Yesterday, the former Executive Director of the Democratic Party of Georgia, Steve Anthony, penned an editorial that called on national Democrats to "change [the] losing formula" currently used to pick a presidential nominee for the Party.

After the debacle that was the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, the Democratic National Committee put together a commission, headed by Sen. George McGovern, to restructure the selection process. He, of course, won the nomination in 1972 (he knew the new rules better than anybody else). This formula required delegate quotas on age, race and gender. This favored activist groups. Later they added superdelegates. Those activist groups have dominated ever since.

So what you see playing out now is that no matter the outcome, half the delegates will be mad. It is a system that splits the party instead of uniting it. It is a system that still invites accusations of favoritism.

Source:  5/8/2008 AJC Op-ed column "Democrats need to change losing formula"

Essentially what Steve Anthony is saying is that the Democratic Party is trying to be all things to all people.  Our Party is trying to make everyone happy, but the reality is that they're pissing a lot of people off.

Case in point, Hillary Clinton will probably be the first Democratic presidential candidate to win Texas, California, New York, Pennsylvania --basically some of the biggest states in the union-- but ultimately lose the nomination.  Now if this were the General Election and a presidential candidate won Texas, California, New York and Pennsylvania, we'd be calling that person "president-elect." But here in the Democratic Party, you can win the big states and still lose the nomination.

Something is seriously wrong with that.

We need to drastically reform the delegate selection rules for 2012 & beyond, and in the extended entry I'll be summarizing the proposed rule changes that I'll be presenting to Georgia's Democratic National Committee members in the coming days for their consideration.

There's more...

About a month ago, I first wrote about Rule 12.D. of the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention saying that, "the Obama camp in Georgia will be pouring over the list of candidates running for delegate and delegate alternate throughout the state and removing those individuals whom they aren't absolutely sure will support the Illinois senator if the Democratic presidential nomination vote goes more than two ballots." [Source:  3/5/3008 Georgia Politics Unfiltered blog "GA Obama Campaign To Exercise Rule 12.D."]

While I'm still trying to learn who will be doing the "purging" for the Clinton campaign, I do know who the Obama camp tapped to throw those "undesirable" candidates off the ballot for the Congressional District Caucuses April 19th.  It's a Democratic state Senator in DeKalb County.

Some may say that Rule 12.D. is unfair and that the presidential candidates should allow anybody who has signed up to run as a delegate or delegate alternate candidate to run but in a year where every single delegate vote will count, the presidential candidates need to know that their delegates will vote for them on every single ballot at the convention.  

That's why I have no problem with Rule 12.D.

After all, there is no true "pledged delegate." Delegates can vote for the candidate of their choosing.  Even here in Georgia, where state law mandates that a pledged delegate vote for the candidate they're pledged to for at least two ballots, there's no teeth in that statute that assesses penalties on those so-called "faithless delegates."

Anyways, today, the Clinton and Obama campaigns will send back their lists of approved Georgia delegate candidates and then the ballot will be set for the April 19th caucuses.

There's more...

You may not know this, but I'm a member of the Georgia state Democratic committee.  In February of last year, I began serving my second term as a state committee member from Fulton County, Georgia.

Being a member of the Democratic Party of Georgia's governing body has provided me the ability to have a say in important matters concerning the Democratic Party; matters such as approving Georgia's delegate selection plan, electing Georgia's Democratic National Committee members, and electing the leadership of the Georgia state Democratic Party.

Prior to the approval of Georgia's delegate selection plan in April, 2007, I sat down and read all of the documents governing the selection of delegates and delegate alternates from the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention to the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.  I did all of this because I'm a firm believer in the philosophy put forth in the movie, "The Skulls."

"We live by the rules, We die by the rules."

This year, 2008, the Democratic Party may very well die by the rules because our rules governing the selection of our nominee for President are some of the most difficult and convoluted to understand even for someone like me who once served on the Charter & Bylaws Committee for my state's Democratic Party.

The biggest problem, in my mind, surrounding the Democratic Party's delegate selection rules is Rule 13.B.; the rule that awards delegates to any presidential candidate that receives 15% of the vote in the primary and/or caucus.  As was talked about in another diary, nowhere in the American electoral system is proportional representation relied upon so heavily as it is in the Democratic Party.  And the Democratic Party's proportional representation system is set up to allow for situations that we now have in which two great candidates have fought each other to a stalemate and there is no clear cut way to definitively decide who the winner is.

Purely as a state Democratic committee member and not as a supporter of one candidate or the other, I believe that Rule 13.B. should be significantly amended and I think that if we amend Rule 13.B., we should do it so as to allow candidates to receive delegates at both the Congressional district and state-wide levels.

What I'm proposing is this:

A.)  If a candidate receives the most votes in a Congressional district, they should be awarded all of the delegates from that Congressional district.  

B.)  If a candidate receives the most votes state-wide, they should be awarded all of the state-wide (or at-large) delegates.

An example of this new rule proposal would be as follows:

In Georgia's 13th Congressional District, Sen. Obama won about 80% of the vote.  Under my new rule proposal, Sen. Obama would be awarded all six of the 13th district's delegates.  However, in the 9th Congressional district, Sen. Clinton won 61% of the vote, so she would be awarded all of the 9th's three delegates.  At the state-wide level, Sen. Obama received 66% of the vote and under the new Rule 13.B., he would be awarded all nineteen of Georgia's at-large delegates along with Georgia's eleven pledged party leader & elected official (PLEO) delegates.

I believe this makes sense and I also believe it is something that the Democratic National Committee should seriously consider  as it ponders any possible rule changes for the 2012 primary season.

(FYI, this is my official position as a state Democratic committee member from Georgia). 

There's more...

Just over a month ago, I published a diary titled "Note to the DNC: Apply the rules equally & fairly" in which I argued that the Democratic National Committee had not applied the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention equally and fairly to all states who were in violation of Rule 11.A.; the " Timing of the Delegate Selection Process" rule.

According to Rule 11.A., Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were all given specific dates on which to conduct their primaries and caucuses.  When those three states moved their "first determining stage" caucuses and primaries to January 3rd (IA), January 8th (NH), and January 26th (SC), they were all in violation of Rule 11.A. along with Florida and Michigan.

Yesterday, while speaking to the West Side (Indiana) Democratic Club, President Clinton rightly said that "Democrats let New Hampshire go out of turn," [Source:  3/24/2008 National Journal/Hotline On Call blog "WJC: NH Voted "Out Of Turn"].   As I said last month, Florida and Michigan were not the only states who broke the rules, but they were the only states that were punished.  And I'm proud to see that President Clinton has brought an heightened awareness to this very important fact.

This past Sunday, as I announced my candidacy for Democratic National Convention delegate from Georgia's 13th Congressional district, I was quoted in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution as saying that if elected, I would indeed vote to restore the voting rights of the two states that were punished for breaking the rules  [Source:  3/23/2008 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article "Choice of Democratic nominee may rest with panel"].  What wasn't included in the article, however, were my comments on the subject of this diary; the fact that five states broke the rules but only two states were punished.  I firmly believe that all five states -- Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina --   should all be punished equally and fairly or they shouldn't be punished at all.  

I don't believe you can pick and choose which states are penalized and which ones are not because that flies in the face of what I believe to be one of the Democratic Party's most cherished philosophies; that philosophy being that we're the Party of those who work hard and play by the rules.

That being said, it would be foolhardy for me to think that the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee would go back and retroactively hand down sanctions to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina for breaking the same rules that Florida and Michigan broke.  So, the only choice at this point is , barring a re-vote in those two states, to fully restore the voting rights of the Sunshine State and the Wolverine State at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August.

There's more...

As a prelude to this diary, I am serving notice to anyone who may feel the need to opine about how the Florida & Michigan delegations should not have their voting rights restored at the Democratic National Convention; how Hillary is breaking the rules by seeking to have those two states' delegations votes count in Denver; and how the "super delegates" should not flog the will of the people by voting for the presidential candidate that they believe will best represent the Democratic Party of the United States in the November 2008 General Election; notice is hereby given that before you hit that "submit" button to post your comments, you better make damn sure that what you're saying is consistent with the Charter & Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, the Call to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention, and the Regulations of the Rules & Bylaws Committee for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Now that that's out of the way, let me begin by saying that this diary is a continuation of a comment that I posted in the February 10, 2008 diary "Hillary's new "Super Delegate" endorsements".

Ladies & Gentlemen, this whole mess surrounding the state delegations from Florida and Michigan is a result of the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee not strictly adhering to the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention by applying the rules equally and fairly to all states.

Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:

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.

We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February.  There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too.

Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).

Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd.  That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February.  New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th.  That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February.  And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th.  That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee's Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 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.

Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.  

However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly.  In fact, they weren't punished at all.

And what about Florida & Michigan?

Well, we all know what happened to them.

Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further.  The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate?  Stripping two of the largest states in the union of their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren't applied equally and fairly.  And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.

So, the next time someone starts talking about the rules, might I suggest two courses of action:

1.)  Read the damn rules first!

-and-

2.) Let them know that the rules were bent to allow for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to keep their preferred first-in-the-nation status.

There's more...