April 29th, 2008
02:01 PM ET
14 years ago

New compromise proposed on Michigan delegation

(CNN) - Michigan’s Democrats have released another new proposal yesterday in their quest to ensure their state will be represented at this summer’s Democratic National Convention.

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic National Committee Member Debbie Dingell and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger – the working group that has been meeting to try to end the impasse - sent a letter to state party chair Mark Brewer Tuesday in which they urged the Democratic National Committee to seat the Michigan delegation under a formula that would give a 10-delegate edge to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton was the only major candidate to appear on the ballot in the state’s January contest, which she won with 55 percent of the vote. No delegates were awarded because of national party penalties on Michigan Democrats for moving up their primary date. Forty percent of January’s primary voters chose the “uncommitted” option on the ballot; a majority of those “uncommitted” delegates are backing Barack Obama.

Clinton’s campaign has said that the results of the January vote – which would give her an 18-delegate edge, 73-55 – should count. Obama’s campaign had said the delegates should be split evenly, 64-64.

DNC member Joel Ferguson has called for a plan that would give half a vote to each pledged delegate and a full vote to each superdelegate. The committee said Tuesday they opposed this plan. Under their proposal, which splits the difference between the Obama and Clinton proposals, the state’s 128 pledged delegates would be split 69-59, with the majority going to Hillary Clinton.

If both campaigns do not agree on a compromise, the issue will head to the DNC’s Credentials Committee for a resolution.

Filed under: Michigan
soundoff (95 Responses)
  1. Lisa Foster

    Not fair. Barak Obama followed the rules and left his name off our ballot. Clinton cheated and went against the rules and put her name on it. Not everyone in Michigan new about the "uncommited" rule. The only fair way would be to SPLIT THE VOTES! Our stupid greedy governer Granholm caused this mess. Why should her candidate clinton benefit from her greediness!

    April 29, 2008 06:39 pm at 6:39 pm |
  2. Venus

    Well – I guess you people don't know that – that's not going to work!

    You broke the rules –

    Go Obama!

    April 29, 2008 06:39 pm at 6:39 pm |
  3. W.L.P.

    It seems that the only fair thing to do would be to simply split the delegates with 50% going to Clinton and 50% going to Obama.
    Whoever the candidate is, if the concern is to simply "seat the delegates" then the fifty fitty split will be a go for both candidates and the Michigan delegation I am sure would be happy with this. So, go for it, do the right thing and split the delegates 50/50. And Florida should do the very same thing. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out, it is a no-brainer.

    April 29, 2008 06:43 pm at 6:43 pm |
  4. Stephan David


    Why would Sen. Clinton get 10 more delegates?

    Solution(s) are easy: either campaign there and re-vote OR split the delegates evenly OR stand by the rules everyone agreed too.

    Just go away HRC. Go away.

    C. Levin... you are a big disappointment.

    April 29, 2008 06:43 pm at 6:43 pm |
  5. MIKE


    April 29, 2008 06:44 pm at 6:44 pm |
  6. Cindy,CA

    Florida and Michigan have to be resolved before the superdelegates make a decision. Dean's comments to get them to pick a candidate after the primaries is not fair unless Florida and Michigan are seated.

    We need a strong fighter in the White House to handle all the problems our Nation has right now.

    I hope people will look to Hillary to be that fighter. She won't give up on us.

    April 29, 2008 06:45 pm at 6:45 pm |
  7. last laugh

    Glad to see that folks are working hard to get the votes counted. Residents of Michigan voted in good faith – and their vote should count. The votes that were cast have been certified and are legal and DO count, that popular vote was not taken away just the delegate count. Obama decided to remove his name from the ballot and that is his own fault and than refused to a re-vote. I think he should be given all the uncommitted votes. His demanding that he should get half the vote and split the delegates 50-50 is outrageous. Just another example of Obama do what I say and not what I do – he doesn't walk the talk folks.

    April 29, 2008 06:47 pm at 6:47 pm |
  8. Independent Don

    Why not seat the delegates as is and give the superdelegates half a vote? It was the Michigan Democratic Party, with a Democratic Governor and Democratic-controlled legislature, that decided to defy the DNC and move their primary up with FULL KNOWLEDGE that they would lose all of their delegates.

    The voters are being punished with a half-vote per delegate rule, but the superdelegates–the Governor, the members of Congress, and the State Party officials–get a full vote?

    That, my friends, is what elitism is all about.

    Strip the superdelegates for their stupidity, and keep the 10 delegate margin for the pledged delegates as an approximation of what the delegate count would have been if this was a valid election, but with the popular vote being discarded because this was not a valid election.


    April 29, 2008 06:48 pm at 6:48 pm |
  9. Jon

    It's simple.

    If the Dems want to get MI and FL in the general election, they seat the delegates.
    If the Dems don't care about MI and FL, they don't.

    Either way, someone is unhappy about something because Howard Dean is quite incompetent at his job.

    April 29, 2008 06:51 pm at 6:51 pm |





    April 29, 2008 06:52 pm at 6:52 pm |
  11. SLO Bear

    Cheaters never prosper–what say you, superdelegates?

    April 29, 2008 06:55 pm at 6:55 pm |
  12. Raymond

    I think the delegates should be given out evenly, since it was an unfair race. Senator Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan.

    April 29, 2008 06:55 pm at 6:55 pm |
  13. Paul

    Hillary knows what to do, hope is not enough, progress needs experience to be effective and Hillary has what it takes to be our President!

    Obama is a loser, he threw his own grandmother under the bus to defend Rev Wright

    Now Wright has stood by his comments....

    Obama, you may need a few more years of mentoring from your Pastor

    Hillary 08- Yes she will!!!
    Every vote must count!!!

    Vote Democrat- Vote for Clinton!

    April 29, 2008 06:55 pm at 6:55 pm |
  14. Louis

    ATTENTION HILLORY SUPPORTERS: Please explain how you can possibly support a candidate who formally agreed that the Michigan vote would not count and now demands that it be counted. By what insane logic can this be justified?

    April 29, 2008 06:55 pm at 6:55 pm |
  15. Ralph V.

    This is a total unfair advantage because Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Hillary agreed not to include Michigan when she was winning, now that she's loosing she wants to back out. Tipical 2 face.

    I hope Obama can finish her on Tuesday!

    Good luck Obama!

    April 29, 2008 06:56 pm at 6:56 pm |
  16. America Post Obama

    Are those uncommited still backing Obama? No, no even division of the delegates, his name did not appear on the ballot , as a result there should NOT be an even split of the delegates! The majority ought to go to Sen. Clinton, she won 55 % fair and square! Either that or a revote but no edge for Obama, he was not " PRESENT" !!!

    April 29, 2008 06:58 pm at 6:58 pm |
  17. JCB

    Hillary should receive all of the delegates from Michigan. Obama chose to drop Michigan - his choice. If Hillary receives less than 60% of the Michigan delegates, she has been robbed. I seem to remember there were more candidates running in the Democratic Primary when MIchigan had its election. What about their 5%? Also, who knows how many people would have voted for Obama? A majority of 40%? How much is that? Clinton should have at least a 20 delegate edge. Nothing less because she really should be awarded 95% of the delegates - after all, Obama was not even on the ballot. He should get 0%! The "no vote" senator should get 0%!

    April 29, 2008 06:59 pm at 6:59 pm |

    half & half and get it over with.

    April 29, 2008 06:59 pm at 6:59 pm |
  19. TEE

    i wonder how sen clinton would feel if she were the dems nominee and her name wasn't on the ballot in some states and they decide it's all fair in politics but you can have some of the votes but we will decide how many you'll get. the dems would lose our minds in nov as we should and fight this tooth and nail as this being unfair

    April 29, 2008 07:05 pm at 7:05 pm |
  20. Steve

    That actually seems fair. It doesn't dent the delegate lead that Obama has, and it represents the votes that Clinton received.

    Obama fanatics: don't scream that it's not fair because only her name was on the ballot and some democrats voted republican. It very likely would have turned out this way.

    Clinton fanatics: don't come screaming about how it was 'stupid' of Obama to drop his name in the first place. Everyone but Clinton did. If anything, she was the political schemer.

    April 29, 2008 07:08 pm at 7:08 pm |
1 2 3 4