Challenging Fair Reflection of Presidential Preferences (draft 1)

by: William Allen Simpson

Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 13:11:29 PM EDT

Instead, I've been working for several weeks on an actual Challenge under the rules (with a bit of help from my friends). While Waiting for Godot, I'm posting the challenge sections here for discussion.

The clock for filing started on or about April 19th, so by the end of this week, we need NOTARIZED signatures.

Also, I need a complete list of the number of participants for each district. All I've seen are the estimates here and elsewhere. Where are the official lists?

This is the first of 4 parts. I've given up on figuring out how to get the M$Word HTML to work as a post here, so the formatting isn't as pretty.

7. Rule 13.A. states:
"Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants." [emphasis added]

8. This may be used for evaluating the fairness of the delegate selection process.

Non-Binding Primary
9. The Michigan Secretary of State officially recorded  these state-wide results for the non-binding primary:
328,309 Clinton
238,168 Uncommitted
594,398 Total Democrats

10. The Clinton result is 55.2% of Total Democrats.

11. The Michigan Secretary of State also officially recorded  the result by Congressional District.

12. Notwithstanding the unconstitutional status of the primary election, the 2008 Michigan Pledged Delegate and Alternate Allocation [Exhibit B] egregiously overstates the Clinton results:
57% of district-level delegates
87% of district-level alternates
57% of at-large delegates
59% of party leader & elected official (PLEO)
60% of each (Rules, Platform, Credentials) convention committee

13. Rule 10.A provides, in relevant part:
"The selection of at-large delegates shall be used ... to achieve the equal division of positions ... and the representation goals established...." [emphasis added]

14. Rule 10.C provides, in relevant part:
"At-large delegates and alternates (including pledged party leader and elected official delegates, which shall include those to be allocated to uncommitted status) in primary states shall be allocated according to the state-wide primary vote or, in states holding no state-wide primary, according to the division of preferences among convention and caucus participants. In non-primary states which do not hold state conventions authorized to elect delegates, at-large delegates shall be apportioned according to the division of preferences among district-level delegates at the time of district-level selection."

15. To correct for the Congressional District quantization error that overstates the Clinton results, and the clearly erroneous allocation algorithm for district-level alternates, the remaining delegates and alternates must be adjusted to compensate.

16. The adjusted at-large delegate allocation would be:
14 Clinton
14 Uncommitted

17. The adjusted at-large alternate allocation would be:
0 Clinton
3F, 3M Uncommitted

18. The adjusted PLEO delegate allocation would be:
15 Clinton
13 Uncommitted

19. The resulting total delegate allocation would be very close to the non-binding primary result:
54.6% Clinton
45.3% Uncommitted

20. Should the Michigan Democratic Party Central Committee make these adjustments at its May 17, 2008, meeting for selection of at-large delegates, this would provide the most convenient method of reconciliation.

District Convention Participants
21. In the alternative, Rule 13.A. explicitly provides for the lack of a binding primary.  The expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the district convention participants should be used.

22. In addition, Rule 10.C explicitly provides that "at-large delegates shall be apportioned according to the division of preferences among district-level delegates at the time of district-level selection." [emphasis added]

23. District-level selection reports indicate that Uncommitted participants greatly exceed the Clinton participants. [Exhibit C]

24. Should the Michigan Democratic Party Central Committee fail to make needed adjustments at its May 17, 2008, meeting for selection of at-large delegates, the entire delegation should be recalculated to reflect district-level participation.

25. This could be accomplished by "... establishing a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state's division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances." [Rule 20.C.5, in relevant part]