how would the popular vote be decided in terms of florida

It sounds as if the voters themselves opposed a re-vote.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/03/17/776838.aspx

Is it okay for Clinton drop out now Hillary supporters?

Florida's delegates should all be seated. At the very least Bill Nelson's proposal should be followed, but ideally they should be seated as normal.

Florida should not be denied a voice at the Democratic convention.

The best solution is to dock both delegations 1/2 of their delegates and all their superdelegates, and be done with it.  Here's why:

1) Nobdy gets "disenfranchised"

2. Metes out punishment so as to deter future states from putting us in this situation
   
3. Reduces the influence/impact these states were seeking to enhance by moving their primaries up in the first place.  The punishment "fits the crime".
   
4. The state parties get to save money that can be used more efficiently in the GE to get Democrats elected up and down the ticket; and
   
5. It is the same punishment that the GOP meted out, thus negating any GE "backlash" from voters.

/Obama supporter

I don't buy the argument that not having a revote or seating them as is, is gonna lose us Florida.

Nobody is going to remember this, and I frankly don't know of anyone from Florida who has proclaimed that unless a primary is redone or the one that took place is counted they will not vote for the Dem nominee or stay home.

Give me a break. Losers who would hold on to this "grudge" weren't reliable voters to begin with.

I happen to think we are losing Florida regardless of anything, even if this "controversy" had never taken place. I just don't think this issue is gonna make it harder for us to win it, any more than Obamabots claiming that only Hillary's supporters would vote for him but not vice versa, it's bullshit.

The "half-Nelson" is probably the fairest option at this point (that also does not destroy the DNC's ability to control the primary calendar).  

Wouldn't it be interesting if Michigan has a re-vote and counts fully, and Florida is the odd state out?

Hey, the good news is that Clinton will "win" an election.

What's her record since Super Tuesday?  3 Wins against 16 losses?

At this rate she'll lose more slowly.

no 50/50.

no half votes.

one person. one vote. period.

According to state party chair Karen Thurman, the voters themselves objected to a re-vote.  Your embarrassment seems misplaced.

2000 was a general election problem. Totally different situation. Unless it's because this is a loss for Hillary?

   Whatever!  Campaigns: Just go with Nelson's compromise!  I'm soooo tired of hearing about Michigan and Florida.  

Considering a revote wouldnt change the results by much, I would advise the Obama campaign to settle for the half vote and seat all delegates.

Let's start cleaning up this site and get rid of all the dead weight among the Hillary supporters. Send the ones that ain't voting Democratic in November back to freeperville. How many days should they be given to get over Hillary?

I'm a Florida voter, and I approve of the 1/2 delegate solution.

This way, we are represented at the convention all nice like, but still have a punishment.

"Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again," Thurman writes. "So we won't."

What say you to that?

I APPROVE of Senator Nelson's plan. Seat the delegates at half representation (including ALL superdelegates).

Will you Floridians please run for you state house and senate now and toss these fools out?

This is more a product of the fact that we have spectacularly bad elections infrastructure (personnel, equipment, and laws) than a lack of effort to get it done. However, Obama needs to either get off his behind and accept the 'half-Nelson' proposal or else be prepared for a full-scale ugly 1964-style credentials committee fight. If we're going to throw millions of Floridians over the cliff, we're damn sure bringing the IA/NH duoply with us.

NO!

It was MY Idea long ago!   :)

Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, who backs Clinton, has suggested one option -- seating all Florida delegates already chosen but only giving them half a vote each. Nelson discussed this idea with Clinton and Obama on the Senate floor last week.

Based on the Jan. 29 results, Clinton would have won 105, Obama 67 and John Edwards 13. Instead they would get half those delegate votes.

Wouldn't it be interesting if we were to be in a situation at the end of the process where Clinton would lead among pledged delegates if FL and MI were counted, and Obama leads if they aren't.

That would be an intereting dilemma for superdelegates. Maybe the popular vote would be the tie-breaker for some of them.

Not that crazy of a scenario. Right now, if you count both MI and FL, Clinton and Obama are roughly even.

The fact is that both MI and FL knew what the consequences were when they chose to move the dates of the primaries. Now that they are being spanked for it, they along with the Clinton campaign are crying foul. Ya see the only way Hillary can win is to have these states included and attempt to steal and con her way to the nomination. You know what the result will be a fracture of the democratic party that will send it into a tailspin, angering young democrats, african american voters and independents who voted in primaries for Obama......the result will further be 8 more years of a GOP candidate in the White House....

Half of a vote is the equivalent of half of a democracy.  

The FL delegation cannot be seated.  Otherwise, next election there will be chaos with states moving up their primaries without regard to any consequences.  First primary for the 2012 election: January 2011!

Seating the FL delegates means cheating to win is the rule of order in the Democratic PArty.

Change the rules when your "girl" is losing so she wins.

Yep, the world will see what the Democratic PArty is all about if that happens.

I fear this is the beginning of the harsh end that everyone has predicted.  As noted, I am a HRC supporter, but I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.

But back on point.  I fear this is the beginning, not the end, of the fight.  Had a resolution been agreed upon for Florida/Michigan, and Obama still had a lead, the argument of HRC supporters would be weak.  Subsequently, the chances of a resolution for Obama pre-convention would've been higher I think.

That said, I can see a lot of digging in on both sides now unless the half-Nelson gets agreed to.  The credentials committee isn't going to go against Dean.  The stakes have been raised in Pennsylvania by two-fold.  

Btw, there's some really ridiculous comments from Obama supporters iin this thread.  Well, there's one.  Something about kicking out Hillary supporters from the party?  The exact problems we are facing in this primary is the exact reasons as to what makes this country great.  Furthermore, it also shows that even the people realize that this is a great opportunity for American liberalism to push left of center, to fight, to lead.  Finally, you are talking about essentially half the party here.  Such arrogance and commentary serves more to damage the Party and liberalism than anything else.

Regardless of the side you're on in this debate, there's no way you can argue that the previous vote was fair.  It's obvious that turnout was suppressed by the statements that the vote wouldn't count, both campaigns signed agreements at the beginning of the campaign that the votes wouldn't count, and the campaigns would obviously have done things far differently in those states if the votes were to count.  The results would have been dramatically and unpredictably different.

The only fair way to proceed would be some kind of re-vote.  Otherwise, the only fair way to proceed is to not count the results.  It sucks for voters in that state, but the larger picture is that you can't change the rules in the middle of the game.  It's the same with the super delegates - some may not like them, but the rules are that they can vote for whoever they choose.  Changing the rules this late in the game would invalidate the process and taint the eventual nominee.  And that's far less democratic than the disenfranchisement argument that's going around.

By the way, why isn't anyone suggesting that the voters that didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count are being disenfranchised as well?  How is it fair to them to count the votes now and say that it's too bad that they listened when the rules were spelled out?

Only politicians can make the simply absurdly complex.  The rules were simple.  FLA didn't follow them.  No delegates.  Kind of like with your kids.  you don't do the dishes you don't get the car.

What is even worse is the Clinton campaign's position on all of this.  it amounts to cheating, plain and simple.  The people in FLA didn't expect their votes to count so many would have stayed home who wanted to vote.   You can rest assured that if Obama won the "non-primary" Clinton would be totally against seating the delegates.  But, since they went Clinton's way, she decides to try and cheat because there is virtually no way she will get nominated.  Her actions are Karl Rovian.  Karl Rove killed the Republican Party and didn't care.  Hillary is doing the same to the Dems.   While the odds are about 100-2 she will win the nomination, if she does, this former Hillary supporter will vote for Nadar.  Hillary has turned out to be something I do not recognize.  Maybe it is her, maybe it is her advisers.  in the end, she is responsible.  As I said, it is all so very simple.

Scytherius your off base.  Democratic Voters exercised their Constitutional rights.  Their votes MUST count no matter what the DNC rules committee  comes up with.  Your analogy doesn't fly.

No settlement is going to make everyone happy, but the partisans need to remember that we want to win in November.  We need to beat John McCain and stop tearing the party apart, and not wind up with Floridians resenting the Democrats in the fall.

It moves us closer to settling this thing.

While it isn't strictly according to the rules, rules can be changed if all sides consent.

It can be spun either way: a gain for Clinton since the rules give Florida no delegates; a gain for Obama since the Clinton side would give up their dream of getting the original vote to count.  A re-vote would certainly yield a closer result than the original vote since Edwards is out and Obama has gained since then, and maybe this is better for Hillary than a re-vote would be.  But no matter; the Obama side can afford to be generous.  The pledged delegate lead is insurmountable, even with a 20-point Clinton win in PA.

The Nelson plan works as a compromise.

There is one vital addition though:

No super delegates for Florida and Michigan.  All party members who have super delegate status from those states are stripped of it for this election.  The party apparatus thus cannot influence the election while voters still get a say in choosing the candidate.

No super delegates for Florida and Michigan.

...I think it is entirely possible that they will STILL do the "count EVERY vote", but award 1/2 the delegates when all is said and done.

And WHY not?  

The only thing that has been rules out here is a re-vote.

So you KNOW you are not going to get:

1)  a NEW vote, mail in or otherwise.
2)  seating the delgates AS IS in accordance with party rules and by-laws

So you are left with 3 options:

1)  Do noting.  No delegates awarded.  No votes counted.  I do not like that option, and hope it is avoided.

2.  The 50/50 split of total delegates.  Very unpopular here.
   
3.  The counting of every vote, but awarding 1/2 the delegates.  This is my personal favorite, as among the choices it seems to be the most "fair".

There is nothing to get all depressed and/or too excited about here.  Given the short-sighted nature of the GOP-controlled Fl legislature... the FL voters will be lucky to escape with their votes counted and delegates seated.

Personally, I have defended the rules and supported not seating the delegates (and no, I am not an Obama fanatic).  But I think if you take away the superdelegate's votes completely and givethe rest ofthe delegate's half a vote, that is a pretty fair penalty for the situation and prevents full disenfranchisement.

If Florida does not revote. The delegation must be seated as is. No half-votes.

If Obama blocks the delegation from being seated the superdelegates should reject him in favor of Clinton.

It is that simple. No disenfranchising allowed in the Democratic Party.

Clinton won let the votes count.  Does the state of Florida have to have egg on its face yet again.  Shame, Shame...

This is my favorite quote of the day, purely for the irony:

"Said Clinton adviser Harold Ickes, who as a member of the DNC voted to strip both states of all their delegates: "The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy. If Barack Obama's campaign stands in the way of a new vote, he will be putting his own political interests ahead of the people of Michigan. They deserve to have a voice and a vote in the Democratic Party's nominating process. A re-vote is the only way Michigan can be assured its delegation will be seated, and vote in Denver. If the Obama campaign thwarts a fair election process for the people of Michigan, it will jeopardize the Democratic nominee's ability to carry the state in the general election.'"

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

Harold Ickes, champion of democracy.  Why do they put him out as their spokesman for these sorts of statements?

It seems from Todd's numbers that the number is 38 delegates in Florida. I thought it was more, but anyway, since it is now clear that Obama is responsible for stopping the revote in Florida, lets give an imaginary 38 delegates to Clinton.

Any future analysis must factor in the missing Floridians. So, plus 38 to Clinton.

Any superdelegates out there who are influenced by this specious Obama "respect the will of the voters" argument, but want to find a reason to vote for the candidate that is most likely to win in the fall, just add 38, then do the smart thing.

The DNC's 2008 Delegate Selection Plan gives the Rules & Bylaws Committee considerable power in how to deal with Florida and Michigan. As we all know well, on August 25, 2007, the Committee exercised its discretionary authority under Rule 20.C.5 and increased the penalty, stripping both states of all their delegates. And as we know now, Harold Ickes voted along with the majority of the Committee. The "automatic" penalty is a loss of 50% of pledged delegates and 100% of superdelegates, but Rule 20.C.5 certainly allows the Committee, in its good judgment, to increase the penalties as they did.

But Rule 20.C.5 also contains some language that suggests how the Rules & Bylaws Committee might take a more "velvet glove" approach if the state parties persist in violating the rules. Here's Rule 20.C.5 in its entirety:

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.

Note clauses (i), (ii), and (iii). Rule 20.C.5 gives the power ("without limitation") to the Rules & Bylaws Committee, but it does not impose an obligation on the Committee. However, the Committee has the power to create a (sub)committee to select delegates from Florida and Michigan. There are the three clauses describing the guidelines that this subcommittee must follow in designing a solution.

I can think of one formula that adheres to all three clauses: a public opinion poll with a large sample. Any subcommittee authorized by Rule 20.C.5 could hire a professional polling firm and construct a slate of pledged delegates based on those results. The subcommittee might not have much ability to conduct more elaborate contests in rebellious states -- clause (iii) acknowledges that -- but such a formula would be entirely consistent with the Rules & Bylaws Committee's discretionary powers.

Note that there will be zero superdelegates from these states with such a remedy and that, to repeat, the Committee is under no obligation to act. But if I were Senator Clinton I would petition the Rules & Bylaws Committee for just such a professional poll. It would be consistent with the rules, and it would likely net her some delegates. The status quo is not kind to the Clinton campaign.

I should add that there's really no precedent here, because up to this point (in the DC and Delaware cases) the state parties buckled and ultimately followed DNC rules. There really is no good precedent for the Florida state party to refuse to hold a DNC-sanctioned contest. But the national party, through its Rules & Bylaws Committee, does have the discretion to effect the best remedy it can under these terribly constrained circumstances, and a big public opinion poll seems like a reasonable remedy that could pass muster.

Florida must be seated at the convention, and Michigan must hold a new primary or must be seated.

2 million people voted. The fact that the Democratic Party is saying to Florida that your vote does not count because you voted seven days early is depressing. Since when is it a requirement to vote at a certain time to be COUNTED, HEARD, REPRESENTED! The day we disenfranchise voters as a Party is the day we cease being the Democratic Party. If Florida and Michigan is not represented, we are no longer the "Party of the People" and I'm no longer a Democrat. I will not be part of a Party that believes it is the right thing to disenfranchise the people. After all we as a Party went through in 2000, I expected better.

doesn't anybody respect the rule of law - or rules any more?

i see people angry at the dnc and it's hapless leader and for what?

because he has the integrity to follow the rules? something the state leaders of michigan and florida have forgotten.

it boggles the mind that after years of george bush thumbing his nose at constitutional law with impunity that the democrats do the very same things with their own rules. and now want to find a way get around those rules.

the rules are the rules and both states knew what the consequences would be and did it anyway. blame the idiots who had the dumb idea of going against those rules. and for what? bragging rights?

the leader of the dnc seemed to be the only one with any integrity. or at least for now he is?

so what's it to be democrats?

the rule of law or what?