Florida/Michigan fiasco

[Chip]

Well isn't this the perfect storm of confusion.

In a nutshell, this issue is this. Florida and Michigan wanted their primaries to be more important, so they bumped up their primaries to earlier dates, without the permission of either DNC or RNC national parties.

The results of this unapproved move were decided upon by RNC and DNC honchos before the whole primary season kicked off. The RNC decided that Florida and Michigan would only get half the delegates they normally get. The DNC, however, decided that Florida and Michigan would not get any delegates in the nominee process. The elections were still held in those states, but no candidates campaigned there, and Obama wasn't even on one of the ballots.

Now, because of the extremely close race for the Democrat nomination, neither candidate can reach the delegate number, 2024, needed to secure the nomination. Not without Florida and Michigan's delegates.

So officials have to decide, in the middle of the primary season, what to do and how to do it fairly. Voters in Florida and Michigan make a strong case that they want to be represented. However, there's also a compelling argument that Florida and Michigan knew they were breaking the rules and that there would be consequences, which they now have to face up to. In other words, it came back to bite them. Nevertheless, without their delegates, neither candidate can officially win the nomination.

And they're also faced with another problem - money. It'll cost $10M to hold a revote in Michigan and $25M for one in Florida. The DNC doesn't want to pay that money. They want to save it for the campaign against McCain once a nominee is picked. Some have proposed that the Clinton and Obama campaigns should split the cost evenly. But even that decision can be seen to favor Obama, who would lose a smaller percentage of his capital than Clinton.

I haven't seen anything about changing the number of delegates required to win. It does disenfranchise Florida and Michigan primary voters, but perhaps that's the price to be paid for their state parties' decision to do what they did.

In any case, it's quite a mess, and the longer it takes to resolve, the longer McCain has to chip away at both candidates and start winning over undecideds.

-Chip

[jimfath]

The DNC made a decision and they should stick with it...

This race is exciting but it's coming at a huge cost for the Democrats. Re-doing these elections will only fuel more division and weaken their party's chances in the fall.

poolside waiter: Can I get you another drink Senator McCain?

[Chip]

I agree with you, Jim. The problem is that if they stick with their decision, there will be no Democratic nominee, because the rules state that the nominee needs 2024 delegate votes, which neither can now mathematically get.

So they either have to change their ruling on Michigan/Florida, or change the number of delegates required, or just say declare that the winner has a simple majority of eligible delegates (instead of specifying the exact number at 2024).

My own personal opinion is it should be the latter. Michigan and Florida screwed themselves, and if they wanted to protest the decision, somebody should have made a stink about it before the primary race started.

-Chip

[frankandbeans]

So, moving the primaries ahead would make them more important when? Were the state parties thinking toward the next election, by when perhaps their changed dates would be accepted? I remember hearing that they understood their would lose their delegates this go around.

Is the expectation with a thing like this that, yes, you will lose your delegates this year, but then by the next election people will have accepted your new dates? Or what?

[kremidas]

I agree with you, Jim. The problem is that if they stick with their decision, there will be no Democratic nominee, because the rules state that the nominee needs 2024 delegate votes, which neither can now mathematically get.


This is slightly incorrect. The delegates to the democratic party can nominate whoever the choose, it isn't like the electoral college where you absolutely must achieve a certain number of electoral votes, but even then the house of representatives would vote on the next president. But there is no magic number in the democratic primary. achieving that number will clinch the nomination, but it is not strictly speaking required to win the nomination.

The democratic primary system is a mostly arbitrary system, which is why Hillary Clinton is still alive right now. Despite being down in popular vote, pledged delegates, and states, she could still use her insider status to get "super delegates" to nominate her.

[Chip]

That's interesting. The way the CNN report was reading, they made it sound like it was necessary to achieve a set number. I imagine there's a lot of misinformation out there on exactly what the rules are and how flexible they are. Which also means there's a lot of potential for exploitation. So let's keep an eye out and not let anyone pull a fast one.

-Chip