On Sunday, Donna Brazile took to the airwaves to explain the Credentials Committee of the DNC and why Obama will control the Credentials Committee. Unfortunately, almost everything Ms. Brazile said was wrong (is she a lying shill or simply uninformed, you decide). After learning Ms. Brazile was wrong, I decided to try to figure this Credentials Committee thing out myself. I mean, how hard can it be?
Yeah, as with all Democratic party rules, figuring out the Credentials Committee turns out to be needlessly difficult. I'm beginning to think the DNC deliberately obfuscates when writing its rules so that the elite can do whatever the fuck they want. But I pressed on and here's what I found and figured out. If you'd like to read along, the Call to the Convention with the rules can be found - here.
Part VII. contains the rules for standing committees, such as the credentials committee. VII.A provides, in part:
Membership: Subject to Rule 20.C. of the Delegate Selection Rules, each standing committee shall be composed of:
1. Base: A base of 161 members, casting 158 votes, allocated to the states and territories in accordance with the same distribution formula used to allocate delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
2. PLEOs: 25 members, each casting one (1) vote who shall be Party Leaders and Elected Officials.
The one (and only) thing Ms. Brazile got right is that Howard Dean appoints 25 people to the committee. The rest of the committee is made up of representatives of the state delegations, but each state does not get 3. Rather, they are divided up proportionately based on the same formula used to allocate delegates. According to footnote 7, the allocation of standing committee members is set out in Appendix D.
And here's where we get to our very first problem. While the rules appear to require 161 members casting 158 votes. Appendix D allocates only 147 members and 144 votes. It appears the difference is that Michigan and Florida are zeroed out on Appendix D. Interestingly, the DNC did not reallocate the standing committee positions to the remaining 48 states. Is this because they expected Florida and Michigan to be seated? Is it just a lack of attention to detail? But the real question is, assuming Florida and Michigan aren't seated as part of some sort of deal before the convention, what's the right number of committee members. Does the Call to Convention, which requires 161 members, trump the allocation in Appendix D, which allocates only 147?
Next, how do states elect members:
C. Presidential Preference:
1. The members of the standing committees allocated to the states and territories shall proportionately represent the presidential preference of all candidates (including uncommitted status) receiving the threshold percentage used in that state’s delegation to calculate the at-large apportionment pursuant to Rule 13.E. of the Delegate Selection Rules, provided, however, that members of the standing committees from primary states shall be allocated to presidential candidates (including uncommitted status) based on the statewide popular vote.
Okay, we're back to the always confusing proportionate representation, but at least for this exercise we go by the popular vote of a state and not the CD stuff. Of course, determining the popular vote in caucus states is difficult and then there are states like Washington and Texas that held a caucus and a primary. Great! For simplicity's sake, I'll take the caucus results in Washington and the primary results in Texas.
Calculating the Standings
Appendix D Allocation (147/144)
If we use Appendix D, then there will by 147 members on the committee from the states, casting 144 votes (American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Democrats Abroad each get .25 vote). In addition, there will be the 25 members that Dean appoints. For a grand total of 172 members casting 169 votes. To obtain a majority on the committee, a candidate would need 84.75 votes.
Here's my attempt to allocate the 144 standing committee votes among the candidates based on contests that have already been held:
As you can see (if you squint real hard), Obama currently leads 64.5-53.25 with 3 votes I'm unable to allocate because third party votes create a situation where it's unclear which candidate will get the vote since without the third party votes, neither candidate qualifies for it. There are still 23.25 votes up for grabs in the remaining contests.
The Rules Allocation (161/158)
Here, I've adjusted the votes for the remaining 48 states based on their share of pledged delegates so that the 48 states + the territories now have the 161 seats/158 votes as set out in the Call to the Convention. Under this allocation, the Committee will have a total of 186 members, casting 183 votes. To gain a majority, a candidate would need to control 91.75 votes.
As you can see, Obama leads Clinton 69.5-57.25 with 3 unaffiliated votes and 28.25 votes up for grabs in the remaining contests.
Control of the Committee
Like every other part of this race, the split of votes on the Credentials Committee is very close. It is likely, but not certain, that Obama will end the nominating contests with more votes on the Committee than Clinton. Given the proportionate allocation rules, however, it appears nearly impossible for either candidate to get a majority on the Committee solely through elected members. Instead, the deciding votes are likely to rest with the 25 members appointed by Howard Dean.
But Wait, There's More
Under VII.J.I, the Committee is not the final arbiter of whether delegates are seated or not:
The committee shall report to the Convention for final determination and resolution of all such questions. This committee does not have authority over the allocation and distribution of convention credentials, including passes for delegates, alternates, guests or press.
In other words, the Committee basically makes a recommendation to the full convention and the convention decides whether or not to agree with the Committee. Moreover, a minority report can be prepared at the request of 20% of the Committee and is also forwarded to the full convention. Both candidates already control more than 20% of the Committee.
So after all of the pain and suffering of trying to figure this out, it turns out that the ultimate decision of whether to seat Michigan and Florida will not be made by the Committee, but will be made by the full convention (assuming some deal isn't reached ahead of time). Either Clinton will get enough Dean appointees to seat them and Obama will file a minority report objecting, which will be voted on by the convention. Or Obama will get enough Dean appointees to prevent seating them and Clinton will file a minority report, which will be voted on by the full convention.
Now, presumably, it would be a lot easier for automatic delegates to refuse to seat Michigan and Florida if they are merely agreeing with the Committee's recommendation rather than upending it, but either way, just as the nomination is going to come down to the automatic delegates, so is the issue of Michigan and Florida. Which could be interesting, especially if Michigan and Florida automatic delegates win their appeal and get seated. Does an Obama automatic delegate from Florida vote against seating the Florida delegation?
Notes: All popular vote counts were obtained from Green Papers.
The adjusted allocation was done by figuring out the percentage of the pledged delegates for each state and then applying that percentage to 158. When rounding up led to a total of more than 158, those votes among the rounded up that were the furthest from the next highest number were rounded down until I got to 158. This method appears to be consistent with DNC Rule VII.C.2.
Update: I figured out, in theory, how to allocate the unaffiliated votes. I even quoted the rule in my post, you take away all the votes that didn't make the threshold for the state, then figure out what percentage of the remaining state vote each candidate received and allocate accordingly. Unfortunately, I don't know what the thresholds are for all of the affected states.
Update II: Please see Bringiton's very helpful comments below explaining why none of the stuff about the Credentials Committee matters because Florida and Michigan are in front of the Rules Committee. So Brazile wasn't even right about that. But the end result remains the same, which is that once the convention starts, it'll be up to the convention whether to seat Florida and Michigan. However, I can't imagine it coming to that because the Dems don't have the stomach for it (nor, should they).
And via, Marc Ambinder, apparently there will be 169 members of the Credentials Committee, which matches neither number that comes from the Call of the Convention. He does indicate not all will be voting members. Trying to figure out the DNC rules is like trying to read a statute with half the sections missing. See http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/credentials_committee_186_memb.php
- BDBlue's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
Disclaimer: Obama supporter. Can't read.
But the upshot of your impressive post seems to be that Obama either wins in committee [when Dean's appointees get him a majority] or he wins on the floor [after whoever loses in committee files a minority report and his pledged delegate lead carries the day].
Am I missing something?
"If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." - Bill Clinton
“They see us from afar, they come to a speech, they watch us on television. And they vote. And that is part of the process. An important part.” - Hillary Clinton
you're missing the public horror at not seating FL & MI when it
is on the floor, and the cameras are rolling--the convention won't not seat them, and they can't just go along with Obama--it would be public elimination of all Nov. chances for anyone.
What You're Missing
I was probably unclear, but the upshot is that in addition to deciding which candidate they support, automatic delegates are going to have to decide whether they favor seating Florida and Michigan. While it may be that most automatic delegates will answer that question by deciding which answer favors their candidate, it's not clear to me that that will be true for all automatic delegates. It is possible to think Florida and Michigan have to be seated and to want Obama as the nominee. While I think it's less likely, it's also possible to want to exclude Florida and Michigan and still want Clinton for the nominee. There's nothing that says every automatic delegate has to put their candidate before what they think is in the party's best interest. Indeed, when deciding all of these issues, I think such delegates should be looking at what's best for the party. Otherwise, why are they there?
Like the nomination itself, neither candidate is going to go into the convention with enough pledged delegates to control the issue of seating Michigan and Florida.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
I also like
the assumption that just b/c Dean appointed these people, they are going to be in the tank for Obama. Shows some real neutrality there, huh?
IMO, the people who Dean selects are probably going to be as torn down the middle as everyone else. And many people in the party can't be too happy that Obama has spent his entire campaign trashing the only successful Democratic president in 28 years. The party faithful probably won't be too happy with him by the convention, and they are the convention. Contrary to what Ribo(and Obama, apparently) thinks, most people are loyal to the party before the candidate, and Obama hasn't demonstrated much loyalty to the party.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
It will be a PR disaster
for Obama and the Democratic party to be on national television arguing "rules is rules" to prevent seating the delegations of two large swing states.
The GOP lapdogs in the press will love it. Forget a scripted "coronation." This will be a steel-cage deathmatch. Ratings will be through the roof!
We owe it all to Dean, Brazile, and Obama.
Damn you Hillary for being so divisive!
(the last sentence was snark)
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
DNC Rulers and Rules
Thank you, BDB for taking the time to write this post. When someone cites the rules and then is rather, um, unaware of what they actually are it bothers me to no end (see: OpenLeft, DailyKos, etc.). I believe Brazille does know what the rules are and her appearance was just an attempt at misleading the public.
I am still dead certain the whole show is rigged. Even if Obama fails to secure the nomination on the first ballot (which will all but likely require the disenfranchisement of MI, FL), I cannot imagine that the Democratic party leaders will allow Clinton to be the nominee--regardless of what the popular vote is or whether Democrats at the convention feel she's our only chance in the GE.
@Aeryl: I wish that were true. Misogynistic bigotry and CDS are immune to logic and there's no reason to believe party leaders, officials have not succumbed to it. This entire primary season is a testament to that.
Dean Has Already Made His Appointments
I think that was done awhile ago, I'll try to find the link. All three chairs have links, IIRC, to the Clinton Administration. Of course, plenty of those folks have become Obama supporters, so I'm not sure it means anything.
Credit where credit is due - it was a diary at Daily Kos, linked by BTD, that pointed out Brazile was wrong. So credit to the diarist, who initially cited Brazile, then went and read the rules and corrected the diary. But I didn't like his allocations because he ended up with .22 votes, which isn't technically possible. So that led to my geeky need to figure it out myself. I'm still not sure I got it completely right.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
i think you're right, Davidson--
they want Obama, and haven't even hid it--esp Pelosi and Dean. Their jobs are safe no matter what, as are the vast majority of Senators and Reps.
(withdrawal from Iraq is also becoming for us what the abortion issue is for the GOP base, i'm starting to believe--they promise each cycle, but actually don't want to do anything about it in reality)
and wasn't it Kerry/Kennedy/other
old powerful Senate Dems who pushed him to run in 08 as opposed to 12 or later?
majority, etc
Thanks for this post. It's really
confusinghelpful.My question is related to Aeryl's point. Cred Ctte members are not voting for a candidate, but whether or not to seat MI/FL. Is it correct to assume that an Obama supporting CC member would automatically vote against seating the delegations? I don't see where being one necessarily leads to the other.
Perhaps I'm naive.
DNC dropping the ball (I just had to)
Open your eyes, fuckers:
When you contort yourself you just end up looking like an ass:
Use your head, assholes:
@BDB: True enough about that one post at DailyKos (I, too, saw that at TL). I was thinking about Kos in general and not just this DNC rule in particular (think: MI, FL).
My Beliefs
Imelda,
I am a high minded idealist, and have faith that most of the Democratic party faithful is more concerned about the future of this country than they are about one candidate's vanity. Counting MI/FL before the nomination is decided(regardless of what Dean says) is necessary to even have a chance at winning these states, and the committee knows this. So, I'm hoping they will show more fealty to the idea of "Anybody in the WH, so long as it's a Dem" over "Obama must have his chance now, before voters get to know him!"
But I am a high minded idealist, and very optimistic, so I could just be blowing smoke, but God(ess)(s), I hope not.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
The FL & MI delegates issue will be settled by Rules & Bylaws
The Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention ("the Call") states in section II-(B):
Convention Delegate Selection Rules are here.
Without placement of delegates on the Temporary Roll, there is nothing for Credentials to do. The only path for a challenge is against delegates placed by Rules on the Temporary Roll. No delegates, no challenge; no challenge, no role for Credentials.
Rules can seat the superdelegates separate from the pledged delegates, so long as the Delegate selection rules are followed and the state DC makes application in time. Rules can reverse itself at any time and restore 50% of the pledged delegates; all that will be required politically is for the state DCs to say “Sorry” and promise to never be bad again. Rep. Debbie Hyphen makes that sound unlikely, but eventually someone more powerful will grab her by the neck and squeeze until she says the right thing or shuts up.
Once the convention opens, all bets are off; the delegates control the whole show and sitting as a Committee of the Whole will be asked to approve the Credentials report as the first order of business. A minority of 20% of the Credentials Committee membership can file a minority report - in essence submit a motion - to have the Convention empower the Credentials Committee to revisit the FL and MI delegate issue, whereupon the whole convention votes on it state-by-state with each delegate having the same voting power as they would for nominations. This would make a huge mess, throw off the schedule, and ruin the par-tahy part of the Party event; none of the power people want to have that kind of discord playing out on national TV or in the various delegates bedrooms. Rules will settle this before the Convention, probably by the end of June.
Of course, I could be wrong. The Call rules are flexible enough that Rules could elect to punt the responsibility over to Credentials, but politically it would be an unusual ceding of authority; not impossible, but unusual.
Note: The announcement of Chairman Dean’s nominations for chairs and administratively selected membership of the three Standing Committees is hereand the actual names for all three committees can be found here.
What is the basis for this belief?
Counting MI/FL before the nomination is decided is necessary to even have a chance at winning these states
What makes this a true statement?
It seems to me that its more of a self-fullfilling prophecy than an evidence based observation. I think Dems should be weary of asserting this idea as fact.
Certainly, repeating the idea enough could generate a backlash in the public opinion, but its probably not the most savvy move for Democrats to manufacture this into conventional wisdom.
So, again, please let me know where this comes from.
Thanks, Bringiton & Questions
So it's even more confusing.
Okay, so if it's right now in Rules court and will stay there unless the entire convention votes otherwise, why did Brazile talk about the Credentials Committee. Right, she's an idiot. But then why did Dean also reference the Credentials Committee? See http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/1/2...
If the Credentials Committee doesn't have the authority to seat the delegates - and what you say sounds like an accurate reading of the rules, so I'm not doubting you - why does it matter if the nominee controls the Credentials Committee. Wouldn't it still be up to Rules, technically?
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
easy answers to some questions
Brazile is a fool, not an idiot. Glib, facile, but a fool. Credit her advice for Gore's loss in 2000, and her intransigence for the rejection of all FL & MI pledged delegates. Heckofajob, Donna.
Dean is smoking way too much dope, my diagnosis on his overall behavior these days. Without the transcript from CNN there is no way to know what exactly was said. Almost every analysis I read has some misinterpetation of what somebody said, and even the "experts" seem to be getting the details wrong. Speculate on what someone might have meant based on a paraphrase reported by someone else? No, don't believe I will, thank you anyway.
The terminology is critical. Rules certifies that the delegate selection rules have been followed and places state-DC-process selected delegates on the Temporary Rolls - or not. Credentials takes the Temporary Rolls and awards them credentials, settling any challenges to the elegibility of the delegates. Once credentialed, the delegates sit as a Committee of the Whole and vote on accepting the reports from Credentials - in effect, the delegates approve (seat) themselves.
It doesn't matter in any functional way whose allies "control" the Credentials Committee; both Obama and Clinton will have enough allies to force a minority report (requires 20% of Committee membership) and engage the Convention Delegates on a floor vote, so there could be several votes on several different reports (motions). "Democratic National Circus" - the headline writes itself.
Why do people generally keep talking about the Credentials Committee? I have no answer for you. Why do people keep talking about what consumes most of the current political conversation? Answer that one and you tell me; we'll both get rich.
manahmanah
Disenfrachisement (i.e. "counting" the states after the nominee has been selected) never goes over well (crazy, I know).
Here's but one article showing the level of disgust amongst FL Democrats (Only 63% plan on voting for the Democratic nominee if there's no revote; obviously total disenfranchisement is all the worse). This is not a matter of a self-fulfilling prophecy since the media and the big "progressive" blogs are refusing to pay (accurate) attention to the issue, let alone call it disenfranchisement.
What I fear is not only that the Republicans, and the media, will expose the DNC during the GE (they will) but they'll also use this to neuter any attempt by Democrats to call the Republicans out for any future GE disenfranchisement, hurting us for many elections to come.
Ceding the Moral High Ground
If the Democrats choose not to count the Florida votes because "rules are rules", can they ever complain about 2000 again? Didn't we lose that because the votes didn't have to be counted (or recounted) under the rules?
Yeah, I want to see Democrats stand up on national television and say they aren't going to count the Florida votes. It's never going to happen.
Thanks, bringiton. So while it looks like I got the details wrong, I got the final answer right - all of this is ultimately up to the convention. And, yes, Brazile is a fool. One who apparently learned nothing from 2000 (other than I'm sure it was all Clinton's fault).
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
I don't see FL & MI decision delayed until the Convention
The big wheels want a Happy Dance at the convention, they want to appear as a party that has its act together, (yeah, I know, but that's what they want), and they want to win. I've known Pelosi a long time, I think I can read her pretty well, and she has made it clear in my eyes she wants this deal done by the end of June. Dean wants it done, Reid wants it done. Between them they control more than enough superdelegates to swing it one way or another and once that's done the other candidate will drop out and endorse the winner.
The decision will hinge on who Reid, Pelosi and Dean decide will have the best shot at beating McCain. So far they haven't decided and that's appropriate because it isn't clear. All the ranting by Obama fans that Hillary should drop out is, IMO, actually hurting him with the powerbrokers. That's why he's saying she should stay in; otherwise, he looks weak.
You did good to take this topic on, BD; a whole lot of people talking and not a clue, so thanks much for exercising it. Who knows, actually; in politics anything can happen but likely we will have an answer by the end of June; hopefully everyone will lick their wounds, be adult about it and take care of business.
Details
When I commented earlier about the credentials committee rules, it was in response to Brazile's take on it which I knew was wrong. I had the basics down pat but I wasn't sure about the exact details posted though and I didn't have any links to back it up (props, BIO). All I had was my memory of reading my mother's Democratic party papers on convention rules years ago. Damn it.
Whatever. We're in a heap of trouble. As bad as a floor fight would be, if the supers decide this before the convention (especially considering Dean's statement on MI, FL), it'll look even worse since it'll be an even smaller group of "elite" deciding the nominee.
God, this entire system needs to be changed.
I Agree There Will Be a Deal Before the Convention
I don't think the Dems have the stomach for a floor fight over seating MI & FL, which gives Hillary some negotiating power here. She can't overplay her hand and risk a super delegate backlash, but it isn't true as Dean and Brazile keep indicating that it's simply a matter of who controls the Credentials committee, unless of course there is a presumptive nominee.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
There already is a presumptive nominee
<< Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, said she expects Sen. Barack Obama to win the Democratic presidential nomination and that Clinton is finished... she placed significant blame on Bill Clinton and his racially tinged statements in South Carolina... Townsend then lamented Clinton's decision to go negative and question Obama's readiness. She said that she called the Clinton campaign and advised that they 'go out on a high note' but her advice was politely dismissed." >>
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/0...
<< A key Hillary Clinton supporter appeared to be a bit off message during a recent interview with a Canadian radio station. "If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president," Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said in a Canadian public radio interview this weekend. "I will be stunned if he's not the next president of the United States."... Cleaver made clear he doesn't expect Clinton to overtake Obama, comparing his support of the New York Democrat to that of his hometown losing football team. >>
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200...
"If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." - Bill Clinton
“They see us from afar, they come to a speech, they watch us on television. And they vote. And that is part of the process. An important part.” - Hillary Clinton