In yesterday's article, Delegate Arguments Are Based On Values, Not Rules, I argued both that there was no rule preventing super delegates from upholding democratic principles by voting en masse for the popular vote / pledged delegate winner, and that there was no rule preventing the DNC credentials committee from upholding democratic values by seating a Florida delegation based on the results of the January 29th Democratic primary. In response, many, many people have argued that the Florida primary was undemocratic because of voter expectations in the primary. Consider, for example, the following comment from Open Left user Spectatus, which was recommended by no less than nine other users (which is a lot for Open Left):
This plays into your democratic/non-democratic binary, but one of the reasons that MI and FL were seriously flawed is that in addition to not campaigning, many voters could have -- perhaps correctly -- believed that there was no point in voting since the DNC had stated that the states would not have delegates.
On this theory, the two states were not democratic, even if everyone was on the ballot: a basic precondition of a fair vote, i.e., the wide expectation that it would be followed, was missing.
Now, I hate calling out individual commenters, but I am only doing so here as an example of an argument I have heard many times before. Specifically, the argument is that the Florida Democratic primary was undemocratic because many Floridians thought their votes would not count, and thus did not turn out. It is true that many Floridians did not turnout, since Florida is one of only four states so far in 2008 to have lower Democratic turnout than Republican turnout (Michigan, Utah and Arizona are the other three). However, this argument is still an utterly insufficient reason for voiding the election altogether. In the extended entry, I provide four rebuttals:
First, it is a fool's game to try and enter the heads of voters, and assume that most of them thought their votes would not count. Among the 1.7 million Floridians who did vote in the Democratic primary, quite a few of them probably thought that their votes did matter and would count. In fact, it would not be a stretch to argue that most of them thought that their votes would matter. At best, there were conflicting expectations among the Florida Democratic electorate.
Second, there is no evidence to indicate that the voters who did not turnout to vote favored one candidate more than another. None whatsoever. In fact, According to both Pollster.com, Obama over-performed pre-election, post-South Carolina polls, although only because Obama received all of the undecideds. According to Real Clear Politics, pre-election polls were precisely on target. If anything, the lower turnout hurt Clinton, not Obama. Truthfully, it probably didn't change the outcome at all.
Third, those who expected their votes not to matter were misinformed. While I think I am just about the only person pointing this out, all along the Florida Democratic Party vowed to send a delegation to the convention based on the results of the primary, and all along, sometime in June or July the DNC credentials committee would determine if that delegation would be partially or entirely accepted or rejected. These were always the rules, and nothing has changed. Further, odds have always been heavily in favor of the delegation being entirely accepted by the credentials committee, both because there will probably be a presumptive nominee by mid-June and because it is difficult for the Obama campaign to develop a compelling enough reason to piss off such a huge swing state. Even though it was not explained very well to the voters, by far the most likely scenario was always that results the primary would stand. Sure, some will complain about the inaccurate expectations created for some voters based on the DNC's decision to temporarily strip Florida's pledged delegates, but I would counter that if inaccurate media narratives disqualified an election from being democratic, then this country has never had a democratic election, ever.
Fourth, with the expectations argument answered, exactly what was undemocratic about the Florida Democratic primary, anyway? All candidates were on the ballot, and all of the voters were exposed to an entire year of national campaigning. Personally, I don't see paid media, field operations, direct mail, or local campaign rallies as necessary pre-requisites for democracy to take place. Yes, the media was not doing a good job informing voters about the campaign, and Florida voters were not exposed to quite as much campaigning as were voters in other states, but those are extremely flimsy and selective grounds to throw out an election altogether. What other elections should be disqualified because Obama and Clinton did not spend enough campaign resources there? What other elections should be disqualified because voters did not fully understand the Byzantine delegate selection rules to the national convention? What other elections should be disqualified because the news media did not do a good job of informing voters? If these are the criteria to be used, then I would have to say all of them.
Now, I am not arguing that the DNC should convene some sort of special session to give Florida it's pledged delegates back. Instead, it should follow the process that was laid down at the start of the campaign: let the credentials committee deal with it once it takes control over the process in mid-June. I also don't think that Florida's projected pledged delegates should be included in the running delegate totals. The fact is that right now Florida does not have any pledged delegates, and until they do those delegates should not be included. Further, the ultimate purpose of the DNC's original decision was not for Florida to be denied a full delegation at the convention, but rather for Florida to have as little impact on the course of the nomination campaign as possible. Specifically, the DNC sought to for Florida to have no impact on either media / momentum narratives, or in the running delegate count. So far, with minimal coverage of the Democratic Florida results in the week following January 29th, and with no news organization including Florida's delegate counts in their running totals, the DNC's punishment has held firm.
What I am saying is that when the DNC credentials committee takes authority over the matter in mid-June, they should, at that time, approve Florida's delegation as determined by the results of the January 29th primary (and then, at that time, those delegates should be included in the running delegate totals). There is no compelling reason to void the results of Florida's primary that does not also apply to the primaries and caucuses of dozens of other states nationwide. Virtually no voters understand their local delegate selection process. Almost every voter has been exposed to inaccurate media narratives. After a year of national coverage, the different amounts of exposure to the campaigns among Floridians and non-Floridians is minimal. Also, the DNC's punishment has achieved its goal, as Florida has been denied a major role in the horserace to date. The sentence for changing the primary date has been served.
Sometime in June or July, the DNC credentials committee should, and probably will, seat a Florida delegation that is based on the results of the Florida Democratic primary. This is the most democratic thing to do within the rules that were set down before the start of the campaign. Michigan is another matter, but as far as Florida is concerned, there is no compelling reason to separate their delegation from the results of the January 29th primary.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
