Let’s Enforce The Rules
“Why are people in Michigan and Florida so angry? They knew what the rules were before they changed their primary dates, so why are they so angry?”
Among many other things, the rules were changed on the fly by the DNC.
Go read the DNC Primary Rules, the ones the leaders of the Democratic parties in Michigan and Florida agreed to, from a New Hampshire Democrat.
Based on the rules, the Democratic officials in Michigan expected to lose 50% of their pledged delegates and all of their superdelegates – that’s what the rule [Rule 20.C.1.a.] says will happen to states that violate the rule [Rule 11.A] on scheduling primaries and caucuses.
That is not what happened. The rules, as written and agreed to, were not followed.
Five states [Michigan, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina] violated Rule 11.A by scheduling primaries and caucuses earlier than allowed, but only two were punished, and those two lost all of their pledged delegates. No superdelegates lost their votes. This is not according to the rules.
When an unelected group within the Democratic National Committee can arbitrarily decide what rules will be enforced and what the penalty will be, rather than enforcing the rules equally, against all violators, and handing out equal penalties the process is corrupt.
This problem can be easily resolved to the satisfaction of everyone – enforce the rules. All five states should lose half their pledged delegates and all of their superdelegates, just like the rules require.
The concept is called “equal justice under the law” where democratic principles guide government action. Some people think it’s important.
12 comments
i’d go for that.
apparently we can write to this guy at the dnc.
I think to strictly enforce the rules will disenfranchise a lot of people in a lot more states and would not be politically realistic nor just. Michigan’s situation is different from Florida’s inasmuch as the voters in that state didn’t even get a full set of choices. I think the rules need to be set aside by some common consent and agreement so that Florida’s delegation is seated and Michigan has some kind of vote or caucus or some other deal gets worked out between the candidates so that we can get past this.
Michael, I sit here drop-jawed at your interpretation. I just cannot connect what you just said with the facts as I understand them. Michigan? Michigan is the one whose voters “didn’t even get a full set of choices”?
I give up.
Well, no I don’t…
If “strictly enforc[ing] the rules” will “disenfranchise a lot of people in a lot more states and would not be politically realistic,” then that is precisely what needs to be done. The more states affected by the injustice perpetrated by the DNC, the more likely they will be forced to correct it.
But for Howard Dean and a bunch of stodgy old Dems to decide to use the rules to disenfranchise the voters of some states and not of others equally in violation of those rules stinks of old-time politics at its confidence-destroying worst.
People have been attacking Florida and Michigan for months while the other three get free rides. It’s interesting that the two states that were penalized both have closed primaries, meaning only Democrats may vote, while the other three all allow independents to vote, and two of them allow anyone to vote. Nice way to select a Democratic candidate.
There are more registered voters in Michigan than in the other three states combined, and more again in Florida, so this will cause an increase in the number of people empowered.
It’s not like Iowa and South Carolina are going to vote Democratic in November, anyway.
Steve, correct me if I’m wrong.
Michigan had a choice between Hillary Clinton, and Undecided.
That’s all.
Is this incorrect?
Michael, I believe you are correct. I misinterpreted the intent of your statement. Sorry about that.
I still feel Florida got a worse deal than Michigan, because a completely GOP-controlled government approved the date. Democrats technically voted for the bill, but remember, the primary date was not independent of other issues but was rolled into an omnibus bill that Republicans knew Democrats could not vote against. MBW has the details; you may read about them at Bryan’s links to her site.
The choices were Clinton, Dodd, and uncommitted in Michigan, the other five candidates withdrew voluntarily, there was no requirement they withdraw.
Steve, I agree that Florida’s delegates should be seated so we have no disagreement. Bryan, apparently Mike Gravel may have also been on the ballot. “No requirement they withdraw” but claiming all the Michigan delegates for Hillary Clinton because she went against the agreement isn’t exactly Marquess of Queensbury rules.
There’s a 15% threshold on being awarded delegates, and I just located the official site which indicates that the candidates were Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich. Clinton gets about 55% and the rest of the delegates are Uncommitted as the others didn’t make the threshold.
The decision to withdraw was individual, not official, and Michigan is not a winner-take-all state.
You win, Bryan.
Let Hillary Clinton have all the delegates from Michigan and Florida that she won. Even though everyone can see what happened. She’s clearly a skilled political tactician.
Michael, almost no one at this point sees what happened, almost no one understands what a few idiots at the DNC have done to the entire system, almost no one understands how much one committee of the DNC has helped the Republican party.
At this point, the Democrats in Michigan may not turn out if the state manages to stage a re-vote. If there’s a re-vote and you don’t get at turn out of better than 600K, Michigan is lost to the Democrats.
I think Florida is already lost, that means the Dems lose the Presidency.
If you like. I prefer hope to despair.