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. Linda

    Why should Obama get any delegates in Michigan and Florida? He cheated and campaigned in both states when he wasn't supposed to. Ask him questions about why he wouldn't agree to revotes, ask him about his election in Illinois????

    March 31, 2008 06:48 pm at 6:48 pm |
  2. Ralph

    Obama's offer of spliting the delegates with Hillary shows he is willing to have the delegates seated, but not willing to agree to any last minute rule changes designed to benefit Hillary in her final hour. Hillary won't take this offer, because there is no clear advantage in it for her, and as we all know, it was never about the people's vote counting, but her whining, I mean winning.

    March 31, 2008 06:50 pm at 6:50 pm |
  3. Geoff Smith

    Unless Hillary drops out like she should; this plan seems terribly obvious.

    March 31, 2008 06:52 pm at 6:52 pm |
  4. Dan , TX

    Sounds Great!

    Obama '08

    March 31, 2008 06:53 pm at 6:53 pm |
  5. Emma

    Are these people for real????
    Michigan lost it's voice for breaking the rule of the DNC & these Michigan politicians knew that they were going to loose their voice at the time but chose to break the rules. None of these politicians, the clintons and their supporters raised the issue at the time. They are now trowing a tantrum over the issue because they think they can use it as leverage. Why did they not try to find solutions back then?
    All of you people that are trying to blame the Obama campain, none of this is his fault. HE COMPLIED WITH THE RULES, CLINTON DID NOT. So why would he agree to the terms that are being offered, none of it benefit him, they benefit her. She did not comply with her signed agreement, Michigan broke the rule and now Obama is expected to sit back and agree with everything and anything that's thrown at him. The amazing part of this whole thing is the amount of media coverage this has gotten. I wonder if their positions were reversed, would we still talk about it or try to find ways for bim to make a comback.
    For all of Cinton supporters, ask yourself one question, do you thing that if the roles were reversed, would your candidate be willing to let her opponent cheat her of all her hard work????? I think not!!!! She should stay in the race and finish all the primaries but trying to bring Michgan and Florida into this process now makes her worse than the idiot we have in the White House. Even Bush did not cheat with such open disdain and contempt towards the American people.

    Emma
    Springfield, VA

    March 31, 2008 06:54 pm at 6:54 pm |
  6. Walt, Belton,TX

    Who made up the formula? Clinton must have. Don't bother disenfranchizing voters if you can just say you count them they way she sees them.

    March 31, 2008 06:56 pm at 6:56 pm |
  7. Justine, Cincinnati

    I still don't see how that is fair? Why don't they just split them evenly?

    March 31, 2008 06:57 pm at 6:57 pm |
  8. zorg

    I am a Michigan voter who "crossed over" because I believed my vote didn't count. There was no way I was going to vote for "uncommitted" and expect people to know I meant Obama. Obama did the honorable thing to remove his name from the ballot. I don't understand why Clinton should benefit from that.

    Michigan was to be punished and deservedly so. I could accept that. But now those in Michigan who were for Clinton have their punishment lifted and get to silence those of us who would have voted for Obama.

    This weakens the Democratic party because I was previously willing to go with the winning Democrat against McCain. Now I won't because I don't like to be silenced while Clinton's supporters get to count on my vote.

    March 31, 2008 06:58 pm at 6:58 pm |
  9. JFK

    Seems like a good alternative to this fiasco. After this election, the Democratic leaders need to overhaul the primary system. The primary should be one day, all 50 states at once. None of the proportional state by state garbage!

    March 31, 2008 07:00 pm at 7:00 pm |
  10. Joyce in Florida

    Three attempts at comments. They are going off into never-neverland. What is happening?

    GO HILLARY 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    March 31, 2008 07:01 pm at 7:01 pm |
  11. kentucky

    If the people in Michigan want to be seated at the convention, then divide the delegates evenly. Had I been in Michigan to vote and there was only one democrat on the ballot, I to would have voted for that person, but given a choice of two candidates the choice may have been much different. If Obama had been on the ballot there he would have won, because of the auto industry in Michigan losing so many jobs to NAFTA. The Clintons are not very popular there. What is disturbing is that all candidates including Hillary were supporting the decision of the DNC. Then she slipped in the back door and declares victory. Is it just me or does this sound like a page from Slick Willy?

    March 31, 2008 07:03 pm at 7:03 pm |
  12. White, Female Boomer for Obama

    There is NO way if the present numbers were reversed and if Clinton had followed the rules would they agree to this especially adding the numbers to the popular vote.

    What about the Michigan voters who did NOT vote because it was not going to count.

    Why bother having campaigns at all? Just make up the ballots and vote?

    March 31, 2008 07:08 pm at 7:08 pm |
  13. LarryB

    The Democratic party, with it's caucuses (a "time tax"), super delegates, punishing 2 states by disenfranchising them, and the bosses calling on Hillary to bow out of the race kinda makes me question if the "people's party" would just prefer that all us pesky voters would just get out of "their" race.

    Larry B

    San Antonio, Texas

    March 31, 2008 07:08 pm at 7:08 pm |
  14. mj

    You've got to be kidding! Obama didn't even have his name on the ballot (because he agreed not to) and Hillary had agreed not to–saying it didn't matter and then left it on. Who calls this fair? Hmmm, let me think, probably the person who changes rules when they help her!

    March 31, 2008 07:08 pm at 7:08 pm |
  15. Ryan

    This seems like a smart and fair resolution. Much better than Hillary's take it as is (with Obama off the ballot).

    March 31, 2008 07:10 pm at 7:10 pm |
  16. Roland

    The only fair approach to solving the Florida and Michigan problem is to give half of the total delegate count of those two states to Obama and another half to Hillary. No candidate should be given even one delegate more than is given to the other. Obama obeyed the DNC's rules and, therefore, did not campaign in those states. Thus, it will be a blutant unfairness and favouritism to give to Hillary even just one delegate more than is given to Obama.

    March 31, 2008 07:11 pm at 7:11 pm |
  17. Ross in MD

    Clinton's name was the only one on the ballot in Michigan.

    It was a sham 'election'. Not one delegate should be awarded based on that.

    If they want to split the Michigan delegates based on the nationwide vote, that seems fair...

    March 31, 2008 07:11 pm at 7:11 pm |
  18. BJ

    thats his ideas,who cares,rules are rules and the law is the law,it should be followed not to favor others..
    the fair game will be split 50/50.if not ,then i vote obama

    March 31, 2008 07:11 pm at 7:11 pm |
  19. john jadryev

    maybe the superdelegates should not even be counted or seated; afterall they are the state party leaders who allowed this to happen. apportion the elected delegates by some formula agreed to by both parties. that way there would still be some penalty plus the voters who participated and who might otherwise be disenfranchised would be recognized. this could work for florida also.

    March 31, 2008 07:12 pm at 7:12 pm |
  20. Jan.A.

    If Hillary had won as many states as Obama has and was ahead in pledge delegates I am sure that she, her campaign and her husband would be demanding ( no dought about it) that Obama get out of the race to keep the party united.

    The Clinton's will do anything (including lying, cheating and stealing}
    to get the nomination because they feel that it is their right.

    March 31, 2008 07:12 pm at 7:12 pm |
  21. La Bomb ba

    another obama dirty trick to hold out so he can get delegates not his

    March 31, 2008 07:12 pm at 7:12 pm |
  22. Doug

    I disagree with Michigan Rep. Stupaks approach for seating the delegates from his State and I hope the Clinton Campaign does as well. If you look at the timeline of events for the Democratic Primary for Michigan on January 15th there were 5 Democratic candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gravel & Kucinich) still vying for the parties nomination. Senator Obama should not be awarded the 36 delegates based on the 'uncommitted' result as a portion of those would have gone to Edwards, Gravel & Kucinich as well. They need to come up with a fair and equitable solution for the uncommitted votes. If they want to split the votes then split the entire delegate count based on the 55/40 and award 90 to Senator Clinton and 66 to Senator Obama. Fair is Fair.

    March 31, 2008 07:14 pm at 7:14 pm |
  23. Amanda from Michigan

    No one in Michigan was informed that write in votes would be thrown out. Where's the number of thrown out votes? That could have impacted HRC's supposed 55% "win" in Michigan. Michigan voters will be disenfranchised any way you cut this. Our voters are that way because our legislators made decisions to take away our rights as citizens. That is why we are disenfranchised.
    Thanks Stupak for at least trying. Try educating the rest of the legislators on how to follow rules and then how to educate your voters.

    March 31, 2008 07:14 pm at 7:14 pm |
  24. Republican for Obama

    Good spin attempts from the Clinton supporters but come on. Ask yourself why were so many Republicans voting for Clinton after McCain cinched the nomination? If you are being honest you know it's because they HATE her and know that no one will bring out the Republicans voters like Hillary will. With Obama running there are a lot of Independents and some (myself included) Republicans who will vote for him. Lastly to all those Dems saying if Obama wins they are voting for McCain here is a little phrase written many years ago just for you: Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Grow up and think what's best for the country instead of how your pride may be bruised because your candidate lost.

    March 31, 2008 07:15 pm at 7:15 pm |
  25. Orlando

    I think this is a good plan but to make it even better just strip the remaindering delegates altogether then do the same for Florida. Problem solve MI & FL will be seated.

    March 31, 2008 07:18 pm at 7:18 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12