From LANSING, Mich. – Top Michigan Democrats are still working to get their delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
They’re suggesting a 69-59 split between the top two candidates, according to the Associated Press.
The DNC denied Michigan its delegates after it moved up its primary.
.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:42 am
Candidates who followed the DNC rules, agreed upon by both Obama and Clinton, should not be penalized for supporting party guidelines.
The ONLY fair way to include the Florida and Michigan folks is to split the delegates EQUALLY in both states so that neither candidate is rewarded or penalized for following, or not, the original DNC rules. Then the voters in Fl and MI are not disenfranchised, but they do not control an election in which there was no level playing field. These states had been told they would not count so campaigning and ballot registration decisions were made in good faith that the DNC would be true to its word.
The DNC will lose all credibility and authority if it twists its rules in mid-game. In the future, such rules, when made, should not apply to the current election but for the next appropriate election so that favoritism is not shown, and rules are made for the good of the party rather than the good of a single candidate. How else can the process be perceived as fair?
The Superdelegate “solution” is another case in point. The DNC should consider, well in advance of FUTURE elections (not this one), whether these delegates serve a valid function. Why should their vote count more that mine as a registered, faithful (yellow-dog) democrat? If primary results are ignored, you will have MANY disenfranchised voters who will, HOPEFULLY, still support the ticket despite being denied a voice in the process.
As for the primary “rush to the front of the season,” we should be able to come up with a better system. This year it seems that all primaries will be important, but as a North Carolinian, that is often not the case here. Could the states not be divided into several regions (not necessarily contiguous states or geographical regions, but mixed in their demographics). Each election cycle, one “region” or group of states would be able to have their primaries in the first round–have a period of time for campaigning by the candidates, then the second round of primaries, and so on till all the states/territories have had an opportunity to vote. The next election, the order of “regions” would change so that ultimately, each state would get to be in the first round of voting. I’m sure some computer/statistics savvy democrat could come up with a fair system based on these principles. It could require working with the GOP so that a single grouping could be developed for both parties so that states did not face the issue (expense) of separate Dem and Repub primaries.