[Dork.]

A Ploy for ‘Uncommitted’ in Michigan - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

Because Michigan’s Jan. 15 primary violates Democratic National Committee rules, Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards withdrew from the state’s race, leaving Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the party’s only major candidate on the ballot. (Mrs. Clinton has pledged not to campaign here.) But a last-minute campaign by supporters of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama urges voters to vote “uncommitted” to help them gain momentum and to deal a setback to Mrs. Clinton.

I find it funny that our political process is reduced to people being encouraged to go to the polls and vote for nobody. In Michigan's case, this is a result of the "Jockeying for position" at the front of the primary line, which has lead the Democratic party to withdraw the state's delegates. Or will it? If Michigan votes for Clinton, and that state's support would make the difference between Clinton and someone else, would they really refuse to seat those delegates?

But this primary business is rather absurd anyway, especially in the Democratic party, where about 20% of delegates to the convention are not allocated at any state primary or caucus. If the election does not turn into a runaway victory, then the Democratic nominee will literally be in the hands of the super-delegates.

Then again, the media is reporting the delegate count as if it means something. If one candidate wins more delegates in the primaries and caucuses, would the superdelegates dare to give another candidate the nomination, and be accused of going against the people's choice? What happens if one candidate wins more states, but a different candidate wins more delegates? If you thought there was a lot of whining after the 2000 election, I think this year we're likely to get more whining by March!

[residentEvil]

yeah, i had a tough time today doing what i thought was the right thing when voting. i'm a little pissed that the ballot was allowed the way it was. i know it is just a primary but come on.

[Eug]

Help out a non-US person here.

So, I'm checking out CNN, and it says that Hillary won, but with 0 delegates. Well, WTF does that actually mean?

And how does it work for the pledged delegates in the other states if the primary hasn't happened yet?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Help out a non-US person here.

So, I'm checking out CNN, and it says that Hillary won, but with 0 delegates. Well, WTF does that actually mean?

And how does it work for the pledged delegates in the other states if the primary hasn't happened yet?

The folks in the state of Michigan decided to move their primary back in the calendar year, in order to be more relevant. This somehow violated Democratic Primary by-laws, and as a result, the party decided to strip Michigan of its delegates. Obama and Edwards even took their names off the ballot entirely, which is why about 1/3 of the votes in Michigan went to "uncommitted". Florida was in the same boat, although I'm not sure if they took delegates away from them, too.

The tin-foil-hat crowd thinks the Republicans orchestrated it in both states, knowing that their party's regulations would allow the move, in order to get residents in both states angry because the Democratic party was going to penalize them.

The thing to remember about the way primaries work here is that they are not strictly necessary. Nor are they necessarily democratic. A party can decide it's nominee via any process. They can hold and election, they can draw straws, they can award the nomination to the candidate with the most facial hair. (I think there may need to be a "convention" with "delegates", but those delegates can pick any candidate they want, using any criteria. As I mentioned previously, about 20% of the Democratic Convention delegates are not allocated by any primary or caucus, and can vote however they like.)

If an actual primary election obtaining votes from registered voters is involved, it has to conform to normal election guidelines. The process varies widely from state to state, controlled by the respective State governments.. Some states even have open primaries, where you can choose which primary election you vote in regardless of your party affiliation.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So, I'm checking out CNN, and it says that Hillary won, but with 0 delegates. Well, WTF does that actually mean?

In not so many words: Delegates vote incase there's a tie or it's too close to tell. Hillary would get no votes from Michigan. In case of a tie between the delegates, superdelegates will vote.

Delegates can do a write in. It's speculated that if there is a tie, Al Gore could be a front runner for a write in and take the Democratic ticket from both Clinton and Obama. If he did, I'm certain Gore would win the presidency.