Michigan & Florida: A Compromise

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

The Issue

Democratic Leaders in these two states violated the DNC rules, moving their primary dates up in order to be more "relevant" in the process. But in this unusual election year, being the last states to vote is for the first time, of critical importance. So providing voters in these states a "do-over" winds up rewarding those Democratic Leaders who broke the rules.

But what about the voters? The rank-and-file Democrats who weren't in on the decision but who would have their votes uncounted? How do we let their voices be heard, while still sending a message to the Democratic Leaders in Michigan and Florida to the effect that this sort of thing won't be tolerated?

The Compromise

Michigan and Florida get late primaries so their votes are counted. The Democratic Leadership in those two states, however, will be stripped of their Super Delegate status as a consequence of violating the rules of the Democratic National Committee.

Agreed?

[stahbrett]

1. Not bad, but still a waste of time and money

Why not make each delegate worth 1/4 of a normal delegate, then just seat the delegates? No more fuss, no more time and money wasted in the primary.

[Strawman]

2. That's a great idea, even if we do not get a revote in MI and FL

I don't think there's any chance of having do-over primaries at this point, but I would, as Skinner put it, like to see them "eat a little crow." Here is what I emailed Gov. Granholm (and Sen. Levin as well):

"I would like to see you, Carl Levin, and Debbie Dingell issue a public apology to all rank-and-file Democrats who were deprived of a meaningful primary vote this presidential election cycle.

Although, I understand and sympathize with the sentiment behind moving up the primary, when you and other party elites chose to test the national party's primary and caucus rules, you gambled with something that wasn't yours to put at risk: my vote. If I lose my vote, you ought to renounce your own Super Delegate status this cycle as well."

[BadgerKid]

3. It's at least a start

My thinking was similar to yours: If you ignore MI and FL completely because of the rules, you end up punishing the voters, which is undemocratic. If you have a do-over, you reward the rule-breakers. I never bought into the idea of apportioning the current delegates because that would violate the expectations of the candidates.

[Birthmark]

4. No new primary for FL

We already voted. Now, if the DNC wants to strip FL of its super-delegates, I'll support that 100%. But no new primary. I take my vote seriously and its already been cast. Either it counts or it doesn't. If it does, then all is well. If it doesn't, then count me out.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

5. Just out of curiousity...

What about all those voters who didn't turn out because they were told that the election wouldn't be counted?

[Birthmark]

6. What voters are those?

There's no direct evidence that any significant number of voters stayed home. The increase in turnout in FL was in line with the increase in other states. We had a record turnout. However, since I believe that every vote should count, I think that provision should be made for those that *didn't* vote in January. It could be by mail-in, or a trip to the Voter Registration office, or some other method, as long as it doesn't throw out the votes already cast.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

8. The Florida Election was not representative...

When people are told that it's a "beauty contest" they often either don't turn out, or they make "protest votes" in the belief that their vote is meaningless.

Full Disclosure: I voted for Nader in 2000 in Ohio, because the state was a lost cause and Al Gore gave up on it three weeks before the election. Had Ohio still been "in play" for the Democrats in 2000, I would have voted differently. Voter Perception effects Voter Behavior.

What's more, since the candidates were not allowed to campaign in the state, voters were not allowed a chance to make a fully-informed decision.

I'll grant you that this is not a situation that should ever occur again. John Edwards is probably sitting at home in South Caroline thinking, "If I had made a strong showing in Florida, maybe Super Tuesday would have been different." Instead of having five candidates to choose from, voters are down to only two. And that will change the dynamic of the election.

[Birthmark]

9. Not representative?

Then what was it in 2004 when only 750,000 voted...compared to the 1,750,000 who voted this time?! lol

Sorry, but I don't take that too seriously. All the candidates were on the ballot and we had a massive turnout. It's not like we didn't know or couldn't find out who the candidates are and their positions on the issues. Why, we even saw them on TV!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. No face-to-face campaigning?

No town hall forums? No meeting the candidate in person?

I became an Edwards supporter in 2004 by meeting him in person. It was the combination of his personality and his stand on the issues that brought me to his campaign. I met him face to face, and I trust him.

By your standard, the candidates could just sit in their campaign headquarters and film campaign commercials and update their blogs. Perhaps we should just save time and effort and elect a computor algorithm that most closely matches are political views.

[Birthmark]

14. Your experience is your experience

I don't see any persuasive evidence that it's the norm.

And, yeah, I think that they should just sit in their offices and update their blogs...and maybe some teleconferences. But we should get rid of the campaign commercials entirely. They say little to nothing useful. Maybe then we could elect a President for a reasonable amount of money.

The traveling freak-shows and slanderous commercials are costing a bundle...far more than they are worth.

[beandoc]

7. Another michigan voter who agrees with you

I know a lot of people who did not vote in January because it was a contest that was not linked to any delegates. And very few of them blame the DNC. Many have agreed the process by which we select our candidate should be reviewed and debated. But, the leadership in Michigan has not done the voters a service by knowingly risking the delegates and bumping up the primary date against the rules with clearly stated consequences.
The Michigan leadership took a calculated risk in their disobedience. To be honest, few people in January thought that this contest would be going on past February, much less through April. If the nominee had been decided earlier, the result of a Michigan vote would not have made much difference and the DNC and the presumptive nominee may have agreed to seat the inconsequential Michigan delegates as a sign of good will. If events transpired as they expected, and even if the delegates were not seated, Michigan would have successfully made a statement about the way we select a nominee and the states in which it is done.
However, the risk backfired. The Michigan delegates would not be entirely inconsequential if seated (math, inevitability, will of the people, superdelegates....i know), and the DNC enforced its rules. The risk was taken by the leadership. The consequences should fall to those who took the risk. Accountability; odd concept.
Great idea, Jeff.

[Texas Hill Country]

10. There are better ways to penalize the leadership without messing with the election.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. And apparently waterboarding is legal....

:evilgrin:

[crispini]

13. It looks to me like the logistics of a do-over will be impossible.

In either state. So your compromise is moot.