Important Note 5/2/2008:
This post will no longer be updated. A new post, with more current options, can be found here.
There are all sorts of options concerning Florida and Michigan, so we do what we do best - we run all the numbers:
The options are:
- Do not seat Florida or Michigan.
- Split the Florida and Michigan pledged delegations 50/50. Superdelegates are free to vote as they wish. (The list of Florida and Michigan superdelegates)
- Florida and Michigan hold new elections. (3/17 - Florida has announced they will not hold a new election as did Michigan on 3/19)
- Split Michigan 50/50 including supers. Give Florida pledged delegates 1/2 vote, but based on January election. 1/2 vote for superdelegates also. This is supposedly under significant discussion.
- Seat them based on the elections that have taken place. Give Obama the 55 Michigan uncommitted delegates.
- Seat them based on the elections that have taken place. Don't assume Obama gets the 55 Michigan uncommitted delegates.
Note: Many readers have asked why we continue to include options 5 and 6 in this post, and why we include option 6 in our sidebar. It's because politics is a strange business, and you never know what might happen in the future.
Important Note 4/5:
DCW has switched from AP to the Green Papers(GP) as our primary source of "Pledged Delegates". The Green Papers has done a better and quicker job of keeping their numbers up-to-date.
| FL & MI OPTIONS | |||||||
| Option 1: Do not seat Florida or Michigan. Current Status | |||||||
| Total Delegates Available: 4047 | Required: 2024 | ||||||
| Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Others(1) | NYA(2) | YTV(3) | Total | |
| Pledged Delegates(GP) | 1489 | 1337 | 19 | -- | -- | 408 | 3253 |
| Superdelegates (DCW) | 244 | 265 | -- | 285 | -- | -- | 794 |
| Total Delegates | 1733 | 1602 | 19 | 285 | -- | 408 | 4047 |
| Delegates Lead | 131 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Delegates needed to win Nomination | 291 | 422 | -- | -- | -- | Left | 693 |
| Option 2: With FL & MI 50/50 Split | |||||||
| Total Delegates Available: 4415.0 | Required: 2208 | ||||||
| Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Others(1) | NYA(2) | YTV(3) | Total | |
| Pledged Delegates(GP) | 1639 | 1487 | 32 | 0 | -- | 408 | 3566 |
| Superdelegates (DCW) | 249 | 280 | -- | 320 | -- | -- | 849 |
| Total Delegates | 1888 | 1767 | 32 | 320 | -- | 408 | 4415 |
| Delegates Lead | 121 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Delegates needed to win Nomination | 320 | 441 | -- | -- | -- | Left | 728 |
| Option 3: FL & MI hold new elections | |||||||
| Total Delegates Available: 4415 | Required: 2208 | ||||||
| Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Others(1) | NYA(2) | YTV(3) | Total | |
| Pledged Delegates(GP) | 1489 | 1337 | 19 | -- | -- | 721 | 3566 |
| Superdelegates (DCW) | 249 | 280 | -- | 320 | -- | -- | 849 |
| Total Delegates | 1738 | 1617 | 19 | 320 | -- | 721 | 4415 |
| Delegates Lead | 121 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Delegates needed to win Nomination | 470 | 591 | -- | -- | -- | Left | 1041 |
| Option 4: With FL 1/2 Vote & MI 50/50 Split | |||||||
| Total Delegates Available: 4309.5 | Required: 2155 | ||||||
| Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Others(1) | NYA(2) | YTV(3) | Total | |
| Pledged Delegates(GP) | 1489 | 1337 | 19 | -- | -- | 408 | 3253 |
| MI 50/50 split including supers | 78.5 | 78 .5 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 157 |
| FL 1/2 Delegate Vote including supers | 35.5 | 56.5 | 6.5 | 7 | -- | -- | 105.5 |
| Superdelegates (DCW) | 244 | 265 | -- | 285 | -- | -- | 794 |
| Total Delegates | 1847.5 | 1737.5 | 25.5 | 292 | -- | 408 | 4309.5 |
| Delegates Lead | 110 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Delegates needed to win Nomination | 308 | 418 | -- | -- | -- | Left | 700 |
| Option 5: With FL & MI (Obama gets MI 55) | |||||||
| Total Delegates Available: 4415 | Required: 2208 | ||||||
| Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Others(1) | NYA(2) | YTV(3) | Total | |
| Pledged Delegates(GP) | 1611 | 1515 | 32 | -- | -- | 408 | 3566 |
| Superdelegates (DCW) | 249 | 280 | -- | 320 | -- | -- | 849 |
| Total Delegates | 1860 | 1795 | 32 | 320 | -- | 408 | 4415 |
| Delegates Lead | 65 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Delegates needed to win Nomination | 348 | 413 | -- | -- | -- | Left | 728 |
| Option 6: With FL & MI included - Results Upheld | |||||||
| Total Delegates Available: 4415 | Required: 2208 | ||||||
| Obama | Clinton | Edwards | Others(1) | NYA(2) | YTV(3) | Total | |
| Pledged Delegates(GP) | 1556 | 1515 | 32 | 55 | -- | 408 | 3566 |
| Superdelegates (DCW) | 249 | 280 | -- | 320 | -- | -- | 849 |
| Total Delegates | 1805 | 1795 | 32 | 375 | -- | 408 | 4415 |
| Delegates Lead | 10 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Delegates needed to win Nomination | 403 | 413 | -- | -- | -- | Left | 783 |
| Last Updated: 05/01/2008 | |||||||
Notes: The options and table are sorted from the highest candidate's lead to the lowest.
Others(1): Include Unknown, Uncomitted & No endorsements yet
NYA(2): Not Yet Assigned.
YTV(3): Not Yet Voted.
120 comments:
I've been trying to find the impact of FL and MI delegates based on his current lead. I knew it was big, but I had no idea it was that substantial. Basically, FL is not enough by itself to help her. Bottom line is that the ONLY way for Hillary to take a delegate lead is to count as a "victory" an uncontested election. That'll go over well.
I want to see if I understand this.
Unpledged delegates, or superdelegates, are party leaders or elected officials that make a judgement call on who to vote for at the Democratic National Convention.
Pledged delegates are people who are selected by some group of people to place a vote at the National Convention. They pledge to make a certain vote. They don't have to honor that pledge, but overwhelmingly, they do.
The voters here select the actual delegates by name on the ballot, I don't know if that's the case everywhere or if the actual people are selected by the state party in some places. But the people that are selected really don't matter. Each one is a just Democratic National Convention vote, in human form.
In scenario #3, the uncommitted delegates would pledge to Obama, and they'd be just like every other pledged delegate.
But in scenario #2, for all effective purposes, the 55 uncommitted MI delegates are unpledged. That pretty much makes them superdelegates, doesn't it?
The thing that separates The Michigan 55 from other superdelegates is, as of now, we have no idea who they are. Whoa.
Albeit being a really stupid way to run a country, The Michigan 55 concept is really exciting. It's kind of like Lost.
I think, as always, your numbers are spot on. And I say that with both awe for the detail work and the correctness, as well as great appreciation.
Sadly, as much as the numbers matter in terms of who wins THIS nomination. Rather, "sadly as much as the numbers SHOULD matter in terms of who wins THIS nomination" there is a far broader issue.
If the Michigan and Florida votes are allowed to stand, the Democratic party AS a party effectually dies. This because it will have lost the ability to set rules which its members (the state delegations) are required to follow. We lose the party of Jefferson to effective anarchy.
They can re-vote, and it will be what it will be.
It's been said that it is wrong to disenfranchise the MI and FL delegations, but they knew the rules. NOT ONE Democratic voice in either state stood up in either state when the dates were being discussed and said they should follow the rules.
The turnout numbers in most states were far lower as relates to Republican turnout -- meaning to accept the current tallies is to disenfranchise potentially MORE voters who did not vote than the ones who did. And that doesn't even get to the point of whose names were and were not on the Michigan ballot.
While the numbers truly mattered, every time I think of it, I am sickened by how ugly the Clinton campaign is willing to stoop.
They are willing to cheat to win, to the point of dismantling the oldest and greatest political party in the history of the world.
It's shameful.
As a Florida Democrat I would be willing to accept the option where FL gets half as punishment, like the RNC did. I think it is important that the allocation of the delegates reflect the will of the voters. Non-Floridians need to understand that the primary was not the only race on the ballot--there was a Constitutional amendment that will effect all Floridians very soon, so the excuse that some did not vote is not valid. Those that didn't vote made that choice.
As to breaking the DNC rules--I didn't!!! I voted in a state run election and I believe my vote should count! I don't give a rip about the silly rules that are NOT laws or even state statutes, or even county ordinances.
My understanding is that the candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida and expect for the Obama ads on CNN, this agreement was not violated.
Since the voters are not subject to DNC 'rules', and the candidates mostly followed their agreements, the vote should stand!!
Page in Jax --
While I feel for your position as a voter -- the United States is a country of law, founded on the rules promulgated by the Constitution.
When Florida sued the DNC to get the votes accepted, the decision was based on Constitutional law. Amendement 10 gives the state the right to set any voting legislation they want because of "other powers" not expressed granted to the Federal Government fall to the states OR THE PEOPLE.
BUT the DNC operates as a group protected by the First Amendment's right of assembly. They are free to set any rules for their members as they desire, provided those rules do not break other laws (e.g. even if your group says it is okay to murder, it isn't.)
Your problem SHOULD be with your state, not with the DNC. Your state DID break very public and discussed DNC regulations.
Voters in primaries are subject to DNC and RNC rulings. While the states are free to set dates and times of elections, and whether they be mail-in, primary, caucus, or the Texas 2-step, for the findings to be accepted, they must meet the requirements of the the RNC/DNC. This is the same way that the National election date is set and states are not free to suddenly decide they want to vote in the Presidential election on the first Monday in November.
If we give up Constitutional law, we lose everything as a Nation.
Accepting the results of the previous election is such an absurd notion that I don't know why people keep mentioning it. Oh, wait - Hillary keeps talking about it because it gives her a big advantage, even though she signed a pledge that the primaries wouldn't count...
"Just say no to another primary": Editorial opinions from MI. I thought folks might be interested in this article from our very well-read alternative newspaper here in Michigan's capital. It's a novel or at least interesting argument against a revote.
http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1683&Itemid=2
There is only one viable and appropriate option for Florida:
Here is the fundamental problem with Florida. The culprit here is the FDP and not the voters or the candidates. But any penalty you mete out hurts the candidates and the voters more than the party.
There is only one viable option:
A re-voting of one sort or another which while the most equitable and enfranchising still has the potential of altering the results and thus potentially penalizing or benefitting one candidate or the other and at the considerable cost of a campaign in the state to both candidates.
On this I come back to the issue of the people should have a reasonable expectation that the vote they cast either will on will not count. The people were informed that the vote would not count and were told to vote anyway by the FPL. Shame on the FPL for telling the people of the state that ultimately it would the results would be binding even when the candidates had not campaigned. People did not vote because it was being called a beauty contest. There may well have been a record turnout, but there were many potential voters who did not vote because they understood it was a waste of time in the eyes of the DNC.
The DNC did not recognize that election, nor should they now. It would be disenfranchising to voters who did not vote and unfair to candidates who did not campaign. There for the only logical option if you are going to revote. It has to be a full primary. It will be far more expensive, but there ultimately little difference between $10M and $25 Million given the amount of money that is available from fat cats.
The problem I have with this is that it effectively imposes no actual penalty on the FDP If they are seeking outside financing for the event.
The Only way to effectively penalize the FDP is to strip the state of its super delegates and reapportion them according to the popular vote in the new Primary. This empowers the voters, gives them more power at the convention and only penalized the party hacks who created this mess in the first place.
Here's my solution for Florida and Michigan.
It's cheap, and it's fair, and it's decisive.
Apportion their delegates according to the number of delegates each candidate wins in all of the other remaining primaries. They also have their super delegates.
Two other things to consider:
1. The candidates and party officials could agree to apportion the delegates by some other abritrary proportion (say 51-49) in either or both states to avoid the uncertainty and cost of new elections
2. There is already a lawsuit in the works to make the superdelegates in both of those states count regardless as they say excluding them violates the DNC bylaws
to accept the previous votes is utterly absurd and to propose it, as hrc has, is truly pathetic. If those who are winning about this are so worried about the voters who did vote HOW about the voters who didn;t knowing that their votes would not be accepted, HOW about those who were not allowed to hear the candidate campaign in their state/town etc - why choose to disenfranchise them. Only complete revotes should be allowed and then what penalty for not following the agreed upon rules - perhaps discounting the new votes as a percentage per delegate 1/2 or 3/4 vote perhaps.
The solution is for obama to win in pennsylvania, then NC, Indiana, and oregon would follow---and the most fitting justice of all would happen---no one would care what florida and michigan did.
There's another possibility that isn't addressed: each state does something different. Florida's democratic party seems to be having major organization issues that could theoretically preclude a reelection; similarly, one state or the other could run into funding issues, resistance from one of the many groups who have a say (voters, the state party, the campaigns, the state's representatives, etc.), or any of a number of other problems that the other state is able to work around.
Of course, the campaigns would likely reject one state re-voting if the other does not. But still, in the sort of up-in-the-air scenario that is playing out, this is a distinct possibility.
Here is my two cents on this matter:
There was no logic to the Rule that only 4 States can vote in Jan 08. A Rule that cannot be justified is no Rule.
Since the candidates are very closely tied, forget about the czarist arrogance of the DNC to be punitive in its stand.
Don't disenfranchise several million voters because of what some illogical Rule said, or what State Govt did.
Either take AS-IS, or run another Primary, period.
Running another Primary in these two States will be very costly, time consuming and the outcome will NOT be any different from what it is now. Then why bother?
What's wrong with AS-IS? Nothing.