As many are well aware, there is a serious controversy brewing in the Democratic Party regarding the primary delegates of Michigan and Florida. When these two states scheduled their primaries (for January 15 and February 5, respectively), they were informed by the national party that they were breaking party rules by holding their primaries too early, and would thus be stripped of their delegates if they went through with their contests on the chosen dates. The Democratic presidential candidates pledged to not campaign in these states, and all of the major candidates except Hillary Clinton took their names off the ballot in Michigan. Despite the threats from the national party, however, Michigan and Florida decided to go ahead and hold their primaries on the chosen dates anyway.
Hillary Clinton won both primaries. So, now what? As of right now, Clinton's delegate win from these states is zero, and they have brought her no closer to securing the nomination. But the real question is: should the Michigan and Florida delegates count? Arguments are being made for both sides of the issue. One side claims that rules are rules -- Michigan and Florida were told what would happen if they broke the party rules, and yet chose to do so anyway. Others argue that the Democratic Party cannot simply cast aside the votes of over 2.2 million voters. Still others argue that the states should hold an entirely new contest that would allow their delegates to be won.
As I sometimes like to say, nothing good can come from this. However, in order to try to make the best decision between terrible options, I will say that I think the best choice is for the states to hold another contest. I realize that to some my position may seem contradictory when compared to my previous post, but I will try to explain it as best I can.
It would be terrible for the Democratic Party to dismiss the votes of over 2.2 million voters, and there is no arguing with that. But at the same time, it would be equally as terrible for the party to disregard the votes of those who knew that their state had no delegates, and therefore decided to not vote at all. I have no doubt that if the voters knew that their states would count, turnout would have been even higher than it was, and there is no telling who those additional voters would have supported. And furthermore, the results themselves aren't legitimate because the candidates didn't wage a full campaign in these states. It's no surprise that Clinton won Michigan, because she was the only major contender on the ballot. But it's also no surprise that she won Florida, because she's a more nationally well-known person overall. It would be the equivalent of saying: the New York Yankees are supposed to play the Kansas City Royals in an exhibition game; however both teams decide to not take part in the contest. Then, four months later, it is decided that the game will count, and since the Yankees are more well-known, the win should go to them. That's just plain bogus.
So, if a new contest is to be held, should it be a primary or a caucus? I don't know. Primaries are more costly and require a lot more planning than a caucus. However, caucuses, as some are arguing the states should have, garner a much smaller turnout than a primary. But, I don't have the financial figures to compare the cost of each, so it is tough for me to make an informed decision on what should be done.
Obviously, Hillary Clinton's campaign wants the delegates seated at the national convention, and Barack Obama's does not. Obama is actually in a no-win situation, because if he calls for the delegates to be seated, and they are, they will favor Clinton. However, if he publicly calls for the delegates to not be seated, then he risks alienating 2.2 million Democratic voters. From a PR standpoint, Obama should keep his mouth shut and simply defer to whatever the national party decides.
There is no way this ends well. But whatever the outcome, the citizens of both Michigan and Florida should be extremely displeased with their state party officials. It was, after all, they who decided to go against the rules of the national party and created this fix that may very well cost these voters their voices.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You're right about this being a no win situation for Barack. Too bad it's too late for him to recant his testimony on it. I believe CNN cooked his goose and his surrogate's Wilhelm very effectively. Since these delegates are not seated this goes to the superdelegates whose charge is to represent the majority of Democratic voters only,and not consider the influence of non-Democrats that have infiltrated the ranks,but could not be bothered to join the party. This activity of Barack's to dismiss the voter's of two states in favor of non-Democrats'influence is clearly unethical and will be fodder for the campaign down the road. Since these superdelegates represent Democratic voters' irrespective of the regular pledged delegates, the votes in Fla. and Mich. do count in favor of Clinton. In fact,although the popular vote count gives Barack a slight edge, discounting the percentage cast by non-Democrats gives the lead to Hillary overwhelmingly. It's now Obama's job to rack up more Democratic voters in closed primaries to prove that he carries the majority of the party. Tough row to hoe. Being an "independent" is a terrible way to abdicate responsibility in the process. Lou Dobbs would be proud.
Post a Comment