Getting Beyond the Fictions of Michigan and Florida (and How Edwards Can Help Save the Day)
The more focus drawn to Florida and Michigan, the more people are talking, the further we're getting from facts and, ultimately, fair solutions. SO, just to clarify a few things, lets try to dismiss some the fictitious talking points being circulated and remind people of a forgotten fact.
First, the reminder: It was only a few months ago that the media and both parties were wringing their collective hands about the possible length of the primary campaign. Specifically there was fear that, as everyone kept moving primaries earlier, the ’08 Iowa caucuses might end up taking place in ’07. It was in part because of those concerns that the rules about what states could schedule their contests during which windows of time were developed. I have no particular need or desire to defend Howard Dean. However, remember that he has been trying to enforce a policy that was developed to keep the primary process from getting completely out of control.
Now, let’s talk about the fictitious talking points:
In insisting that delegates from his state must be seated, Governor Charlie Crist stated that it was inappropriate that the voters of his state voted and that someone from Washington was arbitrarily disenfranchising those voters. First, there was nothing arbitrary about it: before the vote ever occurred or was even scheduled, it was made very clear to all involved that scheduling the primary before February 5th would be a violation of the rules, and that the primary would not be recognized by the party. Second, it is the Republican controlled Florida Legislature that has disenfranchised Florida voters by knowingly scheduling the original vote in violation of stated rules. The next talking point suggests that, since it’s the DNC that is not recognizing the previous vote, it’s the DNC that should pay for the new election rather than “unfairly taxing the residents of Florida or Michigan.” This is preposterous! The Florida and Michigan legislatures created the infraction, and should pay the cost of correcting the infraction. If the voters, who are innocent bystanders in ALL of this, are unhappy about that, they should vote against their legislators who did this to them.
Now, as I just pointed out, the voters in Florida and Michigan are innocent bystanders in all of this. They didn’t choose the dates for the respective primaries. So, no matter who is responsible, we must develop some way to have these voters represented at the convention.
For Michigan, there has to be some form of re-vote. Everyone other than Hillary Clinton obeyed the candidate agreement to remove their names from the Michigan ballot. Michigan violated the rules, the Clinton Campaign violated the candidate agreement. As a result, Clinton’s was the only name on the ballot. Neither she, nor the state can or should be rewarded for basically unethical behavior. There needs to be a new vote and the state of Michigan should bear the cost.
Florida is a slightly different story, and may pose a reasonable option that avoids the cost of a revote. Unquestionably, the outcome of a vote will be impacted by whether the candidates campaign. Though Clinton, Obama and Edwards were all on the ballot, without the campaigns being able to operate in the state, reach out to potential cross-overs, argue the rationales for the candidacy, etc., the election was nothing but a very shallow beauty contest. Still the three candidates running at the time were on the ballot. Clinton won 50% of the vote, with Obama and Edwards splitting the balance.
Here’s where Edwards can save the day. Edwards may be reluctant to make an endorsement at this time. However, if he specifically says he’s not endorsing, but requests that any delegates he may be entitled to from Florida should vote for Obama, we should end up with an even split of the Florida delegates- an outcome neither of the remaining campaigns could really argue against. Florida did still violate the rules, so there still must be some sanction, such as reducing their number of delegates. Still, the voters are enfranchised and no candidate unfairly benefits or is harmed by the irregularity of an election with no campaign.
These may not be perfect answers, but they are equitable solutions. Again, these problems were caused by politicians, but the victims are the voting citizens of Florida and Michigan. The only reasonable answers must protect victims without benefiting the perpetrators.
First, the reminder: It was only a few months ago that the media and both parties were wringing their collective hands about the possible length of the primary campaign. Specifically there was fear that, as everyone kept moving primaries earlier, the ’08 Iowa caucuses might end up taking place in ’07. It was in part because of those concerns that the rules about what states could schedule their contests during which windows of time were developed. I have no particular need or desire to defend Howard Dean. However, remember that he has been trying to enforce a policy that was developed to keep the primary process from getting completely out of control.
Now, let’s talk about the fictitious talking points:
In insisting that delegates from his state must be seated, Governor Charlie Crist stated that it was inappropriate that the voters of his state voted and that someone from Washington was arbitrarily disenfranchising those voters. First, there was nothing arbitrary about it: before the vote ever occurred or was even scheduled, it was made very clear to all involved that scheduling the primary before February 5th would be a violation of the rules, and that the primary would not be recognized by the party. Second, it is the Republican controlled Florida Legislature that has disenfranchised Florida voters by knowingly scheduling the original vote in violation of stated rules. The next talking point suggests that, since it’s the DNC that is not recognizing the previous vote, it’s the DNC that should pay for the new election rather than “unfairly taxing the residents of Florida or Michigan.” This is preposterous! The Florida and Michigan legislatures created the infraction, and should pay the cost of correcting the infraction. If the voters, who are innocent bystanders in ALL of this, are unhappy about that, they should vote against their legislators who did this to them.
Now, as I just pointed out, the voters in Florida and Michigan are innocent bystanders in all of this. They didn’t choose the dates for the respective primaries. So, no matter who is responsible, we must develop some way to have these voters represented at the convention.
For Michigan, there has to be some form of re-vote. Everyone other than Hillary Clinton obeyed the candidate agreement to remove their names from the Michigan ballot. Michigan violated the rules, the Clinton Campaign violated the candidate agreement. As a result, Clinton’s was the only name on the ballot. Neither she, nor the state can or should be rewarded for basically unethical behavior. There needs to be a new vote and the state of Michigan should bear the cost.
Florida is a slightly different story, and may pose a reasonable option that avoids the cost of a revote. Unquestionably, the outcome of a vote will be impacted by whether the candidates campaign. Though Clinton, Obama and Edwards were all on the ballot, without the campaigns being able to operate in the state, reach out to potential cross-overs, argue the rationales for the candidacy, etc., the election was nothing but a very shallow beauty contest. Still the three candidates running at the time were on the ballot. Clinton won 50% of the vote, with Obama and Edwards splitting the balance.
Here’s where Edwards can save the day. Edwards may be reluctant to make an endorsement at this time. However, if he specifically says he’s not endorsing, but requests that any delegates he may be entitled to from Florida should vote for Obama, we should end up with an even split of the Florida delegates- an outcome neither of the remaining campaigns could really argue against. Florida did still violate the rules, so there still must be some sanction, such as reducing their number of delegates. Still, the voters are enfranchised and no candidate unfairly benefits or is harmed by the irregularity of an election with no campaign.
These may not be perfect answers, but they are equitable solutions. Again, these problems were caused by politicians, but the victims are the voting citizens of Florida and Michigan. The only reasonable answers must protect victims without benefiting the perpetrators.
Advertisement
Crist is now talking about moving the primary up like it was an act of civil disobedience to further an agenda making Florida more influential in the primary process.
March 6, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only solution is to revote both Florida and Michigan as primary votes and to have the costs borne by the state parties rather than the state governments. Nobody can object to that and both Hillary and Obama would have a chance to recampaign. Yes, that lets the Florida legislature off the hook but sticking it to them isn't as important as giving our party members in that state a legitimate vote as opposed to something fixed to split 50/50 even though that's not what they voted for.
By the way, to use your "split it" strategy implies that the will of the people was expressed as a choice between "Hillary or not" and it wasn't. It shouldn't be up to Edwards to give his vote away. I was an Edwards supporter who now supports Hillary. if I'd voted for Edwards I'd be pretty ticked if he gave my vote to Obama without even asking me.
March 6, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it is less than relevant as to whether the Florida Legislature is let off the hook or not- ultimately, it is up to voters to hold them accountable. However, for the state party to suck up that much of a hit is not realistic... they'll get their delegates seated, but have no funds to campaign in the general.
I also would agree that you cannot easily extrapolate a 3 person result onto a 2 person race. However, if there is a compromise that does not satisfy all parties, it will simply enhance the perception of a rigged system that will quite possibly rend the party... an outcome I think even more problematic than the objection you raise.
March 6, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good article, Robert. I disagree with your Edwards' plan, too, but you make a lot of good points.
But, the main thing I disagree with you - and most of the coverage - about is blaming the FL Legislature instead of the Florida Democrats. The state party did not have to go along with state-run primary. Not only do some of the state parties still run their own process, but Arizona Democrats were in the same position a few years ago and we did our own thing.
I believe it was in 1996, when McCain and friends in the state leg (and Governor's office) wanted to move AZ up to benefit Phil Gramm. They passed a law setting the primary (I believe it was the first time AZ had ever run a presidential primary, even.) The DNC gave a similar warning to AZ Dems, and we refused to participate in the state-run primary. Paid for our own primary/caucus hybrid - not a big deal since Pres. Clinton was running for re-election. (It had the added slight benefit of being able to tell voters that the Gov./Leg. is spending tax dollars to benefit one party - they KNEW that the Dems wouldn't participate before passing it.)
So, the FL Dems could have done the same this year. They didn't, and deserve some of the blame for this situation.
(I think that the FL delegates should be apportioned according to the tainted primary - in this day and age, Floridians had as much information as they wanted about the candidates, even without the personal touch.)
Thanks.
March 7, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink