This race could come down to what happens in Michigan & Florida. (or of course, the superdelegats thwarting the will of the people which seems more unlikely now given Obama’s momentum)
Hillary is pressing hard to give their delegates a seat at the table because she won the two states.
Obama does not think it is fair, and justifiably so, because many of his supporters stayed home because they knew their votes wouldn’t count. Don’t believe me? Just check out the many blogs where Obama supporters in those states are expressing their frustration.
Clinton’s “victory” rally in Florida was an embarrassment becuase she knew it meant nothing and it was just a set up for this eventual fight.
The only fair thing to do, in my opinion, is let them vote again giving both campaigns some time to campaign there or have a caucus – or keep the rules in place with an apology to florida and michigan and give each candidate equal number of delegate votes.
You can’t possibly take the current votes as a real measure of the will of the people considering neither of them had a chance to campaign there, and many people thought their votes wouldn’t count.
Many Hillary supporters resort to whining about Michigan and Florida when you call them out on the issue of Hillary winning by super delegates and not the will of the people. That doesn’t fly with me.
I think it was silly and unfair that their (MI & FL) votes didn’t count, but we cant just seat their delegates now because the election they did have was unfair and biased.
tblade says
“The only fair thing to do, in my opinion, is let them vote again”
<
p>What about Michiganders who wanted to vote for Obama but couldn’t, since he wasn’t on the ballot and their vote wouldn’t count anyway, and then decided to vote in the Republican race? You can’t have people voting twice. Michigan and Florida are over. A grave mistake, but there’s nothing that can be done now to fairly correct it.
abinns says
How about seating the delegations and having the campaigns populate the pledged delegates 50/50? Super Delegates are more tricky…
freshayer says
Not really a solution. Question though, Did all candidates sit out campaigning and why was Hillary still on the ballot in Michigan?
<
p> The point is in Florida it was a large turnout and every one was on the ballot. Less of a problem to seat them as opposed to Michigan.
ryepower12 says
when a state voted overwhelmingly for one candidate and all three were the same.
<
p>Personally, I think the easiest, most effective way to do it is to penalize Florida and Michigan with a delegate reduction, not elimination, in being able to vote for the nomination. To make that fair for Michigan, given the fact that Obama wasn’t on the ballot, there should be a new primary. Yes, some dems voted for a Republican, but there’s plenty of precedent to have a revote, including one in Delaware just a few years ago.
<
p>This to me seems fair, effective and would address everyone’s concerns without the need to have a whole new election in Florida, when there’s already been one where all three parties played by the same rules, because that would cost millions. (Michigan will cost millions, too, but unfortunately, there’s no other fair way to do it). The key thing, to me, is that both states are still sanctioned by having a delegate penalty. If it were up to me, it would the superdelegates who couldn’t vote for POTUS nomination, but that’s me living in lala land thinking they’d sanction the party elite (even if it’s the party elite’s fault this all happened).
cos says
The only (mostly) good solution is new elections in both states.
<
p>50/50 is better than not seating them at all, and is the second best option of these states don’t hold new elections.
<
p>Counting either state without holding new elections wouldn’t make any sense. We have no idea how either of those elections would’ve turned out if they’d been “free and fair” – candidates campaigning, voters knowing the elections counted, etc.
<
p>I hope both states re-vote.
ryepower12 says
the turnout was pretty damn large for an election people didn’t take seriously. My gut instinct, knowing how little people actually know about elections, policy issues and insider information, is that the vast majority of people in Florida had no idea what was really happening. Maybe some people heard that there was something peculiar going on, but if they did, most of them probably forgot it soon and the ones who didn’t probably didn’t truly get the ramifications of the situation, or at least figured the Dem Party would work it out.
<
p>I can’t spell how dangerous I think it is to do this to Florida’s voters. I’m a huge proponent of the 50 state solution, but we’re just not quite there yet. If we win Florida, the chances of us winning the election dramatically improve. Even if 1% of the population is turned off by this, that could be the difference. I don’t think it completely necessary to have a new election there, given the already-huge turnout they had, but if that’s what the DNC wants in order to make Florida’s votes count, then they should do it.
laurel says
was a property tax reform constitutional amendment. it is fair to assume that people were motivated to come to the polls to weigh in on this. this, combined with the large numbers of dems that voted, tells me that people took their vote seriously. this was not people voting on a lark. i take the florida results as fair and meaningful.
<
p>the michigan results are, for obvious reasons, more problematic.
justin-credible says
I’ll agree that Florida is less of an issue, and if it really came down to it, I wouldn’t be too upset if they let the results stand and be counted. Although it would still be unfair.
<
p>Michigan, Oh, Michigan. Now that’s a completely different story.
The over 40% of MI Dems who voted “other” or “uncommitted” or whatever the designation was, essentially voted for “Not-Hillary”. Who should get those votes?
<
p>If Hillary can’t win without these votes, it would be a shame for her to go after them just for the win. It would divide the party and possibly cost the election after so many new voters felt re-disenfranchised all over again.
leonidas says
were createdin 1980 in response to the McGovern Commish reforms of ’72.
<
p>they were created to insulate insider candidates but have a penchant (as do all) for winners.
<
p>cocyx, no. perhaps more like a chastity belt.
mrstas says
Suppose that for some crazy reason we did have re-votes in Michigan and Florida.
<
p>Who is going to pay for them? I’ve heard estimates that it would cost several million dollars for each one of those states … so, even if we get the DNC to do it, or the campaigns, that’s MILLIONS of dollars that won’t be spent on ads, or convincing voters for the general election, or building the party organization, etc.
<
p>Look, Hillary Clinton didn’t take Obama’s name off the MI ballot. He did that himself. And his supporters actively encouraged people to go vote in the Michigan primary and vote uncommitted.
<
p>Asking for a re-vote seems petty, doesn’t it? Don’t like the result, lets vote again!
<
p>One more point … during both FL and MI, John Edwards was still in the race [but he’s not anymore]. How could you conceivably re-vote so that his votes don’t re-allocate to one of the other candidates?
pipi-bendenhaft says
Seems peculiar to validate as true the results of an election where there was only one named Democrat on the ballot when there were actually 3 Democrats running.
<
p>Do you honestly believe that that constitutes a fair, legitimate, and democratic election?
<
p>There is some spin on the Michigan election as “too bad” or “uncommitted means Obama, so he had his shot” or “people should have known” or any variant of post-election disenfranchisement. But the whole process of that unsanctioned “primary” seems pretty unDemocratic to me, regardless of whom you support. Fair voting is a cornerstone of our democracy; our party fought hard for fair, true, and representative elections in the 1950s & 60s, and so, no, it doesn’t seem like a petty issue to me.
<
p>Florida, as an Obama supporter, is a litte more difficult to turn aside because all of the candidates’ names were on the ballot. Still, many voters did not vote because they believed the promises made by all candidates and the DNC. I believe Hillary Clinton should be held to her word to honor the rules. I guess it is a question of whether or not words or one’s word matters. To me, Florida is more of an ethical test for Hillary Clinton, than a pure issue of democracy. Let her take this opportunity to demonstrate that she has the personal integrity and courage do the ethical thing even at political cost.
mrstas says
Here’s how the media was reporting on Michigan, BEFORE the election:
<
p>http://politicalticker.blogs.c…
<
p>http://michiganforedwards.blog…
<
p>You can find many more with a simple Google search.
<
p>Remember, Obama took his own name off the Michigan ballot. No one made him do it. But do it he did, and now he doesn’t want to pay the price for that action? Sounds like a case of “don’t like the results, lets have a revote”.
<
p>Florida had MUCH higher turnout in 2008 than in 2004. I imagine some people knew about the inside baseball argument of delegate seating, but most didn’t, and they expect their vote to count.
<
p>In both Florida and Michigan, telling the millions of people who voted that their vote didn’t count, and they should vote again, is a pretty damn good way of pissing off voters in two swing states we’ll really need to win the presidency.
<
p>Most voters don’t give a damn about the Democratic Party’s national convention delegate selection process, but they do appreciate their time. Telling them their first vote meant nothing is an offensive insult.
<
p>You still haven’t addressed my other concern: the point-in-time nature of the election. Especially in FL, people voted for Edwards. Do we just ignore those votes now? Or accept a result that’s going vastly different from what it would have been when the election was held?
<
p>Everyone knew, with a wink-wink understanding, that once we had a nominee, they’d seat the MI and FL delegations to show their good graces. For those people who pay attention to the DNC’s delegate selection process, they knew this would be the case. Everyone else just thought they were voting.
<
p>Redoing the results when you don’t like the outcome is just poor sportsmanship.
ryepower12 says
constant tv coverage of the dems, the winners, etc. And it’ll keep the party base active in both states (which is key), so it’s not all a big cost.
<
p>To think of it as purely as expenses isn’t thinking outside the box. That said, I’d rather save the millions in Florida since there was a fair election there where everyone played by the same rules. Michigan, unfortunately, will cost millions to have a new election and is worth every penny. The right to vote and have your vote count is worth it.
jasiu says
<
p>I’m not 100% sure, but I think that’s Michigan taxpayer money you are casually spending. Might want to check with them first. Their economic situation is a bit different than ours right now.
<
p>When Bob Havern resigned, there was some amount of anger with his timing, at least in Lexington, because the local governments had to come up with tens of thousands of dollars to hold the special primary and elections.
cos says
a) It’s worth Michigan’s money to give their residents a chance to hold a legitimate election. Michigan’s legislature screwed up by changing the timing in conflict with party rules, and thus wasted taxpayer money on an illegitimate election; that damage is done and can’t be undone. What they could do is spend money on a real election.
<
p>b) The Michigan Democratic Party has the option of running “caucuses” on its own dime. If they held an online fundraiser for that I’d donate. They can still make it effectively a primary if they’d rather have a primary, by doing what they’ve done in the past: allowing voters to stop by the caucus locations at any time during the day before the actual caucuses to cast ballots which would then be added to the effective size of the caucusing groups during the actual caucuses.
jasiu says
A quick Google search didn’t reveal any news stories with notions of holding an election in MI – caucuses seem to be the only thing on the table. I assume that legislative action would have to be taken to hold an election. The MI legislature is pretty evenly split, with a Republican majority in the Senate and Democratic in the House. I don’t know how the Rs would be convinced to vote for this – a “yes” vote would probably be a death-wish. That could be why it’s not even on the radar. If anyone has anything to the contrary, I’d love to see it.
<
p>In concept, I like the idea of a re-vote. But when it comes down to who is going to pay for it, that’s where I see the brakes being applied. Some MI Dems in both candidates’ camps who are against caucuses note that the party’s cash would be better applied to the general election.
<
p>Also, FWIW, I have family and friends in MI. Some of the right-leaning would read “It’s worth Michigan’s money…” and jump all over it, employing the “east coast liberals once again telling us what’s best” story line.
ryepower12 says
What will be more effective use of the Dems cash? A new election (one like Cos described would be best), which would force the candidates to campaign in the state, build the Dem brand and get the party active again at a date closer to the actual election, with tons and tons of free press covering the event…
<
p>Or a few more ads closer to november?
<
p>I’m thinking the first option sounds a whole lot more effective. There’s nothing more important than campaigning to build the Dem brand, and TV ads just don’t do that.
jasiu says
…not an election, for reasons given above.
ryepower12 says
People could vote all day, like a primary, under the premises Cos talked about above in the thread. They could hold the caucus at night, but allow anyone to vote as if it were a primary all day long.
<
p>In either event, nothing changes – lots of free press, lots of democratic branding and campaigning and the party activist base lights up just before the general election for some good practice.
jasiu says
It wouldn’t be an election held by the state, but a more open version of a caucus. That is plausible. The question is whether anyone in MI is actively making that happen.
cos says
Note that the caucus-primary hybrid I’m describing is something the Michigan Democrats have actually done in the past, not a brand new wild idea.
mrstas says
Sample question from a local media person:
<
p>”Can you please explain why the Democratic Party wants to ignore the election we already had?”
<
p>Most people don’t know about how delegate selection works for the conventions, don’t care, and won’t learn. But they will know that Democrats didn’t take the first time they voted seriously. That’s a pretty bad message.
christopher says
I wouldn’t mind a revote, but the cost question someone brought up could be tricky. The candidates should never have towed the DNC line regarding campaigning in the states anyway. The non-Hillary delegates from MI are free to vote their conscience at convention as far as I’m concerned. I for one would have shown up to vote in MI or FL and then fought like heck to make my vote count. In the case of MI I would have written in my candidate if it had not been Clinton or Kucinich. If I were a GOP strategist I would be very tempted to say to voters in those states in the event the delegates are not seated, “The Democrats did not count your votes. What hypocrites they are after their insistance on counting every vote in Florida in 2000!” This could be potent given that both states are swing and have several electoral votes.
jasiu says
<
p>I made sure everyone I knew in Michigan understood the rules before voting:
<
p>
<
p>Emphasis mine.
christopher says
Thank you for the clarification, but I would seriously question the legality of not counting write-ins.
laurel says
i’m asking in earnest, since primaries are internal matters for political parties, which are private organizations. i don’t see why they couldn’t decide to reject write-ins if they wanted to. it’s like the boy scouts refusing to allow gays or women in their organization – legally not a problem.
jasiu says
It’s the state law, and not the party, that restricts write-ins. Anyone who wants to be a write-in has to file a “declaration of intent”. I suppose if the party were paying for and conducting the election, they could get around a state’s election laws, but that’s not how it works.
<
p>The URL for the law doesn’t seem to embed well, so here it is for cut-and-paste purposes:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(j0lgrg55o0fv1r3qb0jk5e55))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-168-737a.pdf
<
p>
<
p>Probably more than we need to know at this point.
cos says
It’s a party presidential primary, not a regular election. It’s a vote to elect delegates to the national convention based on proportional allocation of percentages of the vote. How exactly do you elect delegates pledged to a hodgepodge of write-ins? Write-ins make no sense in this kind of election.
christopher says
I was assuming that an established candidate not on the ballot, such as Obama or Edwards, might get enough write-ins to make it worth it. Most states, if not all, have a 15% threshold a candidate needs to surpass in order to get any delegates and that would still apply in my model. We also need to be careful about the idea that parties are completely private organizations that can do anything they want. Taken to its logical extreme that would mean that the infamous “white primary” would still be legal.
cos says
You’re right in general, and party primaries are subject to law (including nondiscrimination), but the key difference here is that these are elections for pledged delegates. The distinction between write-ins and votes for uncommitted delegates is not one that I think can be effectively written into the rules in a way that wouldn’t have really weird consequences.
<
p>It makes a lot of sense for these elections to be structured such that the candidates get on the ballot, delegates supporting those candidates sign up for the slates, and you elect from those delegate slates. As long as the rules allow for candidates to get on the ballot, there’s nothing wrong with that, IMO. What broke here was a wrangle over the rules with the DNC which resulted in all the candidates agreeing not to campaign in Michigan, and some of the candidates to decide not to be on the ballot.
jasiu says
One aspect about this that I do not think has been brought up is what happens to primary season in future election years if the MI and FL delegates are seated. Anyone with kids knows what happens when you set a limit and then give in when you get a lot of static about it. Do you think any state will take the DNC seriously if they say, “OK, but next time we really mean it!”?
laurel says
that they’ve made a mistake….
jasiu says
My point is that if the DNC is going to use the same threat to prevent leapfrogging next time, the threat will be hollow. If there’s another plan, well… there’d better be another plan if MI & FL are seated.
ryepower12 says
You have to cross that bridge when you get to it. Is it more important that we obey the premise of a metaphor, rather than allow voters’ voices to count? Personally, in a democracy, I don’t think there’s anything more important than the basic right to vote – and have that vote count.
<
p>We have to think outside of the box. Why did Florida and Michigan move up their calenders? Because the current primary season is unfair and needs to be changed. If anything, Florida and Michigan’s actions in all of this should be a wake-up call to the entire party to finally fix this primary schedule problem, or continue to take the fire/wrath of the 48 out of 50 states that are fed up with it.
ryepower12 says
if a) we agree to change the rules for next time, so this doesn’t happen again and b) we still penalize the heck out of Florida and Michigan, but not in a way that will make voters’ voices not count. IE the two states lose a serious amount of delegates.