With all the confusion, spin and media hype over whether MI and FL delegates will or should be seated, and the more recent saga of Hillary’s so-called "Nuclear Option" to overrule the DNC, perhaps someone should actually read the DNC Rules on how the MI & FL vote is to be counted.
The answer to MI & FL is already in the rules.
50% of pledged delegates go to the convention and no unpledged delegates.
See more below...
Ok... time to look at the facts....
First of all, we need to look at the DNC published rules, freely available to anyone (including the MSM... hint....) who can read English. I have reprinted the relevant paragraphs below, but if you want to prove it for yourself or to read the full document, here it is:
The website: The Democratic Party - Delegates
or go straight to the document DNC Delegate Rules (PDF)
Here are the rules regarding timing, which explain how MI and FL violated them: (Note: emphasis was added to highlight the critical sections)
- TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
Both MI and FL held their primaries earlier than allowed, hence violated section 11.A.
The case for FL is that the state determined the primary date and caused the violation.
The case for MI is weaker, though it’s doubtful that allowing one and not the other would be considered ‘fair’.
However, the DNC Rules already allow for the event where the above rule is violated, as long as it’s challenged according to Section 20:
Section 20. CHALLENGES
Section 20.C.1.a Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or 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. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
So there you have it. In the event that a challenge is made as to the validity of a ‘mis-timed’ state primary, only 50% of the pledged delegates count and none of the unpledged delegates.
END OF STORY
Or is it...
Well there is a complication in MI that is not explicitly covered and could be appealed. There is no implicit remedy for the case where only one of the major candidates has their name on the ballot.
In other words, although 40% of voters in MI would rather vote for nobody than vote for Hillary, the other candidates who followed the rules have been assigned none.
Therefore HC would get 73 * 50% = 36.5 delegates from MI, and in a worst case scenario for Obama, he would receive 0 delegates from MI.
However, there is wording that deals with "uncommitted delegates" by establishing a committee to recommend a solution:
Section 20.C.5. Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including, without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances.
So it’s conceivable that Obama may yet gain a portion of the delegates from MI based on clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above that seem to imply a desire to ensure that the delegates are chosen to be representative. That could be anything from all 55 undecided, a 50/50 split of all delegates or arguably (though unlikely) a majority for Obama based on the national pledged delegate percentage.
Florida is more straightforward:
In Florida, the delegate split would have been 105 HC, 67 BO, 13 JE, so according to the 50% rules, HC will gain 52.5 delegates to 33.5 for BO
BUT ......
If HC wishes to throw herself at the mercy of the RBC, it could backfire!
Invoking the DNC rules section 20.a. (dealing with delegate seating of mis-timed primaries) may have the effect of causing the RBC to read slightly further down the page at Section 20.1.b.
"Campaigning Rules"
Section 20.1.b. Prohibits candidates from campaigning in a mis-timed state prior to the primary. It clearly states the definition of "Campaigning":
Section 20.C.1.b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.
Hillary Campaigns
As many will know, Hillary’s "visit" to Florida prior to the primary vote was all over the press. She was reported arriving at the airport and meeting local residents after the event.
Ok, you say, that’s a little tenuous. Perhaps, but remember we are dealing with precise language and the wording of the rules states that "making public appearances" constitutes "Campaigning".
Even if that you are prepared to ignore that, the real no-no was appearing in a fundraiser. Clinton’s campaign has argued that this was perfectly legal and allowed according to the DNC rules. Not so! The wording in the rules is again precise: "holding events to which Democratic voters are invited" IS "Campaigning". The Clinton campaign claim that attending a fundraiser exploits a loop-hole in the rules... Read them for yourself; see if you can find it.
The final argument is that it is well documented that Hillary told Florida voters that she would return after the primary and would campaign to make their votes count. This could easily be argued as a "Campaign" ploy to influence Florida voters to vote for her if they wish to have their voice heard, despite the DNC Rules.
So, according to the rules, if challenged, Hillary risks not get ANY delegates from FL.
Obama Campaigns
But... I hear you say.... What about Obama... His ads ran in the state prior to the primary. Well, here, there would have to be a burden of proof that the adverts "reached a significant percentage of the voters in the state". The Obama camp argues that it was impossible to cut Florida out of a National Ad campaign. In my opinion, if the Ad was specific about FL, then the case would be a no-brainer. As it is, it is open to interpretation.
Worst case, both HC and BO lose all their FL delegates.
Summary
What does this all mean?
According to democonwatch, Obama needs 286 and Clinton 416 delegates. By my (rough) calculations based on latest poll averages and giving HC the benefit of the doubt, I would expect HC to gain 209 more pledged delegates and BO to gain 184.
If MI and FL are seated (and only HC gets MI delegates) then there will be an additional 122.5 delegates, with HC gaining 89 and BO 33.5, a net HC majority of 55.5.
However HC would now need 478 and BO would need 347.
So after all contests and including MI & FL in the worst case scenario for BO:
HC needs around 180 and BO needs around 131 Superdelegates.
Worst case scenario BO is still ahead by 50
If, as seems most likely, BO gets at least 55 MI delegates, he only needs around 76 SDs, less than half of HC’s requirement.
Likely Scenario(inc MI & FL): Roughly a 1/3 BO to 2/3 HC split of SDs would give BO the nomination.
So seating FL and MI does NOT give HC a win, even in the most generous scenario.
UPDATE: As pointed out by taylormattd below, the rules allow for the RBC to make the sanctions worse, but as far as I can see, there is no provision to make them better.
UPDATE END
(In case someone is sharp enough to see that the numbers don’t quite add up to all the SDs and pledged delegates, bear in mind that I used poll forecasts for states with undecided voters. The real delegate math is more complex, involving district level structures etc... but the 1/3 to 2/3 SD split result is essentially the same).
CT
P.S.
In Hillary’s "FactHub" response, http://facts.hillaryhub.com/... , the campaign counters the "Hillary Goes Nuclear" saga merely by saying "It’s not a secret!". However, there is one sentence that caught my eye...
The Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) is the DNC body charged with dealing with these challenges until the 56th day before the convention, and its process is public and transparent.
56th day? Where does that come from... So I set out to find out... That would be June 30th ... Still looking.... Anyone else have any ideas?
UPDATE2:
It seems that HillaryHub has removed their "FactCheck"... perhaps it wasn't quite a fact, or someone didn't check it... In case you missed it, here is the original in all its glory (the emphasis was in the original):
It’s No Secret: Florida and Michigan Count and Their Delegates Should Be Seated
5/4/2008 9:27:29 PM
The Huffington Post describes a "secret" plan that the Clinton Campaign has to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations. There is no secret plan. In fact, this story misrepresents the process laid out in the DNC rules for resolving the questions surrounding the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations.
The Clinton campaign has been vocal in stating that the votes of 2.5 million people must be respected. Hardly a day goes by when a Clinton official doesn’t publicly declare that the votes of Michigan and Florida count and that the delegations from those states should be seated.
DNC members from Michigan and Florida have filed challenges with the DNC to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. The process being followed to adjudicate these challenges is completely consistent with the DNC rules. The Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) is the DNC body charged with dealing with these challenges until the 56th day before the convention, and its process is public and transparent.
The membership of the RBC does not - in large part - turn over. A former Secretary of Labor, and the grandson of FDR who is a long time party activist and has been a co-chair of the committee for several election cycles chair it. Other members include a former chair of the party, Al Gore’s Campaign Manager (who is a former co-chair of the RBC as well), and an executive board member of the NAACP. Although the RBC is comprised of people who support both candidates, these people take their roles as party activits seriously.
The DNC process will decide the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations. It is an open and transparent process -- unlike the backroom deals proposed by the Obama campaign that would disenfranchise the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in Florida and Michigan.