A FAIR Solution to the Florida/Michigan Problem

[Krashkopf]

These are "self-inflicted wounds." The State Parties in Florida and Michigan disenfranchised their own voters by "cutting in line" ahead of the Super Tuesday states.

The votes already cast in those states are "null and void" because ALL of the candidates agreed not to campaign there, and then one of them BROKE that agreement, campaigned in, and ran unopposed in, those states, and NOW says that the votes should count.

That would be patently UNFAIR to the other candidate, who HONORED the agreement and did not compete for votes in FL and MI.

The ONLY fair way to seat Michigan and Florida convention delegates (which SHOULD be done) is to allow the STATE PARTIES to pay for, and hold, new fully contested, primaries or caucuses.

The LAST THING we need is a BROKERED CONVENTION, and the Candidates, and Howard Dean, should do EVERYTHING within their power to avoid that result.

[pioneer111]

1. I am okay with a brokered convention

Nothing can fix the FL and MI problem. Caucuses are a problem and there are many stories on how
pushing and shoving have intimidated people from Iowa on. I don't trust their results either.

[Windy]

2. I am in Michigan. Our local news here reported this morning that the DNC

is encouraging Michigan and Florida to hold caucauses so that voters are provided with a free and fair election opportunity.

Apparenlty this has been picked up by other news organizations:
http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/020708/loc_n4001.shtml

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080207/NEWS15/802070434/1001

[papau]

4. Obama wants caucues since he is an expert at using the college kids to win those.

[pampango]

11. Caucuses do favor Obama and primaries without campaigning favor Hillary.

I'm not accusing either of anything untoward.

My impression is that Hillary starts with a sizable lead in opinion polls in most states as campaigning begins. Obama is a good campaigner and seems good at winning over enough votes to make states competitive by the date of a primary (whether you like his style or positions on issues or not), when people have the chance to see him and listen to him.

That leads to the conundrum that we are in. If we use the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries, it is not fair to him since he was not allowed to bring his strengths to bear in the contests. (Heck, if there was no campaigning in any primary state, Hillary would already be our presumptive nominee. :) ) I could see him saying that they all agreed not to campaign there and that there would be not delegates awarded, which was fair at least from the candidates' partisan perspective. I could imagine he would be unhappy, if later on the "rule" about no delegates was changed, but it was too late to change the "rule" about no campaigning.

But, if we switch to a caucus format at this point that does seem to disadvantage Hillary. If there are no "mulligan" in politics, as some posters have said, hence no make-up caucus or primary, this will all get dumped in the lap of the SDs at the convention. They don't want to disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida, but what do they do?

[papau]

14. MSM is 24/7 Obama - but "name recognition" is Clinton - I'd call it a draw

[pampango]

19. I did not mention "name recognition". If you disagree that Obama is

an effective campaigner and tends to do better in states in which he campaigns, you are entitled to your opinion.

I think that Hillary is a very good debater and a great campaign strategist. Obama is a great public speaker and puts together a good ground organization. His supporters would, I think, believe that not allowing campaigning in a state particularly disadvantages him, so they would be reluctant to accept the resulting poll results.

[Windy]

21. It was common knowledge that the votes were not going to be counted. For that reason alone

as a lot of people may have sat out the election, we need a caucaus or re-vote if the delegates are going to matter in the election. Its not a matter of campaigning.

People didn't go to the polls as they were very well aware in my state of Michigan and more likely than not in florida too that the vote made no difference.
THAT is the problem with attempting to seat the delegates!

As it stand now, the only way that the delegates are going to be seated is if after the nominee is chosen, he or she decides to seat them.

If you want the delegates to make a difference, then a caucaus or revote must be held pursuant to the DNC.

[papau]

3. Why the lie? - Hillary did not campaign - indeed Obama was the one to break the rules in FL

[Perky]

16. How do you feel about Hillary saying before the FLorida Primary

That she would fignt to have them seated?

[Krashkopf]

5. Sorry, I'm a Big "D" Democrat AND a little "d" democrat . . .

I don't want a small group of powerful "insiders" picking my candidates. I don't care WHO those "insiders" are.

[Orangepeel]

18. What if the "insiders" are any registered Democrats who show up?

With all the press the nomination process is getting, there is no reason to believe that caucuses would be small or that only the powerful would attend.

Some states have "secret ballot" caucuses (I don't really understand it, but I know it is possible), so there could be a multi-hour window where people show up, cast a ballot and get to go home. That sounds like a primary to me, but if it solves the problem to call it a caucus, fine.

[LakeSamish706]

6. If they are going to seat the delegates, divide them equally among the two candidates. n/t

[rateyes]

7. If that happens, I imagine they would have to hold caucuses

rather than primaries. I doubt the states are going to want to ante up several more million dollars for the use of voting machines, etc.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Right. The states would be in charge of primaries.

And they won't because it has to be enacted into law for them to conduct another primary and that won't happen.

The DNC had offered to Florida to pay for a caucus but they refused. I don't know if the same offer was made to Michigan or not.

In my opinion, primaries should be open only to those that are registered as Democrats or voted in the last Democratic Primary. Caucuses should also be limited. But since they would not have the resources such as poll books to identify whether they are registered or their last vote they would need to utilize a different procedure. And since there are County Democratic Party organizations in each state a possible solution would be to have the following permitted to vote in caucuses:
All precinct (ward) chairs and vice chairs;
All county officers;
All elected local government officials;
All previous elected or appointed county, district or state convention delegates;
All previous elected national convention delegates;
Any active volunteers to previous election campaigns

This I believe would provide a good representation of Democratic voters. Maybe other groups need to be added but can't think of any others at this time. But appears to be the best setup without including any special interest groups that might gain an advantage.

The campaigns would pay for the mailing to notify the above of a question and answer session prior to the caucus and allow those attending to sign up as volunteers or anything else. So that address and phone numbers are not given to the campaign unwillingly. The local Democratic Party organization would pay for the site rent if needed and set it up.

There would have to be a procedure to allot voters to the correct district tally because there are counties that are split between congressional districts.

[Onlooker]

8. Neither of them campaigned

Obama ran a few ads by mistake, and Clinton shook some hands after a fundraiser, but they both honored the agreement. At any rate, their state parties are not going to want to pay for caucuses or elections or even organize them. It's a lot of work. The only fair way is not to seat them or to accord each state a percent of the total delegates. For instance, if Obama has 52% of the delegates and Clinton 48%, then give him 52% of the Florida and Michigan delegates. There is no fair way, but they have to find a way to seat those states.

[557188]

9. Backing out of Michigan was stupid to begin with

When you make political mistakes you don't get "do overs".

[Tarc]

10. You're right about the broken agreements

Dennis Kucinich actively campaigned in Michigan.

Barack Obama ran a national spot that OOPS also it the Florida airwaves.

What shall we do with these miscreants?

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Yes

Kucinich should not have campaigned in Michigan - but I don't think it had much of an impact.

[Orangepeel]

15. The DNCs original compromise offer for Florida was that the DNC would pay for caucuses after the 5th

At the time, the state party refused. I believe they said it would be too complicated given how big Florida is, but I think the state party just thought the DNC would give in.

If the offer is still on the table, I think they should take it.

I don't know anything about Michigan.

[KittyWampus]

17. Goodwill gesture, DNC offer to pay for caucuses.

[LiberalFighter]

20. How complicated can it be?

Set up the caucus locations in each county and caucus. The only thing they would need to verify is in counties that have more than one congressional district that the caucus voter is in voting in the right district.