In previous posts we have written about major discrepancies within the Democratic Primary System, from voter fraud to Caucus misunderstanding and manipulation to the more despicable inequality in the proportional delegation system.
In most Democratic primaries the vote has not been close enough for anyone to question whether the system was fair; but this primary process has been different. For years the Democratic Leadership has decried the Republican Party, accusing the party of voter manipulation, intimidation, and disenfranchisement; but those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. For those few who take the time to research how the Democratic Primary process actually awards delegate, they find massive voter disenfranchisement. The system has become corrupted by the DNC and State Party leaderships who adopted reforms aimed at allowing party leadership a greater say in who becomes the nominee.
So the question that has formed in recent weeks is this: How is it that Hillary Clinton could win the national popular vote (depending on whether you include caucus turnout ESTIMATES); win the popular vote in 30 more congressional districts than Obama; and yet lose the pledged delegate count by over 130 delegates?
To answer this question you must first understand how the Democratic Party Primaries are set up.
A) Caucuses – The caucuses are easily the most misunderstood system of nominating candidates. The system is a kickback to the days in which party leaders, not the people, determined who the nominee was. According to the Green Papers, “it was a system easily controlled - and, in many cases, manipulated - by the party hierarchy. In the Democratic Party of the early 1970's, the McGovern-Fraser reforms - seeking to reduce the influence of "bossism" in the nominating process- encouraged many states to change over from this method of choosing National Convention delegates to the Primary.”
B) Proportional Primary System – The proportional primary system was first instituted by the Democratic Party as a way of allowing the direct vote election of a nominee. The Democratic Party set up the proportional system to allocate delegates based upon 2 criteria. First the primary would award PLEO or At-Large delegates based upon the percentage of votes obtained throughout the entire state. Second, the majority of the delegates would be awarded at a district level, thereby fairly representing the interests of both urban and non-urban voters along with requiring that a nominee appeal to all democrats within a state rather than focusing only on densely populated areas. The system was designed in line with our overall “representative republic” system of government.
Since the 1970’s the State Parties, under directives from the DNC have systematically manipulated the allocation of delegates within both the Caucus and Proportional Primary Systems, shifting delegates away from districts that more independent or republican friendly, and into districts (primarily urban) that tend to vote more heavily democratic. The result of this systematic delegate reallocation is that the party no longer values all democratic votes as equal. Reference: How Much Does The DNC Value Democrats.
The original intent of the proportional primary system was to nominate candidates with a broader, more widespread appeal to Democratic Voters, yet today the manipulation has reached a point that candidates can now focus on the urban areas of a state and pick up large numbers of Delegates. Has this had an effect on this year’s primary season? You bet, here it is:
As of June 9th, 2008: Pledged Delegate Count - Obama: 1,766.5 Clinton: 1,638.5
*Counts Vary slightly by news sources, we use the AP & Green Papers Total
Imbalanced & Discriminatory Delegate Allocations
In our research we found 31 state primaries and caucuses in which Democratic Delegates were disproportionately allocated among congressional districts. These states allocated large numbers of delegates to congressional districts which tended to vote more heavily democratic, thereby discriminating against democrats living in more moderate or republican leaning congressional districts.
Included were: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, & Wisconsin.
Among the 19 remaining states the majority are either smaller states with few congressional districts (no room for disproportional allocation) or the following larger states who have maintained non-discriminatory allocations: Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, and Oklahoma.
23 of the 31 aforementioned states with imbalanced discriminatory allocations negatively impacted the Clinton campaign; while only 1 of the 31 states would have awarded Obama more delegates. The remaining states with no impact were primarily smaller states with few congressional districts. Among the worst offenders were the following states:
Alabama – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 3 CDs with 5 delegates, 3 CDs with 4 delegates.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-27 C-25
If Equal Distribution: O-29 C-23
Georgia – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 2 CDs w/ 6, 2 CDs w/ 5, 4 CDs w/ 4, 4CDs w/3.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-60 C-27
If Equal Distribution: O-57 C-30
Illinois – 3 CDs with 8 delegates, 3 CDs w/ 6, 6 CDs w/ 5, 4 CDs w/ 4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-104 C-49
If Equal Distribution: O-100 C-53
Missouri – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 2 CDs w/ 6, 4 CDs w/ 5, 2 CDs w/ 4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-36 C-36
If Equal Distribution: O-35 C-37
North Carolina – 1 CD with 9 delegates, 2 CDs w/ 7, 5 CDs w/ 6, 4 CDs w/ 5, 1CDs w/4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-67 C-48
If Equal Distribution: O-65 C-50
Ohio – 1 CD with 8 delegates, 1 CDs w/ 7, 4 CDs w/ 6, 5 CD’s w/ 5, 7CDs w/4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-67 C-74
If Equal Distribution: O-63 C-78
Pennsylvania – 1 CD with 9 delegates, 5 CDs w/7, 1 CDs w/6, 6 CDs w/5, 5CDs w/4, 1CD w/3.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-73 C-85
If Equal Distribution: O-70 C-88
Texas Primary – 1 CD with 8 delegates, 1 CDs w/7, 2 CDs w/6, 6 CDs w/5, 15 CD’s w/4, 9 CDs w/3 & 1 CD w/2.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-61 C-65
If Equal Distribution: O-57 C-69
Virginia – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 2 CDs w/ 6, 3 CDs w/ 5, 5 CDs w/ 4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-54 C-29
If Equal Distribution: O-52 C-31
Also included were caucus states that distributed delegates on the basis of congressional districts:
Colorado – 2 CDs with 6 delegates, 4 CDs w/ 5, 1 CD w/ 4
Current Delegate Distribution: O-36 C-19
If Equal Distribution: O-35 C-20
Kansas – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 1 CD w/6, 2 CDs w/ 4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-23 C-9
If Equal Distribution: O-22 C-10
Maine – 1 CD with 9 delegates, 1 CD w/ 7.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-15 C-9
If Equal Distribution: O-14 C-10
The Above states represent a sampling of the States whose democratic delegate allocations, as recommended and approved by the DNC are discriminatory and imbalanced. Below is a summary of the results had delegates been equally distributed among congressional districts:
AL – Obama +2, Clinton -2
CA – Obama -1, Clinton +1
CO – Obama -1, Clinton +1
CT – Obama -1, Clinton +1
FL – Obama -.5, Clinton +.5
GA – Obama -3, Clinton +3
IL – Obama -4, Clinton +4
KS – Obama -1, Clinton +1
KY – Obama -2, Clinton +2
LA – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MA – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MD – Obama -2, Clinton +2
ME – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MN – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MS – Obama -1, Clinton +1
NC – Obama -2, Clinton +2
OH – Obama -4, Clinton +4
PA – Obama -3, Clinton +3
SC – Obama -1, Clinton +1
TN – Obama -1, Clinton +1
TX Primary – Obama -4, Clinton +4
VA – Obama -2, Clinton +2
WI – Obama -1, Clinton +1
In addition, the DNC imposed distribution plan for Michigan was far from representative of the actual vote of the state. If the uncommitted vote is to be attributed to Barack Obama and 50% of the delegation reinstated, then the delegates should have been allocated according to Michigan’s allocation formula which would have given Obama 27.5 delegates and Clinton 36.5 delegates. Additionally, if you reallocate the delegates in a non-discriminatory manner the count would be: Obama-27, Clinton-37
How does fair and equal representation affect the total delegate count?
Obama: 1,706.5 Delegates Clinton: 1679.5 (Obama’s Pledged Delegate Lead – 27)
*Important note: the above figure does not include 20 Edwards Pledged Delegates that have switched their votes, against the results of their states, in the past 2 weeks.
The discriminatory allocation of delegates, aimed at urban preference, resulted in a 100 delegate swing in the election results. However, the above numbers only represent a portion of the expansive disenfranchisement of Democratic voters.
What is not included in the above figures?
Idaho – Since the Idaho Caucuses there have been widespread allegations of voter intimidation and fraud. The caucus results themselves came under scrutiny by the Clinton campaign that expected a 20-30 point loss in the state, but not the 62 point loss that resulted in Obama picking up 15 of the state’s 18 delegates. What has not been widely reported is that on May 27th Idaho hosted a non-binding primary in which twice as many democrats went to the polls. The results of the primary were Obama – 56%, Clinton – 38%. The results of the primary fell in line with the original expectations for the state and reinforced the allegations made by Clinton supporters. If the delegation reflected the expressed will of Idaho voters Obama would have received only 11 delegates compared to Clinton’s 7; further narrowing the lead to 1702.5 to 1683.5.
Texas – The award for the most egregious example of discriminatory and non-representative delegate allocation easily belongs to the great state of Texas, which has adopted the worst of both worlds. The Texas primary allocates as many as 8 delegates to some congressional districts and as few as 2 too others. Moreover is that the state primary awards on no at-large delegates; opting instead to award those 65 delegates through a separate Caucus vote. As a result, just 42,000 Texans overruled the votes cast by over 2.4 million Texans earlier that day.
Obama supporters showed up in droves in the inner cities for the late-night caucuses, leading to a 38-29 distribution of the caucus delegates. Like Idaho, the Texas Caucus System has been plagued by allegations of voter intimidation, Clinton supporters that were blocked from entry, ineligible voter participation, and fraud. The caucus victory along with the primary’s discriminatory delegate allocation overturned the expressed will of Texas voters by resulting in Obama grabbing the lion’s share of the states delegates.
If the Caucus delegates properly and fairly represented the will of the 2.5 million Texas Democrats, the resulting Caucus delegate allocation would have been: Clinton – 34, Obama – 33; further narrowing the pledged delegate lead: 1697.5 to 1688.5.
Nevada - The abuses of the caucus system only continued in Nevada whereas Obama picked up 14 delegates compared to Clinton’s 11. The problem within the Nevada delegate selection is that the Caucus delegates arbitrarily awarded Obama 55% of the delegates when Clinton won the popular vote 51%-45%. Once again, the easily manipulated caucus system went directly against the expressed will of the Democrats of Nevada. It the caucus system proportionally represented the people of Nevada; the delegate count would have broken 13-12 in favor of Clinton. The non-discriminatory delegate count would have closed to 1,695.5 for Obama and 1,690.5 for Clinton.
One can examine the delegate lead above and argue that Obama still maintained the delegate lead, even if the system fairly represented all Democrats, thus all has worked out as it should. But I’m not done by any means!
For Instance, the State of Washington awarded Obama 52 of the states 78 delegates. The state, like others, awards delegates at a congressional district level with 1 district receiving 9 delegates; 4 districts receiving 6 delegates; 3 districts receiving 5 delegates; and 1 district receiving just 3 delegates. Once again Washington has followed the DNC lead in unrepresentative and discriminatory delegate distribution. We do know based upon the delegates awarded in each district that Clinton performed better in the districts with fewer delegates. However, the Democratic Party of Washington has not released any hard vote numbers at a congressional district level. As a result, we assume that based upon the demographics Clinton would pick up 1 to 2 delegates (a 2-4 delegate swing) by equally allocating delegates, but without hard vote totals we are unable to confirm.
Additionally, in the District of Columbia one of Clintons earned, pledged delegates have written a letter to the DNC switching their pledge vote to the Obama camp.
At the end of the day, if the allocation of pledged delegate were fair, non-discriminatory, and followed the original equal representation intent of the founders of the proportional primary system, this would be a horse race with a photo-finish. The superdelegates would have no alternative but to recognize the broad support and strength within the congressional district victories enjoyed by Hillary Clinton and perhaps would address this final travesty:
In August of 2006 the DNC Approved its delegate selection rules, that clearly laid out the penalty for violation of the primary timeline. The rules clearly stated: “in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation”.
Although provisions existed that granted the DNC, led by Howard Dean, to impose increased penalties, clearly this rule was violated by the DNC when they stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegations. Obama supporters attempt to contend that Harold Ickes wrote the rules, but in reality, Howard Dean is the Chairman of the DNC and the “Buck Stops There”.
I commend the Democratic Party of Michigan for standing up too the DNC and lambasting the DNC during the RBC meeting in May. But regardless of the rule, there is one more guideline that pertains to Florida that has not been discussed during this process. The DNC Delegate Selection Rules state, “In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C.
of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws
Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced.”
The above guideline was put into place years ago to allow an exemption of the 50% rule in situations whereas a Republican Controlled State would pass laws moving up a primary in violation of DNC rules. As we have pointed out in a previous post, the Democratic Leadership in Florida made no attempt to block Cloture and unanimously voted for the legislation to move up there primary. However, that is not the rhetoric that spewed out of the mouths of the members of the RBC and Florida Democratic Leadership during the May publicity stunt. Member after Member of the DNC and Florida Leadership came forth blaming the entire debacle on the Florida Republican Party. There was no mention of the DNC violating their rules and no blame placed upon the Democratic Leadership of Florida. The RBC and other DNC leadership laid the blame for Florida directly at the feet of the Republican Party. If the RBC truly believes the rhetoric that they spewed then why did they not reinstate the full delegation of Florida?
Clearly, this provision of the rules was put in place to protect against the very situation that the DNC claims occurred in Florida; therefore the fair solution would have been to fully reinstate the Florida delegation. What would that have done to the delegate tally?
We can talk in terms of "What Ifs", "Could Have Beens", and "Should Have Beens" all day, but at the end Clinton supporters will point to this massive disenfranchisement as just one more piece of evidence that the party they once knew, a party that valued the base of its coalition, has been hijacked and that Obama is an illegitimate candidate.
Obama supporters are going to flock to this site and proclaim that none of this matters; Obama played by the agreed upon rules; ran a more strategic campaign; and that now is the time to unite against Obama. After all the rules, the party and defeating McCain are all that matter to them. They will tell us that now is the time to focus on the issues, and in between the occasional expressed hatred and slights they will spin this issue into an attack on Clinton and McCain.
First, any derogatory remarks will be deleted and any ridiculous spin trying to change the subject will also be wiped clean. Second, the Obama supporters are right; we should focus on the issues.
Let’s begin with the issue of what constitutes the very basis of our representative republic. Our founding fathers adopted a form of government, constitution, and laws expressly for the purpose of supporting and protecting their belief in equal and fair representation. They believed that all Americans, regardless of whether they resided in the heavily populated northern colonies or less populated southern colonies had the right to equal representation. That is why we have congressional districts; that is why we elect representatives and do not directly elect our president. They believed that a voter in Allentown Pennsylvania should have the same level of representation as a voter in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Democratic Party was once a party that embraced the ideals of fair and equal representation; after all they are the party that first developed a proportional primary system. If the leaders of any party are willing to adopt discriminatory representation as a basis of their party platform, then what will prevent them from doing the same to the entire electorate?
This election is about issues, and at the heart of those issues should be fair and equal representation. What has occurred in the Democratic Primary Process represents the very reason why our founding fathers feared and detested political parties.
Are things likely to change? I guess that depends on what happens in November.
J Brown
June 11, 2008
Current Delegate Distribution: O-36 C-36
If Equal Distribution: O-35 C-37
North Carolina – 1 CD with 9 delegates, 2 CDs w/ 7, 5 CDs w/ 6, 4 CDs w/ 5, 1CDs w/4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-67 C-48
If Equal Distribution: O-65 C-50
Ohio – 1 CD with 8 delegates, 1 CDs w/ 7, 4 CDs w/ 6, 5 CD’s w/ 5, 7CDs w/4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-67 C-74
If Equal Distribution: O-63 C-78
Pennsylvania – 1 CD with 9 delegates, 5 CDs w/7, 1 CDs w/6, 6 CDs w/5, 5CDs w/4, 1CD w/3.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-73 C-85
If Equal Distribution: O-70 C-88
Texas Primary – 1 CD with 8 delegates, 1 CDs w/7, 2 CDs w/6, 6 CDs w/5, 15 CD’s w/4, 9 CDs w/3 & 1 CD w/2.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-61 C-65
If Equal Distribution: O-57 C-69
Virginia – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 2 CDs w/ 6, 3 CDs w/ 5, 5 CDs w/ 4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-54 C-29
If Equal Distribution: O-52 C-31
Also included were caucus states that distributed delegates on the basis of congressional districts:
Colorado – 2 CDs with 6 delegates, 4 CDs w/ 5, 1 CD w/ 4
Current Delegate Distribution: O-36 C-19
If Equal Distribution: O-35 C-20
Kansas – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 1 CD w/6, 2 CDs w/ 4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-23 C-9
If Equal Distribution: O-22 C-10
Maine – 1 CD with 9 delegates, 1 CD w/ 7.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-15 C-9
If Equal Distribution: O-14 C-10
The Above states represent a sampling of the States whose democratic delegate allocations, as recommended and approved by the DNC are discriminatory and imbalanced. Below is a summary of the results had delegates been equally distributed among congressional districts:
AL – Obama +2, Clinton -2
CA – Obama -1, Clinton +1
CO – Obama -1, Clinton +1
CT – Obama -1, Clinton +1
FL – Obama -.5, Clinton +.5
GA – Obama -3, Clinton +3
IL – Obama -4, Clinton +4
KS – Obama -1, Clinton +1
KY – Obama -2, Clinton +2
LA – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MA – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MD – Obama -2, Clinton +2
ME – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MN – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MS – Obama -1, Clinton +1
NC – Obama -2, Clinton +2
OH – Obama -4, Clinton +4
PA – Obama -3, Clinton +3
SC – Obama -1, Clinton +1
TN – Obama -1, Clinton +1
TX Primary – Obama -4, Clinton +4
VA – Obama -2, Clinton +2
WI – Obama -1, Clinton +1
In addition, the DNC imposed distribution plan for Michigan was far from representative of the actual vote of the state. If the uncommitted vote is to be attributed to Barack Obama and 50% of the delegation reinstated, then the delegates should have been allocated according to Michigan’s allocation formula which would have given Obama 27.5 delegates and Clinton 36.5 delegates. Additionally, if you reallocate the delegates in a non-discriminatory manner the count would be: Obama-27, Clinton-37
How does fair and equal representation affect the total delegate count?
Obama: 1,706.5 Delegates Clinton: 1679.5 (Obama’s Pledged Delegate Lead – 27)
*Important note: the above figure does not include 20 Edwards Pledged Delegates that have switched their votes, against the results of their states, in the past 2 weeks.
The discriminatory allocation of delegates, aimed at urban preference, resulted in a 100 delegate swing in the election results. However, the above numbers only represent a portion of the expansive disenfranchisement of Democratic voters.
What is not included in the above figures?
Idaho – Since the Idaho Caucuses there have been widespread allegations of voter intimidation and fraud. The caucus results themselves came under scrutiny by the Clinton campaign that expected a 20-30 point loss in the state, but not the 62 point loss that resulted in Obama picking up 15 of the state’s 18 delegates. What has not been widely reported is that on May 27th Idaho hosted a non-binding primary in which twice as many democrats went to the polls. The results of the primary were Obama – 56%, Clinton – 38%. The results of the primary fell in line with the original expectations for the state and reinforced the allegations made by Clinton supporters. If the delegation reflected the expressed will of Idaho voters Obama would have received only 11 delegates compared to Clinton’s 7; further narrowing the lead to 1702.5 to 1683.5.
Texas – The award for the most egregious example of discriminatory and non-representative delegate allocation easily belongs to the great state of Texas, which has adopted the worst of both worlds. The Texas primary allocates as many as 8 delegates to some congressional districts and as few as 2 too others. Moreover is that the state primary awards on no at-large delegates; opting instead to award those 65 delegates through a separate Caucus vote. As a result, just 42,000 Texans overruled the votes cast by over 2.4 million Texans earlier that day.
Obama supporters showed up in droves in the inner cities for the late-night caucuses, leading to a 38-29 distribution of the caucus delegates. Like Idaho, the Texas Caucus System has been plagued by allegations of voter intimidation, Clinton supporters that were blocked from entry, ineligible voter participation, and fraud. The caucus victory along with the primary’s discriminatory delegate allocation overturned the expressed will of Texas voters by resulting in Obama grabbing the lion’s share of the states delegates.
If the Caucus delegates properly and fairly represented the will of the 2.5 million Texas Democrats, the resulting Caucus delegate allocation would have been: Clinton – 34, Obama – 33; further narrowing the pledged delegate lead: 1697.5 to 1688.5.
Nevada - The abuses of the caucus system only continued in Nevada whereas Obama picked up 14 delegates compared to Clinton’s 11. The problem within the Nevada delegate selection is that the Caucus delegates arbitrarily awarded Obama 55% of the delegates when Clinton won the popular vote 51%-45%. Once again, the easily manipulated caucus system went directly against the expressed will of the Democrats of Nevada. It the caucus system proportionally represented the people of Nevada; the delegate count would have broken 13-12 in favor of Clinton. The non-discriminatory delegate count would have closed to 1,695.5 for Obama and 1,690.5 for Clinton.
One can examine the delegate lead above and argue that Obama still maintained the delegate lead, even if the system fairly represented all Democrats, thus all has worked out as it should. But I’m not done by any means!
For Instance, the State of Washington awarded Obama 52 of the states 78 delegates. The state, like others, awards delegates at a congressional district level with 1 district receiving 9 delegates; 4 districts receiving 6 delegates; 3 districts receiving 5 delegates; and 1 district receiving just 3 delegates. Once again Washington has followed the DNC lead in unrepresentative and discriminatory delegate distribution. We do know based upon the delegates awarded in each district that Clinton performed better in the districts with fewer delegates. However, the Democratic Party of Washington has not released any hard vote numbers at a congressional district level. As a result, we assume that based upon the demographics Clinton would pick up 1 to 2 delegates (a 2-4 delegate swing) by equally allocating delegates, but without hard vote totals we are unable to confirm.
Additionally, in the District of Columbia one of Clintons earned, pledged delegates have written a letter to the DNC switching their pledge vote to the Obama camp.
At the end of the day, if the allocation of pledged delegate were fair, non-discriminatory, and followed the original equal representation intent of the founders of the proportional primary system, this would be a horse race with a photo-finish. The superdelegates would have no alternative but to recognize the broad support and strength within the congressional district victories enjoyed by Hillary Clinton and perhaps would address this final travesty:
In August of 2006 the DNC Approved its delegate selection rules, that clearly laid out the penalty for violation of the primary timeline. The rules clearly stated: “in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation”.
Although provisions existed that granted the DNC, led by Howard Dean, to impose increased penalties, clearly this rule was violated by the DNC when they stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegations. Obama supporters attempt to contend that Harold Ickes wrote the rules, but in reality, Howard Dean is the Chairman of the DNC and the “Buck Stops There”.
I commend the Democratic Party of Michigan for standing up too the DNC and lambasting the DNC during the RBC meeting in May. But regardless of the rule, there is one more guideline that pertains to Florida that has not been discussed during this process. The DNC Delegate Selection Rules state, “In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C.
of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws
Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced.”
The above guideline was put into place years ago to allow an exemption of the 50% rule in situations whereas a Republican Controlled State would pass laws moving up a primary in violation of DNC rules. As we have pointed out in a previous post, the Democratic Leadership in Florida made no attempt to block Cloture and unanimously voted for the legislation to move up there primary. However, that is not the rhetoric that spewed out of the mouths of the members of the RBC and Florida Democratic Leadership during the May publicity stunt. Member after Member of the DNC and Florida Leadership came forth blaming the entire debacle on the Florida Republican Party. There was no mention of the DNC violating their rules and no blame placed upon the Democratic Leadership of Florida. The RBC and other DNC leadership laid the blame for Florida directly at the feet of the Republican Party. If the RBC truly believes the rhetoric that they spewed then why did they not reinstate the full delegation of Florida?
Clearly, this provision of the rules was put in place to protect against the very situation that the DNC claims occurred in Florida; therefore the fair solution would have been to fully reinstate the Florida delegation. What would that have done to the delegate tally?
We can talk in terms of "What Ifs", "Could Have Beens", and "Should Have Beens" all day, but at the end Clinton supporters will point to this massive disenfranchisement as just one more piece of evidence that the party they once knew, a party that valued the base of its coalition, has been hijacked and that Obama is an illegitimate candidate.
Obama supporters are going to flock to this site and proclaim that none of this matters; Obama played by the agreed upon rules; ran a more strategic campaign; and that now is the time to unite against Obama. After all the rules, the party and defeating McCain are all that matter to them. They will tell us that now is the time to focus on the issues, and in between the occasional expressed hatred and slights they will spin this issue into an attack on Clinton and McCain.
First, any derogatory remarks will be deleted and any ridiculous spin trying to change the subject will also be wiped clean. Second, the Obama supporters are right; we should focus on the issues.
Let’s begin with the issue of what constitutes the very basis of our representative republic. Our founding fathers adopted a form of government, constitution, and laws expressly for the purpose of supporting and protecting their belief in equal and fair representation. They believed that all Americans, regardless of whether they resided in the heavily populated northern colonies or less populated southern colonies had the right to equal representation. That is why we have congressional districts; that is why we elect representatives and do not directly elect our president. They believed that a voter in Allentown Pennsylvania should have the same level of representation as a voter in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Democratic Party was once a party that embraced the ideals of fair and equal representation; after all they are the party that first developed a proportional primary system. If the leaders of any party are willing to adopt discriminatory representation as a basis of their party platform, then what will prevent them from doing the same to the entire electorate?
This election is about issues, and at the heart of those issues should be fair and equal representation. What has occurred in the Democratic Primary Process represents the very reason why our founding fathers feared and detested political parties.
Are things likely to change? I guess that depends on what happens in November.
J Brown
June 11, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article starting June 12th at: Real Clear Politics and Digg It
Be sure to check out our other posts including those in May and please be sure to support our research donate on the sidebar.
Copyright 2008This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.
Sources available upon request including each States Democratic Party, Republican Party, Secretary of State, The Democratic National Committee, The Green Papers, The Associated Press, The National Archives, and others.
19 comments:
Once Again if you post to this site, you better stick to the subject at hand. Bye, Bye, Off-topic comments, no place for Obamabots on this site. Comment #1 Deleted
Brilliant article! Obama supporters seem to be turing a blind eye to these facts. These events threaten every American, why don't Obama supporters get that? What comes next, will all of our elected officials being selected? American wake up!
What a WONDERFUL compilation of FACTS. Outstanding job! I've been searching high and low for an article that would "put it all together", in order to show those who question why Clinton supporters (like myself) are so upset. That's why we want to take this to DENVER. November is too late. This is definitely something that Howard Dean (and his fellow voting crooks) doesn't want the American public to know about! I hope they're nervous as hell, because we're MAD as hell, and need to stand up to this crap! THANK YOU, J. Brown. You are a true American patriot, who holds tru to the ideals that our founding fathers put in place so many years ago! Well done!!
-kelly
Arlington, TX
Well done. Does anybody know what Hillary's plans are? I know she publicly says she supports Obama and her website now encourages people to support him. But I can't help but wonder, and hope beyond all hope, that she's got something up her sleeve! Is she planning on running as an independent, or taking this to the convention and asking superdelegates to switch sides? Does anyone know? I have a hard time believing Hillary, as strong as she is, would just accept this.
Thank you for the time and effort of doing this research. Yes, this is indeed why so many Clinton supporters are so upset. Many of us saw the dirty tricks at the caucuses. We've watched the news media adopt the Obama frames without using any original thought. We've watched SD's that supporterd Clinton being threatened and intimidated. We've heard the hate speech of the media and Obama supporters 24/7. This is not the Party I've supporter since I voted for the first time in 1972. I thank you for not moving on and just letting this pass. Your article deserves to be seen by every rank and file democrat in the party.
southern voice, Great job! Between the antiquated caucus system, those arbitrary district apportionments and that RBC meeting in May. WOW! I wonder what will happen in Denver? Can't wait!! Keep up the good work.
On the basis of your study -- an equal amount of delegates per congessional district versus the setup that the party put in play where they awarded more delgates to congrsesional districts that lean more Democratic--then what you state is inded correct.
I do not necessarily agree with that premise however. If the delegates are awarded by state on the basis of the popular vote percentage in each state, then Mrs. Clinton does indeed gain a few more delegates, but not the number that you have here in your study.
My point is that one can divy it up any way that one wants to get the results that one wants.
Perhaps many here will be angry by that statement, but it is true from a mathematical viewpoint.
TGS
Nice Try TG, apparently you still do not understand how the Proportional Primary System Works. Only a small percentage of the Delegates are awarded based upon the STATE'S POPULAR VOTE. A Majority of the Delegates are to be awarded based upon the vote of each Congressional District within a state; thus "EQUAL REPRESENTATION". THE DNC HAS DECIDED THAT ALTHOUGH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS HAVE THE SAME POPULATION, THEY ARE GOING TO REWARD MORE DELEGATES TO PREFERRED DISTRICTS. Go educate yourself on the system genius! Your right, the math does not lie and you cannot spin these facts.
Jbrown
You know--you are indeed right and I am wrong that a small proportion of the delegates are awarded based on statewide popular vote. The others are based on the congressional districts--and if they are all weighted equally then your math indeed makes sense.
That being said, I did not come on here to make trouble and I do not need your condescending comments. You posted this on a public blog and therefore it is subject to critique. I am not an "Obamabot" whatever that is --as if it is any different than a "Clinton Kool-Aid drinker" that bleets on and on about how everything is skewed against her candidacy. Too bad people on BOTH extremes are unwilling to see anything other than their own view.
I have admitted my fault in my first analysis. And yes I realized right away that I did make a mistake. Yes, the system sucks, and hopefully there is a big change in how delegates are selected so this type of situation never happens again.
The way that I see it is that the race was a tie from day 1 of the Iowa Caucus through June 3--no one had a real advantage. The media over and over again gave the advantage to Mr. Obama and then to Mrs. Clinton after Mar 4, and then after the Pennsylvania primary win. The results were never far from what was expected and the media simply was filling in "time" with their opinions--like em or not.
What you state may indeed be solidly based facts, but when is a perfect election ever been held in our country?
TGS
This will keep the resolve alive to continue to support Hillary... i hope all will go to this and if this doesn't bring a tear to your eye and a demand from NObama for an apology... well just watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke64670GkZ8
There's ANOTHER aspect of how the DNC brokes the rules... did you know that FIVE states moved up their primary dates? Not just Florida & Michigan, but also Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Why didn't they lose their delegates? It's all explained here... http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5465
Thank you for this posting and its information. I am a life-long Democrat who just resigned from the party. At first, I was open to Obama AND Clinton. I decided to support HRC only after she began to articulate really good programs and I realized her candidacy was being undermined by sexism in the media and by Obama supporters. Then I became aware that Obama's campaign began race-baiting. I found that offense and dangerous. Finally, when the DNC custom designed the nomination process to ensure Obama won over Clinton, I decided that was too much.
I am going to vote for McCain, because I feel it is time for some tough love. The leadership--especially Howard Dean and Donna Brazile--have stated they don't need "...white, blue-collar Americans" anymore. They are trying to redefine the party by making it the party of rich, whites, African-Americans and kids.
That's why I think there is intention behind the scheme you have exposed.
So, I'm calling for a reality check. We need to remind the DNC that the heart of the Democratic Party remains working Americans and people who want the best for all Americans.
Your article helps address the reality and not the passion behind what we all have witnessed....Thank you, again.
Is it true that Howard Dean has taken HRC's name off the superdelegate ballot at the convention? If so, how does he justify completely ignoring 18 million voters?
Thank you for this interesting and thorough assessment, which backs up everything I've believed for the past six months.
I do not understand the DNC or Howard Dean at all on this one; it's obvious this was a tie, and the person with the momentum at the end was Hillary Clinton -- so she, not Obama, should be the nominee.
This game was rigged from the get-go, it seems, by the DNC. The Obama campaign exploited it, gamed the system, and "won" delegates based on intimidation, voter fraud, and outright theft (in the case of MI). Just wrong, all that, and I don't know why it's happened. Because this isn't democracy.
I resigned from the Democratic Party on May 31, 2008, after 24 years (all my voting life) as a Democrat. I did so because I am standing on principle; I do not hold with a party that does this crap and then tries to make it seem "OK." (Or even worse, say it doesn't matter and that we all must "unite" around the illegitimate nominee.)
There's no excuse for this, none.
Which is why I'm glad you wrote your article. I hope it gives the Clinton supporters (like me) some hope for the future, along with verifying my reason that I am justifiably angry with how this election has turned out thus far.
JBROWN,
You don't have a good understanding of how the DNC awarded it's delegates. The acclocation of delegates were based on how many people voted in particular congressional district in the 2004 election cycle. So they would be more representive of Democratic leaning congressional districts.
Anon,
Nice try on the spin. That very fact is not only mentioned in the article but is the very basis of the article. No matter how you try to justify it, tell me again why a democrats vote in Philly is more important than a dems vote in Pittsburgh. Our country was founded on "equal representation". Nice try, but the idiocy of your comment only supports the article.
...and now they are moving the DNC headquarters from DC, where it has been for so many years, to Chicago....That combined with the refusal of federal campaign funding is looking more and more like old time Chicago dirty politics....Why did we even bother to have a primary season, if the DNC/Daily machine was going to control the outcome and the process? And how does anyone imagine that Obama will have any independence after all the favors he will owe? He will a puppet to these special interests just as GW Bush has been. That's not the kind of change I want to see....
As you have pointed out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLPoV4diMjk
Post a Comment