Every Vote Counts
Once again, Florida and its votes are in question.
Ever since the DNC stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for violating party rules and holding their primaries ahead of the nominating contest window (which opened on 5 February), there has been a fight brewing about what to do with the votes cast during those two states’ primaries. Should the votes be translated into delegates seated at the convention? For Senator Clinton, the answer is yes – since she won these two contests. For Senator Obama, the answer is no – the rules are the rules.
Yesterday, Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Bill Nelson of Florida rejected the one remedy that their states can take: hold new nominating contests now before the primary window closes on 11 June. “It would not be practical or fair to hold a caucus,” Levin told Roll Call.
Actually, not only is a new caucus practical and fair, but it also would give these two states the attention that both yearned for (thus their defiance of DNC rules). And for the presidential candidates, there are real political benefits to each of them if they seize on this idea and put their weight behind a re-running of Florida and Michigan.
Contrary to what Matt Cooper argues, I don’t think that the Clinton campaign gets anything by ginning up memories of 2000 and making this a civil rights issue. These voters were not disenfranchised or intimidated out of voting. Party leaders gambled that the way to make their votes count was to ignore the usually meaningless delegate selection process. They lost that bet, and as a result, Democratic primary voters in their states are the ones paying the price.
For Hillary, continuing to complain about not seating these delegations only confirms the charge that she is an inside-the-Beltway creature that bends the rules to get what she wants. That is to say, it plays into the Obama campaign’s message.
For the party, the real danger is that come August, it will have a divisive fight over seating a delegation – recall the battle over the seating of the Illinois delegation in 1972. It does not help a party in the fall.
So instead of protesting, the Clinton campaign should take the high road and enthusiastically support new caucuses. Clinton should hold a major press conference in Florida and say that it’s vitally important that every vote counts; therefore, she is calling on the Florida and Michigan parties – and her allies in them – to move immediately to establish new contests as soon as possible. And understanding that they will cost the parties a lot of money – Congressman Alcee Hastings told Roll Call it will cost between $2 million and $4 million – she is challenging Senator Obama to join her in asking their supporters to donate to the two state parties to hold these contests.
In one move, Clinton will put herself on the side of democracy and fairness (and do so in a key media market for those contests), and also add two big-state contests to the calendar that she has a decent chance of winning. If she does, this will give her needed momentum – and delegates. Moreover, by calling for it first, she can stipulate that these must be “firehouse caucuses” which unlike regular caucuses do not require voters to stay for hours; rather, people go to polling stations, vote anonymously, and then leave. They are effectively primaries (which, as I understand it, only the states can hold), and those are the types of contests that she does better in.
So what’s in it for Obama? First, his campaign has to figure that they have momentum, money, and a massive organization. So, they can take the challenge, and if they beat Clinton in Florida or Michigan (the latter being a state he could win), it could be fatal to her candidacy. Second, if they propose it first, they further place their candidate on the side of the people against the insiders, and can dictate the terms of the contest – a regular caucus which advantages Obama.
And for both candidates, agreeing to resolve this simmering dispute themselves will show real leadership. It will expose them both to voters in two key states for the general election. And it will help make this long process less divisive and possibly spare the party from a big fight in Denver. More than that, it will help make the nomination really worth winning, erasing any asterisk from a nomination and significantly reduce the risk that one of these extraordinary candidate’s supporters will be so disenchanted by a less-than-kosher nomination that they will stay home in the fall.
The Democratic Party, like every other political party, sets rules for its nominating process. Forty-eight other states and several US territories were willing to play by these rules. Why are Florida and Michigan special? If Florida and Michigan had accepted the rules, and played the game fair and square along with their Democratic teammates, then they would have had all the influence in the process they crave and deserve. Instead they took their balls and went off to play their own game. So they are disqualified.
If two states get away with jerking the party around this time, then the next time it will be six states, and then ten states, and pretty soon we have a chaotic free-for-all and a wildly divided and disorganized party.
Now, hopefully, one of the candidates will pull far ahead and land so many commitments from superdelegates that the Florida and Michigan delegates are not decisive in any way. And then perhaps both sides can agree to seat those delegates and let them have the consolation prize of casting their then-meaningless votes in the process. But there is no way these renegade shenanigans should be allowed to play a decisive role - for either side.
Florida and Michigan chose the penalty which has been imposed on them.
February 13, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If, once the primaries are completed, the super/automatic delegates (I voted Obama but think "automatic" is more accurate)fall in line behind that candidate with the most pledged delegates (and, hopefully, the most popular vote to make things even clearer) the nominee will be there will be no floor or credential fights.
I think the automatic delegates will do just that as they all (now that Lieberman's been booted) want the democratic candidate to win the general election.
If Clinton's TX and OH 'firewalls" are as inflammable as I think they will be, it's a non-issue anyway.
So I think all of this talk of what to do with the FL and MI delegations to be pointless.
February 13, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
First Gore now Clinton.
The irony is that Florida had a March primary date and would be in sweet position to influence the nomination if it hadn't bullied its way to the front.
Betcha those authors planning books next year who are on the Fear and Loathing Campaign Trail right now will play up how everything would be different for Hillary if Florida only stayed put.
Ken makes a good point about the high road. But I think the move is for Clinton to say, if after Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania the delegates in Florida and Michigan will make a difference, then we should have caucuses.
The point is that people should have a vote. The Democratic parties in those states made a decision that the Democratic National Committee didn't like. That's why the votes didn't count.
That is unfair to individual voters who had no choice.
Let Obama argue against giving one human, one vote.
February 13, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is very important at this time is to seat the Florida delegates. It was very stupid of the DNC to allow So. Carolina to jump the gun and to punish Florida. So. Carolina is going to vote Republican for the next several centuries whereas Florida is in play this year. This year the DNC may lose the the election for the Democrats not the Supreme Court.
February 13, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 13, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic nightmare - when all the votes (elected and superdelegate) are in, the winner without FL and MI would be Obama, but with them would be Hillary. Whatever the convention would decide would probably elect President McCain.
So, this has to be dealt with now. Why not have the DNC give FL and MI the following choices:
1. Run a new primary / caucus.
2. Have the delegates divided by the national popular vote.
February 14, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
No problem with the states having a primary within the confines of DNC rules. They knew this was acceptable and desired from the beginning yet chose to ignore the rules.
Why?
Seems some don't like Howard Dean and thought this would blow up in his face.
What is needed in both states is a shake up of the state Dem parties. The leaders of the state Dem parties are the ones responsible for disenfranchising the constituents and attempting to place blame elsewhere ain't gonna fly.
February 14, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct, do not hold a caucus. Seat the pledged delegates after Edwards agrees in whatever way is required to commit his delegates to Obama (thereby minimizing the delegate difference) and after committing the Michigan unpledged to Obama. BUT, to punish the states (and therefore discourage breaking ranks in the future) take away the superdelegates.
February 14, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
How will you ensure that they vote "unanimously", and who do you plan to win this unanimous vote?
February 14, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
For a state like Florida that has not held caucuses before, wouldn't it be the case that setting one up at this late date would produce a partisan, legalistic nightmare? Doesn't it mean determining precincts, determining apportionments, establishing voting rules, establishing rules for translating caucus outcomes into state convention delegates, and then for translating state conventional delegates into national convention delegates, etc.?
I'm imagining armies of lawyers and lawsuits, weeks of charges and countercharges, and endless complaints about disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, rule-rigging, etc. And in the end we get some 2000-style Florida result in which nobody has any confidence.
February 14, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
While this may sound like a neat solution to a tricky problem, it is a very bad idea. Michigan and Florida broke rules that had been in place for some time and each state party was given ample time to come up with a compliant delegate selection plan. The 2008 calendar was the product of a year's worth of hearings by the party's Timing Commission and states were invited to submit bids to hold pre-February 5 events. Michigan did and was turned down while Florida did not. This situation is truly unfortunate for the Democrats in each of the two states, but the fault lies with state parties that deliberately chose to break the rules set by the national party. It was no secret that this rulebreaking had consequences -- party rules required half the delegation and the superdelegates to be stripped under Rule 20 and it was clear that further sanctions could be imposed by the Rules and Bylaws Committee. That same Rule 20 also ensured that no candidate would campaign in those states anyway, since the penalty for doing so was ineligibility to win pledged delegates in the two states.
One of the basic rules of life is that actions have consequences. It is something every child begins to learn at an early age. Allowing Michigan and Florida a second chance in the face of their deliberate disregard for clear rules sends the opposite message. In fact, in this close race, it has the net effect of rewarding them by giving them the power to decide the nomination, rendering moot the collective decisions of Democrats in the 54 jurisdictions that abided by the rules. You do not reward bad behavior, yet handing the the power to decide the nomination to these two states does exactly that.
There's also an important principle at stake that many observers are overlooking. Someone has to set the rules. In the case of Democrats, that rulemaking power resides in the national committee. Compromises like this undermine the authority of the national committee and would likely result in other states trying the same gambit in future contests. As a veteran of four Democratic campaigns working in this area, I can assure you that anarchy in the process is something we most certainly do not want.
I'm all for allowing Michigan and Florida to attend the convention -- as non-voting guests. Bill Clinton was fond of saying that he wanted to fight for people who "worked hard and played by the rules." Michigan and Florida did not play by the rules. In fact, key Democrats in both states backed the legislation that changed the primary date knowing they were putting the representation of their state at the convention in jeopardy by doing so. Democrats in those two states have every right to be angry, but their anger should not be directed at the national party, which simply did its job and enforced the rules.
Some will say that the national party must cave on this, as it will hurt us in the fall. Michigan and Florida are, after all, key swing states that we need to win. I think this argument is hogwash. We are blessed as Democrats with two great candidates, either one of whom will bring a much-needed change of direction to our nation. I don't think Democrats in Michigan and Florida, knowing how badly this nation needs change, will hold back their votes or their enthusiasm this fall over any of this.
February 14, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Levin and the rest deliberately sought to deprive the citizens of Michigan and Florida of their votes.
I know full well that Levin knew that given a real choice, Michigan voters weren't going the way he wanted them to, Clinton, if they had a complete and free choice of whom to vote for. Too many stayed home because they didn't want to vote for Clinton and certainly weren't going to vote for Kucinich or Gravel. It's the same reason Michigan republicans (and some dems) voted for Romney instead that old turkey McCain.
Michigan dems I know don't want the delegates seated. They wanted a caucus initially instead of that idiotic front loaded date. They were supremely pissed off over that. There's going to be a rout next election. Granholm doesn't care, she's hoping Hillary will appoint her to something.
February 15, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess if you completely ignore what ACUTALLY happened in Florida that changed the date, it sounds totally reasonable to punish the voters there. But are you aware that:
1. The state legislature set the date for the primary. The demns fought very hard to try and keep the statewide date
2. There were other items on the ballot such as a property tax bill. The democrats had to choose between sticking with the legislated date, or having an election on other items (you know...the stuff they are actually supposed to consider) with only republicans showing up to the polls.
3. The punishment they and everyone else thought would happen was losing HALF of their delegates, not all. The loss of all delegates was a choice by the DNC, and it can (and should) be overturned. The legislature and the state party made the decisions throughout the first half of 2007 and finalized the decision on August 4. The DNC decision to strip all delegates was not made until the end of August. It was not the required punishment for this rule violation, and the rules were pretty clear that states with contests set too early could still have delegates. But Florida didn't make its decision knowing that it would lose ALL delegates. The DNC would not even consider Florida democrats' failed efforts to sway the legislature and stick to the rules as an act of good faith.
4. The DNC gave Florida 30 days to come up with another solution. They considered a mail in primary, but saw a price tag of 7 or 8 million dollars. The DNC offered to fund a later caucus--for a few hundred thousand dollars and 120,000 ballots. They were looking at potentially millions of voters (1.75 million democrats ended up voting) and this was clearly unacceptable.
5. Barack Obama originally argued that they should have some say or be instated. But when it became clear there were no delegates to be had, and that Hillary would win the state if he couldn't campaign there, he forgot about it.
6. The rules clearly stated that any candidate who campaigned in a state which had its contest too early would forfeit any delegates from that state. As mentioned before, this implies that these states could have delegates though the DNC chose to strip them of ALL delegates. But it also would have serious implications for Obama since he took 2 actions that could be considered campaigining there. One, he aired national ads that, coincidentally, only ran in the week before Florida but not in the period afterward leading up to super tuesday. That is probably only a violation of the spirit of the rules and not technically a violation (but he practicing "a new kind of politics," so he is allowed to do slimy stuff like that). Second, he followed a fundraiser there (all the candidates were allowed to fundraise, and did so) with local press interviews. The second one might land him in hot water if Florida has any delegates seated, especially given the strict rule adherence that his proponents dictate.
I know it is unpalatable for Obama supporters to think that Hillary might win if Florida and Michigan are seated. But consider that Florida had 1.75 million voters come to the polls. That is almost 10% of the total democrats that voted to date.
So on one side we have a candidate who will benefit from having the delegates seated arguing that more than 2 million voters (including Michigan) should not be ignored.
On the other side we have a candidate who will be hurt by having the delegates seated, arguing that these voters should not be heard because rules are rules.
Florida seems to have had this problem before. Which side sounds more like Bush in 2000?
If Obama and his supporters are really as interested in peace and reconciliation as they say, if they really are sick of the "old politics" and want to bring inclusion and hope, they should fight to seat those delegates now--before they know whether they will need them. If Obama gets behind that then he really is a new kind of politician with high ideals.
If Obama waits until he knows the outcome of the other big states in March and April, and only wants to hear the voice of Floridians and Michiganders after he knows he has it clinched then he is full of crap, and all of his high-minded rhetoric is just talk.
He and his supporters clearly have no faith that his candidate will prevail in the other big-state contests, are afraid the "movement" will peter out in Texas and Ohio, and afraid that Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania will not hear the angels trumpeting like the people of the other big primary states did not. I guess they feel that the Obama juggernaut is stoppable after all, and they need that vote cushion that ignoring 2 million voters allows them.
February 15, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that either the two states can redo the presidential contest in their jurisdictions or not, but if Howard Dean and the DNC allow them to seat delegates selected as part of the banned process it would mean the rules have no meaning at all and that is completely undesirable in my opinion.
I would propose seating a full delegation in both states, but that all delegates in both states be obligated, restricted (or whatever the appropriate term might be)to voting uncommitted or present on the first ballot at the convention. That way they participate, but their illegal primary will not have tipped the balance in favor of one or the other candidate on the first ballot. After the first ballot ALL elected delegates are free to cast their vote as they choose so all would be equal. I recognize there's absolutely no chance of this occuring, but it seems a fair resolution to the problem from my perspective.
February 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink