In the ongoing arguments over super delegates and Michigan / Florida, it is important that we all realize that these arguments are over values and morals, not rules. This is because the arguments from supporters of both Obama and Clinton concerning super delegates and Michigan / Florida are not against the rules.
- Super Delegates. There is nothing in the DNC rules and bylaws that indicate how super delegates should vote. If super delegates wanted to form a block where they decided, en masse, to support the popular vote winner, that would not be against the rules. Conversely, if super delegates decided, en masse, to reject the popular vote winner and side with a different candidate, that would also not be against the rules. Both of these scenarios, and everything in between, are not against the rules of the nomination contest as set down by the DNC in 2007.
- Florida / Michigan. While the DNC voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their pledged delegates back in 2007, that was never the final say in the process. Rather, all along the final say in the process would go to the DNC Credentials Committee, which will assume authority over the matter in mid-June. This entire time, the process has been as follows:
- The DNC has ruled that Michigan and Florida have no pledged delegates. That ruling still stands.
- Michigan and Florida state parties held primaries anyway.
- Michigan and Florida state parties are creating delegations based on the results of those primaries.
- Those delegations will be accepted or rejected, entirely or partially, by the DNC credentials committee from June through August.
Those are, and always were, the actual rules. If the DNC credentials committee accepts the delegations sent by the state parties, then the rules will have been followed. If the DNC credentials committee rejects the delegations, then the rules will have been followed. If the DNC credentials committee partially accepts and partially rejects the delegations, then the rules will have been followed. In other words, the positions from both campaigns, that Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated as they currently stand, and that the Michigan and Florida delegations should not be seated as they currently stand, both fall within the rules as set down before the start of the process.
Neither campaign's position on either of these issues is in violation of the rules as they were set down before the convention. This is an important point that I think is being missed during all of these arguments. Neither the Clinton nor the Obama campaigns are suggesting courses of action that violate the rules.
The arguments over delegates are not about rules. The arguments are, instead, about values. Specifically, they are over these values:
- Super delegates: On one side, there are those who argue that super delegates should respect the will of primary voters and caucus goers above all else. As such, super delegates should ratify the popular choice of the voters--perhaps best measured as the pledged delegate leader--at the convention. On the other side, there are those who think it is perfectly acceptable for super delegates to act as free agents, and they should not feel obligated to take the will of primary voters and caucus goers into account when decideding who to vote for at the convention.
I strongly fall into the former camp. Democratic leaders have made it clear on numerous occasions that they don't care what the Democratic and progressive rank and file think about any number of things. If they also demonstrate that they don't care about our votes, then I am outta here. I refuse to be a member of a party where its leaders don't even care about how its members vote. Respect your sisters and your brothers, or stop claiming to represent them.
- Florida / Michigan. Unlike the super delegate issue, this is not a clear binary. Rather there are two binaries that combine in different ways, and even have internal subdivisions. The first binary pits those who consider the Michigan and Florida primaries to be democratic processes that must be respected, versus those who think that Florida and Michigan primaries were not democratic processes and thus should not be respected. There are also those who think that Florida was democratic, but Michigan was not. Personally, I fall into that camp. Michigan and Florida voters were exposed to more than a year of national campaigning, and were hardly making an uninformed choice just because no one campaigned explicitly in either state via paid media, direct mail, field operations, or rallies. However, because all names were not on the Michigan ballot, the situation in Michigan is different than in Florida.
The second binary is between those who think that Michigan and Florida should have a say in who determines the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008, and those who think that Michigan and Florida forfeited those rights by changing their primary dates. In this case, I fall into the former camp. First, the Democratic nominee should be the choice of Democratic primary and caucus participants no matter where those voters and caucus goers live. Second, if Michigan and Florida are not allowed a say, then their voters are punished for the actions of their state legislatures. Third, both Iowa and New Hampshire also moved their dates in violation of DNC rules, so I would consider that selective enforcement. For all of these reasons, the higher moral ground rests with giving Michigan and Florida a say.
In short, I think the results of the Florida primary should stand. In Michigan, I do not know what the best alternative would be, but I do have ideas. A revote via a caucus is not very democratic, but neither is a vote when the names of several major candidates were not on the ballot. One alternative would be to allocate between 42 and 55 of Michigan's 55 uncommitted delegates to Barack Obama since, according to exit polls, he had more than three times the support of Edwards in Michigan. I would be in favor of that alternative, or of a revote via a caucus. While neither is a perfect solution, both are superior to giving Hillary Clinton a 73-0 advantage in delegates from Michigan at the convention, which would be an absurd and offensive interpretation of the will of Michigan voters.
This is not an argument over rules, but over values. Party leaders, also known as super delegates, should respect the wishes of party voters and caucus goers and ratify the pledged delegate leader as the nominee. Further, as part of America, Michigan and Florida voters should have a say in how our nominee is determined. Voters in those states should also not be selectively punished for the actions of their state legislatures. This means that the credentials committee should accept the delegation as sent by the Florida Democratic Party. It also means that the credentials committee should ratify a delegation from Michigan that accepts the will of voters in that state. Specifically, either a delegation of 73 Clinton nad 55 Obama, or a new delegation, determined by new caucuses, would accomplish that goal.
This isn't about rules. All of the arguments we have seen fall within the rules. This is instead about the values we want our party to uphold. The will of the voters should be observed. Everyone should get an equal say. The best available means in 2008 to make the latter two principles happen should be respected. That is where I stand, and those are the values I want my party to uphold. I urge all Democratic primary voters and caucus participants to uphold these values as well.
And let me add one final point: if your "values" in these delegate arguments are simply to get your favorite candidate elected, or simply to nominate the candidate you think is most electable, then you suck. |
