March 31st, 2008
05:10 PM ET
3 years ago

New Michigan plan proposed

 Stupak is proposing a new plan to seat Michigan's delegates.
Stupak is proposing a new plan to seat Michigan's delegates.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak proposed a new plan on Monday to seat his state's Democratic delegates to the party's convention in August, factoring in both the results of the state's January primary and the total popular vote of all the primary contests nationwide.

In a proposal sent to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Stupak proposed allotting 83 of Michigan's pledged delegates based on the January vote, while the state's remaining pledged delegates and superdelegates - 73 total - are to be awarded based on the nationwide vote.

The DNC stripped Michigan of its convention delegates late last year after the state moved up its primary to January 15. Under pressure from other early-voting states, most of the Democratic presidential candidates removed their name from the ballot there.

But Clinton opted to keep her name on the ballot and ultimately received 55 percent of the vote, compared to the 40 percent of the vote that went for "uncommitted."

Under Stupak's proposal, Clinton would receive 47 delegates based on her vote total, while Obama would be awarded 36 delegates based on that "uncommitted" result; the rest would be divided according to the nationwide popular vote total after all the primaries are completed.

 Full story

– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Filed under: Michigan
soundoff (300 Responses)
  1. Joel

    Are you kidding me?! How can you get away with giving Obama the 40% uncommited vote when there were still other candidates in the race at the time? For all we know, those votes could have been for Edwards.

    This plan is unfair.

    Clinton chose to be on the ballot. Clinton campaigned. Clinton deserves the delegates.

    End of story.

    March 31, 2008 06:21 pm at 6:21 pm |
  2. Willie

    Wow!! This guy is pretty smart. Looks like the voters will be heard and looks like Clinton will be the beneficiary of this proposal. Florida, your next. Democracy at its best.

    March 31, 2008 06:23 pm at 6:23 pm |
  3. Noreen

    Clinton would rather see McCain win the election than Obama because she wants to be the first to set a president (woman president). She never thought that it would be this difficult to win the primary. She just knew that she was a shoe-in. It's more about her than it is about the people of America.

    March 31, 2008 06:23 pm at 6:23 pm |
  4. sophia nyc

    Come June it won't matter. Obama will have enouhg delegates that Clinton can have all the MI & FL delegates.

    March 31, 2008 06:23 pm at 6:23 pm |
  5. NW Independent

    Any propasal without a vote is just plain stupid and I hope that Michigan and Florida voters soundly punish the DNC for it's bungling of this issue.

    Bottom line, is now it's going to be unclear as to if the eventual nominee is legitimate or not.

    March 31, 2008 06:24 pm at 6:24 pm |
  6. Kenneth

    NO no no

    March 31, 2008 06:25 pm at 6:25 pm |
  7. Leonardo

    THIS PROPOSAL IS REASONABLE AS LONG AS THE POPULAR VOTE IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA IS NOT FACTORED INTO THE THE SUPERDELEGATE APPORTIONMENT AS THESE ELECTIONS WERE IN VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES.

    March 31, 2008 06:25 pm at 6:25 pm |
  8. dawn

    Now who in the world would agree to something like that? Obama's name was not even on the ballot. Please explain to me why he should be penalized for playing by the rules? Forget it!

    March 31, 2008 06:28 pm at 6:28 pm |
  9. Jacob

    Totally unfair since Obama stuck to the agreed rules and didn't include his name on the ballot nor did he campaign there. A 50/50 split would be more feasible.

    March 31, 2008 06:29 pm at 6:29 pm |
  10. Mark

    This is out of control. Rules are rules MI and FL! Not that I think that your votes shouldn't be counted...but hey, they shouldn't. These states knowingly broke the rules and are now trying to go back because Hillary decided that she needs them. Isn't it just like the Clintons to want to change the rules for their own advantage. This being said, lets have a revote. I think Hillary has given everyone enough time to see that she has nothing to offer but lies.

    March 31, 2008 06:29 pm at 6:29 pm |
  11. Jim

    congrats for a factual reprentation of the reason Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot – to gain political favor from the early primary states. He should quit whining about his Mi and Fl losses and let those delegates get seated or risk being protrayed as being t divisive himself

    March 31, 2008 06:30 pm at 6:30 pm |
  12. jimsally

    What you think? Haven't applied this plan to the outcome...who would benefit from it jp

    March 31, 2008 06:30 pm at 6:30 pm |
  13. MK

    Come on! How much brain power does this really take? Divide the delegates between Clinton and Obama 50% each and let it go

    March 31, 2008 06:32 pm at 6:32 pm |
  14. Referee from Justice:

    To change the rules in the middle of the game, to favor/ or let win/ or otherwise change/ the course of the on going game is shamefull.

    The people whoever that are/ need to stand up and give an apology to the voters that they denied a vote due to there unfair and unsportsmanlike conduct. They get a technical foul and are outsted from the game.

    Come election time just remember who they are and how stupid this is and vote them out of office. After all if they don't show better judgement than the actions they took they need to be replaced by those who are willing to serve fairly and just. To break a rule and get away with it is not something The Vast Majority of Americans are in favor of.

    March 31, 2008 06:33 pm at 6:33 pm |
  15. Joel, Minneapolis

    this is preposterous. obama wasn't even on the G.D. ticket (excuse my use of profane letters). how do you justify the election when there is only one candidate on the ballot. this is a circus. america needs to grow up and hold a legitimate democratic election for once. is this cuba? i feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

    March 31, 2008 06:33 pm at 6:33 pm |
  16. Bill

    Sounds nearly fair, so it wont happen, Dean and Pelosi are against it.

    March 31, 2008 06:35 pm at 6:35 pm |
  17. Nancy

    I am all for Hillary but since these two states broke the rules, they should not be counted.

    Reward them for breaking the rules?
    I think NOT !

    March 31, 2008 06:35 pm at 6:35 pm |
  18. North Carolina

    Voters are still disenfranchised if their vote goes to a candidate for whom they did not vote: UNCOMMITTED DOES NOT EQUAL Sen. Obama: it equals Sen. Obama, Sen. Edwards, Gov.. Richardson, Sen. Kucinich, and Sen.Biden. Obama should get 1/5 of the total uncommitted vote, not the whole thing.

    March 31, 2008 06:38 pm at 6:38 pm |
  19. Fair is fair

    I voted "uncommitted" in Michigan in January, knowing that my effort was futile. It is ludicrous to allocate ANY delegates using January results. It is impossible to turn back the clock to January. This state broke the rules. Lesson learned. Period. Get over it, HillaryBots!

    March 31, 2008 06:38 pm at 6:38 pm |
  20. Ann, MI

    Senator Clinton promised not to participate in MI, and she went back on that promise (aka, she lied). She is quoted as saying that Michigan's votes should not be counted, and said that right up until Super Tuesday (aka, she is lying again) The party should NOT reward her any delegates for her behavior. A five year old will tell you that it is cheating, why can't Clinton see that?

    My candidate, bill Richardson, wasn't on the ballot. My husband's candidate, John Edwards wasn't on the ballot and my mother's candidate, Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot. Some of my friends voted in the Republican primary instead. Some chose to stay home that day. I will be one angry voter if the entire DNC bends to the will of a woman who will do anything to get what she wants.

    March 31, 2008 06:39 pm at 6:39 pm |
  21. chris in chicago

    ridiculous. lets move on. Michigan and Florida broke the rules plain and simple. Also, to base results on an election where only 1 candidate was on it is patently absurd. They should split the delegates in half and move on.

    March 31, 2008 06:39 pm at 6:39 pm |
  22. truth be told

    to all the Clinton supporters who try to bash Obama as being not democratic because of his position on Michigan and Florida (although he is just respecting the rules), what do you make of Sen Clinton who's basically asking superdelegates to overturn the decision of millions of Americans by choosing the candidate who has less states won, less percentage of popular vote (even if we include Florida) and of course less delegates.
    If Obama is disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters, then CLinton would be responsible of disenfranchising all voters who participated in the primary process all over the country!

    No double standards Clinton supporters!

    March 31, 2008 06:39 pm at 6:39 pm |
  23. hillaryfor2008

    Michigan and Florida will be seated..... After Obama has cinched up the nomination.

    As a Hillary supporter I have to concede that Obama's name wasnt even on the Michigan ballot, how are we even talking about using those votes? Florida though, should be seated as everyone was on the ballott, just give them 50% of the delegates.

    No one got to see the real Hillary Clinton because of the vial pen of Howard Wolfson, Terry McCauliffe and Mark Penn. Had she fired them long ago and told Bill to shut up, she would have won this thing.

    Worst run campaign ever. It was given away.

    March 31, 2008 06:40 pm at 6:40 pm |
  24. Mia

    It would be a fitting punishment to let Michigan's delegates count but make them wait until every last state has had their say first. That's what they do in kindergarten: kick you to the back of the line if you try to cut in line.

    I've been hearing various excuses why Michigan or Florida shouldn't be punished at all: the Republicans made them do it, the "smaller" states where getting the better end of the deal, etc.

    There are 48 other states in the union in which the GOP managed to behave themselves. Just because a bigger state feels they should be first because they are "bigger" neither is justified nor is it fair to the other "bigger" states who apparently weren't as antsy as Michigan or Florida.

    I don't think Michigan and Florida is going to change the outcome of the race like their original intent was. It's going to make an already close race closer. If you're down by a touchdown, going for the extra point or kicking a field goal isn't going to make one iota of a difference in the outcome.

    March 31, 2008 06:42 pm at 6:42 pm |
  25. John Smith

    This guy must be really "sick in the head."

    March 31, 2008 06:45 pm at 6:45 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12