Florida and Michigan Analysis Done Right

May 27, 2008 · Posted in Barack Obama, Election 2008 

Required reading. After researching the issue myself and getting ready to write about it for one last time, I found this post by poblano on Daily Kos, which has so excellently set out all of the arguments for how the Michigan and Florida delegates could (and should) be seated, that I abandoned mine and encourage you to read this one, start to finish.

Rules Committee, are you listening? Because this is the right way to do it.

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

  • Damn good idea and point; first I've heard it.
    *edit* The roll call thing, that is.
  • I read and like most of the article. However it loses me at appropriating delegates based on exit polls. While this is a nice look into things, it is not a real vote.

    Also, to accept the vote of the moved up election day in any fashion does not take into account the latent effect of only HRC's name on the ballot for weeks before the election (campaigning by mere existence as opposed to nonexistence).

    I'm from Michigan. If we cannot have a revote which allows everyone to vote for the person they wish, by ballot, I don't want to be seated.
  • Joffi,

    As you know, I agree with you. But with Clinton out there trumpeting the claim that not seating the delegates would disenfranchise FL and MI and cause some to blame that on Obama, they're going to have to be seated in some fashion. I also agree with you that the exit polls don't adequately represent the people who stayed home after the penalty was applied. But the Obama campaign supports the 10-delegate spread there, so I would say they're ready to agree to that.

    Personally, I think they should seat Florida and Michigan, but move them both to the end of the roll call so that they aren't a determining factor, particularly when the roll call order will really matter.
blog comments powered by Disqus