FL and MI - nobody is getting disenfranchised, and there's no moral high ground in getting out of this
Nobody in Florida and Michigan is getting "disenfranchised". The definition of disenfranchise is, in general, to deprive someone of one of the rights of citizenship but in common usage this usually refers to voting rights.
Here's what the American Heritage Dictionary says the definition of "disfranchise" is (from www.dictionary.com):
"To deprive of a privilege, an immunity, or a right of citizenship, especially the right to vote; disenfranchise."
Nobody in Florida or Michigan is getting deprived of a citizenship right. This is the nominating process for a political party. Hillary Clinton's comparisons to past Civil Rights struggles is so far-fetched as to be insulting. These past struggles were about race and gender discrimination and equal protection under the law and under the constitution. This issue of Florida and Michigan is about a political party that did something stupid. What do I mean by that? I mean that it's not very smart for the Democratic Party to go piss people off in two states. That's all this is about.
There's no disenfranchisement here, folks, so move along. If the Democratic Party wants to exclude two states from it's nominating process, it can. Nobody's rights are getting violated. The folks in Florida and Michigan can, if they so feel like it, go vote Republican in the fall while they stick their tongues out at the Democratic Party and say "NANANANABOOBOO, this is what you get!" We hope that doesn't happen, and that's why it wasn't smart for the Democratic Party to completely exclude two states from the nomination process.
In my personal opinion, the best approach is to do what the Republicans did and just dock each delegate 1/2 a vote. It's not a perfect solution, but it minimizes the number of folks you piss off. The delegate allocation is all screwy anyway; states that go late get extra delegates, territories that don't vote in the general election still participate in the primary, etc, etc... There's no exact math to how many delegates each state gets, so just dock them 1/2. Or dock them 1/3. I don't care, but don't just remove them from the process.
Does the Democratic Party have the right to exclude FL and MI completely? Sure, and nobody would be getting disenfranchised. Doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do.
Oh and while I'm complaining, let me make another point. There's no one, single, overriding "fair" way to split the delegates between Clinton and Obama. That's all there is to it. For all intents and purposes, Florida and Michigan did not have nominating contests. The argument that the delegates should be seated based on the results of the January voting seems somewhat sensible, but there is certainly no moral imperative to do it that way. The argument that if you don't abide by the vote you are disrespecting (not disenfranchising, see above) those who voted can be just as easily turned around to say that if you DO use the vote to split the delegates you are disrespecting those who stayed home because the vote wouldn't count.
I'm not saying that going by the vote isn't reasonable, particularly in Florida. What I'm saying is that there's no moral imperative to do so and that there's no reason that, say, a 50/50 split is any more or less fair than choosing to use a vote that everyone knew wouldn't count. The only thing you can do at this point is sit down and come to an agreement between the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, and the Florida and Michigan delegations. If they all agree on something, great. If they don't, they better keep working.
So stop pretending there's a moral high ground to be found somewhere. There isn't. The Democratic Party has already disrespected the voters of Florida and Michigan and there's nothing that can be done to undo that completely. Neither state has been able to hold a primary or caucus that has any meaning so stop pretending there's some extra value in respecting the rights of people who voted in a fake contest over those who didn't participate because they had every reason to think their vote wouldn't count.
Everybody in Florida and Michigan got disrespected. Nobody got disenfranchised. There's no fair way out, and there's no moral high ground to take in choosing one way over another. The only thing that can be done is to compromise in a way that pisses the fewest people off.
Here's what the American Heritage Dictionary says the definition of "disfranchise" is (from www.dictionary.com):
"To deprive of a privilege, an immunity, or a right of citizenship, especially the right to vote; disenfranchise."
Nobody in Florida or Michigan is getting deprived of a citizenship right. This is the nominating process for a political party. Hillary Clinton's comparisons to past Civil Rights struggles is so far-fetched as to be insulting. These past struggles were about race and gender discrimination and equal protection under the law and under the constitution. This issue of Florida and Michigan is about a political party that did something stupid. What do I mean by that? I mean that it's not very smart for the Democratic Party to go piss people off in two states. That's all this is about.
There's no disenfranchisement here, folks, so move along. If the Democratic Party wants to exclude two states from it's nominating process, it can. Nobody's rights are getting violated. The folks in Florida and Michigan can, if they so feel like it, go vote Republican in the fall while they stick their tongues out at the Democratic Party and say "NANANANABOOBOO, this is what you get!" We hope that doesn't happen, and that's why it wasn't smart for the Democratic Party to completely exclude two states from the nomination process.
In my personal opinion, the best approach is to do what the Republicans did and just dock each delegate 1/2 a vote. It's not a perfect solution, but it minimizes the number of folks you piss off. The delegate allocation is all screwy anyway; states that go late get extra delegates, territories that don't vote in the general election still participate in the primary, etc, etc... There's no exact math to how many delegates each state gets, so just dock them 1/2. Or dock them 1/3. I don't care, but don't just remove them from the process.
Does the Democratic Party have the right to exclude FL and MI completely? Sure, and nobody would be getting disenfranchised. Doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do.
Oh and while I'm complaining, let me make another point. There's no one, single, overriding "fair" way to split the delegates between Clinton and Obama. That's all there is to it. For all intents and purposes, Florida and Michigan did not have nominating contests. The argument that the delegates should be seated based on the results of the January voting seems somewhat sensible, but there is certainly no moral imperative to do it that way. The argument that if you don't abide by the vote you are disrespecting (not disenfranchising, see above) those who voted can be just as easily turned around to say that if you DO use the vote to split the delegates you are disrespecting those who stayed home because the vote wouldn't count.
I'm not saying that going by the vote isn't reasonable, particularly in Florida. What I'm saying is that there's no moral imperative to do so and that there's no reason that, say, a 50/50 split is any more or less fair than choosing to use a vote that everyone knew wouldn't count. The only thing you can do at this point is sit down and come to an agreement between the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, and the Florida and Michigan delegations. If they all agree on something, great. If they don't, they better keep working.
So stop pretending there's a moral high ground to be found somewhere. There isn't. The Democratic Party has already disrespected the voters of Florida and Michigan and there's nothing that can be done to undo that completely. Neither state has been able to hold a primary or caucus that has any meaning so stop pretending there's some extra value in respecting the rights of people who voted in a fake contest over those who didn't participate because they had every reason to think their vote wouldn't count.
Everybody in Florida and Michigan got disrespected. Nobody got disenfranchised. There's no fair way out, and there's no moral high ground to take in choosing one way over another. The only thing that can be done is to compromise in a way that pisses the fewest people off.
