Was the Michigan January election fair and legitimate?

[Smid]

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guess is he would have changed his vote to vote "uncommitted" - and that's assuming that Obama for whatever reason had withdrawn his name even expecting the delegates to be seated.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

[Smid]

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delegates would end up counting, my guess is he would have changed his vote to vote for Clinton - or if Hillary had withdrawn her name and Obama was the only one on the ballot, perhaps he would have voted uncommitted to show opposition to Obama.

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.   

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Smid]

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.

[Smid]

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.