May 8th, 2008
08:17 AM ET
14 years ago

Michigan Dems send latest delegate plan to DNC

[cnn-photo-caption image= caption="Michigan Democrats have accepted a new compromise."](CNN) - Michigan’s Democrats have accepted a compromise proposal in their latest attempt to ensure their state will be represented at this summer’s Democratic National Convention, CNN has confirmed.

The state party has voted to sign on to a plan devised a week-and-a-half ago by the working group seeking ways to end the impasse, including Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic National Committee Member Debbie Dingell and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger.

The group urged the Democratic National Committee to seat the Michigan delegation under a formula that would give a 10-delegate edge to Hillary Clinton, and allow all 157 delegates and superdelegates to be seated this summer.

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. Another compromise plan submitted by DNC member Joel Ferguson – which would have given half a vote to each pledged delegate, and a full vote to each superdelegate – had been opposed by the Michigan working group.

Under the latest proposal adopted by the state party, 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. Michigan Democrats has asked the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee – which meets at the end of the month – to consider the plan.

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

Filed under: Michigan
soundoff (395 Responses)
  1. Brandon

    Obama should agree... Get this behind him, and defeat McCain...

    May 8, 2008 08:57 am at 8:57 am |
  2. kissnahug

    What is the reasoning to giving Hillary a 10 point lead in delegates. Doesn't seem fair. No outcome is going to be fair unless they split it in half. How can it be if his name wasn't even on the ballot.

    I wouldn't be surprised if clinton was behind the proposal somehow

    May 8, 2008 08:58 am at 8:58 am |
  3. Ken from Michigan

    If you're going to award the delegates from Michigan, I think ALL the people of Michigan should be allowed to vote in a primary that counts.

    I personally DID NOT vote in the previous primary because it was widely known that the primary wouldn't matter because of the rules broken by our State government in scheduling the primary early.

    I'm sure a lot of Obama supporters did the same. His name wasn't on the ballot, thusly I did not even go to the polls.

    Fair is fair, if you're going to award the delegates, let us all have a say in a primary that matters.

    God!, how much more messed up can this process get?

    May 8, 2008 08:59 am at 8:59 am |
  4. John in PA

    They should allow this and count the popular vote as well. This will help Hillary's claim, and not destroy Obama.

    May 8, 2008 08:59 am at 8:59 am |
  5. T C

    Sounds Fair – Now lets move on!

    May 8, 2008 09:00 am at 9:00 am |
  6. Linda

    No! Not before they declare Obama the candidate and Hillary drops out. If they do that, the next election will be chaotic again, because other states will defy the rules, knowing they will be waived eventually.

    May 8, 2008 09:00 am at 9:00 am |
  7. gary

    yes, the people will take the numbers so we can close this asap! Yes, we can...

    May 8, 2008 09:01 am at 9:01 am |
  8. Chipster

    What is the point of making up numbers? That's still the same as not counting the votes. The voters did not make the rules. They went to the polls when they were asked to do so. Punish the fools who created this mess and count the votes. These dates are all completely arbitrary anyhow. Chairman Dean doesn't want to bother with the remaining votes either. He should have asked ALL of the states to move up their primaries instead of punishing them for not doing it.

    Obama and Edwards withdrew their names for grandstanding. That was their mistake and was not required by the rules or any agreement. It was just bad judgment on their part.

    I'm sorry but pulling numbers out of the air is not the same as counting the votes. If they do, they will still disenfranchise the voters who are the only ones who are not at fault.

    May 8, 2008 09:02 am at 9:02 am |
  9. M.S. Indiana

    Amazing how they use an illegal election as base for how to come up with those numbers...

    Why not a new election, and let the candidates pay for it ????
    To many people did not have a chance to meet either candidate, we did not get people mobilized and heated up for this election... But that is not disenfranchise some voters... Why not count them all ???

    May 8, 2008 09:02 am at 9:02 am |
  10. jj

    If my vote counts now, then maybe I will vote for a Dem in Nov. Depends on the team they end up with.

    May 8, 2008 09:02 am at 9:02 am |
  11. Brian

    Why is this still an issue? Hillary was for their votes not counting until it turned out that it might help her. Both delegates were supposed to remove their name from the ballot in MI but only Obama did. How should he be penalized for listening to the party leaders?

    May 8, 2008 09:03 am at 9:03 am |
  12. oil rules the planet

    Michigan still doesn't get it....Like any whining dem, they want to change the rules after they knew their delegates would not count as punishment from the D'n'C for moving thie primary. Quit crying and take some responsibility for your actions. It is called accountability...everyone is a victim I guess.....

    May 8, 2008 09:04 am at 9:04 am |
  13. tom

    crazy what else can we say, why don't you sart everthing alover or just give the presidency to Hillary it looks like we are in Africa I will compare this to Zimbabwe, changing the rules when they are not on your side. I thought she signed the initial plan why is it changing now because she is losing it is sad welcome to Africa, that is what we call democracy, maybe we need the UN to intervine. She lost she lost is time to pack and go. The world is also watching how, and what are you going to say tomorrow and what are you going to say to Africa when you can not lead by example? was the Zimbabwean elections fair this is for Hillary and her supporters

    May 8, 2008 09:04 am at 9:04 am |
  14. voter

    I am not happy with the proposal because Obama's name was not on the ballot. Therefore, Clinton should not receive the majority of the votes. However, for the sake of the party and uniting the party to beat McCain in the general election, the two campaigns should accept the offer and end the process. On to the general election and McCain.

    May 8, 2008 09:04 am at 9:04 am |
  15. Kenneth M

    That sounds like a good deal. She should be happy to get that. She is like a gangster.

    May 8, 2008 09:05 am at 9:05 am |
  16. James, VA

    Whatever is worked out has to be fair. A 50 50 split would be fair. What
    is not fair is giving Hillary all of the delegates when Obama's is not on
    the ballot. Which one of us personally would go for this if it were us?
    No one.

    May 8, 2008 09:06 am at 9:06 am |
  17. Alpha

    How about the votes that translated to pledge delegates?
    Are they going to be counted according to the delegates split?

    Is Obama campaign ready to accept this compromise?
    I doubt it.

    May 8, 2008 09:06 am at 9:06 am |
  18. Bernard Shelton

    Give her the 18 delegates to please her. Giver Floridas's delegate to please her .
    She does not play by the rules because if she did she would not request them,
    And then Let the super delegates switch to Obama. And listen to what she will now say.

    May 8, 2008 09:06 am at 9:06 am |
  19. Chris from SC

    Sounds reasonable to me. Just get them seated and get them back in the mix. Obama is going to need both of these states to win.

    May 8, 2008 09:07 am at 9:07 am |
  20. Kyle

    Obama could have left his name on the ballot, as he did in FL. The 73-55 split is the best for both candidates because if Obama had left his name on the ballot he would have gotten less than the 40% that was undeclared (I would like to think John Edwards would have received part of the undeclared vote). 5% of the vote went to other candidates. Neither candidate fought to unite the party by including FL and MI at the onset of this problem, but Obama has been campaigning for the last year and a half that he wanted to unite the party and country. Again he has failed to live up to his promises, and he's not even nominated yet.

    May 8, 2008 09:07 am at 9:07 am |
  21. Bitter in Texas

    That's seating the pledged delegates with a 10% advantage for Clinton and not seating any of the super delegates, after all they are the elected state leaders that VIOLATED THE RULES and they should have no say at the convention...someone needs to be punished for this violation.

    May 8, 2008 09:08 am at 9:08 am |
  22. FEDUP

    Obama will be against any proposal that would favor Clinton to any degree. That is the uniter for you. The person of change, who says he is for us. He is for Obama and nobody else. Save time and go straight to Credentials Committee. This sounds more then fair to me. Hillary did not break the rules by leaving her name on the ballot. Obama just showed his lack judgement when he removed his name. The only one who campaigned at all was Obama, urging his voters to vote non-committed. Florida was equal in all aspects, with the exception of Obama running adds. Watch the great uniter fight this proposal, as he fought against a re-vote..

    May 8, 2008 09:10 am at 9:10 am |
  23. MurphyMorseJohnson

    Since Obama not surprisingly followed the spirit and the letter of the rules of the Democratic Party, as opposed to the Clintons, Obama should receive 55% of Michigan's Delegates. Otherwise, Michigan should not be seated. One final note–the Clintons had the opportunity to show their leadership on this issue and failed. The Clintons could have personally interceded in Michigan and Florida to to beg these delegations to abide by the rules before the fact. However, the Clintons sat on the fence until the results were in. The Clintons are weasels, not leaders.

    May 8, 2008 09:11 am at 9:11 am |
  24. Bob

    The results of the primaries in Michigan and Florida should not even be mentioned as the results are not valid by any stretch of the imagination. You simply can't conjecture what the results would have been if there was a valid primary – no one knows. Split the delegates 50/50 and move on.

    May 8, 2008 09:12 am at 9:12 am |
  25. LucieLee

    In my a Florida resident...neither states delegations should be used to decide who the nominee will be. We were punished for breaking the rules...and any lame reasoning saying that the voters didn't break the rules...I don't think we really have a say...because this is about delegates.And the idea I heard last night from Debbie Dingle who was on LKL...about Barack Obama not wanting to be on the MI ballot because he thought he coudn't win, is just ludacris. She shouldn't be putting herself out there as being "neutral" or uncommitted..because with that statement..she is definitely in Hillary's camp~!!! Hillary, along with the other candidates took their names off the MI ballot because the state broke the rules according to the DNC, they signed a pledge, including Hillary~she put her name back on the ballot after she "bombed" in Iowa...thinking it didn't matter anymore, Hillary also broke therules....why should she be rewarded for that? This whole thing won't matter anyhow...because there is no way she can catch Obama, who as the presumptive nomineem and head of the Party, can move to seat those delegates from MI and FL if she so chooses...and there is every indication he will~~~

    May 8, 2008 09:13 am at 9:13 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16