Talk Elections

No.

I'll answer it this way, if the credentials committee chooses to seat them, or the convention chooses to seat them, yes.

That said, I'd prefer a revote, and would recommend one.

Some of the candidates names were off the ballot and it ultimately did not count. So no.

And maybe pigs will fly.

It takes a majority to do it, inclusive of the super delegates.  It's possible, and, it will put Obama in the position of disenfranchising the delegates, and ultimately the voters of two large states.

"Vote Obama, he doesn't want you vote to count!"

That seems to be the type of campaign you want him to run.

Your*

Ah yes, the Catch-22 argument again.

J. J.: Hillary can win if the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated.
Me: The DNC isn't going to seat them.
J. J.: A majority of delegates at the convention can vote to seat them.
Me: So Hillary can seat those delegations and win a majority if...she has a majority of delegates. Which would make the entire issue pointless.
J. J.: *silence*

By choice, of course.  ;)

And it's not like Obama's people weren't campaigning heavily for "Uncommitted."

Would that choice have been made if the presented facts were that the election would count?

They took their names off the list and/or did not follow the procedures to get their names added.  So, as far as that goes, yes it was a fair election.

That's like saying that if a runner is told that a race is scheduled to start at some time, then the time is later changed and the runner is not informed of the change, resulting in the runner missing the race, and then saying that it was the runner's decision not to show up and thus it was fair race and fair that they "lost".

No, since that wasn't the case.  The agreement was that none of the candidates were going to campaign in the state.  Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot, though no one told him to.  So, using your example, it would be like the runners agreeing to run without shoes, but one runner decided to cut his feet off all together.

Because she can get a majority of the delegates with the super delegates and her own elected delegates.  She can walking into the convention without a plurality of the elected and get a plurality of the elected delegates.  Obama can no longer say, "I have more elected delegates than she has, so you should vote for me."

And the whole point of that argument is supposedly to sway superdelegates. If she already has a majority with superdelegates, it becomes moot.

We should retroactively make every straw poll count towards awarding delegates.  Because after all, people voted, right?  Who cares what the rules were at the time of the voting?  As long as people are voting, those votes should count towards deciding the nomination, no matter whether the candidates and potential voters were told at the time that it would count, right?

Did this ever occur to you that the super delegates really don't want to seen electing a candidate without a plurality of elected delegates, but would be happy to elect Hillary, if she has that plurality of elected delegates.  They may be willing to help her get those elected delegates.

Also all the runners agreed beforehand, and were told beforehand by the race organizers, that it wouldn't count for anything.

no.

OK, that's true if a majority of superdelegates were so in love with Hillary they just HAVE to anoint her but want to make it look fair. That doesn't appear to be the case though.

No, due to unfair actions taken by both sides. The State of Michigan had no right to push forward the Democratic primary, the DNC had no right to penalize candidates who visited the state.

If all other candidates besides Hillary and Mike Gravel withdrew their names from the Michigan state ballot, then of course it's not legtimate. A redo would be nice, but it isn't possible for reasons that most people probably know.

I'd have imagined that Barack Obama would have put his name on the ballot had he known it would have definitely counted, but the main reason he took his name off the ballot was just raw political strategery.

In a fair Clinton v. Obama fight, Clinton would have won handily.  Obama knew this, and decided to take his name off the ballot to (1) boost his standing amongst other voters by playing the "good Democrat" who honors New Hampshire and Iowa's first-in-the-nation status and (2) a big loss to Hillary in a state like Michigan would have set him back PR-wise, and would have given Hillary a much better chance at getting the results included.

Obama's name wasn't on the ballot because he was playing politics.  It was smart politics and the right thing to do from a strategic perspective, but it's hard to argue that Michigan's results aren't valid simply because Obama made the choice to keep his name off the ballot.

No, it wasn't fair and legitimate (Normal)

Absolutely correct, but it is valid to argue that when the rules said the delegates would not count, and one comported oneself accordingly, to then do an after the fact deus ex machina reanimation of the living dead to load the dice, is dirty pool.

Fair, yes, legitimate, no (because legitimacy in internal elections is something set by the party in question).

And also that the delegates allocated from Michigan do not at all represent the will of the voter.

I will say it is legitimate only because the candidates knowingly elected to remove their names from the ballot. Was it fair, of course not. I would love a revote, but that is dead. So, either seat the delegates or disenfranchise the people. It is that simple...yes it is.

It was about as fair and legitimate as the GOP's Iowa straw poll last August, in that it was understood to be a nonbinding "beauty contest" at the time, and both candidates and voters decided on whether to participate or not accordingly.

Well, Obama has helped put himself (not it wasn't all his fault) in the position of "Disenfranchiser-in Chief."  Couldn't he still get behind a revote?

Yes - the Dems wanted more power, so they screwed themselves over (or rather Mark Brewer screwed them over).

What was unfair about cutting the number of delegates in half, just like was done for other States that held January primaries like New Hampshire and Florida?

What would be unfair is if a party penalized some States more than was called for in the rules, while waiving penalties for others, and prevented candidates from campaigning.

J. J., you haven't presented a compelling reason why he'd be stupid enough to get behind one.  If your best argument is that he'll be the "disenfranchiser".....fuggetaboutit.  He's already calculated that out and is not getting behind it.  His campaign has been anything but stupid....if it would hurt him to not support it,  he'd be screaming for a re-vote.

I agree with you in that it was completely unfair of the DNC to punish FL & MI while letting IA & NH off the hook.  But, in assessing whether we should view a particular election as free and fair, don't we have to consider what the rules were at the time those votes were cast?  While the DNC should have punished IA & NH, they didn't.  While the DNC shouldn't have held FL & MI to a different standard, they did make it clear **at the time those primaries were held** that the results wouldn't count for anything, and both the candidates and the voters acted accordingly.  So is it now fair to retroactively say that yes, it should count after all?

It's the Democrat's fault for this disaster. I think Florida's should most certainly be counted, but it's hard to argue that Michigan's should since only Hillary was on the ballot.

Which Democrat? ???

The short one that looks like an ass.

He's counting on the delegates not being seated; that is a mistake.  As we both know, if Clinton had hold a bare majority, including the super delegates, they can be seated.  That's the first reason.

The second is that it can have an effect on the MI voters (not to mention that Democratic Party operatives) in the fall.

He doesn't yet realize how damaging this can end up being.

We need a poll for this that only lists "Yes/Uncommitted/Kucinich/Gravel".. to accurately reflect the situation.

MI Dem Chair Mark Brewer - it was his idea - and he's the one who forced the Rep. Senators into it saying, "we can hold a private primary because we have money and you can't" (it's true - MI GOP is broke), and the Reps said, well, we'd rather have the people chose and get 1/2 the delegates than have a caucus like Wyoming.

It's Mark Brewer's fault - and that's ironic, because he did it to help his man, John Edwards.

I don't think the Michigan GOP really cared much about losing half their delegates.  Since all the recent nomination contests have been decided as soon as one candidate reached a critical mass of momentum, they were more than happy to gain influence on early momentum in exchange for giving up half their delegates.

Originally it was a big deal to some.

In every single state that's been sanctioned, the party officials in the state complain loudly about the delegate sanctions, but the vast majority of them will still gladly take the tradeoff....vote earlier in exchange for giving up delegates.  The only time it's really not worth it for them to make the tradeoff is, for example, in the case of FL & MI on the Dem. side this year, since they lost 100% of the delegates and the candidates didn't even campaign there.

In the case of FL & MI on the GOP side, it was surely worth it for them to move up their primaries.  Florida, in fact, may well have been the pivotal state.  No way that would have happened if they'd voted on Feb. 5th or later.

I remember reading a news report - I think it was on CNN. They interviewed a voter in Michigan who had just come out of the booth. He said "I'm a Democrat, but because Obama isn't running here and I couldn't vote for him, I voted Republican for McCain" - or words to that effect.

If that voter thought that the dem delegates would end up counting, my guess is he would have changed his vote to vote "uncommitted" - and that's assuming that Obama for whatever reason had withdrawn his name even expecting the delegates to be seated.

To suggest that a one-horse race yielded a fair and legitimate result would be like suggesting the forthcoming elections in Zimbabwe are fair and legitimate.

What about the voter who is a Democrat, and supports Clinton, but because she didn't campaign in Michigan and they thought the vote didn't count, they voted Republican for McCain? Or something "to that effect"?

If that voter thought that the dem delegates would end up counting, my guess is he would have changed his vote to vote for Clinton - or if Hillary had withdrawn her name and Obama was the only one on the ballot, perhaps he would have voted uncommitted to show opposition to Obama.

What about the voter in Florida or New Hampshire in 2000 who said "Oh, if I thought the election would be so close, I would have voted"?

The point is, these things cancel themselves out. For every candidate on one side who would have voted, there is a candidate on the other side. In the end, you still get a pretty good expression of the popular will.

And what about the 565,000 people who did vote? Everyone who says the Michigan vote meant nothing is basically telling 565,000 people to shut up because their voice doesn't matter. You can find as many anecdotes as you want about someone who claims they would have done differently, but in the end, 565,000 did speak and the question is whether their views will count for something-- or nothing at all.

Exactly my point. Voters aren't disenfranchised by following through on penalties, they're disenfranchised when the rules are changed after the vote. The DNC effectively did an Obi Wan Kenobi: "these are not the primaries you're looking for" and people didn't vote because their vote wouldn't have an effect. Regardless of whether or not the delegates are seated, people are going to be disenfranchised. The DNC either will disenfranchise the voters who came out anyway, or they will disenfranchise the voters they told to stay home.   


That's a completely different scenario. If the voter had been told that there were no elections in Florida or New Hampshire in 2000 and that even if they voted, their vote wouldn't count - and then the rules were changed immediately afterward to allow those votes - I'd agree with you, but as it stands, they knew their vote would count towards the result, they just were too apathetic to vote. Voters in Michigan and Florida were told they'd be disenfranchised and made decisions accordingly - to vote in the Republican primaries or to not vote at all.


Maybe they cancel each other out, maybe they don't. Maybe Clinton would have hit 60% of the vote, maybe she wouldn't have. The point is - when you change the rules, you change the result. Perhaps her supporters were discouraged equally to Obama's supporters, or Edwards' supporters, perhaps not. We simply don't know. Personally, I think it had a bigger effect on Obama and Edwards, because their names weren't even on the ballot paper, and while their supporters could still vote "undecided" I think it discouraged their voters more than it discouraged Clinton's. I don't have any statistical or other evidence to back that up, it's just what I think.


The 565,000 people who voted, did so despite being disenfranchised. What about all the democrats who voted in the Republican primary, or who didn't vote because they were being disenfranchised? Not counting the Michigan result merely upholds the status quo. It doesn't disadvantage those who voted - at least, not any more than when they voted. Counting the result only after telling voters to stay home disadvantages anyone who made an active decision to not vote in the Democrat primary.

I personally think that the DNC should have penalised Michigan and Florida, but not to the extent they did. The GOP idea of taking away half their delegates was probably fairer - it didn't entirely disenfranchise voters in the state, but it did penalise the state for going against the rules. Since it's a bit late for that, my next preferred position would be a revote - either caucus or primary. Since they've ruled that out, my next preferred position would be to leave the rules as they were when the votes were cast - ie. don't seat the delegates. My least preferred position is to move the goalposts and seat the delegates.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't get to vote in US elections, and I wouldn't have been voting in the democrat primary even if I did get to vote over there.

Certainly Smid. What are we here but to exchange our casual opinions? Whether you get or don't get to vote in U.S. elections or would vote in the Democratic party primary really has no bearing on how valid your arguments are, and they seem to be well articulated.


The problem with that argument is that people did vote. Over half a million of them, in fact. Now, the obvious next question to ask is: did more people vote because they felt the election was valid, or did more people stay home because of your interpretation of what the DNC did? Let us compare the Democratic and Republican primaries then. The Republican primary was a competitive one in which all the candidates were on the ballot and competed, and Michigan is a swing state which generally runs very close in general elections, so you would expect approximately a similar number of Democrats and Republicans.

According to the numbers on this site, about 590,000 Democrats voted in the Democratic primary, and about 870,000 Republicans voted in the Republican primary. This despite the fact that only Republican candidates campaigned in Michigan. Had the Democratic candidates campaigned in Michigan, the number of Democrats voting in the Michigan primary probably would have been even higher. Nonetheless, Democratic turnout was at 68% of Republican turnout. That means that, assuming roughly equal Democratic and Republican primary participation, approximately twice as many Democrats turned out to vote on the assumption that their vote would count for something, than stayed home on the assumption that it would not. And this is being generous given at the Democratic candidates did not campaign in the state.

You are right that some voters would be disenfranchised either way. But more voters would be disenfranchised by counting Michigan for nothing than counting it for something.


True, the only point was that just because a voter says they "would have voted had they known" after the fact by itself, it does not mean the election is illegitimate. Rather, the voter must have a reasonable expectation that certain probabilities are likely to occur. For example, prior to the 2000 election, voters in NH and FL did know that their states could be close; that it was a possibility. Similarly, prior to the Michigan primary, voters in MI had a reasonable expectation that their delegates would eventually be seated at the convention, and that the results in Michigan would be spun by one campaign or the other. In January 2008 and before, there was a lot of expectation that "the delegates would eventually be seated". If you had asked people to place bets on whether the Michigan delegation would have been seated on Jan. 15, 2008, the odds would likely have been in favor. I have no proof of this, but I believe that was the general impression. Therefore, the two situations are actually similar.


Sure, when you change the rules, you change the result. When you conduct an election by mail, you will get a different result from when you conduct it in person. When you choose a caucus, you will get a different result from when you choose a primary. When you list the names of a lower level office in alphabetical order on the ballot itself, you will get a different result from if you list the names in random order. None of this, however, destroys the legitimacy of an election that was carried out which 590,000 people voted in, unless you can find some systemic bias in the rules that helped one candidate over the other.

It is certainly possible that not having his name on the ballot discouraged his voters more than it discouraged Clinton's. But Obama was not forcefully removed from the ballot. He had the option of keeping his name on the ballot while at the same time remaining in complete compliance with the DNC and any pledges the DNC had asked him to take. He chose, voluntarily, to remove his name from the ballot. Therefore, arguments that the election is illegitimate merely because his name was removed from the ballot cannot hold water. That would be akin to John Kerry removing his name from the ballot in 2004 in Ohio at the last minute then declaring the entire Presidential election illegitimate.


Disagree- it does, because at the time that they voted there was a reasonable expectation that the delegates selected would eventually be seated at the convention. And those who made an active decision not to vote in the Democratic primary at least had a choice: they could vote, and at least have a chance of seeing their ballot count, or stay home, and have no chance. Whatever bind they are in they could have avoided by choice. The 590,000 who did vote did all that they could to see to it that their voices counted-- not to count them would be to say to the people: "Even though you did all that you could to see that your voice would count, we are still going to silence you." That is a poor message for a meritocracy.


The Obama campaign has come out in opposition to a revote because they are afraid of the will of the voters. They are locking in their position and adopting a siege mentality. It's a poor tactic to take, in my view. If Obama really is the great uniter, he should not be afraid to have a re-vote in Michigan and take his message to all the people.

Partially. It was a legitimate election, though obviously turnout would've been higher if Obama and Edwards were on the ballot and if it were known that the results would actually count.

Obama would obviously win far more than two counties in Michigan if he had actually been on the ballot. I don't think anyone can dispute that. But at the same time, a lot of Clinton's voters stayed home too, so in the end her popular vote margin might've been larger than it was, and thus would've improved her chances of being able to win the national popular vote.

So all in all it's a wash as to who would really be helped more if it had counted.

I guess that's a fair assessment. I agree that it's important that the fewest voters are disenfranchised.



That may well have been the general impression - you're certainly closer to the action over there than I am so you would probably have a better feel for that. If people thought their votes would count, regardless of what is said before the vote, that is a strong argument for seating the delegates.


That's a fair point. I don't think Obama could have won so I guess it's a reasonable comparison, although no one ever said that the Ohio results wouldn't count towards the Electoral College. I am somewhat sceptical about Obama's reasons for withdrawing from the race, although I guess Edwards, et al withdrew also.


I certainly agree that it's wrong for Obama to be doing that. As I said, I think the DNC should have handled it differently to begin with. Without the benefit of time travel, the next best option is certainly a revote and I believe that to be preferable to either sitting or not sitting the delegates.

I'm sceptical of Clinton saying "just seat the delegates" and I'm sceptical of Obama saying to not seat them. They're both doing it because of what the end result would be, I think the best thing to do would be to revote.

First, I agree that problem was created by Howard Dean.  Clinton, however, encouraged a revote; Obama did not come out in support (big Mistake, INO)

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards.  If they had all campaigned in Florida and Michigan, do you think that the DNC would have backed down?

If Barack Obama had campaigned in those states, so would Hillary Clinton and he would have lost the nomination. If Hillary Clinton had campaigned in those states, she'd be mocked mercilessly by for being the only candidate to do so, and for defying the DNC, while losing focus on states unaffected by controversy. If John Edwards had campaigned in those states... well John Edwards had no chance after Iowa anyway, but perhaps if he and Hillary had both campaigned something of an interesting power struggle might have occured.

I disagree entirely with this statement.  Let's consider two hypothetical scenarios for the the general election in a state. 

(1) As each voter enters the polling station, they must roll a 6 sided die.  Only the people who roll a 5 get to vote.

(2)  All registered Republicans are forbidden to vote.


Obviously both of these are horrible ways to hold an election.  But if I was only allowed to choose between these two options, I'd prefer (1) to (2) by a longshot, even though (2) causes "the fewest voters to be disenfranchised".  Why is this?  Because the disenfranchisement in (1) is uniform, while that in (2) is biased towards one candidate's supporters.   

This is exactly why the original election failed to be legitimate, and why seating the delegates without a revote is such a horrid idea.  The voters who would be disenfranchised (those who stayed home because they were told that the election wouldn't count and possibly as well because their candidate wasn't on the ballot) would be heavily tilted towards those who favored Obama.   

Clinton's favored plan (barring voters from the polls based on how they voted in the "primary" earlier) has the identical problem.  Not only does it disenfranchise a large class of voters, but the ones it does are tilted so far towards one candidate over the other that it effectively would delegitimize the results.   The scale of disenfranchisement is smaller, but the effect is the same. 

Except that the sanctions that the DNC ultimately put on FL & MI didn't say anything about not campaigning there.  The reason the candidates pledged not to campaign there wasn't to appease the DNC.  It was to appease IA, NH, NV, & SC (the "four state pledge"), who didn't want the candidates' attention diverted to FL & MI.

This introduces a new measure (systemic bias) to the argument. It's important to keep separate several issues that are at contention so that each can be addressed in isolation. All other things equal, disenfranchising a smaller number of people is preferable to disenfranching a larger number. In your dice example, allowing any voter who rolled anything other than 5 to vote, would be preferable to allowing any voter who rolled a 5 only, to vote.


The source of this "identical problem" however, traces back to Obama's name not appearing on the ballot, due to his voluntary decision to remove his name from the ballot. The election itself cannot be said to have systemic bias if one candidate voluntarily removes their name. At the time the Obama campaign made this decision they were basically agreeing to take the risk that the Michigan delegates would be seated without their own representation, in exchange for further delegitimizing the vote in the eyes of the media. It was a smart campaign strategy, but they cannot say that they were biased against from the election setup itself.

A big mistake which only you are holding his feet to the fire for.....when I see Hillary flat out say it (not subtle innuendo)....maybe I'll agree with you.

She said it less than a week ago:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/19/784367.aspx

Her comments about his pastor have been more of a lightning rod......the VOTERS are blaming this squarely on the DNC....not Obama.  This just doens't have the legs you think it does.

The key is, Obama "blocked" it, though in reality he just didn't push it.  It's a big issue in FL/MI, and possibly with the super delegates.

Please don't take it that a lack of further responses indicates any agreement with you.  We've had too many of these round and rounds over the years, that I know better than to keep this going, even when you're wrong. ;)

GM, you've asked why it's important and if Hillary has raised it; the answer to the second question very clearly yes.  It becomes exceptionally important if the Obama margin is below the net gain that Hillary had in FL/MI, because he cannot claim that he has a majority of the delegates.  Now, he's not at that point right now, but it is very close; if it gets within that range, he can't convincingly make one of his arguments.  That is the answer to the first question.