Was the Michigan January election fair and legitimate?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:38:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Was the Michigan January election fair and legitimate?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: Was the Michigan January election fair and legitimate?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 51

Author Topic: Was the Michigan January election fair and legitimate?  (Read 3726 times)
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: March 25, 2008, 12:52:05 AM »

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.

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.

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




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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: March 25, 2008, 01:14:16 AM »



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)
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: March 26, 2008, 12:15:58 AM »

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?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: March 26, 2008, 12:31:57 AM »

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.
Logged
kevinatcausa
Rookie
**
Posts: 196
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 26, 2008, 01:15:03 AM »
« Edited: March 26, 2008, 01:18:38 AM by kevinatcausa »

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

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. 




Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 26, 2008, 01:16:02 AM »

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.....

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.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 26, 2008, 01:26:53 AM »

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

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 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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 26, 2008, 08:23:41 AM »



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)

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.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 26, 2008, 09:12:16 AM »



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)

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
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 26, 2008, 12:19:49 PM »



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)

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.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: March 26, 2008, 12:30:38 PM »



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)

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.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: March 26, 2008, 01:26:59 PM »



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)

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. Wink
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: March 26, 2008, 01:41:48 PM »


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. Wink

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 15 queries.