Was the Michigan January election fair and legitimate?

[Beet]

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guess is he would have changed his vote to vote "uncommitted" - and that's assuming that Obama for whatever reason had withdrawn his name even expecting the delegates to be seated.

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delegates would end up counting, my guess is he would have changed his vote to vote for Clinton - or if Hillary had withdrawn her name and Obama was the only one on the ballot, perhaps he would have voted uncommitted to show opposition to Obama.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

[Beet]

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Beet]

It's the Democrat's fault for this disaster.

Which Democrat?

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.

[Beet]

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.

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.