Michigan Delegates Excluded From Democratic Convention
A specter haunts the Democratic Party, and it is the exclusion of Michigan and Florida delegates from the Democratic Convention.
Both the Republican and the Democratic National Committees have been penalizing states that move their primaries up to January, as Michigan and Florida did.
The DNC says it will only recognize the Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina primaries in January. Michigan and Florida won't be accepted.
The dispute could affect the election in several ways. First, the Democrats have taken a pledge not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. The Republicans are also penalizing those states, but their candidates can campaign there. This difference may give the Republicans a leg up in Florida in particular.
Second, there is this bombshell:
' Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar. That leaves Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and "uncommitted," as the choices on the Democratic ballot in Michigan. '
Well, the way I read it, that means Hillary takes Michigan. And, if Carl Levin is right, Michigan delegates may ultimately be seated at the convention despite what the DNC now says.
What if the candidates went to the convention without any of them having enough delegates to win the nomination outright? And what if Michigan delegates finally got seated, and they were overwhelmingly Hillary supporters because Obama and Edwards did not run? What if they helped put Hillary over? Wouldn't that be widely viewed by the party faithful as inherently unfair?
I am worried about this situation. At the level of the presidency, it may be a close race. Michigan and Florida are key states. Michigan has been trending Democrat but that is not set in stone. Florida adds several hundred thousand residents a year, so it won't be the same state as in 2004 and may be up for grabs. The way this dispute over timing is working out, it may well disadvantage Democrats, and it certainly will disadvantage Obama and Edwards.
And here's a scenario for you: Obama wins in Iowa. Hillary wins in New Hampshire. Obama wins in Nevada. Hillary wins in South Carolina. But then Hillary wins in Michigan and Florida but they don't count. Or do they count for public opinion even if not for the Convention? Do they help create an impression that she is winning the tennis match 6-4 going into the February primaries?
Could the issue raise questions about the legitimacy of the party nominees?
I think the Democrats are crazy not to resolve this thing quick through negotiation, rather than just letting the train wreck unfold.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/03/2007 06:36:00 AM
15 Comments:
Well, as a liberal voter, I think that they are penalizing the voter because of internal party politics. If the Democrats will penalize Michigan voters for their own party politics, they don't deserve our votes from the beginning. First, if they can not get along enough in their own party to properly represent the liberals of this state, how can we trust them once elected to get anything done with yet another party.
More important to me as a voter. If they choose not to come to Michigan, it is like saying they don't want to represent Michigan's liberals. They think elections are only about the candidates, and not who they represent. Fine. They don't need to come and they don't need to campaign here. I don't want a representative on the Hill that thinks life is all about them and their party, when they are supposed to be representing my interests under our social contract.
I will vote straight ticket Green for the Federal level next election. And, if enough voters are angered, and the Dems lose this blue state for the Presidential elections, they might regret that they care more about their campaign rules than representing themselves to the voters.
If ordinary Americans who consider themselves Democrats needed a lesson in just how much the DNC/DLC despises them the disenfranchisement of the Democrats in Michigan and Florida ought to be their wake up call.
The Demoblican candidates are ALL accepting "campaign contributions" in all states. Their employers will still be serviced. The voters will just be cut out of the equation.
If they get away with this I wouldn't be surprised to see the DNC/DLC Demoblicans try to do away with the voters all together. Just take the money directly and declare the nominee to be the one who took in the most : the winner is the most thoroughly corrupted.
Dear Juan:
You are right to excoriate the Democratic Party for its bungling of the primary situation, especially in Michigan and Florida. Unfortunately, you overlook one of the more critical issues which remain - the lack of electoral reform, starting with the direct election of the President. We are now over 7 years away from the debacle in the 2000 election and both the Dems and Repubs are playing electoral games rather than getting down to the business of real electoral reform. I don't believe that either party is seriously committed to such reform. They are both enablers of a totally dysfunctional electoral system which makes a mockery of the ideal of "one person, one vote." Sincerely, Prof. Fran Shor, WSU
They say Howard Dean is furious, but he had better relent.
What do you mean "avoid a train wreck"? The Democratic party IS a train already wrecked.
There's only ONE legitimate DEMOCRAT in the whole sorry corrupt organzation... Dennis Kucinich... But he refuses to take money from General Dynamics, Lockheed, you know, the people who push these nasty little wars on us etc, and has absolutely no chance of even being at the podium of the Democratic National Convention no less making it to the ballot.
Professor Shor makes an excellent point. But, I see revision under our current electoral system as impossible. The system enables the parties functioning within it. They benefit from the non-competitive environment and are unlikely to disrupt the system without a voter revolution.
I will add my own wish, which is even more far-fetched. I would like voter lists. This system would allow better representation. Both parties have been penalized by their bases voting off party in protest of something. An example would be how the Green vote in the 2000 elections hurt Gore's presidential bid. So it really would not harm the current largest parties. A list where you vote either liberal or conservative and rank the candidates would mean competition in the ideologies though. It would not defacto eliminate 3rd parties, as protest votes would not enable ideologies inconsistent with your world view. It will remain just a dream though.
Why, oh, why can't we just have all the elections on ONE SINGLE DAY and be done with all this moronic crap? This ridiculous primary system is even worse than the retarded electoral system of the general election. Ugh.
Look at '04. If we'd all voted on the same day back then, Dean woulda taken the nomination and probably woulda gone on to beat Bush. But nnnooo, we gotta let those dipshits in Iowa and NH fuck up the whole thing.
Do I need to fire off the list of ineffectual douches this process has produced throughout the years? (Oh, god, the eighties!) Time for a goddamn change people!
There are Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel on the Democratic side and Ron Paul on the Republican side who favor retiring the US from being in FDR's term, a "bandit nation." None of the others really question the need for American imperial dominance, although that must inevitably destroy what's left of American liberty if it's not very soon stopped, as the Founders understood very well.
We're way worse off with an ostensibly liberal imperialist like Clinton than with any Republican except maybe a lunatic like Giuliani, and he won't be elected since he'll be shreaded in the general for his incompetence on 9-11-2001, which is all he's running on, and the "Christians will abandon him too.
Goldwater would have been no more criminal in Vietnam than Johnson was, and on the other hand it was the big anti-Communist, Nixon, who made friends with China. Clinton will carry out the policies of Bush, but more effectively. If she's more competent, she will be more able than Bush to actually sweep away what remains of our liberties, as Bush cannot do, because although he has prepared the ground for his successor, he's too weak to take advantage himself.
Of course all of this assumes that economic conditions will stay put more or less for the next year. That may well not be the case. If things really unravel, with millions of people thrown out of their homes through foreclosure and millions losing their jobs, it could suddenly look a lot like Argentina in 2001 - or Chile in 1973.
Party lines get crossed all the time in Florida. Democratic retirees find their politics in Florida are more Republican. etc. Sometimes retirees need someone to help them remember their voting preferences, and plenty of people are available to do the work.
Losing Florida's delegates not such a big deal. I worry more about electoral vote splitting in California, though.
Levin is off his head in thinking that the DNC will seat delegates from the faux primary in Michigan. There is an outside chance that a separate qualified caucus could be held in Michigan after the fact, but the need for legislative authorization limits the room to make things like that happen.
Also, this does not leave Michigan without any delegates at all. Superdelegates are still seated.
Also, it is worth noting that Kucinich is on the ballot in Michigan only because he missed the deadline to withdraw. He likely will not campaign in MI either.
This shouldn't cause any legal difficulties. State law generally puts candidates on the ballot pursuant to the party national convention and accept its rulings as conclusive.
The MI and FL hissy fits may not be in vain, but the change as a result will likely happen in efforts to avoid a repeat in the 2012 cycle, rather than in htis cycle.
This sets up an interesting possibility for voting tactically and thinking strategically. Those who would vote in the Democratic primary. amd who are concerned mostly about the premier issue in this campaign(Iraq), can, in Michigan and Florida, r switch and vote Republican - for Ron Paul, This would upset the applecart for the war's supporters, who are generally confined to the shrinking Republican base. A strong showing by Paul will also strengthen the antiwar resolve of the Democratic nominee. Like Bill Clinton says, this year there is no really terrible Democrat running. Hillary should be pilloried for running in Michigan. Ron Paul will never be elected with his William Jennings Bryan economics, but he could function as the Taft wing's Barry Goldwater - and presage the return of the Republicans to a decent opposition.
Ah, the glories of American democracy: in the presidential primaries, most candidates have dropped out by the time most people get to vote. Then, those who bother to vote in November for the chump they may or may not have even had the chance to vote against in the primary, may not have their vote counted if the election officials decide not to bother to count the votes. And even if they do, the second place idiot takes office anyway.
If that is not good enough for your shining city on the hill, we got checks and balances, three branches worth. Of course, the chump branch gets to pick the Supremes branch. And when the people's half of the third branch manages to do something, the millionaire's branch can gum up the works with a filibusher or a cholesterol vote. And even if the millionaires go along, the chump can use his platinum power of veto.
Then, the patient, learned leaders of the people's branch can educate us as to how the checks and balances that rightously save us from tyranny mean that they can't do nothing because they can only get 59 millionaires on their side, not 60. But they never explain why it is that the other side's millionaires never fail to gum up the works, but our side's millionaires never seem to bother.
Now folks, you are in luck, because today, right here on Juan's most excellent blog, I am going to tell you why Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and the rest of the gang sit on their hands instead of using some of those beautiful heirlooms of the funding fathers to save us from the excesses of the heir to the throne of Walkerbush.
The reason is that is just doesn't matter. If they played by the rules and stopped young George from some youthful indiscretion, he would get the Supremes, or Prince, to change the rules, and he would do what he wants anyway. Or he would utter the mythical phrase of our hero, the chump Jackson, who we praise every year despite his cooperation with genocide, taunting the Supreme Chief Marshall to enforce his ruling. Don't forget to ask the Cherokee how that all worked out. I hear there is a new trail of tears from Baghdad to Damascus.
As somebody who wanted to be a liberal voter this year but lives in Michigan, I'm voting Republican. "Undecided" isn't accurate. I'm completely decided--but my candidate of choice isn't on the ballot and I blame the DNC for it.
I'm with Buffalo. Until and Unless Kucinich iS the democratic nominee, I will stay home election day. Sick and fucking tired of holding my nose.
The republic is doomed and all the corporate whores in the DNC can think about is THEIR little schedule?
Fuck the lot of em. Kucinich or noone.
So the same Democratic Party that was handed a very convincing mid-term victory, and immediately proceeded to roll over and sell out as usual, is now doing its damnedest to shore up a primary ballot system that is almost universally recognized as broken and nonsensical. Used to be I would've been outraged, but nothing the Jackass does surprises me any more.
The fecklessness of Reid and Pelosi and their ilk had already convinced me, but this news about disenfranchising Michigan and Florida only reinforces my conviction. I'm voting in the next Democratic primary (in Maryland), and then I'm done with the Jackass. If I even bother to vote for a national office again, it'll be Greens, maybe Libertarians (in the unlikely event that they can find somebody who won't go off on gold and fiat currency rants).
I never expected all that much out of the Jackass. All I wanted them to do was keep the lid on the festering nutcase ward that the GOP has become. But even those low expectations were too ambitious; the Dems aren't up to the job. The *only* thing they're competent at is betrayal. So fuck 'em.
-- sglover
Post a Comment
<< Home