Michigan Democrats considering delegate split

Just when I thought this was put to bed, top Michigan Democratic officials are considering a split of Michigan’s delegates so they can be counted at the convention.

Here’s the story from USAToday:

LANSING, Michigan (AP) — Michigan Democrats working to get the state’s delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention suggested splitting them 69-59 between presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan of its 128 delegates for holding its presidential primary too early in the year in violation of party rules. The state also has 28 superdelegates — party officials and elected leaders who are free to back either candidate regardless of the state primary outcome.

Clinton has argued that she should get 73 delegates based on the results of the Jan. 15 primary, which she won — 18 more than Obama.

Obama, who removed his name from the ballot, wants the 128 pledged delegates split evenly, 64-64.

The compromise, suggested Tuesday in a letter to Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer, fell halfway between the two proposals.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the campaign looked forward to working with national and Michigan Democrats to find a solution.

Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker said “the bottom line is that Michigan’s votes must be counted.”

This would be a net of 10 delegates for Clinton, hardly anything that would tip the scales of the nomination.

  • Whobody

    This has become a big mess.

    The people’s votes should count, but doesn’t the blame for that fall on the Michigan leaders who put their citizens in that position in the first place?

  • Dem ’08

    The Democratic leaders screwed themselves here but these votes should count because you can not forget the whole state because a few leaders got stupid.
    It was Obama’s choice to pull out of the state because he thought they would not be able to help him. She deserves just what she ask for because she earned them.

    He should have realized that these people matter instead of passing them by as though they had no voice. She did not leave them like he did. That is truth no matter who you support. Same thing in Florida.

    Give him a few and her the rest. That is fair!

  • IndiMinded

    Seems like a pretty arbitrary distribution of delegates to me. No one wanted to organize a decent election for MI, so in the end they’ll hand a few extra delegates to Hillary, and call it a day – not particularly fair to the voters or to either candidate, but better than nothing I guess.

    The DNC has screwed up pretty royally this season. I hope they can pull their act together some day.

  • IndiMinded

    Whobody, I would encourage you not to forget the reason MI and FL moved their primaries forward: they were making a point, and I think it was valid. Early state primaries are often vital, late state primaries are often unimportant. This has proven less true this election season than it often is, but still, if Obama had lost Iowa, he probably wouldn’t be where he is right now.

    Why was Iowa so vital to his campaign? Because they voted first. The vote of every Iowan holds more weight than the vote of any Virginian for no reason other than state voting order.

    I like my vote, but I also kind of wish my politicians were pressing to have my state vote earlier too. If we learn nothing else from this primary season, it should be how badly we need voting reform.

  • Josh

    40% of Michigan voters voted un-decided. Hillary was the only major name on the ballot, so that means that 40% of Michigan voters would rather not vote than vote for Hillary in the primary, so how many more just “settled”? Clinton is now trying to play this off as an indication that she “cares” about the peoples’ votes, when she was one of the biggest voices in getting their delegations nullified in the first place. The only reason she wants to count them now is because she knows that her chances of winning the nomination are nill unless she pulls off some shady deal like the one she is now backing in Michigan.

  • Curtis

    In Michigan, Obama voluntarily withdrew his name from the primary ballot to curry favor with Iowa. He was under no obligation to do so. However, his supporters organized a substantial vote for ‘uncommitted’ on the ballot, thus he is represented in the delegation.

    The voters of Michigan should be heard and the delegates should be seated!

  • Dem ’08


    Do you think that the delegates for these two states should be seated or should they omit these two states?

  • Michel

    My opinion concerning thi subject:

    Michigan: They should be seated alright. But apparently the only way to sit them is to give equal amounts of votes to each candidate. There’s no other way, except a re-do of the primary, but we don’t know what that would cost to the DNC in the long rung. Maybe it would further contribute to the division of the party. Maybe it wouldn’t. But in my opinion it wouldn’t be a fair to let the breaking of rules go without any kind of punishment. The people of Michigan don’t deserve it but unfortunately there is no way to actually give more votes to Clinton considering the context (even when Obama wasn’t on the ballot a 40% of the Michigan voters decided not to vote for anyone on the ballot – what do you do about that?)

    And on the other hand, if you seat the Michigan delegates evenly, then… there’s no winner. So it wouldn’t mean anything.

    Florida: Yes, I know Obama didn’t campaign there, but still a 38% voted for him, and back then there were more candidates standing besides him and Clinton. So, yes, the Florida delegates should be seated according to the primary results. And that would give a certain slack to Clinton’s disadvantage.

    BUT…. Obama would still be ahead in the popular votes count. And that wouldn’t help her at all, considering she has lost 4 super-delegates after PA and only acquired 2, as far as I know.

    Clinton doesn’t stand a chance on the popular vote. Her only chance is with the supers, and that doesn’t look good either.

  • Michel

    Here’s an article from the Politico, which often tends to favor Clinton in their pages:


  • Josh

    They could be seated, but if they were going to do it it should have been done months ago. The votes in Florida and Michigan were flawed because they voted before the campaign itself, and their own Democratic Committees, were organized enough to produce a clean vote. You cannot arbitrarily split votes from a state where only one person was on the ballot, that’s worse than not counting them at all. For the delegates to be seated, the states would have had to have voted again, and it seems that it’s a little late now. It’s not the candidates faults (even though HRC was the leading proponent of ignoring their votes early on) that the Democratic committees of these states chose to disobey the rules that they knew were in place for this primary. If the people of Michigan and Florida really wanted their votes to count in the first place, they should have protested the actions of their Democratic committees.

    I suppose, however, that it won’t make much of a difference anyway, even with these states added in the outcome will remain the same.

  • Whobody

    I know they were making a point, and I agree with there stance. My state is late to vote in the primary and we don’t get major play. (We still have yet to vote in West By God Virginia.) I just think it’s silly to put yourself out as a martyr to prove a point and then want mercy. Have your cake and eat it too?

    Their Democratic leaders were trying to make a point for there citizens to be heard on equal grounds, but what they risked to make that point was the exact thing in which they wished to gain. Maybe they could have did something less detrimental to the people of their state?

    I want the MI and FL votes to count. I don’t think the people should go unrecognized. So, don’t get that confused.

  • Dreadsen

    What people don’t talk about is New Hampshire ALSO violated the rules by moving their Primary up.

    New Hampshire wasn’t penalized.

    Originally it was supposed to be Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina.

    This is what everybody agreed to.
    Once Michigan and Florida saw New Hampshire go against what everyone agreed to then they figured they would move up as well.

    I also feel that Edwards could possibly have won Florida. If he would have won Florida this could have changed the dynamics of the race now.

    Michigan SHOULD just split it down the middle being that his name wasn’t even on the ballot. Just so the delegates can participate at the convention.

    But Florida should probably be treated as if Hillary won by 9 points. Being that he didn’t campaign in either state I would propose leaving the popular vote out.