MI &FL-Take away their super delegates

I've been thinking about a way to settle this Michaigan/Florida mess.I think maybe, I have a solution. I think that Michigan and Florida should do a re-vote and their pledged delegates be seated.

But there should be some penalty for breaking party rules and causing all this ruckus.

Their super delegates should be taken away and not be given a vote.

That way, the people's vote is validated. But Florida and Michigan do not have the ability to sway the final tally with super delegate votes, which could or could not reflect the will of the people.

•  I wish there were no superdelegates, so yes. n/t

  by Barrus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:44:27 PM PDT

•  Is this a solution?

  by Sherri in TX on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:44:58 PM PDT

•  This idea is fine, poetic justice

  Unfortunately, justice is not always workable.  Without the help of those superdelegates, there will not be a revote at all, and that, IMO, is an unacceptable end result.

  by punkdavid on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:45:06 PM PDT

•  Does this fit "within the rules"?

  I suspect not.

  Nevertheless, I have every expectation that there will be no solution to this assanine situation.

  by beemerr90s on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:47:26 PM PDT

  •  Does this fit "within the rules"?

    I can't imagine the rules matter a great deal any more.  A logical solution is what is needed and this is logical.

    by ford prefect 2 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:51:31 PM PDT

    •  If the rules didn't matter

      we wouldn't be in this situation.

      by beemerr90s on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:52:43 PM PDT

    •  yes it does

      the rules committee absolutely has the ability to take away only the unpledged delegates from the state as a punishment.

       However if there is a revote that the DNC agrees meets their "rules", then it might be a gray area about whether technically there is anything left that justifies the penalty of removing the superdelegates under the rules.  I imagine there is something about conduct detrimental to the party, but that is not the kind of thing you like to invoke.

      by eparrot on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:55:02 PM PDT

•  I'm so sick of this dispute

  Most likely nothing will be done about this and we'll just see a symbolic seating of the delegates.

  just split the darn thing 50/50 and have over with it.

  by valadon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:48:58 PM PDT

  •  I have argued...

    ... for the 50/50 solution myself.  That way, there is no advantage.

    Look, I am in Florida.  I would like for this mess to have not happened, but it did.  The time to change it has passed.  Both Florida and Michigan wanted a more integral role in choosing the nominee, so they moved up their primaries.  To give either state a do-over would be granting them exactly what they wanted to do... influence the outcome.

    I think the DNC should stick to its decision on this and not seat the delegates, but, given we all know that won't happen, they should just portion all of the delegates 50/50...  but ONLY if doing so does not influence the outcome.  

    by Jen K in FLA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:13:10 PM PDT

    •  Thnx for your perspective Jen

      I feel badly for the voters, but their state legislatures messed this up. And I completely agree with you that the court approved ruling of the DNC rules should have primacy. That or a 50/50.

      by valadon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:46:28 PM PDT

•  works for me n/t

  by ahdv on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:50:56 PM PDT

•  I posted a comment in this regard earlier

  and I think it's a pretty good idea.

  It would lessen their influence in determining the eventual winner and thusly provide some penalty to the states.

  Best of all, the penalty would not affect the voter but rather the state democratic apparatus that allowed the move to go early.  Yes yes, florida's republicans did it to them.  Well, then penalize them for not coming together with a solution for a primary that abides by the rules conducted by the state dems in a timely fashion and only when they realized they might actually have a crucial say in the contest.

  by masterxi43 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:51:53 PM PDT

•  absolutely I agree

  punish the people closes to responsible for changing the rules, not us voters in Florida.

  That still leaves the thorny question of what to do about a revote - no one wants to pay for it at the moment.

  by eparrot on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:52:12 PM PDT

•  The superdelegates...

  ...from FL and MI have already been stripped of their ability to vote at the convention, I think.

  by DH from MD on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:52:35 PM PDT

  •  not quite

    if the contest was re-done, the superdelegates would then be seated (or so I have read elsewhere)

    by masterxi43 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:53:36 PM PDT

•  so you want to go

  from penalizing voters to penalizing the super delagates?  What sense does that make?  Did the super delegates get together and chose the primary date and in doingso break DNC rules?

  by dookphan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:55:03 PM PDT

  •  they almost all supported it

    strongly, which is one of the reasons the legislature's resistance was not what it could have been.  The fact that the repubs put the "paper trail" into the same legislation was another.

    by eparrot on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:56:06 PM PDT

  •  They are a hell of lot closer to the

    correct guilty demographic that the average FL Dem voter.

    That's not to say I'm advocating it.

    by beemerr90s on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:03:52 PM PDT

  •  Yup lets keep on imposing...

    penalties that are above the level according to the Rules even if FL and MI follow the rules and have some sort of re-vote to cure their bad behavior...that is like putting someone back in jail after they have paid their debt to society because you did not like the original crime...

    by dvogel001 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:16:16 PM PDT

    •  I agree, that would be

      like putting spitzer's brother in jail for a crime spitzer himself committed.

      by dookphan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:35:04 PM PDT

•  Super Idea!!

  FL and MI can't expect to screw-up the primary sequences and not pay for the re-election consequences.

  Maybe next time, they will abide with the primary order.  The way these primaries are going, every state is going to have a say in who our candidate will be.

  by hopalong on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:57:23 PM PDT

•  A revote would be acceptable provided both

  states paid for it. Right now, it's being suggested that the DNC and the campaigns pay for a revote as if the DNC is to blame for the mess. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the state legislators who decided to take risks with their constituents's votes. Either the states pay for a revote or the delegates are not seated. Either way, the state legislatures that sought to circumvent the rules should take the heat with the voters. The Florida state legislature in particular has a shady history of playing fast and loose with the rules from trying to appoint state electors to deny Al Gore the vote in 2000 to their slimy behavior in the Terri Schiavo fiasco. We should not reward bad behavior. If the Florida and Michigan voters are disenfranchised, they will have their own legislators to thank and hopefully they will remember to thank them in the next election cycle.

  by MagisterLudi on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:57:42 PM PDT

•  No but they'll be for anything best for Obama

  I have been reading this stuff for weeks here.  The VOTER has nothing to do with it with Obama supporters.  It's just about winning, period.  

  I hope all Obama supporters realize one thing about the RULES.....The superdelegates have always been part of the rules, so if they decide to all vote for Hillary or all vote for Obama, that's their call, period.....nothing we can do about it either way!

  by letsbepragmatic on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:58:01 PM PDT

  •  most superdelegates ARE accountable to us

    Check out my diary from earlier today - most superdelegates are either elected officials or state chairs or vice chairs.  We CAN (and should) make our feelings known to them.

    And not to get into a pissing contest, but HRC is the one who's been trying to circumvent the RULES - both written and unwritten - for the past few weeks.  She hopes that by keeping the result in doubt for as long as possible, she'll be able to sneak her way into the nomination.

    I think the diarist has a solid idea here...

    by jakester on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:25:43 PM PDT

•  Paying for a revote is

  penalty enough.  Furthermore, if they have a re-vote they won't have officially broken any rule, per se.  They just had a meaningless (and dmaned expensive) beauty contest poll before they had their sanctioned vote.  

  Not seating a delegation that, by the letter of the rules, never (officially) voted isn't disenfranchisement.  What you are proposing is.

  by Demosthenes112358 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:04:26 PM PDT

  •  I don't get a voice in my party's primary

    and it's not disenfranchisement?  Odd definition you're working with.

    We've been screwed, and I don't see any possible way out.  I accept that.  Not happy about it, not by a long shot.  But I accept it.  But don't tell me I haven't been disenfranchised.

    by beemerr90s on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:10:37 PM PDT

    •  FL & MI can have a sanctioned contest

      anytime they feel like it.

      by Demosthenes112358 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:13:15 PM PDT

      •  Actually let me walk that back.

        FL & MI haven't been disenfranchised, yet. They should do the revote and, frankly, the DNC should foot the bill. If they do that before the convention you won't be disenfranchised.  If they don't, your state party will have disenfranchised you by violating DNC rules.  And please don't make me dig up the link that shows that they didn't have to go with the GOP Senate established date.  

        The fact of the matter is that there are rules for exercising a franchise.  Take the GE as an example.  We get to vote on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  We don't get to vote on November 1st and have it count.  This is essentially what FL & MI did.  We hvae rules to facilitate the annoyingly complex process of nominating and electing officials.  And those rules are not to be broken under any circumstances.

        by Demosthenes112358 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:23:53 PM PDT

        •  Well, I suppose I can buy that explanation, but

          I am certainly working under the assumption that there will be no revote.  I see the chances as near-zero.  There is very little time left, the parties involved are very unlikely to come to agreement, and there are serious logistical problems.

          by beemerr90s on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:36:51 PM PDT

          •  And that sucks, I think we can all agree. eom

            by Demosthenes112358 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:13:25 PM PDT

•  Getting worried, are you?

  by Pumpkinlove on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:07:15 PM PDT

•  Good thought.

  the deal should be split the delegates down the middle, seat them even tho their state parties broke the rules, but take the Granholms,Levin's,Dingell's ,ect supervotes away.

  They should pay the price in some fashion. They made this stupid decision. And in Florida, the dems did not do one thing to fight the move of the date. They voted happily right along... no sympathy.

  If the dems lose florida in the fall, they will have only themselves to blame..and they could not win it for Gore or Kerry anyway. Face it, Florida is red.

  by Hawkjt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:11:56 PM PDT

•  Super delegates are what Hillary's after

  According to Chuck Todd Clinton is pushing for Fl/MI because she will pick up 25-30 Supers.

  by buckeyemike on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:36:40 PM PDT

•  The MI/FL super-delegates are the issue

  As Chuck Todd just said on MSNBC, it's the superdelegates that Clinton is going after. He said that she won't pick up much in the pledged delegates but stands to get (I think he said) about 25 superdelegates from the two states. If the states are not seated, neither are the superdelegates allowed to vote.

  by Getreal1246 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:50:20 PM PDT

•  Lets change the rules...

  in the middle again because we are pissed at FL and MI...they could always cure their bad behavior by having some sort of re-vote...that is the Rules...lets follow them

  by dvogel001 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:12:38 PM PDT

•  Hold a re-vote, but no super-delegates

  It's the party leaders from FL and MI who are responsible for this mess, and maybe if they don't get to go to the Convention, party leaders in other states won't try the same thing in the future.

  by leevank on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:18:31 PM PDT