Anything not forbidden…

…comes at least highly recommended by Chris Bowers, it seems. He catalogues some non-violations at Open Left…

· It is not against the rules for superdelegates to vote, en masse, for the candidate who wins the popular vote across all primaries and caucuses, no matter how those superdelegates choose to define the "popular vote." It just isn't.

Indeed, it is not.

· It is not against the rules for superdelegates to vote, en masse, for a candidate who did not win the popular vote, no matter how those superdelegates choose to define "popular vote." It really ain't.

Nor is that.

It is, however, against the rules to require the PLEOs, or any other delegate, to vote en masse if that entails bloc voting, which is against the rules. The same rule forbids requiring a delegate, PLEO or otherwise, from being required to vote for the majority or plurality choice of his delegation. If there were such an en masse vote, it would have to be the product of coincidence of conviction. You just can't get to "superdelegates must" with this line of argument.

· If superdelegates want to vote for the candidate that gave them the most money, they can do that too. No rule prevents this.

That's true, I suppose. On the other hand, both the delegate's vote and the contributions the delegate receives are matters of public record. It's not against the rules, but the delegate better have an explanation ready. Of course, a candidate's closest political allies, ust those who you'd expect to find on an endorsment list, are the most likely to receive contributions from the candidate. If you think your Congressman, Governor or Senator has sold their vote for a maximum contribution - a few paltry thousand dollars at most - that's another problem altogether.

· It is not against the rules for the DNC credentials committee to seat the delegations sent by the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties, no matter what sort of delegation those parties send. Come June, the committee will have authority in this matter, and they can seat whatever delegation they see fit to seat.

Actually, it is. First, the initials DNC are about to get confusing. Democratic National Committee or Democratic National Convention? For now, I'll reserve DNC for the committee, and spell out the Convention when that's what I mean.

But this? It's against the rules. More below...

· It is not against the rules for the DNC credentials committee to refuse any delegate from Michigan and Florida no matter who those delegates are and no matter how those delegates were chosen. Those two states could hold new primaries that feature 100% turnout, not a single spoiled or provisional ballot, six months of non-stop campaigning by twelve candidates, and $200 million spent from each candidate. Even then, the credentials committee could still tell the Michigan and Florida delegations to stick it where the sun don't shine. That would not be against any rule.

Again, yes it is against the rules, and so is this...

· If the DNC credentials committee wants to seat Michigan but not Florida, or Florida but not Michigan, they can do that, too. Hell, the committee can choose to not seat California if enough members agreed.

I'll assume, for the sake of clarity, that Chris is using DNC to represent the Convention, because the Convention committees are being formed as a subset of the delegate selection process. When the Convention committee meets in the weeks leading up to Denver, they may consider and ultimately recommend any of the scenarios he describes. Even if a proposal can't gain the committee's recommendation, it may come to the floor of the Convention as a minority report. The delegates assembled will have the opportunity to vote both the recommendations and the minority reports issued by the committee up or down, or amend them on the floor and create a new model designed by the Convention itself.

In other words, the credentials committee can't seat anyone, or refuse to seat anyone. Likewise, the rules and platform committees are, ultimately, empowered only to recommend and are subject to the will of the Convention.

It's Democratic Party 101. The Convention is the final authority on all matters concerning both the Democratic Party and its own procedures. There is no committee or cabal in charge. Which is why, this, too, is true...

· If pledged delegates don't want to vote for the candidate they were elected to support, that is their business. Even "pledged" delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they were elected to vote. Seriously

Deadly seriously. No one has the authority to tell force any delegate to do vote any way on any question. The right of each delegate, however selected, to hold their own vote and cast it according to their own conscience, with the right to be individually polled on every proposition put to the Convention, is absolute. It's a basic democratic, and Democratic, principle.

And, oh yeah, there's no such thing as "super" delegates. One delegate, one vote. Freely cast.

Until the delegates assembled in convention change 'em, them's the rules.