MI & FL Awarded Full Voting Rights At The Convention

As expected...

Democratic delegates from Michigan and Florida were awarded full voting rights at the national convention Sunday, despite holding early primaries against party rules.

The convention credentials committee voted unanimously to restore the voting privileges at the behest of Barack Obama, the party's presumptive nominee for president. The states were initially stripped of delegates for holding primaries before Feb. 5. The party's rules committee restored the delegates in May, but gave them only half votes.

Which means there's really no deterrent to states' doing the same thing in subsequent years.

The party's move raises questions about whether it will be able to control its primary calendar in the future. A commission will work on the issue over the next two years.

Which, of course, was exactly Carl Levin's point  in the first place.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan called Sunday's vote "a victory for change in the system."

Levin has been working to challenge the early voting status of Iowa and New Hampshire.

"We had the guts to take the system on, and we made progress this year," he said.

And here's the new delegate count:

Florida has 211 delegates, including superdelegates, and Michigan has 157...Restoring their voting rights increases the total number of delegate votes at the convention to 4,419. It will take 2,210 delegates to win the nomination.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, DNCC, Florida, Michigan (all tags)

Comments

31 Comments

Air be THIN in Denver

must get to oxygen tank.  brain hurt.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-24 12:31PM | 0 recs
Deterrent

Hey Todd: It seems to me that there is a deterrent to states doing this the next time. Even though the MI and FL delegations get their full voting rights at the convention, these states totally blew their chance to be relevant in actually selecting the Democratic nominee and that should be enough deterrent I would think. I mean think about it, if both MI and FL had just stayed where they were at in the original primary calendar they each would have had a huge, if not decisive, roll in picking the nominee rather than being just an afterthought rubberstamp.

by wasder 2008-08-24 12:31PM | 0 recs
D'oh!!

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-24 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: D'oh!!

Does this mean you think my point was super obvious?

by wasder 2008-08-24 12:34PM | 0 recs
yeah, that's why it's funny

we got it, but Todd didn't.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-24 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: yeah, that's why it's funny

Right on. Thanks Al.

by wasder 2008-08-24 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Deterrent

That's the first thought I had when I read that. It seems to me that their power to influence the primary was greatly curtailed.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-24 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Deterrent

WTF?  Why the TR?  Uprating because someone is acting like a jackass and abusing the rules.

by yitbos96bb 2008-08-24 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Deterrent

he felt it was appropriate to randomly TR others so when it comes back nobody should be surprised.

by zerosumgame 2008-08-24 02:05PM | 0 recs
Weak n/t

by Koan 2008-08-24 02:10PM | 0 recs
yes, you seem to be n/t

by zerosumgame 2008-08-24 02:12PM | 0 recs
hee hee did you say 'zing' out loud? n/t

by Koan 2008-08-24 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Deterrent

That is not how it works. First you ask the person himself why he gave you a troll rating and if he will remove it.

If he doesn't respond you take your case to an admin, you do not respond in kind.

by Ernst 2008-08-24 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Deterrent

That doesn't make it right. I'd give you a TR if I could, but for some reason the menu ain't there.

by Covin 2008-08-24 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Deterrent

Zero is a random TR abuser. Probably because 0 is one of the most TR'd and HR'd on this site.

by Glaurung 2008-08-24 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Deterrent

True, not to mention all the anger, ridicule and turmoil their early primaries generated. I'm hoping politicians in 2012 wouldn't want to subject themselves to all that--the protests, the blaming, the intraparty fighting--just because MI and FL got their delegates back in the end, long after it stopped mattering.

And really, they only got the delegates back as an afterthought. It's just a way of closing the book and making nice (or taking pity) now that all is said and done and those states have no impact on anything.

I'd certainly think it's not worth the risk in '12 but I guess that depends on how calendar-reform works out and how much grandstanding state politicians are willing to do.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-08-24 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Deterrent

Beaton said yesterday that he was meeting with Armstrong in Denver. And, curiously, he now writes a diary which amounts to criticism of Obama.

by Glaurung 2008-08-24 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Deterrent

how exactly is this an anti-BHO diary? You are really being absurd.

by zerosumgame 2008-08-24 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL Awarded Full Voting Rights
What a huge mistake.  Now we are going to have absolute chaos in 2012, and Carl Levin will guarantee it.  We will probably start having primaries in November of 2011 now.   This is getting rediculous
You want to talk about Oil Problems.  Carl Levin is the #1 person to blame.  He continues to thwart any effort to increase fuel efficeincy.  We wikll never get oil independent as long as Carl Levin is in Washington.
by gavoter 2008-08-24 12:33PM | 0 recs
Kaos, Looting and Rioting!!!

I just got a Text:  Carl Levin is moving the 2012 primary up to next Saturday.

Dkos is holding their first straw poll as I type!!!

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-24 12:39PM | 0 recs
What a huge mistake.

Nonsense. Levin's just blowing hot air from his ass in order to salvage his tattered reputation.

Obama is promoting unity and healing in states that will matter much in November. And that's what matters.

by Glaurung 2008-08-24 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL Awarded Full Voting Rights

In 2012 there will be a Dem incumbent President.

by kitebro 2008-08-24 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL Awarded Full Voting Rights

Actually this isn't a mistake. The states have had their votes restored. The main penalty, the one that hasn't been lifted is the fact that they were the only two states that had no infleunce on the race what so ever.

There are two very good reasons why your scenario is completely wrong.

1. The states that don't keep to the scedule are still punished by having their influence reduced to nothing.

2. No state will have any incentive to break to schedule as every state has been heard.

The reason why there was a rush to the front this cycle was because in 2004 only the first four states had any influence in selecting the nominee. They were afraid that 2008 would be the same.

Seeing that in 2008 the later the state the more influence it had states will not rush to the front as they have no incentive to do so.

by Ernst 2008-08-24 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL Awarded Full Voting Rights

"Which means there's really no deterrent to states' doing the same thing in subsequent years"

You need to think deeper than superficialities. FL and MI tried to have an impact on the process greater than they would have had under the existing rules. As a result they were punished and had no impact on the process. In the future politicians will think more than twice before risking the same fate for their states.

I predicted  at the time FL and MI were sanctioned (probably along with many others) that in the end they would be seated in order to foster goodwill. And thanks to Obama's good judgment that is what has happened.

But some folks have to find a way to piss on anything he does.

by Glaurung 2008-08-24 12:47PM | 0 recs
asdf

Both Obama and Clinton long ago made separate agreements that they were going to do this.  If anyone had a problem with it, they should have taken it up then (wow, I just realized how much that resembled the original debate over Florida and Michigan, only now it's the other way around.)

But seriously.   When Barack Obama said that if he became the nominee, he would restore the delegations of both states, I don't recall hearing anyone think it was a bad idea.

At any rate, I didn't.  Neither state was able to influence the outcome this year - isn't that deterrent enough?  

by MeganLocke 2008-08-24 01:05PM | 0 recs
So are the voters still disenfrachised?

Or did the states get what the appropriate penalty was: losing their relevance.

I feel bad, though, for the average citizens. They paid for politician greed.

I still think the penalty should have been for the penalty states to lose all their superdelegates.

by iohs2008 2008-08-24 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: So are the voters still disenfrachised?

I think it's time for some to stop obsessing about the primaries.

PS. Thanks for the McPUMAcon link.

by Glaurung 2008-08-24 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL Awarded Full Voting

They were punished - their effect on the primary was drastically reduced, and received far less attention/campaign expenditures.  The idea that this was not a deterrent is factually wrong.

by rfahey22 2008-08-24 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL

The solution is simple.  Punish sates for political opportunism and stupidity.

All primaries and caucus before the firts Tuesday in February have their delegate totals reduced by 50%.  You get a 200% bump in delegates for having a primary/caucus after March 15 and you get a 400% bump in delegates for doing so after May 1.

I did not mind MI wanting to move its primary although I think Florida got skunked by a GOP run Legislature and statehouse.  If Michigan issues are so important --- think about the cost of being first ---- why screw yourself out of being counted until after the race is over.

by kmwray 2008-08-24 05:03PM | 0 recs
They get voting rights, but only

after the contest was decided.  They had no delegates when it actually mattered, and if the convention were contested, you can bet they would only get what the DNC RBC said they'd get.

Carl Levin can crow all he wants, but the simple fact is unchanged: nobody campaigned there and the state had no relevance in helping to select a nominee.

by hekebolos 2008-08-24 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL Awarded Full Voting Rights

Neither state got the benefit of the candidates actually campaigning there, nor saw any ads.  The states were ignored in favor of the GOP contests those days, and the news stations did not even bother to count their delegates.

I think everyone learned their lesson.

by Skaje 2008-08-25 12:23AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------