RBC Michigan Outcome Was Wrong

I was just over at MyDD reading Jerome Armstrong’s post mortem on the RBC votes yesterday. There can be no doubt, despite the most extreme of Hillary’s followers’ twisted sense of what is “fair,” the decision regarding the seating of our slate of delegates was the correct one. Rules are rules and without them you can’t function as an entity.

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?”

I wholeheartedly agree here. This pretzel logic, despite the attempt at pragmatism, was a sharp departure from the basis of Florida’s resolution. Though the circumstances of both states differ the rules invoked should have been the same for both resulting in Clinton being awarded 73 delegates with the rest going to uncommitted with all at half value. The uncommitted slate of delegates would represent the will of the voters who obviously did not want to commit to Clinton. One could speculate here that most of the uncommitted would be for Sen. Obama by the time of the roll call vote in Denver.

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.