What should be done with MI's and FL's Dem delegates?


  1. Nothing. Let them cast no votes at the convention, just as the DNC decided in the first place when both states’ legislatures moved up their primary dates in defiance of party rules.

  2. Seat them, as proposed by HRC, who won both states’ we-know-this-doesn’t-count primaries.

  3. Split the baby: Let Clinton and Obama divvy up the delegates 50-50, an idea discussed in this editorial.

  4. Have a do-over primary or caucus in each state. Another idea discussed in the above editorial. This seems to me the fairest solution, but it raises the question of who would pay for it; not the state, you can be sure.

Stupid question maybe, but has eliminating the MI and FL delegates changed the number of delegates needed to win at the convention? As a registered Independent, I couldn’t vote anyway.

But for the op, Number 2. Seat them.

Wow, that seems really unfair. But Wait, I’m for HRC so its perfectly fair.

How is splitting the delegates exactly halfway any different than not counting them? Living in FL and having missed my chance to vote for Obama i think the only fair thing would be to stick to their guns and not count the votes, but having a do-over would be acceptable.

Only a majority of all seated delegates is needed, AFAIK. But Florida has, or would have, 210 delegates; it makes a big difference whether and under what circumstances they are seated.

I would say that the convention shouldn’t be allowed to waste the state’s money holding an election they don’t plan to honor.

The correct set of choices, in my opinion, should be:
a) hold the election and honor the results
b) if you don’t plan to honor the results, don’t hold the freakin’ election

That way it doesn’t become part of a political game of if they voted for my candidate, then I’ll ask that our convention honor them; but if they voted the other way, we honor the rules we set.

It should never have got to this point.

[shrug] It means they get to go to Denver.

Where is the convention being held?

Florida held an election on that day, a primary for both parties (plus a ballot initiative), because it was required by state law; what the DNC decides to do about the results is not the state’s concern.

Don’t seat them. They knew the delegates would not count so the states should have cancelled the election or held it at the proper time. The US has become a banana republic.


When you speak of “the states,” be clear on what you mean. The state’s government is one thing, its Democratic party another. I don’t know about MI, but in Florida the primary date was changed by a Republican-controlled state legislature. The people being disenfranchised by the result are Florida’s Democratic voters.

Of course, it would patently unfair to seat the delegates based on a primary that no candidate seriously contested because it was presumed not to count. Even more unfair WRT Michigan, where campaigning was so negligible that Clinton and (IIRC) Kucinich were the only candidates on the ballot.

Oh. Well, then, Denver’s got some pretty good partying action going on, don’t they? C’mon, it’s a convention, they can lighten up, have a drink, get laid…

…err, that’s the Florida and Michigan delegates. The rest of them have some serious work to do.

By all three whores in Denver! :slight_smile:

Or am I thinking of Salt Lake City?

Presumably, they, like the other elected delegates, would only be bound for the first ballot. So I suppose in the extremely unlikely event that no one got a majority on the first ballot, then FL’s delegates could vote how they pleased.

But realistically, there probably wouldn’t be any difference in the outcome if they were divided up equally, other then the symbolic value of being able to get to go to Denver and be included in the convention.

And the Democratic Pary of Florida could’ve chosen to ingore the results of the primary and held caucasus on their own. That’s what the Dems in Washington state do.

Well, we’ve never done that before, we’d have to learn the process from a cold start, and it would cost the party money. The January 29 primary was run at state expense.

A fifth option might be to do (ex post facto) as the Republicans did, and cut their delegations in half.

That would still be an advantage to Hillary, but not as much of one.

(I’m not advocating this. Just pointing it out as an additional option.)

Whatever should have been done should have been done before any election took place, you simply cannot count an election were everyone was told the results would not count as valid in anyway.

Actually some state parties run their “caucasus” just like a primary. You show and fill a ballot out (no listening to speeches, muscial chairs, etc). You’re right about the money though.

The folks actually holding the election (the FL/MI Democratic Party) knew it was meaningless under the rules - so why waste time and money? When the people realized they were not going to get to vote, it would be their job to convince the powers that be to comply with Party rules so their votes would count.