Michigan and Florida should be allowed to send their delegates to the national convention in a way that doesn't rewrite history. Once every state has voted, their delegates could be allocated in proportion to the national popular vote. That's a solution that provides a penalty for violating the rules and allows fair participation, but doesn't give those two states an opportunity to change the outcome or dilute votes in other states.

That "solution" ignores several a key facts: Not all states are alike. Yet the implication here is precisely that. I mean, the averaging process winds up smoothing out huge variability from state to state. Yet it's the variability that arguably is the most interesting aspect. It's the variability that has produced the present situation, not the average!

Worse, the proposed solution turns Michigan and Florida into completely passive participants in the process. And the bit about "chang[ing] the outcome" and "dilut[ing] the votes in other states" is silly spinmeister language.

If re-votes in those states are permitted, Oregon would lose a big part of the excitement and importance that has already started brewing here over the presidential primary. Oregon could lose the potential millions of dollars in campaign money that would be infused into our slowing economy. And Oregon could lose the opportunity to have the candidates visit over and over again so that we might learn what they think about issues important to our state.

Geez Louise, can't get much more parochial than that now, can we? I am reasonably certain that Mr. Cornett, who wrote this stuff, was a loud advocate of moving up the Oregon primary so as to make Oregon "more relevant". That's precisely the sort of political-insider scheming that led to the Florida/Michigan fiasco in the first place.

There is no good solution to the Florida/Michigan mess, and both Clinton and Obama, and their respective campaigns and supporters, but been spinning their "solutions" in the press and blogosphere for all to hear. Indeed, this spin-doctoring has commonly (not in Mr. Cornett's post, however) turned into yet one more opportunity to slam the opposition as biased, manipulative, yadda yadda yadda.

Thanks for posting this. I was impressed with "Michigan and Florida should be allowed to send their delegates to the national convention in a way that doesn't rewrite history. Once every state has voted, their delegates could be allocated in proportion to the national popular vote."

This is SO much more intelligent than "they are big states, they need to come to the convention no matter what they did, and who cares about party rules anyway?" from too many people (political & media folks) we see on TV.

But then, Jesse and I belong to what some people call a fraternity---Oregonians who have ever been a national convention delegate.

And this is a reminder that the delegate selection process in Oregon is more important this year than at any time in a quarter century. Learn more about the process from your county party or anyone on the Rules Comm. at any level, or from the state party.

[D]oesn't give those two states an opportunity to change the outcome or dilute votes in other states.

So, why would any state participate if not to have a chance to change the outcome? Isn't determining the outcome the entire point of the convention?

And who has ever suggested giving Florida and Michigan more delegates than they otherwise would get? The very concept of "dilution" of other states' votes is preposterous -- each state's votes are "diluted" by the delegates from all other states anyway, if you look at it that way (which you shouldn't) -- so claiming special "dilution" from FL and MI is simply inane.

[A]llows fair participation

By forcing those delegations to be allocated a particular way (based on national votes) regardless of the actual vote within those states? That's hardly fair, and one might argue it's not even really participation. Why attend the convention at all if you have no free will to act at that convention?

That's a solution

Uh, not really. ;-) I would argue that any "solution" that does not actually reflect the will of the voters in those states somehow, isn't a "solution" at all.

First, there are no FL/MI delegates, there are potential delegates (other than spupers). Delegates are elected on a proportional basis, there is no proportion.

I have exactly no memorty of Jesse pushing a move. DNC made its stance clear and DPO wanted no part of a fight with DNC. I'm not sure how many of us saw our VBM as an early primary or how many saw value in being swamped by other states on Feb 5. The issue raised more than one question.

I don't see how an artificial proportioning of FL/MI is more meaningful than not seating them in regard to will of the voters. FL&MI refused to take DNC seriously, it is now late in the day. What is most possibly affordable is caucuses, we know how that's going to play.

From a practical standpoint, I don't think the DNC needs to worry about alienating Florida voters. We're not going to win there anyway. The state is run by Republicans and the governor is McCain's likeliest running mate. While I subscribe to the 50-state strategy in principle, writing off Florida might be wise. Gives Obama or Clinton more resources to focus on Ohio and other swing states.

There is no fair solution to this issue. And is it that big a deal? If there is another primary, with delegates being selected proportionately to the vote, there will only be a spread of a few delegates between winner and loser. So if those states want to go to the expense of holding another primary, they should. Maybe the DNC should pitch in a few bucks and share the cost, not pay the whole tab.

Would not the most egregious parochialism have been demonstrated by Florida and Michigan State Dems by advancing their primary in contravention of party rules?

Blaming Florida's "GOP Legislature" for the primary advancement is disingenuous. As cited in a salon.com article of 30 Oct. 2007, "Another election fiasco in Florida?":

"Under party rules, the punishment, which is also likely to be imposed on Michigan, can only be carried out if state Democrats were complicit in the change. The Florida effort to move the date was sponsored by a Democrat, state Sen. Jeremy Ring".

It was pointed out how FL Dems bargained for the move in bad faith with their R counterparts in another salon.com article from 2 July 2007, "Florida election mayhem for 2008":

"But everything changed when Florida moved its primary as part of an overall electoral reform bill, which won unanimous Democratic support in the legislature because it also eliminated touch-screen voting. A binding Jan. 29 Florida primary is an explicit violation of DNC rules and should automatically trigger sanctions that would take away half the state's convention delegates and penalize candidates for campaigning there."

Although it really streches to make its point, I'll also cite the article to which Jesse responded, the editorial by Susan Nielson of the Oregonian on 9 Mar. 2007, "Political Debacle":

"all of this talk about disenfranchisement and voting rights deliberately misrepresents the role of voters in a primary. Which gets us to the civics lesson of this broadcast: Sorry, voters, but presidential primaries aren't about you. They're about political parties, which are private organizations protected under the constitutional right of free association. These parties have a right to pick their nominee, and they have a right to design a nomination process that's as peculiar and self-destructive as they please."

While I recognize the ill will that punishing these states could engender, the DNC did the right thing and the miscreants were in the state parties; they mishandled their reponsibilities. Whatever they do now, they cannot unring that bell; they ran improperly constituted primaries that had their political consequences.

Jesse wrote:

"Michigan and Florida should be allowed to send their delegates to the national convention in a way that doesn't rewrite history."

I do not see how that is possible. Any "do-over" is inherently unfair, and seems like an application of schoolyard justice. I think it is irrelevant that it might be detrimental to the party in some measure, if the alternative is to damage the ability of a party to control its own destiny.

In her editorial Ms. Nielson gives a hysterical extrapolation of this flap:

"The do-over may sound as laughable as a hanging chad, and it is. But it's the best way for the Democratic party to avert a credibility crisis and a voter stampede toward presumptive Republican nominee John McCain..."

There is no way that's going to happen.

Sal, please explain how you can say that "the Dems in Florida had no choice in moving the primary forward."?

Do you contend that Michael Scherer's and Walter Shapiro's articles on salon.com are not true? Or is it that the FL Dems were forced to unanimously support the bill that moved it up? A further quote from "Another election fiasco in Florida?" should put protestations of innocence by FL Dems to rest:

"... Democrat state Sen. Jeremy Ring, also of Broward, who remains unapologetic about his role. 'I think we have successfully blown up this antiquated primary process,' he said in a phone interview last week. 'I have absolutely no regrets.'"

Is it your contention that the state parties can bargain away the national's authority to achieve assent to parochial agendas? I cannot not agree to that. If you dislike how the national party wields its power (as it seems you do) you betray yourself as an anarchist at best, if your solution is to tear down the party.

<h2>My position is vindicated: there will be no "do-overs". The terminology alone should alert one to the juvenile thinking at work in the effort.</h2>