Today the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules executives are holding hearings concerning seating delegates in
Michigan and
Florida at the DNC Convention in August.
I think this is just a puppet exercise that holds no weight, and ultimately demonstrates nothing.
I don’t think either of the Candidates, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, truly cares about the voters in those States.
And I think there are 4 levels of people to blame for this huge foul-up.
Ultimately, no matter what is decided today, what has taken place already will render this nominating process unfair because the voters in these States have been inexplicably mistreated, and there is no fair way to include them.
I think the 4 groups to blame are Howard Dean and the DNC, the States of Michigan and Florida, all of the Democratic Presidential Candidates from Clinton and Obama to Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, and finally I blame Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama specifically.
1st, Howard Dean and the DNC have really screwed this process up. Several States were threatening to move their contests up. Iowa and New Hampshire had threatened to move their contests into December of 2007. Given that, I understand the DNC wanting to put in place as harsh a penalty as possible for States that violated the rules. But what was lost in their ruling decision was the voters. The voters didn’t violate the rules, the voters are who are most important in November, and the voters in Michigan and Florida (two States threatening to move up their contests) have carried very heavy weight in the last several Presidential Campaigns. Ignoring the voters on the basis of party principle is the absolute opposite of democracy.
The DNC should have done what the Republican Party did in Florida. That is to say that they should have punished the Delegates in Michigan and Florida by only awarding them half of their Delegates, but allowing the votes to count. This way the Parties in those States are punished, while not disenfranchising the voters.
2nd, the States are to blame for violating the rules. This is more of a Michigan problem than it is a Florida problem. That is because the State Legislature in Florida is heavily Republican, and so the DNC in Florida couldn’t do much to affect the date that their primary was held. However, Michigan has a Democratic Governor and many Democrats in the Legislature. They should’ve known better.
This gets to a larger problem with our so-called Democratic process. Michigan and Florida (and several other States) wanted their primaries to have heavy influence over who was nominated. This is done by having your primary early. It shouldn’t be like this, and in the future I hope we move toward having regional primary dates instead of this “Iowa always first” mentality which renders most States voiceless in nominating a particular candidate. But that is another blog-post for another day.
3rd, the Candidate’s that signed the agreement to not count Michigan and Florida are guilty. They should’ve objected on the basis that the voters in those States that violated the rules would be disenfranchised. Of the 8 Candidates, no one could muster enough steam to object to this silly ruling by the DNC?
4th and finally, Clinton and Obama are to blame.
Although I think she is on the right side of the argument now (count the votes, somehow), Clinton is only on this side of the argument now because it would help her out in her bid for the nomination. She is now famously quoted as saying that the Michigan Primary isn’t going to count for anything (New Hampshire Public Radio, 10/11/07), but now she cares about those voters? Yeah right. I think those votes should count somehow, and I know many of those voters are frustrated, but if she really cared about them, she should’ve spoken up about 9 months ago about it, not now when it’s politically advantageous.
And if there is any doubt that Obama is a politician, then look no further than his relative silence on the issue of Michigan and Florida votes counting. I am frankly pissed that no one has called Obama out on his silence. Clinton offered to have a re-vote in Michigan (which is lawful under DNC rules). She even offered up the money and the workers to do it, but Obama (who has raised infinitely more money than she) said and did nothing. He only offered to concede some Delegates to Clinton from those States when it appeared he had sown up the nomination. That is akin to a basketball game in which the team ahead by 8 points with 7 seconds left in the game gives the other team 2 points; you can have these points because it is inconceivable that we will lose to you even after lending you a few points this late in the game.
I know there are a lot of Obama supporters who don’t see it that way, but ask yourself, why wouldn’t he be for a re-vote in Michigan if he has the money and the staff, and his opponent offers the money and staff? Let me help you out: he figured that once he took the Delegate lead, he didn’t have to deal with that issue because he could effectively run out the clock in the race (as he has done) without having to do so (based on the polling and the media coverage). Counting Michigan and Florida would increase Clinton’s totals which would be a detriment to him.
In case you’re wondering, yes I know there were more factors in play than money as it pertains to re-votes, and I’m well versed in them. But as far as I can tell, in Michigan a re-vote could have been worked out. Florida had one significant kink (and it’s not paper ballots) that would be a hassle, but it too could have been worked through had the candidates (mainly Obama in this instance) demonstrated leadership in seeing that the voters in these States mattered. But far-be-it for me to think that politicians ever have the concerns of their constituents at heart.
Here’s my solution for Florida and Michigan as of today, May 31st. I would approach this the same way a Math Professor would for a student who had to miss an exam. In Florida, I would count the votes as is, since both candidates were in the same situation. In Michigan, I would count Hillary’s votes as is, and I would pro-rate Obama’s votes (along with Edwards’, Richardson’s and Biden’s votes) based on the 2 contest before and after the Michigan primary, and allow him to have the percentage based on that pro-rated average, and make the total average of Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden equal to 40% (the percentage that voted uncommitted).
But just like a Professor can’t know what a student would have gotten had they actually taken the exam, we can’t know what Obama (and the other candidates) would’ve gotten had his name been on the ballot. Furthermore, we can’t know if Clinton would have won by those large margins in Michigan or Florida since the voters in both States knew their vote wouldn’t count and many stayed home as a result.
I know that people write off Clinton’s votes in these States because many people didn’t vote at all, knowing that their votes wouldn’t count. But that is the same reason why I think it’s important that Clinton received as many votes as she did. Despite knowing their votes wouldn’t count, millions of people still went to the polls to vote for her. And to just give all the uncommitted vote in Michigan to Obama wouldn’t be fair either. I know America suffers from short term memory loss, but Edwards, Richardson and Biden were also still in the race at that time, and I’m certain that many of that 40% uncommitted also included a strong percentage of votes for those 3 candidates (especially Edwards and Richardson).
On the flipside of the coin, there were likely tens or hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters that stayed home. How can Clinton claim that she deserves all those votes that counted for her if people weren’t even voting because their candidate’s name wasn’t on the ballot? She can’t.
I have a lot more to say about changing perceptions over time based on prior primaries, and a whole lot of other things, but I’ll stop. In short, much like the Iraq war having no “win-win” exit strategy, there is no way to include these States fairly.
No matter how well the Democrats fare in this election season, Howard Dean and his entire staff should resign their posts as leaders of the DNC…they really messed this process up. And although I know I'll be sucked into watching some of the proceedings today, in my opinion it only amounts to a Horse and Pony Show.
-Maelstrom
1 comment:
1. Interpoliting from the previous two and following two primaries is just a fancy say of "Let's make it random". There are huge differences between one primary and the next, even on the same day (IN-NC) that any interpolation is random.
2. Revote. A revote would have given the states media attention, because in the final stretch it was important and every vote counted. Therefore, a revote would have been equivivalent of having a 1/1 vote, give both states more say. Why did MI and FL not have their vote on SuperTuesday? The wanted to be special. That special status they would have gathered in case of a revote.
3. Revote. Those swing voters that might have voted in the DNC election, chose because it did not count, to vote with the RNC because there it counted. To suddenly say: Too bad, you guys already voted, your say won't be counted, is unfair.
4. Just because MI and FL are important in the general election should not mean, as it is often implied, other states don't matter that much.
5.Ads are important. It is no surprise that a well known candidate, Clinton, has initial advantages over candidates who are not knows. So ads make a difference and Obama did not have a chance to introduce himself to MI and FL. Therefore, he might have done better, if he would have campaigned there.
6. And yes the voters of MI and FL are to blame. They are the ones most to blame in my opinion. They elected the people that wanted to make MI and FL special by moving the date forward. If you elect idiots, you have to take responsibility.
Post a Comment