Delegate Totals Are Not Assigned By God

by: nebraskajohn

Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:12

In 2005 the DNC decided, nearly unanimously, that extreme front-loading of the primaries was going to be a big problem. Similarly, the unnatural power of Iowa & New Hampshire needed to be mitigated,  or all the other states would rebel.  The problem with the plan that was hatched (which involved bumping up the Nevada caucus, etc) was that it had to be self enforced.  The DNC couldn't actually control when Idaho & North Dakota state parties decided to have caucuses, or  when the state legislature of Florida states would set their primary.  

So to enforce the plan, the DNC gave incentives & punishments.  Strong strong incentives - to states that were willing to push back their dates - and stern warnings to states threatening to disrupt the balance.  

Take Nebraska as an example:  When Nebraska first floated our plan to have a caucus on Feb 9th (as opposed to our usual May primary), the DNC offered us something like 30% more delegates NOT to go through with it.  

There was a very raucous & prolonged debate among the Nebraska Democratic Party Central Committee over what to do, and ultimately it came to a judgement call.  The higher chance of have an influence on who won by going early, was more important to us than the chance to have extra delegates.  Was it the right choice?  

Well the Nebraska Caucuses were a huge hit, so perhaps it was.  But on the other hand, those extra delegates are looking pretty good right now- and if our caucus was on say, March 21st, I bet we'd get some pretty sweet media attention.  But that's the point- we made a choice.  

Other states made choices too:  Kansas, North Dakota, Washington, Maine, and a lot more states besides... some states chose to give up some delegates to get to go earlier.  Some states, like PA & NC decided to hold their regular late contests, and were awarded maximum delegates.  Two states decided that going super early was worth the risk that they would loose all their delegates entirely (as they had been promised they would).  Those states did get unprecedented media attention- much more than they would have received by voting on Super Tuesday- but they had their delegates stripped, as they knew they would.  

But the fact remains that it was a choice made by the democratically elected state party in each state.  For the Clinton campaign to argue that we should seat the Florida delegation would be like Obama to argue that he should get 10 more delegates from Nebraska.  For Michigan to have a chance to redo their caucus at a later date, and have it count, would be like for Kansas to try to redo their caucus in May to get 20 more delegates too.  

[a bit more elaboration in the extended]

The fact is that delegate proportioning has never been equal based on population.  It's always been weighted using a multi-pronged approach.  In 2008 North Carolina has far more delegates than it "should" based on State Population, or even Democratic Performance or registration.  Conversely, Iowa has far less representation than it "should" based on population.  But those are the rules we agreed to this round- and I doubt North Carolina OR Iowa would want to change them.  

We can't go back, because these are the only rules we have, the rules we all agreed to.  To try to change them now to what they "should have been" to start with is a ludicrous experiment in chaos & an invitation to corruption.  

So should we seat Florida?  Should Michigan get a redo?  Well I have friends who are delegates in Florida, and I want to see them in Denver.  And I have some other friends in the Young Democrats of MIchigan that are leading the call for a new caucus.  For many political reasons, it is probably best if both things happen.  

But we should make no mistake about it, changing the rules now is not the fair thing to do.  And if Clinton wins because of those delegates, it will have been no fairer an election than Florida was in 2000.**

So, one last time, let me say this:  Delegate Proportions are not based entirely on state population, or the number of democrats in a state.  To say the people of Florida deserve to have their voice heard equally with the people of any other state is to ignore the very framework of the DNC Convention & Rules.  No state has "equal" representation with any other in our primary.  But they each have representation in a way that they agreed to, and that we all agreed over a year ago.  

**I'll still vote for her- but I won't be too thrilled.