More on Michigan and Florida

In case you’ve been living under a rock, a controversial issue this year is whether voters from Florida and Michigan should have their delegates seated at the Democratic convention. Both states ignored party warnings and moved their primaries up to a date earlier than the rules allowed. As punishment, they’ve had their delegates stripped, and currently have no say in who gets the presidential nomination.

In other years, this wouldn’t have been an big issue, because the race typically isn’t this close. With Clinton and Obama scrapping for every last delegate, though, suddenly it’s a flash point. Clinton, who did not remove her name from the ballot in Michigan (a controversial issue), won 55% of the vote, with “uncommitted” taking another 40% or so. In Florida, both names were on the ballot, but neither candidate was allowed to campaign there. Thus, Clinton’s name recognition carried her to a sizable lead.

Now that we have a battle on our hands, the Clinton camp would like to see those delegates seated. The Obama campaign is clearly against this. So right now, the options are as follows:

1) Recognize the results from FL and MI:
Most people agree that this isn’t a feasible course of action. It would be unfair, since Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in MI, and no one had a chance to get their message out in either state. Uninformed votes aren’t worth a whole lot, in my book.

2) Ignore the votes in those states
I can live with this option. There have to be consequences for breaking the DNC rules, otherwise they have no chance of enforcing them in the future. For the majority of Americans who would like to see Iowa and New Hampshire’s stranglehold on the early primaries broken, the DNC having a bite to match their bark is essential. The con to this solution is that both Florida and Michigan are key swing states in the next election, and pissing them off before November might not be a good idea

3) Seat the delegates, but split their votes 50/50
I only include this option because Markos proposed it yesterday. It has all the same problems as the first two options, and none of the strengths. Do you really think FL and MI voters are going to feel any more enfranchised when their delegates are proportioned by the DNC, rather than by their votes? Kos dropped the ball on this one.

4) Hold new primaries in MI and FL
This is the option that I’m most comfortable with, and there’s a precedent for doing it.

[B]oth Michigan and Florida have until June to submit plans to the DNC for a party-run contest—like Michigan did in 1996, 2000 and 2004, which they called a caucus but essentially operated like a closed primary—and bring their delegations in to compliance and avoid a controversy.

There’s precedent, by the way, for this kind of arrangement. In 1996 Delaware jumped ahead of their approved date, and the DNC did as they did this year with Michigan and Florida, and penalized Delaware by refusing to seat their delegation unless they conducted a DNC-approved contest. They did, late in the primary season, and their delegation was seated at the Chicago convention.

The major problem is money, but I bet the campaigns could be convinced to chip in from their massive war chests and earn themselves some goodwill in key swing states. In this scenario, the rules get enforced, the votes get counted, and swing states are appeased. Seems to be a win-win situation to me.

The problem with the last situation is that it allows the situation to continue. It shouldn’t have happened in the first place. If the states are penalised for breaking the rules they may think twice about repeating the exercise.

I’ll go for the first solution. Don’t seat them. The situation is then less likely to reoccur.

[...] the Florida primary delgates to be seated at the convention. I’ve explained why this is an unfair and harmful idea over at Turning Texas Blue. Additionally, attempting to undermine the DNC rules is not a smart move for someone who will need [...]