Not Against The Rules

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:00


I think one of the major flaws I have as a writer is that I try to make several points in a single article. So, in this post, let me try to rectify that by making a single point: there are no actual rules binding how any delegate must vote at the convention, and no rules binding how the credentials committee should approve delegates for the convention.

OK, I guess that is two points. Still, none of the following are against the rules of the Democratic convention (more in extended entry):
Chris Bowers :: Not Against The Rules
  • It is not against the rules for superdelegates to vote, en masse, for the candidate who wins the popular vote across all primaries and caucuses, no matter how those superdelegates choose to define the "popular vote." It just isn't.

  • It is not against the rules for superdelegates to vote, en masse, for a candidate who did not win the popular vote, no matter how those superdelegates choose to define "popular vote." It really ain't.

  • If superdelegates want to vote for the candidate that gave them the most money, they can do that too. No rule prevents this.

  • It is not against the rules for the DNC credentials committee to seat the delegations sent by the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties, no matter what sort of delegation those parties send. Come June, the committee will have authority in this matter, and they can seat whatever delegation they see fit to seat.

  • It is not against the rules for the DNC credentials committee to refuse any delegate from Michigan and Florida no matter who those delegates are and no matter how those delegates were chosen. Those two states could hold new primaries that feature 100% turnout, not a single spoiled or provisional ballot, six months of non-stop campaigning by twelve candidates, and $200 million spent from each candidate. Even then, the credentials committee could still tell the Michigan and Florida delegations to stick it where the sun don't shine. That would not be against any rule.

  • If the DNC credentials committee wants to seat Michigan but not Florida, or Florida but not Michigan, they can do that, too. Hell, the committee can choose to not seat California if enough members agreed.

  • If pledged delegates don't want to vote for the candidate they were elected to support, that is their business. Even "pledged" delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they were elected to vote. Seriously.

None of these possibilities are against the rules--not a single one of them. The lack of binding rules is why I have been trying to argue for over a week that proposals for how delegations should be seated, and how delegates should vote, must be based on values, not rules. In the end, there are no actual rules binding how any delegate must vote at the convention, and no rules binding how the credentials committee should approve delegates for the convention. There just aren't. Come June, the credentials committee can do virtually whatever it wants to determine who is and is not a delegate. Come August 25th, delegates approved by the credentials committee can vote for whoever they want, even someone who is not currently a candidate.

When virtually nothing is actually against the rules, the fight over delegates is not about rules. It is, instead, about values. It is on the basis of values that proposals over who should be a delegate, and how all delegates should vote, must be made. In the interests of not confusing the matter further, I won't suggest any values for our delegates or our credentials committee to follow. All I will say is that whatever values they follow won't, in the end, actually be against any rules.  

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Not Against The Rules | 26 comments
This is what Pelosi has in mind (0.00 / 0)
I think just such considerations are behind the statements of Pelosi and her daughter Christine about the need to have a unified party without the perception of a "backroom deal" in any direction.

Rules are rules except when they aren't.  Two rules count.  One rule is that the Creds Committee gets to decide who is seated, and the leader of the delegate vote influences that committee, no?

The second rule is that the delegate count is the proxy for popular support, not the actual number of votes cast.
Popular support in terms of number of voters is slippery because of different rules for caucuses and the failure of some states to actually count the raw numbers of participants.  So invocatiosn of "the popular vote" is not really legit IMHO.  The rule is that the pledged delegates represent the voters of their states, however they are selected.

The unspoken rule is that no one person (or couple) is above Party.  The superdelegates should vote for the person with the most popular support as measured by delegates, superior organization (likely to be reflected in delegate totals) and superior enthusiasm level (also likely to be reflected in delegates).

That's basically what Pelosi is saying.

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

Credentials committee (4.00 / 2)
169 members of the committee are largely determined by the campaigns according to the proportional breakdown of pledged delegates in the states and territories. 25 others have already been named to the committee by Howard Dean. The most recent estimation I saw of the credentials committee was something like 54 for Obama, 41 for Clinton, plus the 25 named by Dean. There are actual rules governing the composition of the credentials committee, which in the most utterly abstract level is I guess all the campaigns are fighting over right now.

From that point, it is all about values. I mostly agree with the ones Pelosi put forth, except that I think Florida (barely) meets acceptable standards of having their delegation allowed into the convention as is.

Reasonable people can disagree on the values used to determine how delegates should vote, and which delegates should be seated. I just hope we start arguing on the basis of values, and drop this charade of "rules."

[ Parent ]
Not disagreeing (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for the info on the Creds Committee.

Agree on the values over rules.  My "unspoken rule" is really a value--no ones ambitions are more important than the health and welfare of the Party, and winning.

Suggesting that super delegates follow the popular will doesn't answer how to measure the popular will. (Agreegate or state-by-state?  Delegates or votes?) I'm just suggesting that there has been a decision, through the mechanism of delegates itself, that "the popular will" is measured by delegate totals and not by aggregate popular vote totals.  As you say, any delegate can vote for whomever he or she wants, really, but that suggests the whole process is a charade, which only fuels cynicism and passivity.  If we value a large and enthusiastic electorate supporting the Dem party, we wouldn't want to encourage behavior that induces cynicism and passivity, even if it's not technically against the rules.  I think that's part of your point.  

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

[ Parent ]
Which values apply depends on the pledged delegate margin (0.00 / 0)
See my argument here.  It should be obvious that for superdelegates to vote their personal preferences if Obama leads by three pledged delegates going into the convention is a completely different matter than if he leads by 300.

As for Florida "(barely) meet[ing] acceptable standards of having their delegation allowed into the convention as is," my values (and I'd think yours as well) dictate otherwise.  To use a football analogy, if you scoop up a fumble and the play is whistled dead, it's OK to run into the endzone for show or just to be safe, but it's not OK to claim that the points should count.

The Florida and Michigan contests were whistled dead.  The players stopped playing, other than some some slight going through the motions.  To suddenly retract the whistle and count the points would be a grave insult to the values of democracy and fair play -- and it would be seen as such, to the strong detriment of the party.  "Reasonable people" may argue otherwise, but they're not making a reasonable argument.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

[ Parent ]
Credentials Committee mistake (4.00 / 1)
One rule is that the Creds Committee gets to decide who is seated

I continue to see this mistake about the authority of the Credentials Committee reported again and again.

There is only one body that can seat delegates to the Democratic National Convention and that body is the Democratic National Convention Delegates themselves.  The Credentials Committee presents reports suggesting which lists of delegates the Democratic National Convention delegates get to choose among.

The Credentials Committee can report only one list and then that list will become the Convention.  But any group with 10% (18) members of the Credentials Committee can present an alternate list (a minority report) that the Democratic National Convention delegates will then have to vote on as a proposed list.

There could be up to nine proposed lists.

Since each candidate will have over 18 loyal advocates on the Credentials Committee, each candidate's point of view will be submitted to a vote by the Convention.  Thus, the Credentials Committee has no power to seat delegates and no power to force the Convention to seat delegates and no power to block a candidate from getting a vote to seat its preferred delegates.

The Credentials Committee is irrelevant.

The Credentials Committee has no power to change this process.

Now you may ask, who selects the initial body of delegates who vote on the reports of the Credentials Committee and actually seat the delegates?  The temporary role of delegates that gets to vote only on seating the official final role of delegates is set by the rulings of the Democratic National Committee.

And the Democratic National Committee has already authorized final delegate selection plans by 48 states and the territories (and Dems abroad).  The other two eligible states have passed their deadlines to submit such plans.

So the initial role will include all the duly selected delegates, including superdelegates.  It will not include FL and MI delegates because there has been no selection process to choose delegates for FL and MI.

That is ultimately why FL and MI delegates won't help determine the nominee but superdelegates can.

[ Parent ]
Know what? (4.00 / 2)
I don't care in the slightest what is or isn't against the rules.  Either we as a party have a democratic election for our nominee, or we don't.  And no obfuscation, just come out and say it, we really don't mean it when we say we're Democrats.  We know better, you know crap.  

To my mind, we can tilt about the values vs rules canard all day, but at the end of it the plain truth is that there is no reason why select party insiders should have any extra weight whatsoever in determining our nominee.  Superdelegates, the entire notion of such a thing, it just flies in the face of democratic principles.  

Yes, we can exhort the Supes to vote with their constituents or with the voted delegates, but at bottom, you have to ask yourself, why is this even necessary?  Why do we, the voters and the organizers and the cash contributors have to abase ourselves just to get these "super" delegates to respect a simple matter of voting?

Whoever gets the nod this year, I hope we've learned enough to realize that this system is severely lacking.

The Wages of Sin is about $5.15 an Hour.

It's only lacking if the vote is close. (0.00 / 0)
A close vote is emblematic of two good, strong candidates and the decision to award delegates proportionaly and not by winner-take-all.

I'm not sure either of those is inherently bad.

The supers will go with the winner, assuming there is a winner.


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

[ Parent ]
And remind me why we have super-delegates? (0.00 / 0)
I was a wee lad in the aftermath of the 1968 convention but I was aware that the Democratic Party decided to change the rules to make the process more inclusive of women and minorities.  I guess super-delegate were instated about 1980 to provide more stability to the selection process. Or something like that.

But a recent statement by Senator Bill Nelson (FL), who is a super-delegate is further evidence that the role of the super-delegates need to be re-evaluated again.  From a Tavis Smiley interview:


Tavis: Let me start by asking why you decided to endorse Mrs. Clinton.

Nelson: Well, that's a 20-year personal friendship. Our families have known each other; our children have grown up together. It was the natural thing for me to do. She obviously is well qualified, and having said all of that, I feel very, very sanguine about Barack as well. He's a personal friend in the Senate as well. But when it came down to the long-standing personal friendship, it was clear that that's who I was going to endorse.

When I saw the interview, his statement didn't affect me.  Bill Nelson is one of my senators and he nearly always disappoints me anyway with his near-Blue Dog votes.

But the next day I realized just how wrong his rationale is for his super-delegate vote. I give him credit for his candor but it borders on the tragic that so much campaign effort can be extended to win one pledged delegate--and to have that effort offset by a "long-standing personal friendship" that is not based on any merits.

In no way can I construe any good being achieved by Bill Nelson and the basis for his vote; his behavior only helps to maintain the status quo.

Chris' points about no rules generally applies to Bill Nelson and gives him the leeway to be candid about the weight assigned to his personal loyalties.  Smarter people than me will have to devise ways to improve such imperfections...but some sort of standards or changes in procedures seem to be clearly needed.

[ Parent ]
wages of sin (0.00 / 0)
I had always heard that wages of sin was death, but that after taxes and fees, it's really more of a tired feeling.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Agreed; also SD data (0.00 / 0)
I agree entirely; very well argued.

Chris, in case you're interested, I've been tracking (and will continue to track) the super delegate movement.

I'm not sure how you feel about tracking/publishing this data given your arguments regarding super delegates in general. If you're okay with this data in general, feel free to use it however/whereever you like.

Details in this diary:

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

I think the "rules" people talk about have different definitions (4.00 / 5)
Basically, I think most people know that there's nothing against the rules for FL or MI to be seated or not.  The "rules" that people refer to is the "agreement" by which the candidates pledged to abide by before the primary season started.

In other words, before the primary season started the DNC voted to strip FL and MI of all delegates.  The candidates signed a pledge that they would not campaign there (and the DNC said if they did, they'd be stripped of all delegates, if I'm not mistaken).  The candidates didn't really put up a fuss over it at the time, and these were essentially the "ground rules" that were established before we started voting.

So, essentially... the argument goes that if we count FL and MI now, we're shifting these "ground rules" that the candidates had agreed to before the primary started, before they realized whether they'd be helpful or hurtful to their candidacies.

As you mention, the "official" rules basically show that the credentials committee can do whatever they want, that "pledged" delegates can do whatever they want, etc.  But the "ground rules" agreed to by the parties involved have already decided what would happen to FL and MI, and that's why it seems like they would be "breaking the rules" if they decided to just count them.

Endorsement (0.00 / 0)
http://www.jsonline.com/story/...

Obama just got the endorsement of the major Wisconsin paper, two days before the primary in that state....    pj

Trifecta (0.00 / 0)
He's also gotten the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Dallas Morning News.

I believe these are those states' largest papers, though I may be wrong on TX.

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

[ Parent ]
Houston Chronicle (0.00 / 0)
endorsed today

Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.
[ Parent ]
Do Endorsements Matter? (0.00 / 0)
Honestly... I just don't think endorsements matter at all, especially from newspapers.

Has an endorsement really mattered at all at any point in this race so far?  If they have, I'd say it's probably limited to about a 1% boost.  There's probably not really a good way to measure it, but I just don't think they swing things at all.

[ Parent ]
Well, (0.00 / 0)
The Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary, the Boston Globe endorsed Obama, and the LA Times and SF Chronicle endorsed Obama, so I think you're on to something.  Maybe there's more of a bounce by not getting endorsed.
[ Parent ]
I generally agree (4.00 / 1)
You can't have a rule that covers every contingency or you would have a set of rules that rivals the tax code. Ultimately, on a lot of issues you have to rely on values like fairness.

So the credentials committee can give credentials to whomever they want.

But this much is also true: there was a rule governing when primaries could be held and Florida and Michigan violated that rule. That rule was one upon which the candidates and the voting public had every right and reason to rely.  And, while the credentials committee has the raw naked power to ignore that rule ex post facto, in doing so they will be joining Florida and Michigan in violating that earlier rule. They may have immunity from such violation, but it doesn't change the fact that they are joining in the rule violation.

And it speaks volumes about a candidate's values when such candidate seeks to profit from a rule violation.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


Probably poor form to reply to your own comment (0.00 / 0)
But this speaks to candidate values and demonstrates the  absurd argument the Clinton campaign is forced to make on this issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


[ Parent ]
Good point(s) (0.00 / 0)
Semantic emphasis difference:

Given that it is not about rules, it's really about values power.

Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.

Power and Values (0.00 / 0)
Well, what will happen is, as always, about who has the power and how they choose to exercise it. What should happen is, again as  always, about values.

As for the connection between the two, let's just hope that those with power guided by the right values when exercise it.

[ Parent ]
Agree and embarrassed (0.00 / 0)
This is what, the 20th time you've had to spell this out?  This is obviously correct, Chris, and I personally find it embarrassing you need to repeat it.
Speaking of rules... (0.00 / 0)
If there are any Floridians out there, what do you guys think of Dan Gelber's proposal for compromising on the FL delegates?

Link to his FL House-rep blog here for description:
http://www.dangelber.com/news/...

Thanks

Not a Floridian (0.00 / 0)
Nor an expert on the rules. But I would argue that HRC would be wise to support something like this for a number of related reasons.

First, agreeing now would allow her to bump up her total now, which in turn would be evidence for her 'it's roughly a tie' meme, which is vitally important in keeping the dam from breaking prior to OH and TX.

Second, the least likely outcome is the one that she currently favors: MI and FL seated as is in a situation where it would matter. Obama will never agree to it, especially if this compromise is available. The DNC will favor this type of compromise over the all or nothing vote and could institute it by fiat before the convention. And individual Obama delegates voting on this in committee will be unlikely to vote in favor of Hillary if she has rejected such a compromise.

Bottom line: she needs to grab these delegates when they can do her some good.

[ Parent ]
It's a luxury to even have this "problem". (0.00 / 0)
One caller to Randi Rhodes's show the other day put it very well:  she said that it's a luxury to be able to pick and choose between two strong, viable candidates.  Amidst all the intramural squabbling between the two candidates, that was a nice reminder that we usually don't have this "problem"--in the olden days we'd be stuck with whichever bland candidate the media had crowned by this point.  Netroots are making a difference.  
Eh. (0.00 / 0)
IMO, it's two bland, viable candidates.  
[ Parent ]
bland? (0.00 / 0)
Obama and Clinton would not be my 2 top choices if I were queen and personally got to pick the next President, but considering the political realities of this country they are pretty fricken' good.

I have voted for every Democrat since Dukakis and I will be happier voting for either one of these two than I have in all my 20 years of voting.  {lets not forget the Al Gore of now is far different than the Al "better not mention the environment" Gore of 2000.}

{And I am a very strong Obama supporter.}

[ Parent ]
Not Against The Rules | 26 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox