The Influence of Florida and Michigan
Within the next few weeks, the Democratic party will (thank God!) resolve the dispute on the unsanctioned Michigan and Florida primaries. At that time, the two state parties will probably spin that this vindicates their judgment in holding early primaries. Don't believe it! Their judgment has made a "dog's breakfast" out of the primary process.
The 2008 primaries and caucuses have been remarkable in that each state (district and territory) has had significant influence. This is true whether the state voted in January, will vote in June, or voted anywhere in between; and whether they voted for Obama or Clinton. Every state EXCEPT Michida! Florigan has selected no delegates, and any objective observer treats their results with a large degree of skepticism.
Consider what would have happened if they had waited their turn. Had they voted on or after Super Tuesday, their results would have been highly significant. Indeed, had they voted in Late March or early April, they may well have been crucial in determining the nominee.
The turnout in these states was pitifully small. In only 5 states -- Michigan, Florida plus the GOP strongholds of Utah, Arizona and Alabama (I'm not sure about Alaska), did more voters participate in the Republican primary or caucus than in the Democratic. Had Florigan held sanctioned Democratic primaries, many more voters would have participated.
How many? Well, consider that in the Great Lakes states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin, 18.1% of the total population voted in the Demo. primary. Had this percentage turned out in Michigan, then 1.2 million ADDITIONAL voters would have appeared. In the Outer South states of North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, 13.6% voted Dem. Had 13.6% done so in Florida, then 0.8 million ADDITIONAL voters would have participated. While nobody can say how many voters would have participated in sanctioned primaries, 2 million additional votes is not an unreasonable estimate.
The politicians in Lansahassee held early primaries in order to increase their influence. But, instead, they have had zero influence, have depressed turnout, and have given their party a royal headache. Should any state parties in the future be tempted to follow their example, I hope they will consider the 2008 outcome carefully, draw back, and adhere to an orderly established process.
The 2008 primaries and caucuses have been remarkable in that each state (district and territory) has had significant influence. This is true whether the state voted in January, will vote in June, or voted anywhere in between; and whether they voted for Obama or Clinton. Every state EXCEPT Michida! Florigan has selected no delegates, and any objective observer treats their results with a large degree of skepticism.
Consider what would have happened if they had waited their turn. Had they voted on or after Super Tuesday, their results would have been highly significant. Indeed, had they voted in Late March or early April, they may well have been crucial in determining the nominee.
The turnout in these states was pitifully small. In only 5 states -- Michigan, Florida plus the GOP strongholds of Utah, Arizona and Alabama (I'm not sure about Alaska), did more voters participate in the Republican primary or caucus than in the Democratic. Had Florigan held sanctioned Democratic primaries, many more voters would have participated.
How many? Well, consider that in the Great Lakes states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin, 18.1% of the total population voted in the Demo. primary. Had this percentage turned out in Michigan, then 1.2 million ADDITIONAL voters would have appeared. In the Outer South states of North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, 13.6% voted Dem. Had 13.6% done so in Florida, then 0.8 million ADDITIONAL voters would have participated. While nobody can say how many voters would have participated in sanctioned primaries, 2 million additional votes is not an unreasonable estimate.
The politicians in Lansahassee held early primaries in order to increase their influence. But, instead, they have had zero influence, have depressed turnout, and have given their party a royal headache. Should any state parties in the future be tempted to follow their example, I hope they will consider the 2008 outcome carefully, draw back, and adhere to an orderly established process.
