The State of Michigan and the Democratic Party Are to Blame
The Michigan primary process was undermined in 2008 by the actions of the state’s leaders, who sought to unseat Iowa and New Hampshire from their lead positions in the primary line up by moving up the Michigan primary to January 15th. The response of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was to invalidate the Michigan primary by refusing to seat any of the state’s delegates at the Democratic National Convention. As if doubtful of its own resolve to follow through on the threat, the DNC also asked the candidates not to campaign in the state and pull their name from the ballot if the primary did, in fact, take place in January. When the smoke cleared, Hillary got 55% of the vote and “uncommitted” received 40% (generally considered votes for Barack Obama and John Edwards, two of the major candidates who removed their names from the ballot).
Now that the Democratic National Convention nears with two democratic candidates still in the race, those pesky Michigan delegates are at issue. Did anyone really think the delegates wouldn't be seated, at least in some fashion?Obama's Argument
Senator Barack Obama’s camp wanted to split Michigan’s delegates 50/50, which is a compromise to be sure, but a wash as far as the state’s vote and preference is concerned.
Clinton's Argument
Clinton’s camp wanted to seat the delegates according to the results of the January primary. Since she was the only major candidate on the ballot, this obviously would have worked to her benefit. In arguing that the primary process in Michigan was “fair” in 2008, however, she made me question my own vote for her in the primary.
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Failed to Follow Through
After months of speculation, the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) of the Democratic Party finally made a decision in regard to the seating of Michigan’s delegates –- well, if you don’t count the DNC's initial decision to not seat them at all if Michigan moved up its primary. According to Alternet.org, the state’s 128 delegates were apportioned according to a brokered deal that was said to be a “fair reflection” of the preference of Michigan democrats. The number of actual delegates seated, however, was halved, as was the number of Michigan super delegates.
Fair Reflection of Vote
The problem with the DNC’s reversal of its decision regarding the delegates is that the primary process was extremely flawed. In fact, a fair apportionment of the delegates between the two remaining candidates is next to impossible. According to The Hotline, the committee came up with a result that was termed a “fair reflection” of the preference of Michigan democrats. In fact, the committee's Co-Chair, James Roosevelt, Jr., said on CNN’s Late Edition (and as quoted in The Hotline), “…we came up with a plan that was asked for by the people from Michigan and supported by both Obama and Clinton supporters in Michigan."
In attempting to determine a "fair reflection," the committee took into account not only the results of the primary, but the Michigan exit polls and write-in votes. If the delegates were apportioned solely by primary result, Clinton would have received 73 delegates to uncommitted’s 55. The RBC instead gave Clinton 69 delegates and Obama 59.
The question is how, exactly, the Rules and Bylaws Committee came up with the result “asked for by the people from Michigan.” The only thing we know for sure is that several factors affecting the primary were not taken into account. In addition to the fact that the field of candidates was wide open back in January, democrats in the state of Michigan understood that their vote did not count. This resulted in low voter turn out. It also resulted in both democrats and republicans crossing over party lines to participate in the other party’s primary. Furthermore, the committee’s decision specifically considered write-in votes, even through the Michigan Democratic Party specifically advised against them in its Voting Guide and they were officially thrown out of the official count pursuant to Michigan's election laws.
For a more thorough discussion of the many ways in which the Michigan primary was flawed, see my blog from January.
Victory for Senator Levin
According to The Detroit News, Democratic Senator Carl Levin considers the Rights and Bylaws Committee’s decision a victory, if for no other reason than the seating of any delegates from the January primary represents an “in your face” unseating of New Hampshire and Iowa from their primo position in the primary line up. This form-over-substance attitude misses the point of the primary in the first place, which is to determine the state’s preference for a democratic presidential nominee.
Solution:
In my opinion, the Democratic Party should have paid for a Michigan caucus, a do-over if you will. After all, the state’s democratic big wigs jumped on the band wagon to move up the primary at the “expense” of the state’s vote. The DNC mucked it up further by reversing itself and calling for multiple penalties that made the primary as held a useless barometer at the point when (not if) they reversed themselves and sat the delegates. The state (and its leaders) should have accepted the original consequences set out by the Democratic Party, or the vote should have been redone so that it would constitute a legitimate reflection of the state's preference for a democratic nominee.
What do you think?
More Information:
- January Blog: Counting the Ways in Which the Michigan Primary was Flawed
- History of the Primary Process and Michigan's Decision to Move its Primary to January
