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. pam

    Do we teach our children to follow rules? We reward good behavior and we need to punish bad behavior. As a mom, it is that simple.

    Let us stick to the rules, MI and FL should not be able to decide the outcome of this election.

    While I feel for the people of these states, I think it is their government that is the ultimately responsible and I sincerely hope that people of both states will take this into consideration come election day for those individules.

    May 8, 2008 10:39 am at 10:39 am |
  2. Monica

    Rob
    They do not give her the popular vote. You are just spewing the Clinton campaign garbage. They only give her the popular vote if you do not include the caucuses but of course you must think that they shouldn't count.. Which way is it? count the votes or don't count the votes.

    May 8, 2008 10:39 am at 10:39 am |
  3. Rules are Rules

    Why would we, here in America, even think of changing the rules after the election process has begun.

    Voters can express their anger when local elections come back around since their politicans got them in this mess. There are a lot of states who would have liked to vote early and be "the leader". Funny thing those states that are the last ones to vote are the very ones now with all the media and campaign hype. The ones who helped determine the outcome of this election. Those who are patient are favored.

    May 8, 2008 10:40 am at 10:40 am |
  4. Ann Marie

    Does Hillary know that Obama will still lead her by 116 delegates if we were to add the Florida and Michigan delegates based on the current results? In Florida Hillary would get 105 delegates and Obama would get 67 plus John Edward�s 13 delegates, giving him 80 delegates. In Michigan Hillary would get her 73 delegates and we�ll give Obama the uncommitted votes giving him 55 delegates. Add these totals to their current delegate count and Hillary would have 1864 delegates to Obama�s 1980 delegates, a difference of 116.

    May 8, 2008 10:40 am at 10:40 am |
  5. Praetorian, Fort Myers

    It will be a travesty if FL and MI Democrats don't get their voices heard. It may already be too late–the number of registered independents or no party selected voters on the rolls is growing.

    May 8, 2008 10:41 am at 10:41 am |
  6. Kevin Orlando fl

    The poiltburo, I mean DNC, doesn't need your votes Michigan and Florida. Besides, what do you think this country is? There is no place for individualism and free thought in politics. Follow the rules and do as your told even though there is no legal or constitutional reason for a private organization to deny the votes of individuals in a state. Of course in November the politburo, DNC, may kiss your backsides in hope that all will be forgotten so that whoever is appointed by Premier Dean and the rest of the council can win in November. So let Napoleon and Snowball and the rest of the pigs run your life Democrats. You will be better off for it.

    May 8, 2008 10:43 am at 10:43 am |
  7. bill

    I am from Michigan. Strip us of our superdelegates. They are the ones who caused this problem not the DNC. Then split the rest 50/50 and get on with life. I find it a joke or maybe even a conspiracy that the heads of the party all support Clinton and then she is the only major person who did not take her name off the ballot. She is the one who went on the record and said our votes would not count. The when she started losing she is our hero. BS......

    May 8, 2008 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  8. Joe

    Trying to come up with a solution based on "what if" is silly. The only way you can count the delegates is to actually split them evenly.

    Oh, and to those who say Hillary or McCain in '08 ... I seriously doubt you're a true Democrat or have the faintest notion of what's at stake in the general.

    I started out a Hillary fan and was disenfranchised with her pandering, but if by some miracle she actually gets the nomination – I'll be voting Democrat no matter what. This election is far to important for people to be petty and small minded.

    May 8, 2008 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  9. Eddie, FL

    I love how people in other states seem to forget, the people of Michigan and Florida DID NOT VOTE for the change of primary voting. some committee met and decided this is what they would do, not the people of florida and michgan. th eOnly reason Obama was not on the Michigan ballot is because his campaign removed his name, there was no requirement to do so, and thats a rookie mistake. Obama ran commercials in florida. So before oyu say "You broke the rules" remember, 4.5 million people had nothing to do with the rules and should not be made to suffer for a bunch of DNC cronies who decided what the rules are.

    May 8, 2008 10:45 am at 10:45 am |
  10. California Voter

    Obama won his other elections through political dirty tricks and he has chosen to disenfranchise the Florida and Michigan voters in this election . . . .Were the rules broken, yes, are there rules to allow a revote, yes. Obama has done everything he can to stop that from happening so that he can be declared the "winner".

    May 8, 2008 10:45 am at 10:45 am |
  11. TCU

    OH MY GOODNESS- Michigan must be the DENSEST state in the Union. (Florida's probably right along their side)

    BARACK OBAMA WASN'T ON THE BALLOT!
    Hello?!?!?

    How can you validiate a primary that had ONE NAME ON THE BALLOT? Hillary was supposed to be a lady and take her name off, but is a liar and left it on. Such a cheat. They shouldn't seat the delegates using the fraudulent 1st primary data. The ONLY WAY to have Michigan's delegates seating is to have a COMPLETELY NEW PRIMARY CYCLE, with a debate in MICHIGAN and at least 2 weeks for Obama and Hillary to campaign. ONLY SOLUTION.

    May 8, 2008 10:45 am at 10:45 am |
  12. David

    This is so ridiculous. And do you know how many Dems in MI switched affiliation to vote in the GOP primary since the Dem primary was pretty much a wash? And how many would have voted for Obama? Unknown. This is so messed up. And Hillary must have kept her name on the ballot just for this underhanded purpose. The Dem Party should stick to it's rules that all agreed upon.

    May 8, 2008 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  13. PA Obama Supporter

    Joyce in Florida: What Planet are you on? He wasn't the one blocking the right of the voters.... MI & FL broke the rules. That's not Obama's fault. Rules are rules.... why bother having them... if we allow people to break them when it benefits them.

    This is precisely the reason I despise HRC...she tries to change the rules to her benefit.

    The ridiculous people saying they won't vote for Barack if he's the nominee....weren't going to vote for him anyway.... They'll use anything as an EXCUSE not to vote for him.

    If you vote for McShame... you'll reap what you sow!

    May 8, 2008 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  14. carlo

    How is it that actually following rules is wrong? Doesn't the rest of the country have to follow rules? Isn't this the standard that the rest of us live by? Why should it be any different for Hillary? How can Edwards and Obama be considered "dumb" and "stupid" for following rules? This is why other countries won't enter into agreements with us. Our candidates won't even keep their words about how to win the presidency.

    I say, don't allow them in. What does that say to the other 48 states who followed the rules? What will this mean for the next election? No state will be willing to follow the rules if they think that they can itch and moan their way into being seated at the convention.

    For once Hillary supporters, think rationally for a minute and see how utterly ridiculous your line of reasoning sounds.

    May 8, 2008 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  15. Hurm...

    You can't change the rules in the middle of the game! You simply CANNOT do that in the white house! It's like changing the rules of "Risk" in the middle of a game! Hold on... didn't you already do that with Iraq Hillary?

    May 8, 2008 10:47 am at 10:47 am |
  16. pam

    Hillary Clinton would like FL and MI think that she is the only one who wants you seated.

    Funny how she consistantly talks about how she is going to make sure they are seated but she is the one who is making sure they are NOT seated unless it is her way.

    If it is not her way, which completely disinfranchises ANY and ALL Obama supporters then she will make sure none are seated.

    IMO, this is just another example of the moral values we DO NOT need in Government.

    May 8, 2008 10:48 am at 10:48 am |
  17. TN voter

    NOBAMA, NO Way! If Clinton is out, McCain is IN!

    May 8, 2008 10:49 am at 10:49 am |
  18. Anoop

    Does anyone knows the meaning of rules... Rules are supposed to be followed, not to be twisted or changed when you start losing.. Why didn't Michigan party move its primary ahead of scheduled time.. if they did face the consequences. Why try to get yourself seated now.. Didnt you know that moving the primary will get it invalidated.

    Get some life folks. In all fairness, since neither candidate campaigned in the primary, they should just divide the delegate evenly. 50-50..

    Obama can be gracious and give 10 delegate advantage to HRC.. but what will it change. She is behind the delegate count by 150 not by 10 delegates.

    May 8, 2008 10:49 am at 10:49 am |
  19. Jen B.

    This is the Clinton way, break/change the rules and reap the rewards.
    Not surprising that most of the country is voting for Obama, by far the more worthy candidate.

    May 8, 2008 10:50 am at 10:50 am |
  20. Bud from PA

    Michigan and Florida Democratic Party members knew that they were going against the wishes of the Party. They were made fully aware that their votes would not count toward the nomination of the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate if they held their primaries before their scheduled dates. Both states did anyway, thinking that their votes could, or would, sway the rest of the country. It didn't happen. Case closed. The Democratic Party in those two states gave up their opportunity to have a say at the DNC.

    May 8, 2008 10:50 am at 10:50 am |
  21. Chut Pata

    Obama will win MI elections easily because

    1.He will campaign and bring more voters

    2. Many Billarians would break away and vote him

    3. The 40% "uncommited" are already backing Obama

    Billary is asking for MI hoping the elections will not happen and then she can say her loss was due to MI being kept out.

    May 8, 2008 10:50 am at 10:50 am |
  22. Dan in CO

    Counting Michigan and Florida in any way rewards breaking the rules and is a slap in the face to the 48 states that didn't.

    No. Way.

    If Michigan and Florida get to count in any way shape or form, I'll switch from Obama to McCain, even if Obama is still the nominee.

    I can't vote for a candidate that emerged from a process in which the rules were broken.

    May 8, 2008 10:50 am at 10:50 am |
  23. Scott in Grand Rapids

    Obama stood up for the Democratic party. He and the other candidates withdrew their names because Michigan broke the rules. Only Hillary, as usual thinking of herself, stayed on the ballot. She was looking at Michigan as an easy win. Give all the delegates to Obama. At least he has integrity.

    May 8, 2008 10:50 am at 10:50 am |
  24. This is America, Not China

    I'm a Barack supporter and I say "NO". Why should Hillary benefit at all, since she BROKE the rules. Barack's name was not on the ballot. Let me repeat, Barack's name was NOT on the Ballot.

    His name was not on the ballot.
    His name was not on the ballot.
    His name was not on the ballot.
    His name was not on the ballot.
    His name was not on the ballot.
    His name was not on the ballot.
    His name was not on the ballot.
    HIS NAME WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT.

    It wasn't.

    May 8, 2008 10:50 am at 10:50 am |
  25. Is It About Michigan or Hillary

    Don't trust her Obama. There are still "undecided/undeclared" superdelegates and then the nut in California who wants to be PAID for his vote.

    Hillary was the one who felt like Obama's victories in red states shouldn't count. Well people, Michigan and Florida have BOTH BEEN RED STATES!!! She doesn't care about the votes she just doesn't want to be humiliated by the differences in votes...she is probably still trying to work out some sneeky deal to win. If she keeps saying "there could be something wrong with Obama" she deserves nothing in her column.

    Sorry Florida and Michigan...you can vote against your local leaders in the next elections since they got you in this mess. Pure and simple we have election rules and laws that need to be followed. How can you call Michigan an election when Obama wasn't even on the ballot?

    May 8, 2008 10:52 am at 10:52 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16