The Michigan Compromise?

Mark Halperin has his hands on a compromise plan floated by some Michigan Democrats.

He writes:

Michigan’s 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

–Florida’s existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention—but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

– The two states’ superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

To make this happen would require the same three-step process.

First, the rules and bylaws committee would have to handle it in some fashion. Then they'd punt it to the chairs of the credentials committee. Then the chairs would kick it to the full committee. Then the full committee would recommend it to the full Democratic National Convention.

Unless Howard Dean is willing to cross what has been his bright line -- the rules are the rules -- then there is no quicker way for such a compromise to take effect.

Comments

I think this is not too bad (from a slew of ungreat choices), is free, and avoids the buyer's remorse issue if they spend millions trying to redo this and the contest effectively ends a few weeks before, through overwhelming math that no one can ignore.

That means it probably has no chance.

Mind, in principle I support doing elections over, as that's in the rules. But the problems of format and financing and general cries of "Hey, (insert random election method) is totally unfair and will invalidate any results" have discouraged me on that front. Combined with my hope, of course, that it will be over.

Posted by Deborah | March 13, 2008 4:55 PM

There will be an enormous outcry if those Florida delegates are seated. The Democratic Party cannot announce to the voters that the results from a particular state will not count, and then turn around and say, "Whoops, we're going to count those votes after all." It is a violation of the most basic rules of fairness. And if Clinton is the benficiary of such a scenario, it will further de-legitimize her as the nominee.

Posted by guido sarducci | March 13, 2008 5:00 PM

So they come up with a "compromise" which is IMMENSELY FAVORABLE TO OBAMA, and still Sputterin' Fudd and the Far Lefties don't like it? Wow.

Posted by robert ethan | March 13, 2008 5:00 PM

As someone who lives in Florida, giving us only half of our delegates is a "half-assed" idea.

Take this matter to the Convention floor.

Posted by Mitch | March 13, 2008 5:03 PM

Best compromise, take Florida results as previously voted (benefits Hillary).

And re-do Michigan as a caucus (benefits Obama).

Otherwise this thing will blow up in Denver.

Posted by James | March 13, 2008 5:05 PM

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/13/767355.aspx

Posted by Anan | March 13, 2008 5:08 PM

But if Dean, the Florida pols, the Michigan pols, and both campaigns all publicly announce this resolution, doesn't that make it a done deal, even if the i-dotting and t-crossing comes at the convention?

Posted by Oaktown | March 13, 2008 5:08 PM

"We're going on to New Hampshire next, Tom Harkin, then we'll fight tooth and nail to see that Michigan and Florida AREN'T represented, then we go to Oklahoma and South Carolina, and Nevada and Wyoming and.....YEAAARRGGHHHH!"

Posted by robert ethan | March 13, 2008 5:09 PM

James, the problem is that Hillary won't agree to that. She needs to have both Michigan and Florida stand as is in order to have any chance of winning even the popular vote. So she's not going to settle for less than that.

Posted by Mike | March 13, 2008 5:10 PM

Does Marc ever answer questions posted here? If so, I am wondering if he could give me his opinion/information on the credentials committee.

Let's assume that we won't have a revote. The state parties can then appeal to the credentials committee to 'do something' about their delegates. The credentials committee is chaired by three former Clinton appointees. Does Marc feel as if they might play some tricks and prevent those proposals that favor Obama from ever going to the full committee? And, exactly how much power do the chairs of this committee have?

Secondly, I understand that the members of the committee are seated according to the primaries, but that the larger population states are overrepresented. Is it possible that Clinton-supporting members might actually have a majority in the committee because of this? Does anyone know how the membership would flesh out as of right now?

I ask because Hillary seems very confident (IMO) that she is going to get those FL and MI delegates seated in a manner that favors her. I'm wondering if she knows something that we don't? As in, "My chairs won't ever let any proposal see the light of day that hurts me." Or, "I'll control the membership of the committee anyway so they'll vote down any proposal that doesn't help me."

Posted by sbj | March 13, 2008 5:12 PM

One other thing. Obviously, the most fair solution is a revote but that's looking just impossible logistically.

A reason this is compromise is the most fair option is that it is a close proxy for how revotes would come out if it happened. The polls in Michigan say Obama and Clinton are roughly even, and after campaigning he could probably narrow Clinton's lead in Florida but not close it.

Is it perfect? No. But it's much more fair than a pure 50-50 split (which doesn't give Clinton credit for her advantage in Florida) or seating the delegations on the pure basis of the original beauty contests (which is quite unfair to Obama, who was just playing by the rules that he and Clinton agreed to and that Ickes voted for). If a revote is not possible, this is the best solution.

Posted by Oaktown | March 13, 2008 5:13 PM

Speaking as an Obama supporter, this is a solid deal...that can be spun as "I'm doing this for the good of the party".

If I were Obama, I'd "reluctantly" take it.

I think Clinton supporters are forgetting who's going to be running the credentials committee...and it's not Clinton folks. If this really went to the convention, she'd lose.

Posted by rashomon | March 13, 2008 5:17 PM

Rashomon:

How do you know that Obama will be running the credentials committee? Please let me know because I'm not sure.

Don't forget that the three chairs are Clintonites, and that the larger states (of which Clinton has won virtually all) are overrepresented in the membership.

Honestly curious how you know Obama will be running the credentials committee?

Posted by sbj | March 13, 2008 5:43 PM

SBJ,

Details on the CredComm can be found in the links below. It has 25 Dean-appointed folks now, and will then by populated with additional folks allocated by state.

Current members (Dean-controlled)
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/kate_oconnor_former_cpos.php

How the additional members are allocated (last page of the 2008 call)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/1e7a30a018948c3b82_wum6iyofq.pdf

Posted by Oaktown | March 13, 2008 6:07 PM

Obama would exert a disproportionate influence on the credentials committee through his proxy, Howard Dean.

No less an authority than perennial loser Joe Trippi recently averred to the media that the Obama campaign was "Howard Dean 2.0". You can almost hear the pleading in Trippi's voice to be hired by Obama, but then the parallels would be uncomfortably obvious.

Posted by robert ethan | March 13, 2008 6:11 PM

Mich/Fl will not have a redo, delegates will be spilit 50/50. They are running out of time for any real time voting and Fl laws are very stringent against such redo. Haven't you guys notice this is what Dean wanted. People blamed him for not interceding but the DNC are backing Obama against the Clinton Machine. They let Fl and Mich spin their wheels to no avail. And as for Halperin idea. The DNC credential committee isn't operational. It transfers power to the nominee on June 10th and the nominee has 25 slots to fill on that committee. That is why Hillary is going around saying the votes were fair on NPR. She pushing back on the arguements that the states broke the rules and should be penalized.

The superdelegates including Nancy Pelosi and Bill Richardson and others were going to endsorse Obama after TX/Ohio to wrap up this process but Clinton won Ohio and tied with Obama in TX.

I predict after the NC contest, and if Obama can either win Penn or keep his lost close to Hillary all the superdelegates will endsore him. They are really nervous about the Obama is unelectable strategy the Clintons have adopted.

If he wins Penn, the superdelegates will run to Obama and shut down the process.

Posted by sonya | March 13, 2008 6:13 PM

"Obama would exert a disproportionate influence on the credentials committee through his proxy, Howard Dean."

If true, then why did Dean appoint three Clintonites as the co-chairs of that committee?

And are you guys actually saying that Dean is in the bag for Obama? The head of the DNC?

Posted by sbj | March 13, 2008 6:29 PM

Per Marc: "Mr. Dean has not packed the committee with Clinton loyalists. He's packed the committee with, well, Dean loyalists. ... Dean's overwhelming priority is to maintain the integrity of the rules."

Posted by sbj | March 13, 2008 6:33 PM

If all the Michigan and Florida delegates are split 50/50, then it would have the same effect on the results as not having voted at all.

Florida and Michigan will be furious.

Has anyone been listening to the Rev. Wright sermons? I am wondering if it is the Hillary people who are circulating that trash! It could sink Obama's chances . . "God Damn America", says Obama's spiritual leader.

Posted by James | March 13, 2008 6:33 PM

Oaktown:

Thanks much for the link. I took a look at the last page for the ALLOCATION OF STANDING COMMITTEE MEMBERS and did a (very) rough count based on the states won so far. Because Hillary has won the big states I come up with a count that puts them in a tie: 58 to 58. I'm probably off a bit, but I remain unconvinced that Obama is going to control this committee.

Posted by sbj | March 13, 2008 7:01 PM

Any deal like this that nets Hillary delegates out of what were illegitimate elections is a bad deal for Obama. This is another Hillary trick.

Plus, no matter what the Hillary camp would say, such a deal would allow them to claim that Hillary won another big state, FL, and thus claim the popular vote margin.

Finally, I am sick and tired of the media and the Hillary people trying to make this into some sort of deep controversy.

I live in FL and quite frankly, the average person doesn't know a whole lot about this or care. They care about rising fuel costs, the housing slump, their relatives in Iraq, etc. This issue of the delegates being seated won't make a difference in a general election vote.

And certainly any deal to ceremoniously seat these delegates will not matter to the overwhelming majority of people. The only thing that would matter would be a true election with a true campaign, and there is not time enough for that to happen.

Plus, these delegates will end up being seated ceremoniously anyway, once a nominee is agreed upon. Then they will either be split 50/50 or 100% for the nominee.

Posted by cm | March 13, 2008 7:10 PM

The composition of the Credentials Committee's new members will slightly favor Clinton, but only by 10-11 members based on likely elective outcomes for the remaining contests. That means that the 25 Dean-appointed seats will hold sway and will prohibit the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations absent a deal.

I disagree that the Dean-appointed seats are pro-Obama. It's more fair to say they are pro-rules. The rules in this case, objectively, favor Obama. That's not a partisan statement, it's just a fact. And it's hardly evidence of favoritism.

Someone above cited Trippi's "Obama is Dean 2.0" as evidence of bias. That's absurd. Trippi was discussing his campaign methodology, not a personal allegiance. Dean's doing the right thing and playing it down the middle, by insisting that the rules be followed. These are rules that were agreed to by everyone before the process.

Posted by Oaktown | March 13, 2008 7:30 PM

under this plan, will Florida's delegates "half-vote" status extend to a possible second ballot? Will the Obama campaign get to select the 78 Michigan delegates? Will the MI (and FL) delegates be (or be seen as) more poachable for the Clinton campaign?

Posted by JC | March 13, 2008 7:40 PM

Split the delegates; strip them of the Superdelegates as punishment for going agains the rules. No money need to be spent on this solution.

Posted by rikyrah | March 13, 2008 8:09 PM

Assuming that they split the Michigan delegates, does that mean that Michigan is half of a real state? Will the Clintons declare western Michigan legitimate, while eastern Michigan sinks into darkness?

Posted by morzer | March 13, 2008 8:14 PM

The only fair thing to do is to tell Florida and Michigan to POUND SAND.

The rules were set. They broke the rules knowing the penalty. They did this to themselves.

Seating those delegations after they flaunted the rules would simply give other states precedent to flaunt the rules in the future.

Posted by Down with the King | March 13, 2008 8:16 PM

I imagine that splitting the Michigan delegates is against Obama's interest - polls show him tied with Clinton right now in that state, and given the general trend of Clinton losing ground as the campaign moves into a given state, I'd expect Obama to win, possibly by a 10% margin. I doubt somehow that the split Michigan/seat Florida compromise will happen.

Posted by andrian | March 13, 2008 8:18 PM

Best guess is that this discussion will drag on endlessly until it's too late for Clinton to do much about it. Obama isn't going to lose his delegate lead at this point, and I can't see the Democrats overturning most states, most delegates and most votes, all of which he has from the legitimate contests so far. Pelosi and Dean will keep talking and be regretfully unable to broker a compromise that satisfies all. Clinton will mutter and complain, but people are getting bored by this discussion, and in a month's time nobody in those states will care much either way. Certainly not enough to shift the result in the general election.

Posted by leopold | March 13, 2008 8:23 PM

The AP is reporting that there's a deal for a do-over primary (not caucus) in Michigan. This is likely to benefit Clinton slightly vs. a caucus in that it improves the odds of a 50/50 split. Assuming Clinton wins Pennsylvania by Ohio-like margins, she'd get a psychological boost from any type of win in Michigan, although an Obama win would negate the argument that he can't win big states other than Illinois. Either way, unless Clinton were to take both MI and FL by 15% (not likely), then even with PA, she's unlikely to catch Obama in pledged delegates. That said, it comes to the superdelegates in any case. To the extent the SDs decide based on the "moral claim" of the popular vote, any do-over in Michigan helps Obama immensely, since Clinton has 300,000 "free" votes on Obama as it stands (and Obama is still 100,000 ahead, all inclusive, at least until PA).

Posted by KPO'M | March 13, 2008 8:56 PM

There's also the argument of justice: why reward these states with such a potentially influential role when they openly violated party rules?

Why give these states what some may perceive as a role that trumps the role of many of the states that played by the rules?

This is much ado about nothing. The delegates will be seated once a nominee is settled upon, and the delegates will get to cast their votes for that nominee.

Not much else seems to work, given time constraints.

Posted by cm | March 13, 2008 10:18 PM

oaktown:

I am not so sure that the Dean-appointed seats will hold sway. If Clinton has a 10 member advantage, she only has to flip 3 or 4 Dean appointed members. And if you think about it, were the Dean appointed members to decide the issue there would be an uproar. It would be the least democratic outcome. If one thought that it was undemocratic to have superdelegates decide the nomineee, what do you think of Howard Dean deciding it?

I'm also beginning to lack confidence that the penalty imposed by Dean will stand up to scrutiny. Marc wrote earlier of the Florida superdelegates issue in which Howard appears to have violated the DNC rules by not seating the FL SDs (separate issue from the pledged delegates). Assuming Dean screwed that up with his penalty, might it be possible to argue that he screwed the whole thing up to the point that the credentials committee can plausibly justify throwing that entire penalty decision out?

Then the credentials committee is not only free to decide the issue, they have to decide the issue. At that point I think you could argue that it would only be fair to seat FL and MI delegates such that Clinton gains at least 50 pledged delegates.

That's a lot of ifs, here's two more: If she controls the credentials committee, and if Dean broke DNC rules, anything could happen and she is well-positioned.

Posted by sbj | March 13, 2008 10:25 PM

If this is accepted you can bet that Hillary's camp will count the "popular vote" from FL & MI's faux elections. Giving her a good chance at winning the popular vote, which is her goal to win enough super delegates to get the nomination.

I would they would not be fooled so (lamely) easily, but I'm wary...

Posted by Colin | March 13, 2008 10:28 PM

This can;t work, because it would take away Hillary's talking/rallying point. Any action that requires leadership and judgment seems to be void from Hillary's campaign.

Personally, I hope this idea goes through so we can all move past this idiotic debacle and end Hillary's fanning the flames of this issue.

Posted by Bill | March 13, 2008 10:52 PM

why are michigan democrats telling florida how to allocate their delegates? we don't care how you do it up north. we had all the candidates on our ballot here in FL, and obama got his clock cleaned.

Posted by campskunk | March 13, 2008 10:56 PM

Robertethan has more brains in his big toe than
does the golden braintrust of Hillary's campaign.
Learn it, live it, love it, you dithering dolts.

Posted by interferon | March 13, 2008 11:02 PM

Why is ol' Howie Dean not practicing medicine?
Malpractice? ...like what he's doing to the DNC?
You guys need a good ambulance chasin' attorney
like John Edwards to look into this fiasco. Ask
him...he's not doin' anything right now.

Posted by interferon | March 13, 2008 11:11 PM

must watch this video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hwLaCb07lAs

Posted by JP | March 13, 2008 11:13 PM

SBJ:

If she starts a 10 member advantage in the Committe, she'd need to flip 8 of the 25 Dean appointees to gain control (X+(25-8)

Posted by Oaktown | March 13, 2008 11:13 PM

Oaktown:

Thanks for reply - I thought I had my math screwed up. But that does mean she only has to flip 8 of 25 supposedly neutral Deaniacs. A good 33% chance I think.

As far as the SDs being a separate issue than the pledged ones, I believe the Dean penalty dealt with both so they are somewhat connected - perhaps? And Dean appears to have gotten that wrong so she already looks headed to picking up quite a few SDs - which are still going to decide this. Is the same true of the MI SDs?

The rules need to be enforced, but did Dean impose a penalty consistent with the charter?

"It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything".

This is literally true even if they seat FL delegates. Thet results won't be used to determine the number of delegates awarded. They will be awarded based on some other metric - perhaps a look at the polling of registered voters at the time?

Hillary and Obama made all sorts of statements and will make all sorts of arguments but won't it come down to this - is the penalty consistent with the charter? Was it 'legal'?

Posted by sbj | March 13, 2008 11:31 PM

The fact that Clinton supporters hate it, Obama supporters hate it, and Floridians hate it make me think it's a good idea.

Posted by Jason | March 13, 2008 11:31 PM

I agree with Down With The King. How is seating delegates elected in violation of the rules not "changing the rules in the middle of the game," regardless of whether are split 50/50, or any other way? If the states want to have new procedures that comply with the rules, and do so before the deadline for electing valid delegates, fine. (And the states and/or the state parties can pay for it, because they are the ones who caused the problem.) But changing the rules in the middle of the game is corrupt, and will produce a corrupt nomination.

Posted by TKD | March 14, 2008 12:05 AM

Everyone is tired of Iowa and New Hampshire always going first. The whole system needs to be revamped. The first step towards rearranging the contests was to add two states to the early primary calendar this cycle. All other states were warned that if they held their primaries early, their delegations would not be seated. In spite of this, Florida and Michigan went ahead and did just that. They were told the rules, ALL the candidates agreed and pledged to accept the DNC's decision. So their delegations should not be seated. Period. To do so now, will ensure that Iowa and New Hampshire will ALWAYS be first. After all, even if the DNC schedules other states to go first in upcoming elections, Iowa and New Hampshire will just move theirs up knowing their delegations will be seated anyways.

So yeah Hillary, go ahead and whine about it. And if you get your way, you still won't get the nomination, but you will ensure that Iowa and New Hampshire will always be first and the national party will have no control over the primary calendar.

Posted by A Non E Mouse | March 14, 2008 1:15 AM

I am a fourth grade teacher in an urban school. We have rules in our school and in our classroom. If we didn't, it would be, at best, chaos. Under this scenario, students wishing to flout the rules do not have to abide by the consequences. They can just claim they were treated unfairly. If, for example, there is a rule that one must turn in all of one's homework in order to go on a field trip. According to Mrs. Clinton & Co., students should simply be threatened that they will not go on the field trip, but when field trip day comes, we all relent and everyone goes. Needless to say, homework never gets done after that.

Those silly Clintons never cease to amaze me.

Posted by kb | March 14, 2008 1:16 AM

Oopsies! Unedited late-night version posted! Please see edited version below:

I am a fourth grade teacher in an urban school. We have rules in our school and in our classroom. If we didn't, it would be, at best, chaos. Under this scenario, with everyone doing amazing contortions trying to please the Clintons and the offending states, students wishing to flout the rules do not have to abide by the consequences. They can just claim they were treated unfairly. For example, there is a rule that one must turn in all of one's homework in order to go on a field trip. According to Mrs. Clinton & Co., students should simply be threatened that they will not go on the field trip, but when field trip day comes, we all relent and everyone goes. Needless to say, homework never gets done after that.

Those silly Clintons never cease to amaze me.

Posted by kb | March 14, 2008 1:20 AM

Dean said that after June 10th he is no longer the DNC chairperson. The nominee becomes the head of the DNC and fills the 25 slots on the committee and he installs his person as DNC chairperson

Posted by sonya | March 14, 2008 3:39 AM

I Live in Michigan. The problem started when the Michigan Democratic Party broke the rules not expecting rules to be enforced. They probably were inspired by watching the Shrub get away with so much. This is a self inflicted wound by the Michigan Democratic Party. They kept up with the change in date even when it was clear our votes would not count. Now any solution is ridiculous. So let's pick a ridiculous solution that doesn't cost anything. This is of course the time for the ADULTS in the Democratic Party to speak up. Oh, that's right there aren't any adults in the Democratic Party. Just child like petulance by Hillary and Dean. Since Hillary is incapable of building herself up and has to tear down Obama and the Democratic chances in what should have been a "Helen Keller" election.

Posted by John Edward | March 14, 2008 10:34 AM

I have a better solution:

It's cheap, and it's fair, and it's decisive.

Apportion their delegates according to the number of delegates each candidate wins in all of the other remaining primaries. They also have their super delegates.

Posted by Bunker | March 14, 2008 11:36 AM

There is an inexpensive, semi-fair way to do FL. Let voters who did not participate in the first round vote from now til June 3 at a limited number of state locations, e.g county clerk's offices. It's exactly like the 'early voting' allowed most places, just late instead of early. Clinton will end up with a lead, but Obama gets a crack at narrowing it and showing strength. Nobody is hassled to vote twice, everybody gets a chance once, FL gets included. no problem with FL law about mail-ins. Obama can afford to slip a few delegates, Clinton can't afford not to grab what she can, neither can afford to leave FL out or have a blatantly unfair process.

Posted by midwestdoc | March 14, 2008 12:15 PM

Oaktown:

If you're still reading, this article from realclearpolitics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/michigan_florida_options_shrin.html, seems to indicate that it would be Obama with a 10 member advantage on the creds cmte.

Posted by sbj | March 14, 2008 12:19 PM

Bad move.

This is not about counting the voters, but about rewarding those who actually broke the rules by seating them at the convention.

It's patronage, and it's worse than not seating anyone from the two states.

Posted by Matthew G. Saroff | March 14, 2008 1:07 PM

It's not really clear to me why people think Clinton's supporters will have an advantage on the credentials committee. Committee membership is awarded to the states based on their proportional of votes for the candidate. Winning by 51% in NY means you get 55% of of credentials committee votes (6 of 11), whereas winning by 51% in MT means you get 100% of its committee votes (1 of 1). Of the 23 with either 1 or 3 seats, Obama has won or will win 20 of them. The fact is that winning a lot of small states is much better than then winning a few big ones.

Posted by Ryan | March 14, 2008 5:54 PM