who wanted someone other than Hillary. Mostly Obama..but some Edwards and other as well.

So my belief is the fairest seating of Michigan is as follows:

Michigan gets a 50% delegate cut for moving its primary.

Thus Hillary gets 50% of the 73 she got in January..so 37.

Obama should get the lions share of half of the 55 delegates..so say 25.

The remaining would go to Edwards who then could endorse whomever they wish.

Regarding the popular vote:

Hillary can have her 328k votes. Approx 80% of the uncommitted vote can be added into Obamas total so approx 200k votes.

Now that is the fairest way to seat Michigans delegates, apportion the popular vote , and enforce some punishment for violating the DNC rules.

Tags: Michigan delegates Obama Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 13 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: The real fairest solution (2.00 / 2)

I could live with that.

And before anyone freaks out about halving their delegates - that's exactly what the Republicans did, and I cannot imagine that Michiganders would be madder at the Democrats for doing exactly what the Republicans did.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:26:27 PM EST

Very shortly this Diary will be attacked as (2.00 / 1)

evil for suggesting that Clinton's campaign should not get everything it wants...

I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.

by JDF on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:27:30 PM EST

Re: The real fairest solution on Michigans delegat (2.00 / 1)

I could live with this proposal too. The problem is, it means Hillary has an equally unlikely snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination with it, so the most rabid of her supporters will immediately denounce it.

by ProgressiveDL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:28:14 PM EST

That's a decent proposal (none / 0)

Either that or give her the votes and delegates she got and give Obama all of the uncommitted votes and delegates.

by lombard on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:32:24 PM EST

Re: That's a decent proposal (2.00 / 2)

I could deal with that as well, though reluctantly. I don't like the notion that the Republicans will punish them, and we will not.

There's no reason they can't do this again if there's no punishment. They could hold their Republican contest when they're supposed to, but hold a separate one for the Democrats earlier than that. South Carolina was like that, or close enough, this go-round.

Again, I could accept this, but I don't like allocating them their full number of delegates.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:38:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I understand the rationale for some punishment (none / 0)

And I could buy that solution. But I don't buy the notion that Iowa, NH, and SC have rights to first primaries/caucuses in perpetuity. I'd like to see some sort of rotating schedule that the states would agree to. Those primaries didn't seem to interfere with anything else going on when they happened. Yeah, I know IA and NH moved theirs up so they would be first but nobody penalized them for that.

Ironically, FL and MI would have had more significance and avoided these problems this season if their primaries would have been held after Super Tuesday.

by lombard on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understand the rationale for some punishment (none / 0)

I agree that having a permanent set of earlies is more bad than good, though in the cases of Iowa and New Hampshire, they do seem to take it seriously. While I don't think that's enough to justify continuing it, we should at least be aware of it.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The real fairest solution on Michigans delegat (2.00 / 1)

I could live with something like this, though it might be fairer if the uncommitted delegates were split between Obama and Edwards in proportions equal to their share of the vote in states that came prior to Michigan.

Also, I think a 50% punishment is a bit harsh. I'd rather see one of the following:

1.) Seat all PDs but NONE of the SDs. (128 PDs)

2.) Seat 75% of the PDs and give each SD only half a vote. (96 PDs + 13 SDs...109 Delegates)

Personally, I prefer punishing the SDs in Michigan, since they were behind the calendar move.

No way. No how. No McCain.

by freedom78 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:37:17 PM EST

Re: The real fairest solution on (2.00 / 1)

I would be happy to deny the superdelegates any say whatsoever.

They made this mess.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not that harsh, actually. (2.00 / 1)

Even with the delegates halved, a single vote in Michigan would count for 1/9361 of a delegate. By contrast, the diarist's vote and mine (I assume from her moniker she's a fellow Sconnie) would only count for 1/15,044 of a delegate. Michigan's votes would "count" more than the votes of a whopping 23 other states that have held primaries so far this season. That hardly seems unfair to Michigan to me.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?

by Elsinora on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The real fairest solution on Michigans delegat (none / 0)

Why not just keep the uncommitted officially uncommitted? They have already been selected and they're almost all Obama supporters anyway.

Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."

by brimur on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:42:54 PM EST

Re: The real fairest solution on Michigans delegat (none / 0)

Why split the popular vote?

It's irrelevant to the process as anything but a talking-point, so don't even worry about arbitrarily splitting it. Just ignore it and move to the metrics that count.

by TCQuad on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:48:48 PM EST

Re: The real fairest solution (2.00 / 1)

I agree, but I would also cut out the supers, since they were responsible. As for the popular vote - I guess I would use bring that up if necessary, but since the popular vote is not an official metric, I don't know that it's necessary to venture into that issue.

by rfahey22 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:00:30 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.