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

New Michigan plan proposed

[cnn-photo-caption image= caption=" 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. S. Shay


    Any plan in Michigan that doesn't award votes/delegates 50/50, considering Obama wasn't even on the ballot is UNFAIR!!


    March 31, 2008 05:38 pm at 5:38 pm |
  2. Keep your word

    Both candidates, clinton and obama, agreed that Michigan and Florida would not be counted in their respective delegate counts due to the two states violations of the primary rules. Now that Clinton is losing, she is vehemently pushing to re-do the votes for Michigan and Florida.
    She doesn't keep her word, and does absolutely everything she can to twist, bend, turn and manipulate anything that might get her power.

    Is this really someone you want as your country leader? She has a complete lack of integrity. That is the only this transparent about her campaign.

    March 31, 2008 05:39 pm at 5:39 pm |
  3. Adam - TX

    Sounds fair, but the Obama camp is too undemocratic and coniving to support it. They know it will be shooting their own foot if those votes get thrown into the total because there is a good chance (with Florida), Hillary will lead slightly in the popular vote at the end of all this, but still trail in the delegate count.

    March 31, 2008 05:39 pm at 5:39 pm |
  4. Jason

    NO. I am being dis-enfranchised!! I was an Edwards supporter and could not vote for "uncommitted" and because it was an "open" primary I crossed over and voted for Romney who was anti-Mccain at the time. Split the delegates evenly or stop coming up with stupid ideas. Michigan screwed up.

    March 31, 2008 05:39 pm at 5:39 pm |
  5. Corey, Bloomington IN

    When will people understand that a vote for 'uncommitted' is a far cry from a vote for Barack Obama? Hillary's Michigan "win" by 15 points against no one was pathetic! She should have left the race then.

    March 31, 2008 05:39 pm at 5:39 pm |
  6. HAM

    I think all the people should be heard... This doesn't give any real edge to Hillary since it's only and extra 12 votes... which Obama could get back in the nationwide... that and it doesn't leave people out which SHOULD be important to all Americans...

    March 31, 2008 05:39 pm at 5:39 pm |
  7. Is

    I will not support this. Obama is neck and neck with Clinton in polls here, and there's no reason why the votes from the primary should count when Clinton was the only one to be on the ballot.

    March 31, 2008 05:40 pm at 5:40 pm |
  8. Carl from Pa

    At this point, lets just go with something – anything, because at the end of the day Barack Obama is still ahead in every catigory thereby making this pretty much a moot process.

    March 31, 2008 05:40 pm at 5:40 pm |
  9. Bill in NYC

    Dear Michigan and Florida Voters:

    Your representatives disenfranchised you when they decided to move the dates of your primaries. Not the DNC, not Obama and not Clinton – YOUR REPRESENTATIVES. Respond by simply voting them out of office the next time their names appear on a ballot, not sitting at home and pouting or registering a grudge vote for McCain in November.

    March 31, 2008 05:41 pm at 5:41 pm |
  10. Oraymw, Rexburg Idaho`

    That is a perfectly acceptable solution to me. However, many people will complain about Obama getting any votes at all, and it will probably bring the democratic party to even more of a stanstill. I think that it would be good for Obama, so that he can show that we was willing to take allow Hillary to step outside of the rules, just so that he could recognize Michigan voters.

    March 31, 2008 05:42 pm at 5:42 pm |
  11. Matt gregory

    The Michigan and Florida debacle really does need to be resolved. I agree that we should not disenfranchise the voters of either state but the best way to make it fare to both candidates is to split the vote down the middle in both states. Being aware that Hillary got the better of the votes in both states it still doesn’t sit well with me be cause both candidates were asked not to campaign in those states and Obama's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan. I choose and support Obama but if he were to drop out or if his name was not on the ballot I would choose Hillary. Now this is what I really believe to be the case in Michigan. A complete revote or an equal split is the only way to go.

    March 31, 2008 05:42 pm at 5:42 pm |
  12. JimII

    Sounds like a plan. Then we can just go ahead and seat the Florida delegates as they are and get on with the coronation of President Obama.

    March 31, 2008 05:42 pm at 5:42 pm |
  13. jk5432

    Let's see now – Stupak claims to be neutral, but proposes a plan that benefits the onecandidate who chose to ignore the rules; who stayed on the ballot when all other candidates followed the rules and had their names taken off. This, despite the facts that a) many Democratic voters stayed home, knowing their vote didn't count; b) a significant number of Democratic voters chose to vote in the Republican primary rather than not vote at all; c) Hillary benefited from name recognition when no candidates campaigned, therefore, they had no chance to influence voters who had not made up their mind; d) that he, as well as the rest of the Party powers that be, knew that this was a non-viable primary before it was run; and e) knew that all of the candidates had agreed that the results wouldn't count.

    Despite all that, he wants to give the results directly to the one candidate who chose not to follow the agreed upon rules, without even taking the step that the Republicans did of cutting the delegate count in half. So, if I understand correctly, Hillary is to be rewarded for cheating (oops, misspoke – didn't follow the rules that all of the other candidates, including the one he endorsed, did) without any "punishment" for doing so? Obviously, the new rule is "Rules, we don't need no stinkin' rules!" Pathetic.

    March 31, 2008 05:42 pm at 5:42 pm |
  14. drltw

    The last time l heard, we lived in a society of rules. We have laws that govern order in our society, we have rules that we teach our children, we have rules in sports and entertainment, we even have rules in war. How is it that two states that decided to blantantly derespect the rules of the National DNC and make their own decisions regarding the political process be rewarded seats at the National Convention under the banner of voter disenfranchisment?

    There is nothing disenfranchising about those who break party rules being disciplined for their actions. Voter disenfranchisement occured in the Deep South when blacks and other minorities were denied the right to vote under Jim Crow segregation and discrimination. Voter disenfranchisment occured during the 2000 elections in Florida when votes in certain districts across the state were mysteriously lost, unaccounted for, or voters in those districts were sent to the polling places.

    I live in Florida and am personally offended that people, pundants and politicians are claiming that our voters are being disenfranchised as if our votes counted in the first place.

    In my humble view, any attempt to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida at the National Convention sends a bad message to future generations of Americans. The rules were set in the beginning and the citizens, candidates, states, and politicians knew the rules.



    March 31, 2008 05:43 pm at 5:43 pm |
  15. More lies

    "...but the state's legislature was unable to agree on a proposal before it adjourned earlier this month."

    Now CNN has resoted to outright lying to cover up the fact that the Obama Campaign refused to agree to the last proposal after both the Clinton Campaign and the DNC had agreed to it. They let the proposal die by waiting until the legislature adjourned.

    We still get our news CNN, just not from you.

    This comment will not be posted but will be read by an Obama supporter!

    March 31, 2008 05:44 pm at 5:44 pm |
  16. Rosemary Storaska

    The majority of citizens in the US want a revote so that both Florida and MI get a chance to participate fully in this primary process. The Clinton campaign has been willing to do it all over again forever as money is not the brick wall–its been the other side. The Obama camp will not support anything that will not keep them in the lead. What does Obama have to fear in allowing these two states to participate in this exciting process? Come on young man, where's the "I can bring people together" to make it happen rhetoric on this one?

    March 31, 2008 05:44 pm at 5:44 pm |
  17. Guy

    Well, DUH, if you wanted your votes to count in the primary you should have followed your party's rules. Maybe Michigan voters should instead vote on getting rid of their State leadership and try again in 4 years.

    March 31, 2008 05:44 pm at 5:44 pm |
  18. Roger Evans

    Unless Hillary is on the ticket, this life long Democrat will vote Republican for President as will many of Hillary's supporters. Wake up superdelegates and do the right thing.

    March 31, 2008 05:44 pm at 5:44 pm |
  19. Sam Rose

    OK–I don't get it–Barack Obama's name
    WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT in Michigan–


    Why would they award 83 delegates per the January results?
    Sorry–I don't buy it–This stinks–

    100% of the Michigan delegate seating should be done based on the nationwide popular vote-end of story-how can it be FAIR TO SEAT MORE THAN HALF-TO HILLARY when OBAMA'S NAME WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT–

    Sorry–if this goes through I will stay home on November 4th-

    Dems in '08

    March 31, 2008 05:45 pm at 5:45 pm |
  20. bhd

    Let's do something to have a fair race!!!
    Let OUR votes count.

    Maya's words:
    You may write me down in history
    With your bitter, twisted lies,
    You may trod me in the very dirt
    But still, like dust, I’ll rise.

    Rise, Hillary.


    March 31, 2008 05:45 pm at 5:45 pm |
  21. Stacy Clarks,

    They are talking about disenfranchisement!! what about the millions of people who stayed home because they did not know their vote will be counted?!?!?

    (besides not counting it since they did break the rules!!!)

    March 31, 2008 05:45 pm at 5:45 pm |
  22. linda in illinois

    Michigan still doesn't have the right answer. Obama and Edwards were not on the TICKET. They should just split the votes.
    I also heard that CLINTON is not paying her VENDORS IN OHIO
    Aren't these the people SHE IS Saying she will look out for????
    She OWES some of these vendors over $25,000.00. THEY HAVE
    Obviously she ONLY CARES about HERSELF. THIS IS SHAMEFUL!!!!!
    Don't bother to continue to say your for the COMMON person. AFTER hearing this you have LOST MY VOTE

    March 31, 2008 05:45 pm at 5:45 pm |
  23. Martin Howell

    I didn't vote in Michigan's primary because Obama wasn't on the ticket. I didn't know "undecided" literally meant Obama, how could I? It's not fair to award Clinton delegates who happened to choose her over a giant question mark. It's like asking if you want the washing machine or what's "in the box."

    March 31, 2008 05:47 pm at 5:47 pm |
  24. JFoster

    So let me get this straight 53% of the delegates awarded based on a "contest" where only one major candidates name was on the ballot and none campaigned while the other 47% are based on votes that didn't even take place in the State in question?

    That's got to be the dumbest idea yet.

    March 31, 2008 05:47 pm at 5:47 pm |
  25. kim nyc

    LOL so, this guy want to seat the first 83 delegates according to the Jan result? Is he crazy? Obama wasn't even on the ticket!!!! He should be fired for just being stupid. Please let me know if I interpreted the article incorrectly.

    Go Bama!!!

    March 31, 2008 05:47 pm at 5:47 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12