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

Michigan Dems send latest delegate plan to DNC

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/05/06/primaries.change/art.voting.flag.in.ap.jpg 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. R.I.F.

    Look…she wants MI & FL’s voices to be heard, but she wants all of the voices of the 48 states that would have voted by June not to be heard because she wants the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people based on some opinion polls taken six months before the general election. The same polls that back last fall had her and Rudi Gulianni winning their respective nominations by Super Tuesday. Makes as much sense as the gat tax holiday. Someone please explain that logic to me? I guess I’m just too dumb.

    May 8, 2008 09:58 am at 9:58 am |
  2. Tina

    Why not it's not a bad plan. I don't think the 10 more delegates that Hillary will have will make any changes. My only concern is what about the 157 if they decide to endorse Hillary?

    May 8, 2008 10:01 am at 10:01 am |
  3. Independent

    I support Obama, but I think he and Clinton should agree to this deal. Even though I think Michigan could have been a state that he would have won. At this point, the race is over, let's compromise a little and help the people of Michigan out by making their votes count.

    May 8, 2008 10:02 am at 10:02 am |
  4. Wayne, Greenville TX

    This may be the most reasonable way to end this stalemate. Now if they can just figure out what to do with Florida..

    May 8, 2008 10:03 am at 10:03 am |
  5. rehoboth ng

    good,but let us see how it worksout.

    May 8, 2008 10:03 am at 10:03 am |
  6. karesa

    Steal ! Steal ! Steal ! Hillary Clinton is going to steal it from Barack Obama. She will do whatever it takes to get it.

    May 8, 2008 10:03 am at 10:03 am |
  7. AJ

    Anything that Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick is involved in is suspect. She comes from a dirty political family who are known for corruption and avarice. Her son, the Mayor of Detroit is now under indictment.
    Hillary should run as far and as fast as she can away from this one.

    May 8, 2008 10:04 am at 10:04 am |
  8. Bitter in Texas

    .......and the same thing should apply to FL....those folks still haven't learned how to count ballots.

    May 8, 2008 10:05 am at 10:05 am |
  9. DELUSIONAL HILLARY SUPPORTER

    Hillary is going to be President! Yay! You go girl! Hillary in 2008! Seat Michigan and Florida! Change the rules! Yay! Small states don't count! Only people who vote for Hillary matter! Yay!

    May 8, 2008 10:05 am at 10:05 am |
  10. Jesse - San Antonio TX

    he shouldn't get any delagates. he withdrew his name. how can they say those uncommitted were for Obama? It could have been for Edwards, Biden, or Richardson.

    May 8, 2008 10:05 am at 10:05 am |
  11. New York

    Florida and Michigan should take out their rightful anger against their state party officials. The candidates had nothing to do with this mess.

    May 8, 2008 10:06 am at 10:06 am |
  12. split the votes

    The only fair way to count Michigan is to split the votes evenly. Obama's name was not even on the ballot so it makes absolutely absurd to count Clinton's votes. She agreed to not count the delegates at the beginning of the campaign so why should she be treated more favorably?? You will have many democrats around the nation upset if you blatantly give precedence to Clinton.

    May 8, 2008 10:07 am at 10:07 am |
  13. ed

    Sounds like a good plan to me. It still doesn't help Hillary gain on Obama's delegates but it will represent Michigan at the DNC. Now maybe people will stop blaming Obama for what the states leaders did in getting the votes disqualified in the first place.

    May 8, 2008 10:08 am at 10:08 am |
  14. jane in CA

    My friends and Michigan said they've seen enough of clintons. if revote, she looses.

    May 8, 2008 10:08 am at 10:08 am |
  15. John Burt

    The plan does reward Senator Clinton for her chicanery in keeping her name on the ballot when all the others dropped out. But it doesn't reward her much, and won't change the outcome, and will, I hope, take this phony issue off the table, so I guess I'm for it.

    May 8, 2008 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  16. Eric

    knock yourself out, giving giving Obama all the uncommitted votes still doesn't do anything to change the fact that Clinton doesn't have a snowball's chance.

    May 8, 2008 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  17. JC

    DNC is like an incapable parent who cannot hold his or her own.

    If you cannot carry out the penalty, do not say it in the first place.

    May 8, 2008 10:11 am at 10:11 am |
  18. Vik

    Michigan should just vote again. A lot of people who would of voted for Obama didn't do so, because he wasn't on the ballot and they thought that their votes didn't count. It would be unfair to split what is there, since it doesn't reflect a true showing of supporters. For those who keep blaming the DNC, stop and think about who's really at fault. They didn't set the dates, your states did.

    May 8, 2008 10:12 am at 10:12 am |
  19. Jake

    Why should Obama get any? Hillary put the voters before the party and stayed in both the Michigan and Florida races. Out of the two, which one has actually practiced inclusion and which one has just preached about it?

    May 8, 2008 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  20. Brian P

    Here's what I don't get. They both signed a pledge not to even participate in the MI primary. The reason he took his name off the ballot was to honor that pledge. She went back on her signed pledge and kept her name on the ballot. I don't think she should be rewared for that. FL I could deal with seating as is but how is it right, honest, respectful, to reward Hillary for breaking her pledge?

    May 8, 2008 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  21. P Diddy

    Why should Clinton get a 10 delegate advantage, or any advantage at all??? Since Obama's name wasn't on the ballot I think the only fair solution is to evenly split the delegates and call it a day.

    May 8, 2008 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  22. Don from Canada

    How can they do that when he wasn't on the ballot man Clinton will stop at nothing to win thats where the 6.4 million went to buy those delegates.
    Fake Fake Fake thats a Clinton. Even McGovern when he switched sides to Oboma called Bill & NOT Hillary shows you who really is running for President and who would really answer the phone at 3:00a.m.
    Clinton Bye Bye !!

    May 8, 2008 10:15 am at 10:15 am |
  23. unions are not stupid

    No way!!!!! His name was not even on the ballot there is no fair way to do this except to split the delegates down the middle nearly half of the people in that state voted for anyone except Hillary that speaks volumes! she should have won 80 to 90 % of the vote on name recognition. Having said that if Obama really wanted to take the high road and once again show he is the better person. He should except this plan and support it just to shut these Hillary supporters up that think it is ok to rewrite rules mid game. Either way he still win so in really matter's not.

    May 8, 2008 10:16 am at 10:16 am |
  24. MD

    Considering the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot, this proposal is grossly prejudicial.

    The major issue is that Michigan (and Florida) knew the consequences of moving the primary date, and yet they chose to do it any way. Both Clinton and Obama agreed to the rules. Now they are asking to change the rules in the middle of the game, which is what you may expect from the corrupt political systems such as in Russia, but certianly not in America.

    Yielding to Florida and Michigan will set such a terrible precedent that will affect how states behave in future Democratic primeries.

    May 8, 2008 10:16 am at 10:16 am |
  25. Joel King

    They will never count.

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