Why not Seat Florida and Michigan as Uncommitted Slates?

[kennetha]

I don't know exactly how uncommitted delegates actually get chosen. Maybe let the state parties somehow choose them. Let them go to the Convention as uncommitted. Let them vote their conscience. Let both Clinton and Obama try to persuade them. In effect that would create 300 some additional "superdelegates."

This (a) re-enfranchises the people of Florida; (b) does not give either candidate an automatic leg up; (b) gives Florida and MI a great opportunity to actually influence who gets the nomination; (c) saves the expense of a primary; and (d) would make for a VERY dramatic convention, one that would not resolve into a bitter dispute, since it would probably be seen as fair to all sides.

The repugnants couldn't begin to compete.

Am I missing something? Is there any reason either FL, MI, the DNC or either campaigns would object?

The one kink I see is I don't know who would actually name the uncommitted delegates. I would think the state parties. But then the candidates might not like that. Maybe let Hillary name 1/3. Barack name 1/3 and the State party name the other 1/3. But they would al be uncommitted on the first ballot and could vote whichever way they chose - just like any other delegate.

[villager]

1. On first blush, that seems like a very good idea...

n/t

[gasperc]

2. right, a fist fight for the 300+ delegates

yeah that would cool

[kennetha]

7. Why would it be a fist-fight?

Couldn't it just be a mini-campaign of sorts with a small constituency. We would see real debate and discussion that really mattered at the Convention. It would give the convention a GREAT sense of drama and importance.

It would almost guarantee a joint ticket, too, which I think would actually be terrific. And the delegates could basically decide who would be the Prez nominee and who would be the VP nominee. Are there really any downsides?

[grantcart]

10. where are you going to find people that are honestly undecided and

who gets to pick them? Are you going to have lie detector tests? I admire your spirit but its not practical.

[gasperc]

19. wait...your brownie idea but make them 'special'

it could work:eyes:

[grantcart]

8. food fight better lol

[grantcart]

11. how about a cook off - the one with the best brownies wins

[DrDan]

3. it sounds like a reasonable approach - better than what we have right now

but I think the DNC has to get a rep from Clinton adn a rep from Obama and sit down and come to some conclusion - one that seats the delegates and gives them a voice.

EVERYONE needs to be represented at the convention.

[TahitiNut]

4. Are "uncommitted delegates" found in the same place as unicorns and tooth fairies?

:rofl:

[debatepro]

5. Impossible...

Let them go to the Convention as uncommitted.

How can you find out if the delegate are actually uncommitted? Seriously. This is why delegates are picked by the candidates or caucuses. I highly doubt there are to many uncommitted democrats in FL or MI. And then how would you prove it. 50/50 is the more fair solution.

[DangerDave921]

6. So wrong

So you would create 300 more superdelegates. How would that re-enfranchise the voters of FL and MI? You yourself said these delegates would vote their conscience, which means they are not beholden to the actual votes of their citizenry. So the actual voters still would not have their voices heard.

FL and MI HAD an opportunity to imact the election, and they screwed it up by blatantly violating the rules. This whole notion of a re-do is so annoying. Ooops, their bluff got called and now they run home crying that their votes aren't being counted. Too bad. Either we need a whole new primary or the delegates should not be seated.

Creating more superdelegates just adds more confusion to the mix. And who would these new 300 superdelegates actually be?

[kennetha]

9. None of the Delegates are bound

to vote for the candidate to which they are pledged. They are ALL free agents. But because they are hand-picked by the candidates, they are likely to be loyal. But the rules don't require them to be. The Florida and MI delegates would thus be no difference.

The delegates would be residents of the two states. They would be committed to acting on behalf of their fellow Floridians or Michiganders. But they would be free to use their best judgment. Let each campaign chose 1/3. Let the party apparatus in each state chose another 1/3.

[DangerDave921]

13. So wrong part deux

You can't equate delegates from a primary win with delegates chosen to act as superdelegates to vote their conscience. You know primary delegates vote for their candidate. So don't pretend it's an even swap.

And if each candidate picks 1/3, then that 1/3 is going to go to that candidate. That leaves only 1/3 of the delegates up in the air.

I say that FL and MI fucked up big-time by doing early primaries. It's their own fault what's happening now. Rules are rules, and when you change them midstream because you don't like the outcome, then you are violating basic principles of fairness.

[kennetha]

14. Then let the party pick all the delegates

There must be some way that uncommitted delegates get chosen. 40% from MI were uncommitted. However they get chosen is how they should be chosen here, I guess.

[DangerDave921]

15. don't seat the delegates

That's the simple, fair, and agreed-upon result. Everyone knew going in that those delegates would not count. If the voters feel cheated, they need to talk to their state legislatures or party heads who flaunted the party rules and scheduled early primaries.

[juajen]

12. Why not give Hillary the two states she won fair and square?

After all, if Obama has this in the bag as so many of you proclaim, why not do the big thing, and let Hillary have her states?

[dysfunctional press]

16. mostly because it was in no way "fair and square".

sheesh...:eyes:

[Debi]

17. Which states would that be? nt

[kennetha]

18. That would be MI and FL

My own preference would be to see these seated as voted. But can't see how that is going to happen w/out a fight. I'm trying to suggest a reasonable compromise. Seat the entire delegation as uncommitted delegates. Still don't see the downside of this idea.