Why stop the do-overs at Florida and Michigan?
posted at 11:30 am on March 10, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
As the Democrats plod on towards delegate disaster in Denver, more and more leading party members have begun floating the notion of do-overs in Florida and Michigan. New primaries or caucuses could bring back 350 delegates into the process and might help solidify support behind a single candidate, taking the pressure off of the superdelegates before the national convention. Methodology remains a big problem, although Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) tries his best to minimize it (emphasis mine):
And there is a practical and affordable way to conduct another election that would be fair to all involved, and should gain the support of state officials. It is this: Hold a revote via a mail-in ballot, and underwrite its cost with Democratic Party funds. I’ve already discussed the idea with Republican Gov. Charlie Crist and he is supportive.
A mail-in vote — which Oregon has used successfully for years — would be cheaper, less cumbersome and more inclusive than attempting at this late hour to stage a full-fledged return to the polls. It also would give voters enough time to take a closer look at the candidates, and further study their positions on the issues. A mail-in vote would also allow us to send ballots to military voters overseas. …
Mail-in balloting, of course, poses some challenges, including matching the signature on each ballot with the signature on a voter’s registration card.
Some challenges? What possible challenges could arise? Nelson doesn’t bother to address any of them, including the only one he mentions. A few more come to mind, and will come to be included in the inevitable lawsuits later:
- Manual counting will take a lot of time
- Ballot design
- Confirmation of access (did all eligible voters receive a ballot?)
- Confirmation of receipt (did all ballots mailed get received and counted?)
- Postmarking criteria
- Access for military personnel on overseas deployment
The lawyers will undoubtedly find more when the results get published, but those will do for now; it’s just a thumbnail sketch of the complaints Democrats leveled at the 2000 election results, which had a much more reliable system in place. Unfortunately, the Democrats won’t have many other choices. Caucuses won’t work because Hillary Clinton won’t agree to them. The states have already refused to foot the bill for a real primary vote, and the state parties can’t afford them and still have a budget for the general election.
However, another question arises with this concept. Why should Florida and Michigan be the only states that get to rethink their results? After all, both states held their contests knowing full well their delegates would not get counted. Michigan especially understood that as most of the candidates removed their names from the ballot. If Florida and Michigan get to hold brand-new elections with the race narrowed to two candidates, shouldn’t other states do the same?
Iowa, for instance, caucused on January 3 and gave John Edwards a second-place win. Shouldn’t Iowa have a re-caucus in order to keep from disenfranchising the Edwards contingent? In New Hampshire, 24% of the Democratic voters chose someone other than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Even in South Carolina, 18% chose John Edwards. If these states want to pay for new primaries, should they be allowed do-overs as well, especially if they can just mail out surveys and call them reliable?
The only reason Democrats want Florida and Michigan do-overs is because they find themselves in a tight spot and want some kind of Deus ex machina to rescue them from their own folly in both their penalties for violating scheduling rules and the superdelegate structure. Florida had all of the candidates on the ballot; if the Democrats want to seat the Florida delegation, they just need to do so. Michigan will learn a hard lesson in risk management for the 2012 primaries. No one needs do-overs — they just need to follow the rules the first time. The impulse to cover the collecteive DNC backside will otherwise result in the adoption of stopgap processes that will seriously undermine the credibility of the results.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Indeed. To revote a primary based on the political climate is duplicitous.
Also, first!
Math_Mage on March 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I never realized before how much Bill Nelson resembles Jack Palance…
zeebeach on March 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I thought it was Pat Boone.
davidk on March 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Of course, they could just… let it be. I know, being rational and following the rules rather than breaking them and complaining later about getting caught must be hard for the Democrats, but just this once?
No? Okay. Let me go pop some popcorn.
amkun on March 10, 2008 at 11:42 AM
What about the issue of the Democrats that knew that the election in Michigan and Florida didn’t mean anything, switched parties and influenced the Republican primaries?
They in effect will have two votes during the primaries. I wonder if Republicans can do the same for these “do-overs”.
cat-scratch on March 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM
How about a re-do where ONLY Republicans can vote in their own primaries?
Oh, wait….”DO-OVER”. Even my childen wouldn’t allow a do-over LOL!!
Remember, those that live by the rules, sometimes die by the rules.
HarryStar on March 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Dare I pose the obvious question. If this is how they select candidates for high office does this generation of Democrats have the forsight, leadership and management skills to run this country?
I’m just askin’.
miles on March 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Great minds think alike. I would love the Republicans to challenge this process on these facts.
HarryStar on March 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM
What a complete and utter fiasco. These Democrat clowns could make a bowl of ice cream into a 2 year court case.
Democrats are completely unable to manage anything at all competently and without being completely corrupted.
Lawsuits uber alles, the national anthem of the absolutely worthless Democrat Party.
NoDonkey on March 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Frankly, what the Democrats do or don’t do is really none of our business. It’s their party and they can do whatever they jolly well please.
I’m quite certain that we would not be interested in their commentary on our internal affairs.
paul006 on March 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Man, I’m LOVIN’ this! What a bunch of maroons. Par for the party of “every vote should be counted.”
robblefarian on March 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Are one or both winner take all states? Not that I have a dog in the fight, but if they take proportions of delegates then this is an exercise in futility.
natesnake on March 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM
What’s the point if both states end up allocating delegates proportionally like all the other democrat contests? Why go through all the trouble so that one candidate can pick up five or ten more delegates than the losing candidate. They should just rock paper scissors for the nomination.
rw on March 10, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Hillary has everything to gain and Obama has everything to lose.
natesnake on March 10, 2008 at 11:49 AM
This is a perfect example of why Democrats shouldn’t be in charge of stuff.
trubble on March 10, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Democrats adhering to the rules they themselves created?! Wouldnt that be a novel thing to see?
Lunkinator on March 10, 2008 at 11:51 AM
some more challenges:
mail is inherently discriminatory to minorities, the elderly and homosexuals.
JiangxiDad on March 10, 2008 at 11:52 AM
So, what was the point again, with regard to not seating the delegates in the first place?…
All sarcasm aside, the Dems are asking for all sorts of trouble (which I will enjoy watching) by doing this. Al Sharpie is already getting his marching boots ready, and his lawyers warmed up. It will be a Blue vs. Blue duel that makes the 1968 Dem National Convention look like the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade.
Rick on March 10, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Being stuck in Michigan, I admire Nelson for at least having the courage to comment and offer an alternative. Michigan’s Senators Levin and Stabenow, bith dems remain as silent as our Dem Gov, all while the state implodes as a by-product of their collective leadership. Levin and Stabenow couldn’t even get us some pork when it was abundant.
The swirl in the bowl here in Michigan is gaining speed, the final flush is imminent.
swami on March 10, 2008 at 11:52 AM
The Dems don’t do winner-take-all. That’s why the primary’s gonna be decided by the superdelegates. Ah, democracy…
Math_Mage on March 10, 2008 at 11:52 AM
I guess ‘rules’ aren’t really ‘rules’ when you’re a Dimocrat. This is just a continuation of their temper tantrum of 2000.
GarandFan on March 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM
It’s not very smart for Democrats to disenfranchise the voters of a swing state. If they don’t want this to come back and bite them in the ass in November, they need to do something to fix this.
SoulGlo on March 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Thanks for the clarification. They would spend a lot of money for nothing.
natesnake on March 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM
If Florida is going to have a do-over for the Dems, can we have one for the GOP also?
james23 on March 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Well, yes (and No). Since Michigan was a cross-over primary, what if the Democrats voted in the Republican primary, only to be given a second vote 2 months later???
Ironic fact #2: Michigan & Florida are a re-do of Florida general election 2000. Except they only have themselves to blame.
Rove, you magnificent bastard!!
HarryStar on March 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Do overs?
Is that how they would govern?
Premature Iraq pullout leads to mass carnage: Do Over!
Raising taxes kills economy: Do Over!
Amnesty leads to 7% unemployment rate: Do Over!
Very fair…
redshirt on March 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM
If it’s for a democrat party candidate, it will be mail in and not need physical facilities and the democrat party is paying for it, what the hell does crist have to do with it. If he wanted to state his position that even Florida democrats need a voice he only had to do it once and he should have said the state was not going to pay for the democrats mess. Why is that creep still making statements about it? Let him push for a do over of the republican primaries and caucuses in iowas nad new hampshire with only republicans voting.
peacenprosperity on March 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Since the do over effectively elimates the Democratic party’
s ability to dictate any terms about the parameters of primary voting to state parties, why not put the 2012 primary vote on the same ballot. And just for spice I should be able to vote for Jambalaya, my favorite of my 5 cats. I’m not a Democrat but Jambalaya is and with the weakening of all rules, that should be enough to give me a ballot. Jambalaya is not technically a citizen but he is a hard working, family cat who should not be denied the American dream.
snaggletoothie on March 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM
HOw sweet to see the donkeys hoisted on their own petart.
Labamigo on March 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM
As has been pointed out, and will be pointed out again and again, the Democratic parties of Florida and Michigan made their decision to proceed–to frankly flip the national party the bird–knowing full well what the likely action from the DNC was going to be. I see no reason to not treat this in the exact same way as the child who is repeatedly warned not to reach into the cookie jar, does so anyway, and is now trying to get out of punishment when he finally realizes the parent is going to be firm.
The parent should be firm, or else the Democrats are going to cement (if hardened cement could be even more cemented) their reputation as the party that will never say a process is fair unless they can set the outcome in advance, and will only play by the rules if they like the result.
Second, it shows what every parent should know–don’t make threats unless you intend to carry them out. It a.) destroys your credibility if you don’t, and b.) may not have been really what you wanted to do in the first place.
Since both of the above issues highlight my contention that statesmanship and maturity seem to be on permanent vacation from the Democratic Party (and that they are thus incapable of assuming the mantle of leadership for this nation), I personally hope they do a revote…
But on the slight chance the Dems care about how they are viewed by those not drinking the Kool-Aid, then the appropriate action would be to say that the results and decisions so far stand, and that they will address the issue of primary structure at a special session of the party, and that is what would be the appropriate forum for grievances to be aired and for decision-makers to either stand their ground or fall on their swords as necessary for leading them into this mess.
For the entire Dem primary arrangement shows that the Democratic Party has very little understanding of human nature or of how to create Madisonian arrangements that harness human nature for virtuous political purposes. Instead, they put in noble-sounding theory, trying to act “smart”, without ever really thinking the second-order effects through.
Horatius on March 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Awesome!
LOL!
tlynch001 on March 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM
We really need to bring this kind of incompetence to a leadership role in WDC.
jukin on March 10, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I’m going to have to invest in popcorn futures. The only scary thing is that one of the two clowns might get into the WH.
rbj on March 10, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Does this apply to other matters, say Chinese human rights violations, as well? What about cat-scratch on March 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM’s argument that Democrats might have crossed over and affected the Republican race? What about the fact that we’re all Americans and this affects us all?
student on March 10, 2008 at 12:41 PM
IRONY SCHADENFREUD:
Can’t help but find it highly entertaining to watch the Democrats, who always show disdain for laws which apply to everyone but which inconvenience THEM, are now having problems with “rules” of their own making!!
If they handle it like they handle everything else, we can expect one or more of the following responses:
1. Cast the rule aside with some comment like “oh well”.
2. Blame someone else for the controversy: preferably George Bush, Bill Chaney, or Ken Starr.
3. Claim “It’s an Internal Matter” and refuse to answer any questions.
4. Claim that they “lost the documents” which spell out the rule.
5. Claim that anyone who questions the outcome is “racist” or “sexist”.
landlines on March 10, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Two-car funeral.
mymanpotsandpans on March 10, 2008 at 12:47 PM
How many people will be given a pack of cigarettes in exchange for their mail-in ballot? :D
Chakra Hammer on March 10, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Sell your mail-in ballot on ebay.. >:D
Chakra Hammer on March 10, 2008 at 12:52 PM
WOW!!! I love it Ed…These Democrat folks are the same ones actually in charge of the 2000 Florida vote in the areas questioned then…and they have, yet again, found a way to totally swirl the election process into a joke.
Me thinks their hanging chads are showing!
Duke
DukeofDeLand on March 10, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Obama wasn’t on the Michigan ballot. How do you proprotionately dispense delegates? There has been talk of simply counting all “uncommitted” votes to Obama but that seems to run counter to the arguments made in Florida 2000. After all, who is to say that it wasn’t Edwards supporters that rejected Hillary.
Two big questions in my mind:
First, why did Florida and Michigan hold primaries if they knew their delegates wouldn’t be seated? It would have been messy but a whole lot cleaner if these weren’t “do over” scenarios.
Second, What happens to popular vs. delegate counts at the convention if Clinton has the delegates but Obama has the popular vote? That is the Florida 2000 scenario where Gore was “robbed” of the Presidency by the electoral count. The DNC spin machines will be in overdrive to explain how “the popular vote” should be discounted after all the crap that they have said about the Bush Presidency.
highhopes on March 10, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Great post.
I would bet that Michigan moved up specifically for Romney since his dad was a former governor there and all.
If all the states had not moved up to Feb 5 and kept their dates as originally intended, this would be a far more interesting election process.
But NOOOO, we want to be important, we want to be first, wah wah wah messed up a really good election campaign.
North Carolina might be more important than any of the Feb 5 states and we don’t vote until May. We can register as late as April. . . .anyone want to buy my vote?
ThackerAgency on March 10, 2008 at 1:06 PM
The Richard J. Daley election program has been generalized.
REPEAT
Whether dead or alive Vote early;
Vote often on primary election day;
Fix another primary election day
UNTIL (no one cares anymore) OR 6-Nov-08
Annar on March 10, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Let’s see:
1. Osamabama gets the nomination and wins the national. A year later courts say do-over. Billary wins nomination. Then we do-over the national election?
a. Billary wins.
b. Mac wins.
2. Osamabama gets the nomination and loses the national. A
year later courts say do-over. Billary wins nomination. Then we do-over the national election?
a. Billary loses.
b. Mac loses.
Now reverse the names.
Now factor in if one is VP for the other.
Pass the popcorn.
davidk on March 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM
That’s right. And don’t forget “the poor.” If they can’t afford to go to the DMV to pick up a (free) photo I.D. to show at their polling place, then surely they can’t afford to go to the post office to mail a ballot.
AZCoyote on March 10, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Banana Democratic.
Midas on March 10, 2008 at 1:33 PM
This is fun to watch. The political elites have designed the system so they can select the nominee. Now that they’ve got their wish, they’re painted into a corner. They want to select Hillary, but Obama has gotten too much attention and votes. Now they want to punt and have a re-do and throw it back to the voters. Of course, that’s the way it should be, but they’ll gladly suspend their “selection process” in order to bail their sorry arses out. What a bunch of morons.
orlandocajun on March 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM
I don’t think anyone is happy with the primaries or caucuses.
Maybe we should start all of them over again.
Like a big national “Do-Over”. Yeah.
We can keep voting and voting and voting until we get what we want, or until everyone gets tired of voting.
Lawrence on March 10, 2008 at 1:43 PM
You make excellent points Ed, but might I remind you that you are a Republican and this is the Democrat primary and that if they want to have a meth-crazed spider monkey pick their candidate at random, that is their prerogative. Now I’m not sayin’ that said spider monkey would do at least as good a job as the current train-wreck, but I’m not sayin’ it wouldn’t either.
Immolate on March 10, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I would bet that Michigan moved up specifically for Romney since his dad was a former governor there and all.
Huh?
Romney we Michigan Governor 40 years ago. Mitt had nothing to do with michigan moving it’s date and everything to do with trying to make Michigan more relevant to the process. And it looks like my elected lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum have succeeded, masterfully.
Michigan leads the nation in highest unemployment rate for a state not named Louisiana. The unemployment rate is hovering just under 8%. Michigan leads the nation in outbound one-way moving (per U-Haul and North American Van Lines). We lead in foreclosures.
Personally, I want to see BO and HRC come here and tell everyone how they are going to create jobs. Now, THAT will be worth seeing!
My guess…they both blame Bush and it will work.
swami on March 10, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I would love a do over for both parties
Conservative Voice on March 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM
The whole process is twisted but simple to fix.
registered republicans only vote in republican primaries.
registered democrats only vote in democratic primaries.
independants, greenies etc wait until the general election to vote.
Do away with the cacus system..one person one vote. Assign delegates in proportion to votes. Have all primaries for a party on the same day (i.e Dems April 1st, reps April 15th).
This avoids these dragged out primaries on both sides andallows the parties to put forth their candidate of choice..no crossover or indie influence.
Who gets ‘disinfranchised” us indies and third party supporters…but since we choose not to affilate with a major party it is our own fault.
JKotthoff on March 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I would love a do over with that hot project manager I used to work with.
Alden Pyle on March 10, 2008 at 2:35 PM
How about a republican do over.
with only huck and mac man on the ticket in SC
How about that in Missouri , Florida– would it make a difference. Maybe.
I know some of you would rather eat your young than vote for either. Those comments aside, if they get to why not us. LOL
kara26 on March 10, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Yeah, we need a Republican ‘do-over’. Preferably with only REAL republicans as candidates and registered republicans as voters.
The primary system as it is currently organized totally sucks.
I call for a nationwide presidential primary for both parties held in every state on the same day… Say on April 15th. ;-)
The way it is now a few states that are NOT representative of the the ‘Average American’ essentially get to decide for the rest of us.
I can’t believe that more people aren’t screaming about this. Talk about disenfranchisement. Our primary isn’t until June… As if there is any actual choice NOW, much less four months from now.
LegendHasIt on March 10, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Sorry; I wasn’t plagiarizing… I didn’t read the comments before I posted. GMTA
LegendHasIt on March 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Hmmmm, this time I’ll vote for Huck because I know Mitt is going to fold like a cheap suit and hand it to Juanny Mac. I’m not a Huck fan but I did enjoy seeing him hold out so long. Yep, do over’s for everyone and if they won’t let us we’ll just keep W in for another 4 years.
Buzzy on March 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM
The plot thickens. Someday they’ll make a movie of the DNC ‘08 Saga.
OneGyT on March 10, 2008 at 5:44 PM
I have my popcorn ready when people yell Hillary or Obama stole the election.
hadsil on March 10, 2008 at 6:01 PM
I like the way Clinton supporters are suggesting that Obama’s victories don’t count, since they come from states that the Dems aren’t going to carry anyway. Can we GOPers use that, and cancel out all the delegates from states like NY, CA, NJ et al, which we know wouldn’t be voting for the GOP, and then restart the GOP primaries in the rest of the states? That way, most of the GOP states are caucus states where Romney, like Obama, consistently outperformed his opponents, and then we’ll have it running smoothly. Of course, we’d have to do something about the Huckster, but we’ll come up with it.
Rush is right - it’s priceless watching the Dems squeal about the Republican crossover voters mucking up their primary - particularly when the GOP primary was prematurely
abortedcompleted with the party being left with aMarxist-Leninistmoderate for a candidate. Hopefully, the Dems in NH, IA, SC and MI will think 10 times the next time they think about sabotaging the GOP primary.infidelpride on March 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Let’s just cancel the 2008 Presidential election altogether, and give Bush and Cheney a third term. By 2012, the Dem lawyers will have finally figured out what went wrong.
If this political party is so incompetent in how they chose their Presidential candidate, why should we trust them with our national security?
Unbelievable.
Del Dolemonte on March 10, 2008 at 7:08 PM