We Need a Compromise on Michigan and Florida

by: Mike Lux

Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 15:16


Howard Dean said this about Michigan and Florida:

"All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.

The two state parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said.

"We can't afford to do that. That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race," he said. The DNC offered to pay for an alternative contest in Florida last summer but was turned down, officials at the party say.

I'm glad he's calling for a do-over. I would be fine with that. But he, and everyone else involved- the two state parties and the two campaigns- need to show some flexibility on working something out that everyone can live with. As I've written before, both isdes in the debate have compelling arguments- the rules are the rules, and shouldn't be charged in the middle of the game, but MI and FL voters should be represented. What we need right now is not for people to dig in and be stubborn, but to work out a deal that is fair to everybody. Howard, if that means a do-over with the DNC paying for part of the costs, that's okay. If that means penalizing the states' part of their delegation, like the GOP did, that's okay too. If it means organizing caucuses, and then having part of the delegation coming from the primary vote and part coming from caucuses, that's okay, too. The point is, there are a lot of ways to solve this. Being stubborn right now is not helpful.

The bottom line is that everybody needs to be flexible so that this gets worked out for the good of the party. Dean should be trying to bring people together, not draw lines in the sand.

Mike Lux :: We Need a Compromise on Michigan and Florida

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
We Need a Compromise on Michigan and Florida | 31 comments
Compromise (0.00 / 0)
only count the big states, and include FL and MI, and Obama can be the VP.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
I dunno. (4.00 / 1)
I love  the perspective you bring here, but ... this feels almost Republican. 'The rule-breaking is in the past. Don't play the blame game. Let's talk about how we move forward.'

You knowingly break the rules, you suffer the consequences. I realize this isn't flexible, but isn't that the whole idea of 'rules'?

Maybe what I'm trying to say is: Retroactive immunity.

November (0.00 / 0)
To me, November matters far more than anything that happened last year or last month.

The last thing the DNC needs to do is piss off all the Democrats in Florida who turned out to vote in their unsanctioned primary -- and, we should all recall, a hell of a lot of them voted. Do national Democrats really need to piss off people in Florida -- I repeat: IN FLORIDA?

And, of course, except for the loonies up north, urban Michigan is quite Democratic. Do the national Democrats really want to piss them off as well?

But I just don't like the idea of caucuses, and my reasons have nothing to do with which candidate I support. Too many people are too timid to attend a caucus, but their votes should count. And, of course, there really isn't enough time to give voters in either state a crash course in how to run a caucus.

So: How about a five-way cost split between the DNC, the state party, the state government's election apparatus, and each candidate? I know, there are legal complications in this (particularly relating to the candidate contributions, I'd guess), but there ought to be some way to let the voters in each state get out to vote for the man or woman of their choice.

One other thing: The voters in each state are not to blame for this mess, and they should not be denied their voice in choosing the Democratic candidate because party bosses and other fools did stupid things.

I just don't understand this reasoning... (0.00 / 0)
This is sort of like the reasoning of those who say they won't vote for X if Y wins the nomination, while stating they are long time Democrats.

Their local parties screwed up and DNC was overly punitive, but will these people really punish the nominee because of what the DNC and their local parties wrought?  If so, that is more damning to them as citizens of our country that it is to the party.  

By this reasoning we have to then worry about the rest of the country's Democrats not voting for the Democrat because these two states cheated and got rewarded by being allowed to seat their delegations as is.  In fact, if there is one realistic scenario it would be Clinton fatigue should she win the nomination by seating these corrupted delegations.

If they are going to seat the delegations without a revote it should be purely ceremonial and divided evenly between the candidates, so that while they are seated they have no particular sway over the process.

[ Parent ]
I want to commend the Obama campaign (0.00 / 0)
 on how they have handled the who deal - saying basically we will play by whatever rules are in front of us...  While the Clintons have played politics with the states - Obama's team has stayed above, publically, the fray for the most part.
oh, puh-leez (0.00 / 0)
we already know that the obama campaign walks on water!
[ Parent ]
One word: (0.00 / 0)
Caucus

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
Just another landmine to blow up (0.00 / 0)
How can they do this in any way that is fair to the other 48 states and BOTH candidates!

I just don't see it -  

Make one a Caucus and one a Primary on the same day?  You gotta be kidding.

This will finish the process of splitting the party -

The only thing that can be done now is to stand by the original decision and live with it. If they seat the existing delegation Obama should walk out.

Seat Florida as is (0.00 / 0)
If I understand correctly the democratic party in Florida had little say over when the primary date was set? The GOP leg there set the date. In that case, I think its hard for Dean to punish them, and they should just go and seat those delegates. Obama was on the ballot, its good enough. MI they should do over, or assign the seats on a basis of the final nationwide delegate averages. Obama wasn't on the ballot even, so seating them as is would be just too polarizing. The Clinton campaign is weirdly obtuse about this, and kinda a points to a real "win at any cost" kind of attitude. I find their lack of concern about public perception over this to be really odd.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
That Argument Might Hold Water (4.00 / 1)
Except that a Democrat co-sponsored the bill to change the primary date and Florida Democrats seemed unresponsive to Howard Dean when he worked to stop it while the bill was under consideration.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Yes, but (0.00 / 0)
the Republicans made sure that the bill to make the voting machines have a paper trail was in the same bill that moved up the primary.  Dems could not very well vote against a paper trail. The DNC should have recognized this and adjusted the penalty accordingly.  For example, the RNC penalized the Republicans also by allowing the candidates to campaign but only counting half their delegates.  That would have been fair if thee DNC had done this from the beginning.
[ Parent ]
They must count MI/FL (0.00 / 0)
they simply cannot disenfranchise voters like that.

I think they should set up a website for small donations to pay for do-overs and they should be primaries.  Both states are primaries originally and if they want do overs then that's what they should be.  

Another idea is since everyone was on the ballot in FL, to just seat them and just have a do over in MI.  

But, I agree they need to to count these votes and figure out what's fair and I might add they obviously need to completely revamp the primaries themselves.

I mean such an absurd system with supers and some districts getting more votes and I'm sorry caucuses do not allow for privacy, the ability to not be intimidated, influenced, which can involve dominant personalities versus letting that individual voter choose by themselves, in private, who they really want as their candidate...it just doesn't leave the voter alone, where they can by themselves simply choose and vote.  It's also not like a general election and I think these things should model a general as much as possible (or maybe what a general should be, based on the popular vote).  

The closer they get to 1 person, 1 vote and away from these skewed systems, including the electoral college, the better in my view.  

This to me is  massive wake up call for reforms generally.

I also think the state with the worst economy should be bumped up to be an early state.  Have a rotation schedule and just plain bump up the state who is the leader in national issues that need to be addressed and addressed yesterday.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

Caucuses (4.00 / 1)
My understanding is the only technical difference between a caucus and a primary is who pays for it.  So unless we can get the state governments to pay for it, which the Gov. of Florida says he might, then any redo will be a caucus.

However, caucuses can be run in a primary-like manor, with polls open all day and selections done in private, so all the specific issues you are concerned with can be dealt with.

I agree completely on the need for reforms.  I'd like to see a systematic method someone suggested where we start with states adding up to 8 electoral votes, then the next week 16, then 24 and so on, with the actual order determined randomly.  To make it fair to Californians, I would divide the state into northern and southern halves to give them a chance to be involved earlier.

[ Parent ]
Stubborn? (0.00 / 0)
Howard Dean doesn't make the rules. Howard Dean can't break the rules. Howard Dean can't cut anyone any slack because Howard Dean isn't responsible for Florida or Michigan's flouting of the DNC agreements and rules. The DNC members including the Michigan and Florida representatives made these agreements and Dean can't dictate any alternatives except what is allowed within the Party rules. We can weep big crocodile tears about the poor unfortunate Democratic voters in these states, but they have no one to complain to except their own states parties. Nor should the DNC be held financially liable for these states misdeeds. Without theses agreed upon rules and agreements, the next primary election will be chaos.



"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

Newsweek has (0.00 / 0)
 great article on just how unlikely a Clinton victory is.

Giving Her - "That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight."

"Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Hillary's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45."

"Then on April 22, the big one-Pennsylvania-and it's a Hillary blow-out: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Hillary 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.

May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.

Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none. "

Can anybody demonstrate a path for her to win the nomination?

about f'n time (0.00 / 0)
the media runs a real meat and potatoes analysis of the situation. the coverage of Tuesday was a farce. sorry hillary supporters, but its a monumental battler. to argue for hillary to stay in the race you have to make the argument that a convention battle is at least an ok turn of events.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
just say no to anything that ratifies the results of a fake contest (0.00 / 0)
It would be absurd to seat delegates on the basis of a straw poll where there was no campaigning, not every candidate was on the ballot, and many voters didn't turn out because they had been told the vote didn't matter. And if you, like me, want to see the party take control of the nomination process and make it more orderly in future contests and not have more and more states moving their primaries up to January in 2012, then you have to oppose seating the current delegate slates from Florida and Michigan.

The ideal solution of course would be do over elections where Obama and Clinton are both on the ballot and both have the chance to actively campaign in the states. Why not just mail out a ballot with a postage paid return envelope to all registered Democrats in Michigan and Florida? That would be a lot cheaper than holding new caucuses or primaries.

Of course if Obama has clinched the nomination by the end of the primary process with the help of superdelegates and/or a Cliniton concession, then it would be possible to seat Florida's and Michigan's current delegate slates because they wouldn't determine the nomination.

hmm (0.00 / 0)
Hmm that doesn't come across the way I meant it. To expand on that final paragraph a bit, I don't want to seat the current delegate slates if doing so would give them the power to determine the nominee. That would in effect be endorsing Florida's and Michigan's moving their primaries up to gain more attention. But if their delegates won't change the final result, then if all else fails, their delegates could be seated.
[ Parent ]
The original, assumed plan (0.00 / 0)
I'm fairly certain the original plan, if not openly stated, was to seat the delegates, but long after all but one nominee dropped out and they didn't matter.  No one expected this.
[ Parent ]
No, Dean Needs to Draw a Line In the Sand (0.00 / 0)
If Dean can't draw a line in the sand and hold it, then the DNC will never, ever have the power and authority to reform the calendar and delegate system in the way that a lot of people want.  The states will always get to set primary dates unless the Democratic Party wants to pay for the entire operation, which it doesn't.  If there are no real penalties, there is no way to get states to conform to process and the only way any sort of reform happens is when the states decide to spring ahead and we get a de facto national primary on January 1.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
Do overs (0.00 / 0)
Michigan has to be done over.  Let them chose a primary or caucus and pay for it.  The only fair alternative is to give Obama the "uncommitted" votes, but I still think they need a do over.

Florida was fairer, because both were on the ballot.  Maybe they could have an add-on caucus, kind of like Texas', in which an additional group of delegates could be awarded.  (And reduce the number awarded in the primary by an equivalent number).

If there is a do-over in FL, Obama should come out for opening relations with Cuba and ending the boycott.  This opens the way for family reunification and business opportunities.  The old die-hard anti-Castro Cuban-Americans will vote GOP or Hillary anyway, and this makes a new pot of voters available to Obama.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
As I sit here and think about it more... (0.00 / 0)
The best result really would have been to have followed the RNC lead and just dock them 50% of their delegates.  Edwards, Obama, and the others would have put their names on the ballot in Michigan.  All the candidates would have still campaigned in these states just for the sake of momentum and we wouldn't be having this argument now. The punishment was up front with no need to revisit later.  The state parties and their voters  knowing the punishment would have gone to the polls knowing that the election was valid and not just a glorified straw poll, though the results would be weakened.
That was the original plan (0.00 / 0)
If I understand the timeline right, Florida was supposed to be docked half its delegates, then Michigan started rumbling about moving its primary up and the DNC led by Dean upped the penalty to 100% as a show of force to dissuade Michigan.  Michigan barreled right through that stop sign and Dean now has to stand by his original position or else cave like a Senator on FISA.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
what could go wrong? (0.00 / 0)
I'm sure Dean thought it would not be a close race and none of this would matter. But what a horrible strategy. Why do you retroactively penalize the state (FL) that made its decision based on one set of assumptions?  Isn't that  changing the rules, something he now says he is agaisnt?

Regardless of how this turns out, I vote that "cave like a senator on FISA" be made an official part of the lexicon.

[ Parent ]
No consensus and no money = no solution (0.00 / 0)
It does not seem likely that in a contest this tight the Clinton and Obama people would ever be able to arrive at a mutally agreeable solution, but (imho) even if they could two big broke states are not going to fork over tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for do-over primaries, and the DNC is not going to hand over money need to fund the election campaign.  A solution is necessary, but none sems likely.
Caucuses are cheaper. (0.00 / 0)
If they want primaries, they should pay for it.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Would we need a compromise if Clinton is the nominee? (0.00 / 0)
Every poll in Florida in the last few weeks shows Clinton beating McCain. (not so for Obama) If she gets the nomination, with or without the Florida delegation at the convention, we can take Florida. Florida voters won't stay home in disgust if their choice - Clinton - is the nominee anyway.

So since Obama is most likely to be the nominee, it seems to me that Obama is the one who needs a compromise that makes Florida happy.  Seems like a perfect test for his fabled power to bring people together.

The DNC has been far more flexible than Florida (0.00 / 0)
Here's the FL Democratic Chair Karen Thurman:

"It is important also that we are clear about one issue. At this time, no suggested alternative process has been able to meet three specific and necessary requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The Florida Democratic Party cannot consider any alternative that does not meet these requirements. Indeed, it is very possible that no satisfactory alternative plan will emerge, in which case Florida Democrats will remain committed to seating the delegates allocated by the January 29th primary."

http://marcambinder.theatlanti...

That's more of an ultimatum than anything Dean has ever said, unless "The rules apply to FL too, follow the rules" is some kind of an ultimatum.  

John McCain

Is Dean really calling for a do-over? (0.00 / 0)
I disagree with Mike's view that Dean's statement is calling for a do-over.  I see it more that he is saying FL and MI can have a do-over if they want to stage it themselves, within the rules. He is not at all saying that there should be a do-over.  He is passing the buck back to the states in question. That is certainly his right, and within the rules, but he is sure not showing any leadership or guidance.

That said, in his defense, there is no way for him to make suggestions at this point without showing favoritism.  

Good post. n/t (0.00 / 0)

The MI and FL state legislatures pushed to move up their primary dates (0.00 / 0)
and they knew full well that they were breaking the rules.  A Dem in FL is the one who introduced the date change for FL.

The states screwed their voters.  The states broke the rules.  Therefore the states should pay for the do-over, not the DNC.

We Need a Compromise on Michigan and Florida | 31 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox