« Vice President Brad Henry | Constantinople's Blog | Obama already flip-flopping on Kyl-Lieberman »
The Florida & Michigan delegates shouldn't be halved - they should be DOUBLED!
Caucuses are blatantly undemocratic:
1. Many people can't participate due to health, job or other concerns;
2. Support below a certain threshold, typically 15%, is treated as 0%.
Despite this, many people defend caucuses because they reflect the will of the most committed voters.
Who's more committed than the voters of Florida & Michigan who voted despite the fact they were told their votes wouldn't count?
They shouldn't be punished.
They should be rewarded.
Double 'em and add your age.
1. Many people can't participate due to health, job or other concerns;
2. Support below a certain threshold, typically 15%, is treated as 0%.
Despite this, many people defend caucuses because they reflect the will of the most committed voters.
Who's more committed than the voters of Florida & Michigan who voted despite the fact they were told their votes wouldn't count?
They shouldn't be punished.
They should be rewarded.
Double 'em and add your age.
Advertisement
Double them, add your age, divide by the ratio of length and width of their respective state, multiply the result by the number of hard working white Americans that live there, and then subtract the square of the number of rednecks and Reagan Democrats among the anti-Obama votes.
May 31, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense - start to finish.
[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/30/13502/7159/640/525143[/url]
Before you knock caucuses, perhaps you should know something about what they have done for the party this (and other) years - but ESPECIALLY this year.
May 31, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article to which you link doesn't contradict either one of my points about caucuses. If anything, it supports them.
According to that post, there were "682,728 minimum confirmed caucus goers" in the Texas Democratic Caucus, in contrast to the 2,818,599 people who voted in the Texas Democratic primary, over 4x as many. Hell, even the Texas Republican primary drew 1,320,653 voters.
When there two voting systems, and one of them has significantly lower turnout, that system is less democratic.
May 31, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many people participated total in caucuses vs. 2.4 million people who went to the polls in Michigan and Florida? It's a nasty situation.
May 31, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Caucuses might not be my first choice, but now is hardly the time to complain about them.
The system was known in advance by all candidates, and as others have noted, caucuses do have certain advantages in party building and measuring support among more committed party members. Some states have open primaries, and others have closed primaries, a difference which also changes the makeup of the electorate. All these different contests are measuring different things, which is why delegate allocations are made to balance things out among states (and to reward states that have supported Democrats in the past, as well as those that are willing to vote later in the primary season).
The system may not be as "democratic" as it could be, but the other logical extreme - a single national one-person, one-vote primary, would be a contest biased in favor of better known candidates who can raise the large amounts of money needed to wage a national campaign. At least starting in small states gives less well-known candidates some chance of competing. And some, such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, have taken advantage of that to go on to become president.
May 31, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just saying reward the voters in Florida and Michigan for their dedication.
May 31, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I see, so first the claim is that Michiganders voted without knowing that their votes wouldn't count - that's why they voted as they did. Therefore Hillary should get all the delegates.
But now, the claim is that they voted knowing full well they wouldn't count, and you want to reward them for heroically doing so. Therefore Hillary should get all the delegates.
Yeah, that seems real reasonable.
Sigh.
May 31, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying Hillary should get all the delegates.
But I agree the voters in Florida and Michigan were heroic, and we should honor that.
May 31, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to honor them, send them a plaque, I'm sure they'd appreciate it.
Really, I can't take this seriously at all. Say nice things about the voters all you want, but it's silly to reward the people who got them into this mess (and who just happen to be Hillary supporters!) by tripling or ten-folding their delegate counts in a fit of pique.
May 31, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A plaque would be better than a t-shirt.
I'd hate to see a bunch of people in November wearing I voted in January and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
May 31, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
no, i'd like the t-shirt please.
May 31, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll see what I can do.
June 1, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but they're not just complaining about caucuses now. Last summer there was a fight in Michigan over primary vs. caucus, with Edwards pushing a caucus and Clinton favoring a primary. The reasons were the same then. See what I wrote in March: Your Cheatin' Heart (look a bit towards bottom)
June 1, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You also forgot that many people can't attend because they have jobs or school. That gives Obama a clear disadvantage, as he's stronger among the employed while Clinton's stronger among the retired, who really have nothing better to do.
May 31, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama does better with higher income voters and students, Clinton with lower income voters; that gives Obama an advantage in caucuses.
Clinton does better with retirees, but those are also more likely to have health concerns that keep them from participating in a caucus.
May 31, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another problem with caucuses is that Hillary lost them overwhelmingly. That's the real argument here for why they shouldn't count.
May 31, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Maine caucus you could vote by absentee ballot. The health/job/time argument just doesn't fly to explain the Maine landslide for Obama.
May 31, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, disenfranchise those who can't afford a stamp!
I'm not arguing results, I'm stating that primaries draw more voters than caucuses.
And if people can mail-in a vote for a caucus, they can do so for a primary as well.
May 31, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. You seem to reject the principle that "dedicated voters" should have their voices heard more loudly, but then you advocate counting Florida and Michigan double exactly for that reason. This is hypocritical.
But perhaps you are making an argument ad absurdum. Let's grant your argument that those who actually voted in Florida and Michigan were, in fact, more dedicated. Then in those states, just as in caucus states, a subsection of more dedicated voters were the only ones that voted, as opposed to the entire electorate. When only a subsection of the electorate is polled (such as "dedicated voters"), that subsection has increased clout precisely because they are called upon to represent the entire electorate; they don't need to have their allocated representatives doubled in order to play a more important role than a voter in a normal primary state. If Florida and Michigan deserve twice the delegates (in your flawed ad absurdum argument), then caucus states should also be doubled.
May 31, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only states that voted for Hillary should have their delegate counts multiplied. That's because Hillary is *entitled* to be the nominee.
I know, it's totally ridiculous, but I can't discern any other guiding principle behind the tortured logic Hillary supporters use to justify anything they say.
May 31, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flawed!
It got you to post here.
I've go to do something to draw eyeballs in the post-eat-post world that is TPM Cafe.
May 31, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink