Sunday, June 01, 2008
I am still somewhat annoyed with Mr. Armstrong and the major contingent of the prominent members of the liberal blogosphere basically ignoring the skullduggery of the state GOP’s hand at putting the FDP and the state legislature’s Democratic minority in our current situation. Despite that annoyance though, I am in full agreement with his assessment of Michigan and the RBC’s resolution. It was wrong.
Mr. Armstrong crystallized the issue of Michigan’s wrong headed resolution with this deft explanation after noting the committee’s adoption of the Michigan Democratic Party’s delegate apportionment solution of 69 (for Clinton) & 59 (for Obama):
“In giving Clinton more delegates than Obama, the RBC does so on the basis of their being a vote in MI that Clinton won, yet by not honoring the amount of votes she got, they make not actual votes, but some other measurement the basis upon which to divide delegates. What measure would that be? Polling? The disenfranchised that didn't vote? Irrevocable harm? It's a disastrous precedent. Either it counts or it doesn't, where's the basis in the rules for this decision! And if its not rules, then what is it? If the actual "votes" factor into the decision, but are not at the top of the list, then what kind of democracy does this ruling represent?”
Side note: As noted in my previous post from yesterday I was fairly angry yesterday with the Clinton campaign. But later on Georgia10 at Daily Kos calmed me after I read his entry on the probable reason for the Clinton campaign’s public challenge to the RBC.