2008 Woodie Awards
Should Michigan and Florida primary votes count?
Mike Maio
Issue date: 3/26/08 Section: Issues
The question of how to handle Florida and Michigan's rogue Democratic primaries has loomed over the presidential race for some time. But only in the past several weeks, as it has become apparent that neither Sen. Hillary Clinton nor Sen. Barack Obama will be able to clinch the nomination before the Democratic convention, has the problem come to the forefront of the democratic campaigns.
The most unfortunate aspect of the debate so far is that there has been relatively little discussion of the motives that led Florida and Michigan to violate party rules and hold early primaries, even though they knew they would have their delegates stripped. Why would they do that?
There are a couple of explanations, each of which is likely to be at least partly true. One possibility is that neither state believed that the DNC would actually follow through on its threat to strip their delegates. So allowing the delegates to be seated now - or allowing the states to hold mulligan primaries or caucuses in June, as some have proposed - would simply encourage other states to follow Florida and Michigan's example in the future. However, such actions would result in a complete loss of accountability and consistency in the primary process.
The second possibility, and the one that is most compelling, is that party leaders in Florida and Michigan made a calculated decision to sacrifice their delegates, ironically, in order to increase their states' influence. In 2004, the Democratic primary was effectively over after less than half the states had voted, and John Kerry arguably closed the deal after winning just Iowa and New Hampshire. States with later primaries or caucuses had no say in the choice of the party's nominee. This year, while leaders from Florida and Michigan knew their states would have no official voice at the convention, they would be no worse off than in past years when de facto disenfranchisement of their states prevailed. By holding early contests, the reasoning went, at least the two states could potentially have an impact on the campaign by driving the media coverage and influencing the candidates' momentum in the critical early stages of primary season.
The most unfortunate aspect of the debate so far is that there has been relatively little discussion of the motives that led Florida and Michigan to violate party rules and hold early primaries, even though they knew they would have their delegates stripped. Why would they do that?
There are a couple of explanations, each of which is likely to be at least partly true. One possibility is that neither state believed that the DNC would actually follow through on its threat to strip their delegates. So allowing the delegates to be seated now - or allowing the states to hold mulligan primaries or caucuses in June, as some have proposed - would simply encourage other states to follow Florida and Michigan's example in the future. However, such actions would result in a complete loss of accountability and consistency in the primary process.
The second possibility, and the one that is most compelling, is that party leaders in Florida and Michigan made a calculated decision to sacrifice their delegates, ironically, in order to increase their states' influence. In 2004, the Democratic primary was effectively over after less than half the states had voted, and John Kerry arguably closed the deal after winning just Iowa and New Hampshire. States with later primaries or caucuses had no say in the choice of the party's nominee. This year, while leaders from Florida and Michigan knew their states would have no official voice at the convention, they would be no worse off than in past years when de facto disenfranchisement of their states prevailed. By holding early contests, the reasoning went, at least the two states could potentially have an impact on the campaign by driving the media coverage and influencing the candidates' momentum in the critical early stages of primary season.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Burt
posted 4/03/08 @ 11:26 PM CST
But . . . Did it actually work?
Post a Comment