Elizabeth Scripturient (the delinquent, ecumenical (hermionesviolin) wrote,
Elizabeth Scripturient (the delinquent, ecumenical
hermionesviolin

[more like guidelines really?]

Upon reading this blogpost, I went looking for what the DNC rules actually ARE. I only paid passing interest to the initial Michigan and Florida furor (sorry) but had foolishly assumed it wouldn't be that difficult to find a statement delineating the rules and appropriate punishment for breaking said rules.

I started with the DNC website and found a March 5 statement from the DNC chair, but that was just about the options Michigan and Florida have after the decision. Some more site-searching got me a blogger comment arguing that Iowa, NH, and SC should have been penalized as well -- reposting "Note to the DNC: Apply the rules equally & fairly, by Andre Walker," from which the following excerpt:
Ladies & Gentlemen, this whole mess surrounding the state delegations from Florida and Michigan is a result of the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee not strictly adhering to the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention by applying the rules equally and fairly to all states.

Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
[...]
Rule 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.
Googling "11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS" gets me a bunch of reposts of the Andre Walker, but no actual full DNC rules document. Boo.

I only skimmed the various blog discussions, but I did note:
What Mr. Walker fails to point out in his article is that the Democratic National Committee reviewed and endorsed the date changes by the other states as they kept the relative order in tact.

Florida and Michigan decision makers grandstanded, flouting the rules they agreed to and held their votes early, even though prior to those votes being held the DNC made it quite clear their delegates would not be seated. Yes, this is indeed different than the rules state.. that's why they had to vote on it happening instead of the head of the DNC announcing what the rules indicated the punishment would be.

-Doug [who also links to his livejournal]
Tags: issues: u.s. presidential race: 2008
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment