The Michigan Dilemma

Over on One Good Move and Talk Left there is a debate going on about the Obama 50/50 proposal for the Michigan delegates. There are so many problems here that a simple solution can not address the larger issues at play.

First, all the candidates (with the exception of Dodd and Gravel), agreed to refrain from participating in the Michigan Primary. But somehow Hillary's name remained on the ballot. (I know Kusinich's name was on the ballot also, but he had requested that it be removed.)

The notion that anyone would remove his or her name from the ballot because they could not win the state is a logically ridiculous and dishonest statement. Had the candidates all remained on the ballot the outcome would have looked vastly different. Everyone assumes that Hillary's 56% was solid. And that no one who voted for her, selected her name because Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson were not on the ballot. And that they did not realize that they should have selected uncommitted or that write ins would be ignored.

According to polling at the time of the primary, Hillary would have won Michigan with 46%, Obama would have come in second with 23% and Edwards third with 13%. That leaves 18% to be split among the other candidates or were undecided.

If Hillary is granted 56% of the vote (which I might concede as being fair given that Obama would not have received all of the Edwards and undecided, but Hillary supporters would have to concede that not all of her votes were firm), she would receive 87 of the 156 delegate. Obama would walk away with the other 69.

Another possible solution is seat 90% of the delegates. Hillary would not have walked away with less than 50% of the vote, while Obama would not have walked away with less than 40% of the vote. That would give Hillary 78 of the 156 delegate and give Obama 62 and remove 16 delegates form the count.

I believe the main issue Hillary supporters have here is not the delegate count. Obviously they want it to be more equitable for Hillary. But more importantly they want to get to June and be to claim that Hillary has the popular vote. And counting the 328,000 votes she received in Michigan would certainly go a long way in that endeavor. But for this claim to hold water she has to be close on the delegate count.

Also, the purpose of the "punishment" was not to keep the delegates from being seated at the convention, but to keep both Florida and Michigan from being crucial states in deciding who the nominee would be. Everyone (with the possible exception of the Obama campaign) expected this to be over on Super Tuesday. It would have been a reasonable punishment had things gone as expected.

Finally, the big mistake by the DNC was the nature of the "punishment." Of course it is easy for me and others to criticize this course of action after the fact. The best punishment to a situation like this in the future would be not to disenfranchise the voters, but to punish the states Superdelegates. Allow the vote to go ahead as planned, however, do not count or seat the states Superdelegates. So your senators, representatives, governors and party officials will not be counted. And then subtract the Superdelegates from the total delegates needed for the nomination threshold. Why should average citizens be thrust into turmoil because of the decisions made by boneheaded politicians trying to strengthen their overblown relevance.