MyDD :: Why FL and MI should receive punishment

Why FL and MI should receive punishment

by irish09, Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:04:52 AM EST

Before I start, for the sake of full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter. However, I want to make it clear that I am more interested in the future of our Democratic Party than any particular candidate. It is out of this concern for the party that I am writting this diary.

Much attention has been paid to the delegate situations in Michigan and Florida. I want to provide some background for these states' decisions to schedule their contests in violation of party rules and some clarification regarding party rules.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties create a nomination contest "window." Both parties in 2008 set the date as February 5th. For the GOP, if a state scheduled their contest before that, then half of their delegates are removed from the convention. So, for the GOP, Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, Nevada, and Florida were only allocated half of their normal share of delegates. They have their punishment for early states already built into the rules.

The Democrats, meanwhile, don't have an established rule for how to handle states with contests outside of the window. The official 2008 rules only allow exemptions for Iowa and New Hampshire, due to their "traditional" status, and South Carolina and Nevada, which both applied for special exemptions and were provided them because of their large black and Hispanic populations, respectively. As we know, this year the party's rules and bylaws committee, which included 12 (out of 30)Clinton supporters, voted to strip Florida and Michigan of all of their delegates. The party also barred any candidates from campaigning in those two states and they also called on the candidates to even refuse to participate. The DNC placed the impetus to prevent the violation of party rules on not only its own enforcement mechanisms, but also on the candidates themselves.

Now, I'm not going to use this platform to argue the claims of Senators Clinton and Obama. What I do want to do is say that the party has a vested interest in preventing states from holding their contests too early. This year was horrible. Iowa's caucauses were held almost immediately after the new year, fully a year before the president is to be inaugurated. For historical perspective, the caucuses tended to occur in February or March before the past three cycles.

Excessive front-loading requires that presidential candidates start their campaign almost immediately after the midterm elections. This leads to many elected officials being absent from their elected jobs - whether they are the senator from Illionis or the governor of New Mexico.

Also, front-loading prevents worthy candidates who do not have a national profile at the start of a campaign from challenging the party's front-runners. With front-loading, we will never have another Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. Only those with large national connections that are able to raise hundreds of million of dollars from special interests will be able to compete in future nomination contests and succeed. This is not a good thing for the future of American democracy as only those who are already within "the club" will be able to vie for the nation's highest office.

Thus, it is very important that the party punish Flordia and Michigan in some way to prevent states in future cycles to do the same thing. At the least, give each delegate from the states half of a vote. The party must also reform the process to ensure that smaller states are on the pre-window schedule to ensure that less financed campaigns have a fighting chance to challenge front-runners. Finally, the state must officially include in its rules specific punishments that will be placed on states that hold contests outside of the window.

Florida and Michigan aren't about Obama-Clinton. It is about the future of American democracy and whether we would like to ensure that the already-entrenched have further advantages or whether we will provide for rules that give challengers a fighting chance.

Tags: Florida, Michigan, delegates, Obama, Clinton, Future, Party (all tags)

Permalink :: 28 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (2.00 / 1)

i know this was a serious diary, but the title cracked me up. I just imagined Dean calling Florida and Michigan into the principal's office for a paddling. Anyways, have fun with the angry comments.

by Xris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:11:19 AM EST

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

Haha, now that I looked at it again, I had to laugh a little too. Didn't think that one through.

And, after several months of lurking and a couple weeks of posting, I know that angry comments from committeed Hillary supports are soon to come.

by irish09 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:13:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (2.00 / 1)

Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February. There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too.

Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).
Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee's Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.

However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly. In fact, they weren't punished at all.
And what about Florida & Michigan?
Well, we all know what happened to them.

Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of all their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren't applied equally and fairly. And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.

Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime

by gunner on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:20:28 AM EST

No (2.00 / 1)

It's too late for the DNC to get away with applying a 50% penalty to those states. When the GOP did it, it was before the contests and still allowed full campaigning. And guess what? The GOP isn't our role model.

The Democratic Party isn't the party of 1 person = 1/2 a vote. We're also not the party that punishes voters for a few egomaniacal acts or statements by their GOP and Dem. legislators.

Both states already lost the huge economic boon that accompanies a primary. They've in essence been fined millions of dollars. What more do you want?

"Behead the voters of Florida and Michigan! Punish them! Punish them!"

Do you see how ridiculous this is getting?

The best solution in my opinon for the party is to seat both delegations fully, giving us an edge in the "we do count the votes" principle that has defined us since the party's inception. Then specific means need to be implemented to punish legislators and governors who collude to disrupt the DNC calendar, not the voters who have no real say in the matter.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:54:17 AM EST

Re: No (none / 0)

"What more do you want?"

I wanted both Obama and Clinton to have the opportunity to campaign in these states, so that the vote becomes more than a popularity contest.

I wanted the people of MI and FL to think that their votes mattered, and so we would not be 'disenfranchising' the millions who stayed home because they were told by the DNC and both campaigns that the primary results were not going to lead to seated delegates. Remember, turnout was much lower in MI and FL than other states.

I want Clinton and her supporters to be honest about her reasons for pushing for the seating of these states: it has nothing to do with 'disenfranchising', for if it were, she would have been against the DNC ruling before a) the votes occured, and b) before she fell hopelessly behind in the delegate count.

I want to set a precedent that the DNC will stand up to states who move up in the calendar against the rule. If not, every cycle the primaries will be pushed up, and moreover, there will be no way of stopping Iowa and New Hampshire from always leapfrogging the path. I am for a system of rotating primary dates, and without some sort of enforcement, this can never happen. It deeply saddens me that Clinton is ruining this possibility to slightly improve her chances of winning, which are still hopelessly small.

Finally, I want to stop complaining or at least argue the rational merits of the dilemma rather than regurgitating the ridiculously hypocritical and sensational talking points of the Clinton campaign

by gcensr on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:33:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Line line should have been:

I want you to stop complaining...

by gcensr on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:34:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

"I wanted both Obama and Clinton to have the opportunity to campaign in these states, so that the vote becomes more than a popularity contest."

Spilled milk. I would have wanted the delegate counts to have been fairly reflected by the media starting in late January because omitted those states allowed "Math versus Clinton" arguments to profilgate like locusts.

"I want Clinton and her supporters to be honest about her reasons for pushing for the seating of these states: it has nothing to do with 'disenfranchising', for if it were, she would have been against the DNC ruling before a) the votes occured, and b) before she fell hopelessly behind in the delegate count."

Clinton's position has appeared inconsistent. That I grant. Although I can defend it by pointing out the different circumstances and assumptions she was speaking under (that the DNC show of force would inspire a revote or that we'd have a clear cut nominee allowing the delegations to be seated without controversy), I do realize there is an element of self-interest inherent in both Clinton's and Obama's public positions on this issue. That said, I think their motivations are small potatos in the big picture here which is really a question of core Democratic principles and the party's short term (November) and long term relationship with two major states.

My personal position has not changed however. I have always been shocked and amazed that the Democratic party would nuke the votes of two states, two very large swing states to boot.

"If not, every cycle the primaries will be pushed up, and moreover, there will be no way of stopping Iowa and New Hampshire from always leapfrogging the path."

I disagree. There are many alternative punitive and deterring measures the party can employ to help prevent legislators and executives from usurping the calendar without resorting to punishing voters. The simplest would be a rule disqualifying each individual superdelegate supporting legislation that changes the date. Another is of course the prevention of campaigning there which negatively impacts the state's economy. Eradicating the voter's choices is very much over-the-top.

"I am for a system of rotating primary dates, and without some sort of enforcement, this can never happen."

I'm on the same page with you here. I prefer that system.

Clinton's not an angel, nor is Barack. Both of their positions are motivated at least in part by political self-interest. Clinton does empirically have the stronger argument and I think most objective followers of this controversy realize that. Whomever you support, it's never good to be on the side of authoritarian rules technicalities (especially when those rules actually provide means of including FL/MI) versus full enfranchisement.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:23:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

You do make some good points, and in general, I agree that the most appropriate political solution would be something along the lines of cutting out the superdelegates from the state, though I haven't heard this discussed in earnest as a possibility.

I also am still hung up on the fact that having two big states vote so early overemphasizes the name recognition of the candidates (which is the focus of this diary).

Taken to an extreme, having all of the primaries on the same day would have resulted in Clinton v. Giuliani, which is a quite different result that the probable outcome of the primaries being stretched out. Campaigning non-trivially changes the results of voting, and neglecting the impact of a full-fledge state campaign in a newcomer vs. establish candidate is ridiculous, in my opinion.

So obviously not all the primaries should be bunched up on a single day, and particularly, large states shouldn't be the first one to votes, as unknown candidates have to rely on individual connections with voters since fundraising is scarce. I like the system of having two small states lead out, with enough lead time for the results of the smaller states to have some effect - it takes a finite amount of time for the results to allow for raising funds necessary to compete in the larger states.

Consequently, the primaries have an extra layer of illegitimacy: had the been allowed to move up their schedules, none of the 'unknown' candidates would have had any chance against Clinton (or possibly Edwards). As the diarist implies, even Bill Clinton probably would not have won in such a primary schedule.

Also, I still don't see how you can be comfortable with the fact that many people stayed home as they were told that the election would not matter. Would you also advocate retroactively changing the Nebraska and Washington "primaries" to allocate delegates?

All in all, not all votes are equal in weight: votes that are thought to be important and significant are going to be more predictive of how people feel than those for "beauty contents". Votes after allowing the contenders to locally campaign is going to give a better indication of which candidate can best win again in the general after months of campaigning. Votes where both candidates are on the ballot are much more conclusive than those with candidates missing.

The votes of Florida and Michigan, consequently, are tainted and are not at all comparable to the votes from other states. They should not be counted as such.

Of course, some political compromise will have to be made to satisfy Clinton and her supporters. But as I see, there is certainly no moral imperative to count those votes, as I hear from the Clinton camp.

by gcensr on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:05:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

This was a very good comment.

"I also am still hung up on the fact that having two big states vote so early overemphasizes the name recognition of the candidates (which is the focus of this diary)."

I think these are important concerns for future calendars. I like the regional rotating system where one state from each of four regions votes first and on the same day. In the event that a "big" state is chosen there, it can be offset by some combination of the three other primaries held that day. We have a lot of mid-sizes states that can help alleviate this concern. For instance, if New York votes first one year, it can be "mitigated" by a simultaneous primary in Louisiana, Nevada, and Iowa.

"Also, I still don't see how you can be comfortable with the fact that many people stayed home as they were told that the election would not matter."

I think this statement is more true of Michigan than Florida, where there was less reason to believe they'd actually be excluded and where there was higher turnout than even most Super Tuesday states.

Regardless, that is a taint on the election. My position has been that we have many elections that are tainted. I'm not comfortable at all with caucuses that lack secret ballots, and present major information, language, and time barriers to overwhelming majorities of the population. Hence, I opt for full inclusion. Every primary state, every caucus state. Opening the door to scrutinizing every fault with each election is a dangerous path and objectively, if we omit Florida & Michigan, we would have to omit Colorado, Washington, Maine, Utah, Idaho, etc. and the Texas caucus.

My logic is either we include all elections, "problems and all," or we exclude some on fairness grounds, and that would have to be applied evenly, not simply to the Michigan and Florida primaries.

"But as I see, there is certainly no moral imperative to count those votes, as I hear from the Clinton camp."

Tough call; morals are subjective. I do think it's fundamentally unfair to punish millions of voting citizens for an egomaniacal coup by a handful of legislators, many of whom had their hands tied.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:57:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

I'm actuallly ok with this for Florida (and Michigan if uncommitted go to Obama) but only if ALL the superdelegates from both states get no vote... .no supers, no add-ons... as you say.. .the politicians are the one's at fault

by CaptainMorgan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:37:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Overbroad.

Not every superdelegate in the state was complicit in the move. It's like punishing a whole group of people for something a select few did within their group.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:12:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

gotta give somewhere....

the fact is there is going to be compromise.. I'd bet money the delegations will be halved.

This is much ado about nothing...

by CaptainMorgan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

Remember when you advocate punishment, you are calling for the punishment of the people of Florida and Michigan. So for the sake of full disclosure, why don't you call it what it really is. The corporate entities of Florida and Michigan are not living organisms. They don't feel punishment. Neither Florida or Michigan has ever even received a colonoscopy.

To punish the people of Florida and Michigan, and in this case the democratic people of Florida and Michigan represents a hard line, conservative philosophy which would make our opponents on the right proud.

The main business of the democratic party is not to show how stern they can be. Their main business is to elect democrats. When you punish the democrats of Florida and Michigan, you hamper the ability of the party to elect democrats. and when this occurs it serves the republican agenda.

We should under no circumstances give the republicans this kind of edge in 2008. Our needs are too important. We have to end a war, fix the economy, save the constitution, and bring real health care to all Americans. This is what's important, and vital. Saving the reputation of the DNC is very low on the vitality list.

Now I think when all is said and done, the good democrats of both these states will not be punished. There will be a settlement of the issue which is fair and equitable to both factions of the party, and we will move on.

A fair and equitable settlement should be our goal, and punishing the democrats of these two states should not even be a consideration.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:56:44 AM EST

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

One thing I don't get... how are the people being punished?

Obama is going to be the nominee no matter what happens so I don't see how the people are being punished in any way... the status of the delegates means nothing to the average person.
\

by CaptainMorgan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:38:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

You don't get it, because you don't realize there is more to the convention than voting for a president. There is the veep, and the party platform, and there is any horse trading that can accrue to the good of your state and state party. By the way if the people of a state aren't effected by no representation, than why does any state have to be represented? Just let a few people in a backroom do all the stuff that needs doing.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:53:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

nice title to try and make these 2 states feel included in the democratic party.....

But I guess Barak only wants to be President of 48 states....

by nikkid on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:03:40 AM EST

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

Look, if you are going to bring that up, consider that Hillary Clinton has been completely rejecting the concept of campaigning hard in states with too many black people, those with higher educated voters, and caucus states. Take your crap elsewhere.

by irish09 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:43:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (1.00 / 0)

When you punish folks, they tend to punish you back. You know what you'll be calling Senator Obama in 2009, if he's punished back by Florida and Michigan? Senator Obama.

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:05:25 AM EST

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA... you think he cares about getting his pound of flesh or punishing anyone?

This is ALL about the DNC.. they are the one's who will demand some sort of punishment.

by CaptainMorgan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:39:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing to do with Obama? (1.00 / 0)

If he said, "I agree with Hillary, seat them", what would happen?

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing to do with Obama? (none / 0)

Nothing... the DNC would still demand punishment.

Obama has already agreed to Michigan's plan to seat their delegates.... (should I even ask why it's ok for Hillary to block that?)

Seriously though.. this whole thing is about the DNC vs the state legislature... Obama and Hillary are both victims like the voters to be honest.

by CaptainMorgan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:44:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

This is about the party and our nation needing to ensure that the calendar has some sort of validity and that it is obeyed. The consequences if we don't can be disasterous for both our party and our nation's democratic republic.

by irish09 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:45:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

I think the Democratic insiders in Michigan should do a secret ballot vote on who the most guilty 5 people are for the idiocy. Florida also if it's a Democratic thing- my impression is that Republicans did it to mess things up, but be that as it may.

Then we have the (most) guilt marched onto the Mall in DC, put in stocks, and caned once or twice apiece by all the eliminated Presidential candidates. Dennis Kucinich gets three whacks. :D

I suspect Carl Levin won't be able to sit for a week after that, but hey, that's a price I'm willing to pay.

by killjoy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:48:52 AM EST

Terrific diary! (2.00 / 1)

One of the best I've seen here.

I like the idea of having a "First Four" primaries from small to mid-size states across the country. Emphasizes the diversity of our great land in addition to paying attention to states outside the public focus.

Too bad FL & MI (which are states that historically have NOT been ignored) had to act like children and mess it up.

From a Hillary supporter: We laughed as that became our mantra - "Barack can't win!"..... ....."he can go to hell and i'll pay for his way there."

by Cochrane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:16:52 AM EST

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

One of the commenters mentioned that IA and NH also broke the rules. I completely agree with this and I was going to address that in my diary, but I didn't feel as though space allowed it (I'm still getting used to this). I think that both states should also receive some sort of sanction. We are a NATIONAL PARTY and we have RULES. We must follow them. And, if they are not followed, then some sort of punishment must be handed out.

by irish09 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:48:57 AM EST

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

You forgot South Carolina.

by soyousay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:29:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's the problem for DNC; (none / 0)

Even though Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also broke the same party rules by moving up their primaries, they were not sanctioned as Florida was, but were instead granted a waiver by the DNC from any such penalties.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/mostpopular /story.aspx?content_id=7b748861-cd21-40c 0-a80c-92c461e94394

by soyousay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:28:08 AM EST

Re: Why FL and MI should receive punishment (none / 0)

There was a comment that by not holding a sanctioned primary in either Florida or Michigan, the party effectively kept millions of revenue from those states' economies. This statement seems a little misguided to me. Many communities hate to have political candidates to come through because they require greater police and paramedic presence. This added cost is not reimbursed by the campaigns themselves. So, increased campaigning harms the budgets of local areas, as opposed to helping them. Sure, the states lost the advertising dollars, but does the media really need more money? It seems as though they don't.

by irish09 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:33:08 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.