The process of seating MI and FL delegates...some good diaries.

[madfloridian]

I see so much tough talk, and trust me...I hear so much bully talk on TV here...about getting back at that bad DNC and that very nasty fellow, Howard Dean.

Here are some sensible diaries on the topic. I posted the rules but it dropped. Required too much reading. These diaries make it easier.

From MyDD

How would the Florida and Michigan delegates actually be seated?

There is still a lot of reading here, but just a couple of snips. Michigan and Florida will not be placed on the Temporary Roll. And then it's in the hands of the 2008 Democratic Convention Credentials Committee.

Challenges to the seating of any delegate or alternate shall be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee. Any challenge to the seating of a delegate or alternate that is not made in conformity with these rules shall be deemed waived.

Upon the request of members representing twenty percent (20%) of the total votes of the Credentials Committee, a minority report shall be prepared for distribution to the Convention delegates and alternates as part of the committee's report.

This diary at MyDD also uses some quotes from Ben Smith at Politico who spent a lot of time talking to DNC officials.

The process of seating the Florida & Michigan delegations

It is very difficult to post just a brief 4 paragraphs. You need to read all of it. It makes it sound odd after you read it for a candidate to summarily say they would seat the delegation.

Now, for the purposes of explaining how the delegations from Michigan & Florida will get seated and allowed to vote, let's say that once all the votes are cast, the delegates elected, and the standing committee members allocated, Hillary Clinton ends up with a majority of the votes (92) on the Credentials Committee. As I stated above, the Credentials Committee is the committee that determines the eligibility of each delegate to vote at the Democratic National Convention. Once the Credentials Committee is fully organized and constituted, Hillary Clinton could instruct her majority on the committee to include a resolution in the Credentials Committee Report that overturns the decision of the Rules & Bylaws Committee for the Democratic National Committee and seats the delegates from Florida and Michigan with full voting privileges.

If that happens, then the next step will be for the full Democratic National Convention to vote on the adoption of the Credentials Committee Report with the resolution that reinstates the voting privileges of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Interestingly enough, that's the first order of business that the Democratic National Convention delegates will have to take up.

And a little summation of what would occur if Hillary wants to seat them, using her as an example in the diary.

So let's go through this again step by step:

Each state allocates its standing committee members by the result of the statewide primary vote; as a result, Hillary gets a majority of the Credentials Committee members;

Hillary instructs her members of the Credentials Committee to include in the committee's report a resolution that reinstates the voting privileges of the delegations from Michigan & Florida; and

The full Democratic National Convention votes to accept or reject the report of the Credentials Committee. If the Democratic National Convention adopts the Credentials Committee Report, then Florida and Michigan are allowed to vote. If the Convention doesn't, then the Credentials Committee re-convenes and submits a new report to the Convention for its consideration.

Here's just a short snip from the Politico blog.

Florida, Technically

The possibility would come if the candidate who won Florida, say Hillary, also held a plurality, but not a majority of delegates. The decision on seating Florida would have to be made by the credentials committee, which is composed 25 people appointed by Howard Dean, and 161 who are chosen according to a formula that reflects -- but isn't identical to -- the outcome of the primaries and caucuses in each state.

So there's a scenario under which Clinton doesn't quite have enough delegates, but her allies gain control of the credentials committee, seat Florida, and push her over the top. Secondarily, it's possible that a minority, pro-Clinton report out of the credentials committee could be taken to the floor (though if Clinton doesn't have enough votes there for the nomination, it's hard to see how she'd have enough to seat Florida).

Not likely, but mathematically possible, among the various unlikely possibilities that lead to a tight delegate fight.

The DNC official floated another, intriguing option, under which Florida would be truly powerful: The state party could still agree to ignore the results of this week's primary, and instead hold some party-sanctioned caucus in March. Then, the DNC would relent, recognize the process and seat the delegates.

Ben then mentioned off hand like, that the DNC official reminded him Florida had been sanctioned. I thought everyone knew that. Hey, Ben....

[madfloridian]

1. Here is Ben Smith's statement from The Politico

the one he surprised me with. I thought everyone knew Florida had been sanctioned.

UPDATE: A DNC official called to reiterated that the DNC has sanctioned Florida, and therefore there are no delegates at stake tomorrow. And just to be clear, I'm making a technical point here, not a political one. The Florida party is going through the process of assigning delegates -- but it's meaningless without the kind of unlikely sequence I described.

[allinktup]

2. If they do decide to seat the delegates

They should make them have repeat-primaries and let them campaign. That's the only fair way to do it.

[Medusa]

3. Otherwise it's cheating

which is exactly what Billary wants.

[george_maniakes]

11. that makes total sense,

move the primary to a later date, open the state up to participation from all candidates, and you have a fair contest. Not this "well i agreed not to participate but i didnt agree not to change my mind" baloney.

[iamjoy]

36. Not An Option

No way our Republican held legislature would move our primary to a later date, even if Democratic legislators and the FDP wanted it.

The FDP never should have agreed to those rules - it's stupid for state parties to agree to rules when the state legislature sets the primary date. But strangely, this only seemed to be a problem in two states...

[huddledmass]

44. Senator Obama

has been running TV campaign ads here in Florida for the past week. No need for any do-overs.

[Demeter]

46. Absolutely!

Since Michiganders Couldn't vote for the candidates of their choice, all those Uncommitted votes would like to be committed.

[vssmith]

47. Agreed

If they seat delegates from Michigan based on our primary it would compound the sin. Many of us crossed over that wouldn't have otherwise.

[madfloridian]

4. And Florida already turned down the caucus option Ben mentions

that was months ago.

"The DNC official floated another, intriguing option, under which Florida would be truly powerful: The state party could still agree to ignore the results of this week's primary, and instead hold some party-sanctioned caucus in March. Then, the DNC would relent, recognize the process and seat the delegates."

[iamjoy]

39. Problems With A Caucus

It would have cost something like $8 million. True, the DNC was willing to help out to the tune of $1 million, but that still would have left $7 million out of state coffers. That's money they wouldn't have been able to spend on local races.

ALSO, caucuses exclude a lot of people. If you are in the military, you don't get a say. If you have to work the day or evening of the caucus (police, firefighters, etc) you don't get a say. If you have other commitments, such as caring for children or a sick relative - you may miss out on it.

All that said, I think other options could have been explored - find a way to offer absentee ballots for a caucus - or proxies to a caucus. Anyway, even with all the people left out of a caucus, it's better than everyone being left out by a rogue primary.

[Coexist]

5. madfloridian, thank you so much for your facts and research and sanity

thank you.

[madfloridian]

6. I don't think people want to read about the rules and facts.

I posted about the convention rules and it dropped like a rock.

This was on page 3 just now. I think it is interesting, no matter who one supports. It is not really that cut and dried.

We have voted early, and I dread tomorrow, listening to all the spin.

Hubby told me one station was blaming Dean again for all of it, and it is infuriating.

[joshcryer]

7. Dean and Pelosi both said the nominee would seat the delegates.

The only scenario in which the delegates would not be seated is if there was a contention where Obama had the lead and chose not to seat those delegates because it would hurt him. It's the only scenario where the delegates wouldn't be seated.

[madfloridian]

13. I am sorry, but you are not paying attention to the rules.

You just keep on posting your outrage, and you are just wrong.

I would be embarrassed.

[joshcryer]

17. Embarrassed, why? I seem to be articulating the issue well.

What other reason would a nominee have to NOT seat delegates unless it would HURT them?

[madfloridian]

15. I believe Dean's words were that the nominee would seat them...IF..

if one were already chosen by convention. Please correct me if I am wrong. Cite your source.

Karen Thurman keeps saying over and over that Dean said that. I think she is misquoting him.

[joshcryer]

16. Deans words were that the nominee could chose to seat them.

http://floridanetroots.blogspot.com/2007/10/floridas-de...

In other words, my scenario holds.

"The reality is if you want to know if Florida is going to be seated, ask the Democratic nominee as soon as one emerges," Pelosi said.

[madfloridian]

18. Technically, the whole thing is a moot issue.

Because our state craved media attention more than they cared about our votes counting toward the nominee.

And Nancy P. had her nerve comning out and saying it was not Florida's fault. Heck, I posted a whole journal on that one.

[joshcryer]

19. It's not FL voters' fault, even you can agree with that one.

Unless you do blame yourself for your shitty representatives.

[madfloridian]

22. It is the fault of Florida Demcrats. Period.

.

[1corona4u]

25. Oh, so now that you were wrong, it's moot?

Rigghhhht.

[madfloridian]

37. What was I wrong about. Please be specific.

There are about 3 people here who keep saying I am not telling the truth.

[george_maniakes]

8. thanx for the info!

clears things up a lot.

[joshcryer]

9. Kick for people that don't get it, this falls fast.

[george_maniakes]

10. Just a follow up question:

if florida democrats knew they would get penalized for trying to move up their primary date, why do it?

[joshcryer]

12. Politics. Why vote to fun the Iraq War after stating that you weren't going to?

Why vote for No Child Left Behind even though you know it's BS? The GOP in FL wanted to move the primary date up. The Democrats there didn't necessarily want to, but they were forced to vote to since they were in the minority, and it would come back to bite them in the ass later on.

[george_maniakes]

21. so because the republicans wanted to move up the date, democrats had to also...

why did democrats have to?

[madfloridian]

23. Ok, that did it. I am so damn tired of the whining that the GOP picked on them.

No, it was not the fault of the Republicans. It was done with the full consent of the Democrats and they admitted it.

"Florida Democrats are all for it"...March 2006. All for the early primary that far ahead.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

[george_maniakes]

24. so both the democratic and republican parties wanted to move up the date? n/t

[madfloridian]

29. Yes. They did it to be relevant...knowing the votes would not count.

Proof. Vindication. Both Florida parties did it for "relevance." From March.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

[1corona4u]

33. You know, I don't understand your agenda.

I really don't. This seems to be an obsession with you. Oh, and see my post below. I doubt they would blatently lie on a public website.

[madfloridian]

40. You are attacking my character and credibility.

Sarcasm and laughter on the floor of the Florida senate at the expense of the DNC as they laughed their amendments off the floor.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Amd much more.
]. Florida Democratic Legislators sponsored the bill to move the primary to January 29th;

2. Florida House Democratic Legislators voted in committee three times for the bill to move the primary to January 29;

3. All but one Florida House Democratic Legislator vote on the floor to move the primary to January 29; and,

4. Florida House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber stated, after receiving a call from DNC Chair asking for help in opposing setting the primary date before February 5, “I don’t represent Howard Dean.”

5. Florida House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber stated, after offering an amendment to move the primary to February 5th, that the only reason he offer it was “to show that there was an attempt to state within the Democratic Party rules.” The amendment failed on a voice vote with no debate being offered.

6. Florida Senate Democratic Legislators voted in committee to move the primary to January;

7. Florida Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller stated on the Senate floor that he was offering an amendment to move the primary to February 5 only because he was threatened by DNC Chair Howard Dean. Sen. Geller than mocked his own amendment which failed on a voice vote without any debate.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

[1corona4u]

26. YES, and that was BEFORE

the learned that they would be penalized!!

[george_maniakes]

27. so the florida democrats who wanted to move the primary date up...

had no idea the democratic party would penalize them?

[madfloridian]

28. Yes, they were told repeatedly by Dean and other DNC officials.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Proof. Vindication. Both Florida parties did it for "relevance."

[george_maniakes]

30. let me get this straight, the florida state legislature can order both parties to move...

up their primary date? that makes no sense, what if the florida legislature is full of republicans, what right do they have to move the democratic date?

[madfloridian]

31. The vote was 115 to 1, with Democrats approving it?

If you wish to say that is the GOP doing it, then that is your right. But it is not true. I just posted proof to you, and you choose to ignore it.

The Legislature IS full or Republicans....but if the Democrats had tried to stand up against them our delegates would not have been stripped.

[1corona4u]

32. That's the way it was reported...

The Rules say you had to try to stop the primary move, but Democrats voted for the law. What gives?
Initially, before a specific date had been decided upon by the Republicans, some Democrats did actively support the idea of moving earlier in the calendar year. That changed when Speaker Rubio announced he wanted to break the Rules of the Democratic and Republican National Committees. Following this announcement, DNC and Florida Democratic Party staff talked about the possibility that our primary date would move up in violation of Rule 11.A.

Party leaders, Chairwoman Thurman and members of Congress then lobbied Democratic members of the Legislature through a variety of means to prevent the primary from moving earlier than February 5th. Party leadership and staff spent countless hours discussing our opposition to and the ramifications of a pre-February 5th primary with legislators, former and current Congressional members, DNC members, DNC staff, donors, activists, county leaders, media, legislative staff, Congressional staff, municipal elected officials, constituency leaders, labor leaders and counterparts in other state parties. In response to the Party’s efforts, Senate Democratic Leaders Geller and Wilson and House Democratic Leaders Gelber and Cusack introduced amendments to CS/HB 537 to hold the Presidential Preference Primary on the first Tuesday in February, instead of January 29th. These were both defeated by the overwhelming Republican majority in each house.

http://www.makeitcountflorida.com/page/content/makeitco... /




Of course, madfloridian will just say this is all lies....

[madfloridian]

38. It is all lies. They laughed their own amendments off the floor.

Gelber admits they did not fight the GOP about the primary.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

"Florida Democrats are all for it"...March 2006. All for the early primary that far ahead.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

Details on how Florida worked with the GOP to set the early primary date.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

I would appreciate it if you would not follow me around calling me a liar.

[madfloridian]

41. You are quoting the Florida Dem party homepage. That page was biased

to make them look good and the DNC look bad.

They left out a lot.

If you want to argue prove your point with a neutral site.

[madfloridian]

14. They wanted the stage the week before Feb. 5....

because of the assumed candidate for Florida...it would make that person seem inevitable come Super Tuesday.

[george_maniakes]

20. "assumed candidate"...could you clarify that?

I thought the reason florida wanted to move up the date was to suck in as much tv-media coverage revenue as possible. I thought thats why all the states want to be as early as possible, because they see how much money and coverage iowa and new hampshire get from being first.

[Coexist]

34. and the powers that be here know whom they want crowned.

have for over a year.

[madfloridian]

35. Yes. They have.

If they had just left it alone, not pushed for the earlier primary....the delegates would have counted.

Did you hear Chuck Todd tonight on Countdown? Don't have the exact words, but he as much as said the delegates will not count. That the DNC rules governing the issue are pretty clear.

[tomreedtoon]

45. Wrong. There ARE no Florida Democrats.

I've said this so often I'm sick of it; the people claiming to be the Florida Democratic Party are the flunkies of the Florida Republican Party. They have not run a candidate worth his or her salt for perhaps the last fifteen years.

Now, if you're talking about people who would like to vote for a Democratic candidate that had some courage and some principles in common with the national party, there's lots of those. But the Republican flunkies don't want to give those people a candidate worth voting for.

[madfloridian]

42. If someone catches the transcript from Countdown tonight...

with Chuck Todd...I noticed he sounded pretty negative when asked about the possibility of seating the delegates. Sounded like it would not be done. I just did not catch all of it.

[madfloridian]

43. TAP has a very good article about the delegate process and

a possible brokered convention. Dean in an interview said he wanted the Republicans to have a brokered convention but not the Democrats. Sounds like it could get pretty rough.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_convent...

"So far, Hillary Clinton has amassed 36 pledged delegates (0.8 percent of the total), Barack Obama has 38 (0.9 percent), and John Edwards has 18 (0.4 percent). A pledged delegate is theoretically bound to vote for the candidate he or she is pledged to and each campaign has input in who is chosen as its delegates. (Voters also get to vote on who some of the delegates are.) However, while the DNC rules state that "delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them," there is no actual requirement that they vote for the candidate they are pledged to.

Note that the current numbers of pledged delegates do not include Michigan which, because it moved its primary before Feb. 5 without DNC permission, will most likely not have any delegates seated at the convention. Florida, which votes next Tuesday, has also been stripped of its delegates. However, both Florida and Michigan will send slates of delegates to Denver and a battle could erupt at the convention about whether or not they should be seated.

South Carolina will assign 45 pledged delegates on Jan. 26 for a total of 137 delegates assigned before Feb. 5. On the 5th, 24 states with 1,688 pledged delegates will vote. The remaining 1,428 pledged delegates will be assigned over the remaining months until the last vote, in Puerto Rico, on June 7.

Superdelegates

While voters will assign four-fifths of the delegates, the actual results could easily be decided by the remaining fifth -- superdelegates. The first thing to know about superdelegates is that there's nothing super about them. They get one vote at the Democratic National Convention just like pledged delegates."

[Midwest Progressive]

48. It pains me to say it

but I wonder if the RNC had a better way, just stripping half the delegates and allowing the candidates to campaign.

The Democratic party is less motivated and enagaged in these states, and the GOP has a leg up in key battleground states.

[madfloridian]

49. Not after they were warned repeatedly.

Those were the rules.

[Midwest Progressive]

51. Issue being, how should the DNC have responded?

I'm not saying no sanctions. I'm just saying that taking half the delegates was more pragmatic.

Winning the presidency in 2008 is more important than taking the hardest line possible.

[madfloridian]

54. Those were the rules. They knew what would happen.

So since Florida is a big state and very self-important, the penalty should be cut in half?

I don't think so.

They were warned, they laughed at Dean publicly and on the floor of the state Senate. It was all a joke to them.

[madfloridian]

50. Apparently FL and MI delegates won't count unless clear decision already made.

Which means that it really did not matter how I voted this last week. Just like it did not matter when I voted March 9, 2004, since my candidate dropped out February 18, 2004.

I am seeing too many people again trying to defend the indefensible. What Florida leaders in the party and the legislature did was indefensible.

Here is a post at MyDD and at Convention Watch 2008 which is discussing the Hillary statement that she will seat the delegates.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/27/192143/621

And we have a vote, state-by-state, the first meaningful state-by-state roll call at a Democratic Convention since 1980. Clinton would need a majority of the delegates (not including Florida and Michigan) to approve the Minority Report.

And then reality strikes. If Clinton can get a majority of delegates to support the Minority Report, than she has a majority of the delegates supporting her anyway, and she doesn't need Michigan and Florida.

But if she doesn't have a majority of the delegates supporting her, its hard to see why delegates supporting other candidates would vote to seat the two delegations, essentially helping her out. After fighting for the nomination for 2 years, why would Obama or Edwards and their delegates give up the fight in this way. It's just not going to happen. The delegations will NOT be seated if the nomination is contested.

[Midwest Progressive]

52. The DNC keeping New Hampshire and Iowa first is indefensible

There's no rational arguement for it. Michigan and Florida were challenging an outdated and counter-productive practice.

The results are messy, but the root problem was the DNC's decision on the four states they let go early, with Iowa and New Hampshire again first. And there's no justification for that.

[madfloridian]

53. No, they could change the primary system other ways.

In fact Dean even supports regional rotating primaries.

So it shouldn't have been hard to get cooperation. They are using that as an excuse for what they did.

That is not how you change the system, not by voting 115 to 1 with the GOP in Florida, working with them for well over a year to change the date. Then not telling the truth.

The DNC was looking out for all the other states by keeping order. They added two diverse states at the beginning as well.

There was no excuse for this.

[Midwest Progressive]

55. Putting Iowa and New Hampshire first makes no sense

I don't see how that's looking out for all the states' interests.

If Dean is for regional rotating primaries, I'm with him. So why didn't they take place in 2008? And why not at least put other states first for a change?

Can we agree putting Iowa and New Hampshire first in 2008 was a mistake? And if you don't think it was, what is your reasoning for them being first again?

[madfloridian]

56. I think some small states must go first.

Because of the personal nature of the campaigning. It is not only those states which see the candidates, we see them as well while they are campaigning.

It is very expensive to campaign in Florida as it would have to be done via TV ads.

There was no way to change the system overnight, but they did add SC and NV.

There was a committee in place which was already working on the primaries. It was appointed in December of 2004 by Terry McAuliffe as a result of a deal made with Carl Levin of MI

[Midwest Progressive]

57. We'll have to agree o disagree on that, my friend

It's unwise and unfair to exclude larger states from going first as well. I'd rather the preference of Florida voters be reflected in the nominee as opposed to New Hampshire voters. It would bode much better for our chances in November.

You can link to plans and what Dean says he supports, but bottom line, he and the DNC failed in ending the Iowa / New Hampshire lock.

[madfloridian]

58. Oh, we do disagree. Two big states were bullies

and hurt all of us.

[Midwest Progressive]

59. Peace n/t