Michigan Democrats: Split Delegates 69-59

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Democrats working to get the state's delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday suggested splitting them 69-59 between presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan of its 128 delegates for holding its presidential primary too early in the year. The state also has 28 superdelegates.

Clinton has argued that she should get 73 delegates based on the results of the Jan. 15 primary, which she won _ 18 more than Obama.

Obama, who removed his name from the ballot, wants the 128 pledged delegates split evenly, 64-64.

The compromise, suggested Tuesday in a letter to Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer, fell halfway between the two proposals.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the campaign looked forward to working with national and Michigan Democrats to find a solution.

Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker said "the bottom line is that Michigan's votes must be counted."

The four Michigan Democrats who made the proposal are Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, Sen. Carl Levin and Democratic National Committee member Debbie Dingell, wife of Rep. John Dingell.

"While we expect that neither candidate will explicitly embrace this approach, we believe that the DNC should adopt it and both candidates should accept it because it is fair and because it would resolve an impasse that with each passing day hurts our chances of carrying Michigan and winning the presidency," they wrote.

Michigan Democratic Party spokeswoman Liz Kerr said Brewer was reviewing the proposal and had no comment.

The DNC stripped Florida and Michigan of their convention delegates _ 366 in all, including pledged delegates and superdelegates _ for holding their primaries too early in the nominating process, which violated party rules.

Clinton and Obama agreed not to campaign in either state as a result, and Obama joined other candidates in removing their names from Michigan's ballot.

Clinton won both contests. Trailing in delegates, with 2,025 needed to become the party's presidential nominee, Clinton and her campaign have been pressing for those primary results to be recognized. Obama, who wants to preserve his lead, objects.

Both states have abandoned plans to hold do-over contests that would count, but are demanding to be allowed to participate in the voting for the nominee at the party's national convention in Denver in late August.

Last week, the party's Rules and Bylaws committee announced a May 31 meeting to consider a separate plan to give each pledged delegate half a vote at the convention as a way to resolve the dispute over Florida's and Michigan's contests. Superdelegates would keep their full votes under the plan.

Comments

[jarotra]

05:57 AM on 05/01/2008

The DNC rules committee is meeting on May 31 to decide the fate of MI and FL delegations.

As an Obama supporter, I would accept a solution that followed the original DNC penalty listed in the rules, that is count elected delegates at 50%. This would give Clinton half her delegates. She certainly cannot claim any uncommited delegates - they specifically chose not to vote for her. All uncommitted should be listed for Obama.

The penalty also says all DNC superdelegates and add ons lose their vote as well deserved punishment for screwing things up for their state.

Basically the same format for FL, as long as Clinton does not try to void FL delegates for Obama on a technicality that his commercial aired in FL. That exception was already allowed by the DNC .

The half count of MI and FL would give Clinton 89 added delegates, Obama 61 added delegates, and Edwards 6.5 added delegates. All elected, with no DNC supers and no add ons.

At current totals, that would put Obama at 1793, Clinton at 1686, and Edwards at 25.5

Of course I have no delusion that anything sensible will happen at this point. Hopefully it will become moot before May 31.

[PrdAmerican]

11:59 PM on 04/30/2008

Yeah, punish the guy who didn't have his name on the ballot and actually followed the rules..in this bizarro upside down world that's what's fair now I guess...ignore the crazy lady with her goal-posts on wheels!

[jmangan]

09:45 PM on 04/30/2008

What's fair is to follow the rules and not seat the delegates. I live in Michigan and am a registered Democrat. We had no say in whether to move the primary up or not, and now our so-called party leaders want to decide who we would have voted for if we would have had the chance. We didn't have the chance, because of them, and they should be held accountable. There is no Constitutional right to vote in a primary, so no voter was disenfranchised. We were simply screwed by our state party leaders. If Clinton's name hadn't been left on the ballot, she wouldn't want to seat the delegates either.

[sandiaview]

08:00 PM on 04/30/2008

All these people dumb as rocks? I guess so. Look what a mess they got their state into. 50/50 split is the only fair thing to do!

[tanyainsacramento]

06:04 PM on 04/30/2008

Not Fair

50/50 is fair!

[HowardRoarke]

04:32 PM on 04/30/2008

Michigan: We held a sham election - soviet style with one major candidate. Of those who bothered with it, 45% voted for "Uncommitted".

Based on that, we'd like everyone to accept our entirely made up result of giving Hillary 69 delegates, and Obama 59.

To not count our made up results of a sham election would disenfranchise the people of Michigan. Well, not so much the voters who didn't get a fair election, but the Governor and the other Hillary supporters who don't really believe in democracy and elections.

[Daisy1111]

11:40 AM on 04/30/2008

You know, the DNC rules also state that super delegates do not declare their vote for a candidate until the convention.

Yet Howard Dean is asking all of them to vote early.

SO why is he allowed to break the rules.

[NYC07]

12:47 PM on 04/30/2008

No Dean is asking them to declare early, not vote early , how could they vote if there is no Dem Convention going on.

[RedKnuckles]

01:07 PM on 04/30/2008

First off, there is technically no such thing as a "super delegate" in the DNC delegate selection rules document. These are unpledged delegates. Second, they can in fact "choose" a candidate whenever they want. I think you are confusing "voting" with superdelegates stating that they "intend" or choose to vote for a particular candidate. They can't technically cast their votes until the convention...that's where all the pledged and unpledged delegates lock in their votes, whether or not they have made their preferences clear. Voting then makes their choice official. Another point is that, as Hillary has often stated, they could always change their choice all the way up to the convention, even if publicly stated in advance.

Also, how do you explain the fact that so many of the superdelegates have already stated their choices so far? Dean has in fact not asked them to "vote" but rather to "choose." This is not, as you state, Dean breaking the DNC rules.

If you have information you can link to to support your statement, please provide a DNC site link...

[NYC07]

11:02 AM on 04/30/2008

When I was a boy in school I was taught that only Communist countries had elections with only one person on the ballot , and that this was unfair and was looked on as Un-American. Why is Hillary and her supporters pushing for us to go the Communist route with our elections. But then she was the only Democratic candidate who would not sign the pledge to restore the Constitutional rights removed by the Bush Administration.

[ohmercy]

04:04 PM on 04/30/2008

But then she was the only Democratic candidate who would not sign the pledge to restore the Constitutional rights removed by the Bush Administration.

Wow, really?

I hadn't heard this or misssed it somehow.

Can you tell me the number or name of the bill so I can look it up?
Or if you have a link please post it.
This is very interesting.

[scorpioleidy]

10:41 AM on 04/30/2008

69/59 Split??? Yeah, right .... good luck with that!!!
"Stop The Drama: Vote For Obama"
OBAMA '08

[1dogs2]

12:52 PM on 04/30/2008

A "compromise" would be a 50/50 split. That's half-way between Clinton's outrageous claim that she should get all the delegates acquired in a primary where, in accord with the previously agreed to rules, Obama (and most of the other candidates) did not even appear on the ballot; and the position that the delegates from a state that deliberately broke the rules should get 0 delegates, since they knew in advance that that would be the consequence.

[ohmercy]

04:06 PM on 04/30/2008

Clinton's outrageous claim that she should get all the delegates acquired in a primary where

when did she say she should get ALL the delegates?

My understanding that "winner takes all" is not what we do in the Dem party?

Oh, are you misleading on purpose?
silly.

[jimchap]

10:27 AM on 04/30/2008

Hillary only plays by HER rules.
She's already getting ready to nuke Iran.

Smart foreign policy brought to you by Professional Liars.

[Aleka4]

10:22 AM on 04/30/2008

Aye what a terrible idea.

There is no reason to split them in Clintons favor. They broke the rules, she agreed they wouldn't count, and there is no. reason. whatsoever. to -compromise- with a cheater who wants to seat them as is.

It should be 50/50.

[Grunty1]

09:51 AM on 04/30/2008

There really is only one option: a new, and thus legal vote, which both STATES have denied.

[annawing]

08:26 AM on 04/30/2008

Split evenly. Or not at all. There were a lot of people who were for Obama who stayed home or voted uncommitted rather than vote Hillary. Does the Democratic party really want to become the party of unfairness?

[Fitzy]

08:19 AM on 04/30/2008

So Hillary would get rewarded with 10 more delegates than Obama for breaking the agreement that she signed!

[aquarius2001]

07:46 AM on 04/30/2008

This is bulls--t !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 69/59 in favor of Clinton? On what panet is THAT fair? Give me a f uc-ing break!!!!!!!!