DNC RULES: MI & FL 50% - Read it for yourself(remember USD's are against nuclear option)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/5/165556/6581/939/509605

by CarmenT
Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:26:04 PM PDT

With all the confusion, spin and media hype over whether MI and FL delegates will or should be seated, and the more recent saga of Hillary’s so-called "Nuclear Option" to overrule the DNC, perhaps someone should actually read the DNC Rules on how the MI & FL vote is to be counted.

The answer to MI & FL is already in the rules.

50% of pledged delegates go to the convention and no unpledged delegates.

See more below...

* CarmenT's diary :: ::
*

Ok... time to look at the facts....

First of all, we need to look at the DNC published rules, freely available to anyone (including the MSM... hint....) who can read English. I have reprinted the relevant paragraphs below, but if you want to prove it for yourself or to read the full document, here it is:

The website: The Democratic Party - Delegates
or go straight to the document DNC Delegate Rules (PDF)

Here are the rules regarding timing, which explain how MI and FL violated them: (Note: emphasis was added to highlight the critical sections)

11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS

A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

Both MI and FL held their primaries earlier than allowed, hence violated section 11.A.

The case for FL is that the state determined the primary date and caused the violation.

The case for MI is weaker, though it’s doubtful that allowing one and not the other would be considered ‘fair’.

However, the DNC Rules already allow for the event where the above rule is violated, as long as it’s challenged according to Section 20:

Section 20. CHALLENGES

Section 20.C.1.a Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

So there you have it. In the event that a challenge is made as to the validity of a ‘mis-timed’ state primary, only 50% of the pledged delegates count and none of the unpledged delegates.

END OF STORY

Or is it...

Well there is a complication in MI that is not explicitly covered and could be appealed. There is no implicit remedy for the case where only one of the major candidates has their name on the ballot.

In other words, although 40% of voters in MI would rather vote for nobody than vote for Hillary, the other candidates who followed the rules have been assigned none.

Therefore HC would get 73 * 50% = 36.5 delegates from MI, and in a worst case scenario for Obama, he would receive 0 delegates from MI.

However, there is wording that deals with "uncommitted delegates" by establishing a committee to recommend a solution:

Section 20.C.5. Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including, without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances.

So it’s conceivable that Obama may yet gain a portion of the delegates from MI based on clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above that seem to imply a desire to ensure that the delegates are chosen to be representative. That could be anything from all 55 undecided, a 50/50 split of all delegates or arguably (though unlikely) a majority for Obama based on the national pledged delegate percentage.

Florida is more straightforward:

In Florida, the delegate split would have been 105 HC, 67 BO, 13 JE, so according to the 50% rules, HC will gain 52.5 delegates to 33.5 for BO

BUT ......

If HC wishes to throw herself at the mercy of the RBC, it could backfire!

Invoking the DNC rules section 20.a. (dealing with delegate seating of mis-timed primaries) may have the effect of causing the RBC to read slightly further down the page at Section 20.1.b.

"Campaigning Rules"

Section 20.1.b. Prohibits candidates from campaigning in a mis-timed state prior to the primary. It clearly states the definition of "Campaigning":

Section 20.C.1.b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.

Hillary Campaigns

As many will know, Hillary’s "visit" to Florida prior to the primary vote was all over the press. She was reported arriving at the airport and meeting local residents after the event.

Ok, you say, that’s a little tenuous. Perhaps, but remember we are dealing with precise language and the wording of the rules states that "making public appearances" constitutes "Campaigning".

Even if that you are prepared to ignore that, the real no-no was appearing in a fundraiser. Clinton’s campaign has argued that this was perfectly legal and allowed according to the DNC rules. Not so! The wording in the rules is again precise: "holding events to which Democratic voters are invited" IS "Campaigning". The Clinton campaign claim that attending a fundraiser exploits a loop-hole in the rules... Read them for yourself; see if you can find it.

The final argument is that it is well documented that Hillary told Florida voters that she would return after the primary and would campaign to make their votes count. This could easily be argued as a "Campaign" ploy to influence Florida voters to vote for her if they wish to have their voice heard, despite the DNC Rules.

So, according to the rules, if challenged, Hillary risks not get ANY delegates from FL.

Obama Campaigns

But... I hear you say.... What about Obama... His ads ran in the state prior to the primary. Well, here, there would have to be a burden of proof that the adverts "reached a significant percentage of the voters in the state". The Obama camp argues that it was impossible to cut Florida out of a National Ad campaign. In my opinion, if the Ad was specific about FL, then the case would be a no-brainer. As it is, it is open to interpretation.

Worst case, both HC and BO lose all their FL delegates.

Summary

What does this all mean?

According to democonwatch, Obama needs 286 and Clinton 416 delegates. By my (rough) calculations based on latest poll averages and giving HC the benefit of the doubt, I would expect HC to gain 209 more pledged delegates and BO to gain 184.

If MI and FL are seated (and only HC gets MI delegates) then there will be an additional 122.5 delegates, with HC gaining 89 and BO 33.5, a net HC majority of 55.5.

However HC would now need 478 and BO would need 347.

So after all contests and including MI & FL in the worst case scenario for BO:

HC needs around 180 and BO needs around 131 Superdelegates.

Worst case scenario BO is still ahead by 50

If, as seems most likely, BO gets at least 55 MI delegates, he only needs around 76 SDs, less than half of HC’s requirement.

Likely Scenario(inc MI & FL): Roughly a 1/3 BO to 2/3 HC split of SDs would give BO the nomination.

So seating FL and MI does NOT give HC a win, even in the most generous scenario.

UPDATE: As pointed out by taylormattd below, the rules allow for the RBC to make the sanctions worse, but as far as I can see, there is no provision to make them better.
UPDATE END

(In case someone is sharp enough to see that the numbers don’t quite add up to all the SDs and pledged delegates, bear in mind that I used poll forecasts for states with undecided voters. The real delegate math is more complex, involving district level structures etc... but the 1/3 to 2/3 SD split result is essentially the same).

CT

P.S.

In Hillary’s "FactHub" response, http://facts.hillaryhub.com/... the campaign counters the "Hillary Goes Nuclear" saga merely by saying "It’s not a secret!". However, there is one sentence that caught my eye...

The Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) is the DNC body charged with dealing with these challenges until the 56th day before the convention, and its process is public and transparent.

56th day? Where does that come from... So I set out to find out... That would be June 30th ... Still looking.... Anyone else have any ideas?

*Note that per Tom Daschle this morning(MSNBC), he has had many phone calls from USD's who express to him how they hate what the Clinton's have said they would use to get the nomination, the nuclear option. He said the word ticked would be a mild term of description for what was expressed to him by a majority.

Seat it and lose the GE.

a. sit home in Nov if the will of the voters in 30+ states is overturned(as of tomorrow Obama will have won two thirds of states holding primaries and he has the popular vote)
b. defect to a new third party(AA's and Obama supporters, particularly the youth vote and those upset about 2000 and 2004 like me, I am fifty)
c.damage to the party lasts 30 to 40 years just for Hillary to say she won and make antagonistic posters happy.

And no, I didn't believe those experts either.

walk across the block for a winning lottery ticket form a Bush, a Cheney or a Rumsfeld.

then I guess we REALLY shouldn't believe you about FL and MI because you are definetly NOT an expert.

non-voter approved delegates in MI that "we would lose the ge" and I don't agree. ;)


1. FL and MI are not necessary for Obama to win (check the polling and you will see)

2. Obama will most certainly win MI. (Polling shows Obama is more popular than Clinton in MI)

that would combined with FL most certainly give her a good shot at the nomination. Where you implying something else... a 50/50 split?

I understand that Michigan voters want to be a part of the process, but, considering how this has all played out thus far, how can you justify the fairness of any Michigan primary vote counts? to me, it's like you're playing a game of kickball. your mom and mine calls us both home so we say, okay, game starts up another place later. You walk home and have dinner. I stay on the field, kick the ball, run the bases and claim I won.

how is the Michigan situation not like that?

the same thing with Florida. we're playing on another playground and we both agree we won't keep score for the game. just count the number of times we get on a base instead. then, your mom calls you home for dinner and I go around to all our friends the next day and say... we played a game and I won by 100 times at home plate.

I realize these are not exact analogies, but I think they do get into the reasons MI and FL may seem a little too demanding to those of us who have lived our lives in states with late primaries whose numbers never mattered.

Either of the candidates could have won without either of the states. Why are your states so important that you all think you can hold the rest of us hostage with the demand for special treatment? Your states made the decisions, not all of us.

Can you help me understand some of this?

-I understand that Michigan voters want to be a part of the process,

*What part of voters have a right to vote in any scheduled primary in their state regardless of an outcome, a party preference, a party rule or anything else do you fail to understand? Voters are already part of the process. You or others can ballyhoo for the next 100 years about this primary but Michigan voters are a part of the process. What you object is ANY part they have that counts, or counts against Obama.

-but, considering how this has all played out thus far, how can you justify the fairness of any Michigan primary vote counts?

*Define fairness. In fact define fairness in fairness to me and to you. Better yet define fairness that works for you and I and an entire state. Can't do it can you? Well that is the job of John Dean and we'll see if he is up to it. Fairness is a small part of the issue, power in the rules committee IS the issue. I am a voter. I have no need and no reason to justify my choices to you and likewise for you. Its called freedom to choose.

-to me, it's like you're playing a game of kickball. your mom and mine calls us both home so we say, okay, game starts up another place later. You walk home and have dinner. I stay on the field, kick the ball, run the bases and claim I won. how is the Michigan situation not like that?

*Because the people of Michigan are fucking starving that's why. The families are broke, the kids are without homes and medical care, the cars are expensive, the gas is even more expensive and you want to fucking argue about a shithole state like Iowa? Give me a break. Did either mother kick you off the damn block? Clinton is extremely unlikely to even score with her delegates and you still want to play the grim fucking reaper? Are you people crazy? There were/are options for the boys/mother to arrive at a compromise. The ONLY reason J.Dean did not get into it sooner, a fucked up response on his part, is because he didn't think the primaries would last this long. Just like he didn't think the voters would mind being excluded from "the process" as you call it.

-the same thing with Florida. we're playing on another playground and we both agree we won't keep score for the game. just count the number of times we get on a base instead. then, your mom calls you home for dinner and I go around to all our friends the next day and say... we played a game and I won by 100 times at home plate.

*I don't know as much about Florida so I don't argue Florida's case. Nor I might add, are the two states equal in the way in which they arrived at their primary date.

-I realize these are not exact analogies, but I think they do get into the reasons MI and FL may seem a little too demanding to those of us who have lived our lives in states with late primaries whose numbers never mattered.

*Oh give me another fucking break. You want to talk about feeling put upon because this state which has been begging for years to be an opener is being "demanding"? Cry me a river. Would you make the same case for Louisiana? For Mississippi? Fuck no you wouldn't. They have been hurt you'd say, they've had people die and people have been robbed....what the hell do you think is happening in Michigan? Iowa and NH want a populist beauty contest. Michigan wants an election.

-Either of the candidates could have won without either of the states. Why are your states so important that you all think you can hold the rest of us hostage with the demand for special treatment? Your states made the decisions, not all of us.

The Democrats cannot and will not win the GE without Michigan and Florida. So go ahead, use the pissy rules committee to stand for their draconinan rules and watch the fall out. A rules committee isn't going to bring back business and families to Michigan. A rules committee does not win a nomination or an election. In my opinion the idea that Michigan is holding anyone hostage is just another way of saying you're not getting your way.

-Can you help me understand some of this?

No I can't help you understand it and I can't help you accept it. I can say that while the Obama and Clinton folks are waging war on a handfull of delegates that should amount to a skirmish, the Michigan voters are walking away from the GE saying if we didn't count then, we won't count later.
And so far, there is nothing in what you have said that helps me understand your point of view or accept your point of view.

and all you can give back is bile?

I asked a sincere question. how to expect anyone to care about what you care about if you attack them for asking the question? honestly. asking a question about Michigan is a way of saying I'm not getting my way?

I'm sorry I asked you a question because I never expected to get blasted in return.

I'm not a part of any primary group, tho you seem to assume this immediately. I do support a candidate, but I am not part of any campaign. Your vitriol, in response to my honest question really doesn't do anything to convince anyone of your position -- are insults more important?

I don't want to ask you any more questions about the situation based upon your reply. I wish you the best, but obviously do not want to try to have a conversation about this issue. I'm sorry you seem to think every question is an attack against you.

It isn't.

If Hill supporters don't vote in the GE for Obama because they wanted to break the rules, then see you later. I want nothing to do with anyone like that in the Democratic party.

Making a threat to break a rule. :puke:

Sorry, don't shoot the messenger. And for the record, I didn't make a threat. I made a prediction. Interesting you would assume the worst.

Who is self described as economically illiterate.

Maybe in 4 years you can have a 20% unemployment rate.

Hey I respect your principles if that is what you choose to do. Just don't expect me to compromise mine for you either.

We don't recognize elections with one candidate on the ballot.

Everybody has to gamble on something.

Why are you so certain that Michigan democrats will stay home if MI is not seated, yet you think that AA voters will not be bothered one bit if Hillary is given the nomination by the superdelegates. You are deluding yourself if you really believe that.

Then they deserve whatever they get, as a result.

I do not recall making any discrimination between AA voters, W voters, I voters, H voters or Y or O voters. To me they are all Michigan voters as they should be to you.

..if she by some longshot ends up the nom, the woman will STILL not get my vote. I DESPISE the way she's run her campaign. That she would wrench the arms of the DNC and the R & BC and SDs would only make more determined NOT to vote for her. Further, if they cave to her machinations, I will wash my hands of this party, not just the Clintons.

and eight years ago too. It would be very difficult to vote for her after all the crap she has thrown, dirty filthy politics isn't what I want to reward with a vote. But I truly believe McCain will do worse.

If forced I would have to cast a vote for the disgusting politician she has shown herself to be. BUT I will join a third party and leave the democratic party. I am not talking about the greens. I am talking about forming a new party with AA's, and those wanting to turn the page for new and better day in this country. It would propel me to a level of activism I haven't risen to yet.

Trust me, Hillary will pay a price but so will the party if they let her do this. I won't go silently.

That is all I want. If the rules say 50% and there have not been "additional sanctions" added by the committee (as stated in Sec. 20.C.5), then 50% it is. As long as the rules that everyone agreed to are adhered.

If you are from one of these two states, you have an issue to deal with with your own representatives. There should be no reward for being a scofflaw...flouting the rules and still getting one's say would set a very dangerous precedent in the Democratic nominating process.

And the voters did not make the rules, they did not have a say in what their representative did or did not do and they sure as hell had no say in the sanctions the rules committee put in place.

So what makes you think they are going to give two shits about who the Dem. nominee is?

developed by your representatives in you r name, you the voter. So you had a say through your party members participation done in your name. don't come here saying voters didn't get a say when they most certainly did. Your candidate and mine agreed in writing to rules at the beginning of this. a gentlemens agreement, but the lady is now breaking or trying to upset voters by saying she wants to break rules she signed for.

wait for the drum roll children.....REPUBLICANS!

And for the record, my candidate will be whoever takes the nomination. So saddle up cowboy and campaign for your favorite.

in the thread DNC rules, you remember the DNC rules that govern delegates, primaries, what constitutes campaigning.

and anyway Dean had already said the Mi. delegates will be seated. How, where and when will determine a hell of lot more than any of the Clinton shenanigans. So save some of your paranoia for what the next move is by the Salem Witch Trial Committee of the Dem. party.

Ever heard of it? We didn't have a say in the Patriot Act, tax cuts to the rich, the Military Commissions act, the bankruptcy bill, etc., but our representatives screwed us.

That is the nature of representative democracy. If you do not like what they do, vote them out.

The position you advocate is an abrogation of responsibility as voters. Hold your representatives accountable, not the party. That is your duty...holding the party responsible and not the representatives that put you there will only ensure that this crap will continue.

And I'm sure that Michigan had representation in the committee.

If Michigan voters decide to stay home in a snit over their reps actions, then they can expect less favorability within the party since representation in this process is weighted towards Democratic districts. If McCain wins because of this, you can once again look at your reps as responsible. I am afraid the Democratic party rules committee will be voting in much the same manner in the years to come.

2 states out of 50 does not a majority make, no matter how much working the refs is done.

Upon further review of your internal politics, your House voted to allow this (controlled by Democrats)....and your Democratic governor was responsible for pushing this, so please do not act like you are the poor victims of the Republicans. Just like Florida, your Democratic party took part in flouting the rules, causing other states to move their primaries....all to get a little more influence over the nominating process.

Here is your Democratic governor pushing for the early primary

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=711

Here is the opportunity your state had to move forward legally, and lost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/20/AR2006042001864.html

Here is where your house with a large majority, moved the primary date, with Granholm (the Democrat) signing it into law.

http://www.michronicleonline.com/articlelive/articles/1604/1/News-Briefs---State-legislators-vote-to-move-Michigan-primary-to-Jan-15/Page1.html

Conyers pushed for it, and so did Kirkpatrick, according to the article. There are lots and lots of reps on the Democratic side who let you down.

Is it possible, excluding the superdelegates, that Obama can get the necessary number of delegates before the convention. What I mean is, regardless of what happens in the remaining states, Obama still needs the superdelegates to hit the magic number and claim the nomination?

number of delegates to change the numbers for either candidate, no neither will rise to the required number, but Obama is much closer than Hillary, and I expect like others a minimum of a dozen SD will endorse Obama after tomorrow. there is no math that says Hillary can overtake Obama in pledged delegates. Its like this, Obama has a two goal lead with a minute left, its possible Hill could change things but do you see her chances as being very high or very low?

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee imposed additional sanctions.

Too bad so sad, the Michigan and Florida Democratic PArties knew the consequences and chose to violate the rules anyway.

New elections should be called.