The Great Michigan and Florida "Do Over" Debate
Should they or shouldn't they? Will they or won't they?
As we all now know, in contravention of the Democratic National Committee's explicit wishes, Michigan and Florida moved their primaries to an early date so that their states would be "relevant" to the nominating process. (Interestingly, in Florida, it was the Republican controlled legislature responsible for setting the new date, though it had the full support of all Democratic state legislators save one.) At the time, the state committes were warned that the DNC would strip the states of their delegates at the convention in August. All of the candidates (I believe) agreed to the rules set down by the DNC on this issue. The number of delegates required to achieve the nomination was lowered to 2025 to acount for the fact that there would be fewer delegates for the candidates to win.
Not to be deterred, Michigan and Florida went ahead with their primaries with the clear understanding that their votes were, essentially, beauty contests with no further meaning. In Michigan, all candidates except Hillary Clinton removed their names from the ballot. In Florida, the candidates names remained on the ballot. Ultimately, Clinton prevailed with 50% of the vote to Obama's 35%, with Edwards taking the remaining 15%. In Michigan, Clinton received 55% of the vote, while "Uncommitted" received 40%.
Flash forward to present day, with Clinton and Obama locked in a battle in which neither is likely to get the requisite number of pledged delegates to win the nomination outright.
So, what to do, what to do? Here are the options and rationales:
1. The DNC sticks to its guns and refuses to seat the delegates at the convention. The rationale is that the state committees knew what the rules were in advance and should be held to their prior decision. The problem here is that it very likely means that the nomination is decided by superdelegates because neither candidate can reach the pledged delegate threshold. After which, the American public goes nuts because it looks like the primary process has been hijacked by party insiders and the nominee has been chosen in the proverbial smoke-filled back room. And there's some truth to that argument.
2. Seat the delegates based on the results of the primaries that were held in January. The rationale here is that, regardless of what the state committees did, the voters should be heard and the contests were fair in that all the candidates were bound by the same restrictions (not to campaign in the states, etc.). This rationale has one big flaw in my view: It was widely publicized in advance that these were "meaningless" contests. So, while hundreds of thousands of people did vote, no one has any way of knowing how many more people would have voted if they thought they were engaging in a "meaningful" primary. To seat the delegates based on the existing primary results truly does disenfranchise these non-voters.
3. Divide the Michigan and Florida delegates evenly. This resolves precisely dick, because it increases (to around 2200) the number of pledged delegates required to get the nomination. While it might make Florida and Michigan voters "feel" enfranchised, as a practical matter it does nothing to advance the ball of providing a clear nominee.
4. Michigan should re-vote but Florida delegates should be allocated according to the prior vote. The rational here is that, while all candidates were named on the prior ballot in Florida, only Clinton's name was on the Michigan ballot, and therefore Obama should have the chance in a re-vote to be on the ballot. Here's the problem: Michigan has an open primary and some of its Democratic and Independent (and even Republican) voters may already have voted in the Republican primary, which did count. Since there's no paper trail, no one can be sure who voted in which primary previously, raising the prospect that some people might be voting twice, which is truly undemocratic. Also, see above re: who may or may not have voted in the Florida primary.
5. Florida and Michigan should both re-vote. The rationale here is that this is the only "fair" way of resolving the issue and making sure every vote is counted (how very 2000). The down side has already been covered in Nos. 1, 3 and 4, all of which apply to any re-vote: it rewards bad behavior, in all likelihood it won't resolve anything in terms of giving one candidate or the other a sufficient lead in pledged delegates to avoid the specter of the nominee being chosen by superdelegates, and it violates the "one person, one vote" principle. Not to mention the whole issue of the form that the re-vote would take (caucuses vs. primary vs. mail in votes) and who the hell is going to pay for it.
I'm sure many people smarter than me can come up with endless permutations of the foregoing, but no matter which angle this is viewed from, the possibilities all stink.
Congratulations, Democrats. You've fucking done it again.
As we all now know, in contravention of the Democratic National Committee's explicit wishes, Michigan and Florida moved their primaries to an early date so that their states would be "relevant" to the nominating process. (Interestingly, in Florida, it was the Republican controlled legislature responsible for setting the new date, though it had the full support of all Democratic state legislators save one.) At the time, the state committes were warned that the DNC would strip the states of their delegates at the convention in August. All of the candidates (I believe) agreed to the rules set down by the DNC on this issue. The number of delegates required to achieve the nomination was lowered to 2025 to acount for the fact that there would be fewer delegates for the candidates to win.
Not to be deterred, Michigan and Florida went ahead with their primaries with the clear understanding that their votes were, essentially, beauty contests with no further meaning. In Michigan, all candidates except Hillary Clinton removed their names from the ballot. In Florida, the candidates names remained on the ballot. Ultimately, Clinton prevailed with 50% of the vote to Obama's 35%, with Edwards taking the remaining 15%. In Michigan, Clinton received 55% of the vote, while "Uncommitted" received 40%.
Flash forward to present day, with Clinton and Obama locked in a battle in which neither is likely to get the requisite number of pledged delegates to win the nomination outright.
So, what to do, what to do? Here are the options and rationales:
1. The DNC sticks to its guns and refuses to seat the delegates at the convention. The rationale is that the state committees knew what the rules were in advance and should be held to their prior decision. The problem here is that it very likely means that the nomination is decided by superdelegates because neither candidate can reach the pledged delegate threshold. After which, the American public goes nuts because it looks like the primary process has been hijacked by party insiders and the nominee has been chosen in the proverbial smoke-filled back room. And there's some truth to that argument.
2. Seat the delegates based on the results of the primaries that were held in January. The rationale here is that, regardless of what the state committees did, the voters should be heard and the contests were fair in that all the candidates were bound by the same restrictions (not to campaign in the states, etc.). This rationale has one big flaw in my view: It was widely publicized in advance that these were "meaningless" contests. So, while hundreds of thousands of people did vote, no one has any way of knowing how many more people would have voted if they thought they were engaging in a "meaningful" primary. To seat the delegates based on the existing primary results truly does disenfranchise these non-voters.
3. Divide the Michigan and Florida delegates evenly. This resolves precisely dick, because it increases (to around 2200) the number of pledged delegates required to get the nomination. While it might make Florida and Michigan voters "feel" enfranchised, as a practical matter it does nothing to advance the ball of providing a clear nominee.
4. Michigan should re-vote but Florida delegates should be allocated according to the prior vote. The rational here is that, while all candidates were named on the prior ballot in Florida, only Clinton's name was on the Michigan ballot, and therefore Obama should have the chance in a re-vote to be on the ballot. Here's the problem: Michigan has an open primary and some of its Democratic and Independent (and even Republican) voters may already have voted in the Republican primary, which did count. Since there's no paper trail, no one can be sure who voted in which primary previously, raising the prospect that some people might be voting twice, which is truly undemocratic. Also, see above re: who may or may not have voted in the Florida primary.
5. Florida and Michigan should both re-vote. The rationale here is that this is the only "fair" way of resolving the issue and making sure every vote is counted (how very 2000). The down side has already been covered in Nos. 1, 3 and 4, all of which apply to any re-vote: it rewards bad behavior, in all likelihood it won't resolve anything in terms of giving one candidate or the other a sufficient lead in pledged delegates to avoid the specter of the nominee being chosen by superdelegates, and it violates the "one person, one vote" principle. Not to mention the whole issue of the form that the re-vote would take (caucuses vs. primary vs. mail in votes) and who the hell is going to pay for it.
I'm sure many people smarter than me can come up with endless permutations of the foregoing, but no matter which angle this is viewed from, the possibilities all stink.
Congratulations, Democrats. You've fucking done it again.
Posted by Old Dominion Blue | 1:19 PM |
<< Home