Posted: March 6, 2008 1:59 PM
Florida, Michigan Battle for DNC Representation
 Email This
Political leaders in Florida and Michigan met Wednesday evening to begin talks on an agreement with the Democratic National Committee — which stripped both states of their delegates as punishment for holding early contests — to gain representation in the August convention.
On Wednesday, the governors of both states released a joint statement condemning the DNC for their ruling last fall, and calling for Florida’s 210 and Michigan’s 156 delegates to be accounted for.
“This primary season, voters have turned out in record numbers to exercise (their right to vote), and it is reprehensible that anyone would seek to silence that voices of 5,163,271 Americans.” Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said in their statement. Although millions voted in the Florida’s primary on Jan. 29 and Michigan’s on Jan. 15, and Sen. Hillary Clinton won both, neither contests was considered fair to all the candidates. In Florida, Democratic hopefuls promised not to campaign, and in Michigan, Sen. Barack Obama voluntarily took his name off the ballot.
Obama was vague about his opinion on the best solution. “We have played by whatever rules the DNC put forward and we will continue to play by those rules, and whatever the rules are, we think we’ll do well,” he said, according to The Miami Herald.
”I don’t think a Democrat can turn his or her back on Florida, so yes, I think Michigan and Florida should count,” Clinton said on NBC’s “Today” show. “How we get to them counting is really up to the people and the leadership of those two states.”
Clinton has softened her stance from previous statements. The New York senator has been an outspoken supporter for months on getting the pledged delegates from both contests seated, and even in the event of a re-vote, some feel she would have the advantage in Michigan.
“Any opening of this question favors her,” Stephen Hess, a politics expert at the Brookings Institution, told The Detroit News. “She would do well in Michigan. The state is in serious financial distress like Ohio (where she won Tuesday). Anything she can do to reopen the bidding in a way she could fairly win the delegates would benefit her.”
Democratic Chairman Howard Dean released a statement Wednesday giving the states options to either submit a proposal for choosing their state’s delegates or wait until summer to appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee. He emphasized, however, that the DNC is “not going to change the rules in the middle of the game” out of “respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules.”
If the states were to reschedule voting, questions over who would pay for it, what type of contests would be held (primaries or caucuses), and when they would be held are still to be determined.
Crist “said he spoke with Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson and agreed that ‘the only way to consider the possibility of that is to have the Democratic National Committee pay’ for a new election,” the Miami Herald reported.
Michigan’s Granholm, who backs Sen. Clinton, said she may be in favor of a privately funded caucus or “firehouse primary” — where voters are sent to fire department stations and other government organizations — in order to cut down on costs.
-- By , NewsHour with Jim Lehrer | Comments | Link
|
Vote 2008 Subscriptions 
I think that it is horrible that Democratic officials in Michigan and Florida are blackmailing the Democratic Party, saying in essence, "Pay for a new election or we won't support the party candidate in the fall."
The Democratic Party did not disenfranchise voters in MI and FL; their own state officials did, by advancing the primary dates too close to the beginning of the primary season. Maybe those state officials should pass the hat to pay for a new election, if they want one so bad.
I just watched the gentleman from Florida say he felt it was more fair to have the election now that there are fewer candidates. Why did they move up their primary then? Those of us in states like Pennsylvania which usually have no ability to choose the candidate due to our late primaries, don't have the luxury of complaing about not getting a choice in past elections. These states knew what they were doing when they moved their primaries forward and what the penatlies would be. They can't now change their mind now that it is politically and economically beneficial for them.
I don't know how anyone can cover this story without addressing the elephant in the room: both states knew what the rules were but chose to ignore them. Why hasn't any reporter held accountable the folks responsible for igoring the rules? I just watched the broadcast on Thursday, March 6, and this important aspect was never addressed. Instead, we were favored with arguments about how important Florida and Michigan will be to the Democratic candidate.
What we learn from this, thanks to the reporting, is that it's okay to ignore the rules; someone else will pay for it and it's all good.
Bad lesson to be teaching.
Florida and Michigan democratic party leaders made a conscious decision to avoid the rules established by the party and are now crying about being disenfranchised. Why didn't the local party consider the voters when they mde their decision? The only answer is to have a reelection at the cost of the local party
The DNC set forth rules and Florida and Michigan chose to ignore them; they were well aware of what the consequences would be. They decided to go ahead and do what they thought was in their best interest. Now unfortunately we have essentially a tie race in the Democratic primary and Florida and Michigan do not have a voice. It is terrible and an outrage, but so are government officials, who are elected and entrusted by their constituents, that disregard rules that they are expected to abide by and toss them aside for their own selfish gains. You reap what you sow. It truly is unfortunate because as a voter that has almost lost all faith in our system of democracy, (Florida behaving shamefully again is of no surprise)and voting for Hillary in her campaign for the white house- hoping beyond hope for change and for someone that can stand up to the injustices of a obviously broken system, counting these states would most likely be in her favor. But how can it possibly be done NOW fairly? Time can never be recaptured. The same people are no longer in the race; it changes the face of the primary- falsely--it becomes twisted. To even suggest that the candidates pay for a re-vote is ludicrous. These states willing decided to against the DNC's rules and now are asking the DNC and the candidates and by way the supporters of the candidates--me, to pay for their dishonest dealings, selfish, self serving, and cut throat behavior just because you didn't like the outcome! I do not think so.The only 2 solutions I can see are 1) accept the votes as they are--unfortunately I guess Michigan will have to be dismissed completely since Obama removed himself from the ballot. or 2)Stick to your guns and not accept either state. They broke the rules and now they have to pay the consequence. Otherwise the message you are sending for future states--if you don't do what we say we'll act like it is NOT OK and strip you of your delegates and then after you make a stink and again serves our purposes because it is a tight race we will spend extra money on you to fix what you did wrong and out of the taxpayers pockets. Because do not make a mistake many of the donations to these campaigns and the DNC are coming from hardworking people giving what little they can spare.
Frankly it is disgraceful and quite the mess. Consequences as in rewards have to be given with reason and consistency or they lose their ability to accomplish any goal set forth. Any parent or teacher attempting to raise responsible children into the forthright citizens can tell you that lesson.
Let�s see if I have this right:
1)The rules governing the Democratic primary schedule were agree to by both Florida and Michigan
2)Both states chose to break their own rules by holding their primaries ahead of schedule, thus losing the right to seat their delegates at the convention (a punishment they knew about ahead of time, by the way, because see #1)
3)This story is about discussing how to seat these rule-breaking delegates from these rule-breaking states.
Shouldn't the real story be about why the Democratic primary rules are being broken in the first place? If the Democrats are incapable of following their own rules, how are they any different from the Republicans and the Bush Administration who refuse to follow some major tenets of the Constitution?
How about this simple cheap solution: select on random basis 2000 electors in each State - get them to vote by verified secret ballot or electronic ballot between Clinton/Obama and send the correct number of delegates (from these "ordinary" Americans) to the DNC. Justice to the officials who have weakened the US democratic process by their breaking of the rules.
I cannot believe that it is March and we are now going back to a primary held January 29 and another primary, in which one of the leading candidates for the presidency was not on the ballot.
I believe changing the rules mid stream would have very strong repercussions by all of the voters out there and start a very bad precedent for future primaries.
I'm under the impression that many states release their pledged delegates to vote however they choose, if no candidate wins on the first ballot.
Couldn't FL and MI delegates be allowed to vote on the 2nd or 3rd ballot, if there's no winner before that?
I'm sorry but I posted something a few moments ago with going over the spelling. If you do post my comment, would be kind enough to post this corrected versions. Thanks,
CORRECTED VERSION
Elections were set up in Michigan and Florida with the understanding the delegate votes wouldn't count. If Obama were the candidate behind in delegates and the Obama campaign demanded the delegates be seated based on the previous results, would the voices of the people in these states even be an issue? I doubt it. The Clinton campaign, based on its more often than not knee-jerk reaction of attacking and distorting everything in its way, would call Obama a poor loser. Clinton would be on the airwaves openly complaining that he is dividing the party for self-interest. My guess Clinton would be telling him to resign and get behind her to beat the Republicans. And it would be persuasive.
Clinton used to say, "they're attacking me because I'm the frontrunner." Now she's calling any criticism of her questionable because it's divisive. Is she really asking we the people to now cheat so she has a better shot at the forerunner position again? If so, it's not entirely her fault. She has advisers, the same old advisers who still use all the campaign tricks we've watched men in particular architect over the years in these campaigns. It's skillful and interesting but we the people are trying to get away from that kind of manipulation. The country needs to realign its political molecules so we the people have a voice again not so Hillary Clinton has a better chance of finding her voice and making history. Let the voters in Michigan and Florida go out and vote again in June. Let the states pay for it. Let them caucus because it will cost them less. Let the people have their say but do not change the rules to suit the personal and political designs of one candidate.
James Carville had a novel solution to this problem.
He suggested that the Clinton camp would contribute 15 or 20 million towards new primaries in FL and MI, and challenged the Obama camp to do the same.
Would this not relieve tax payers of the burden of paying for a redo?
I think a second round of primary elections in FL and MI are a waste of time and money. The states could send their super-delegates to the convention to vote the will of the voters per the original primary results.
I am just astonished that this issue stays alive. Of course, the Clinton campaign wants it to. I am so grateful that I am not raising children today when the rules don't matter and if you whine enough you get your way. Hillary you are a great role model for women.