Re-voting in Florida and Michigan

Should there be re-voting in Florida and Michigan? And who does it benefit?

The feeling out there now appears to be that any involvement of these two states would help Senator Clinton. She's got the deficit of delegates and more states are if she feels she's found a new voice with more negative campaigning then this means more voter on which to try out her new message.

But what sort of arguments will compel people to agree that Florida and Michigan should re-vote?

Clearly, the idea of counting every vote resonates with Democrats. On the surface it seems like the only fair approach, and that's how it will be argued (I expect).

There is a "rules are rules" counterargument, but also the argument that any re-voting is giving those state parties another chance that other people don't get. It could be argued that they had their chance to stop their party from moving the primary, and they made their choice. Now that the consequences have come due, some people feel it was a bad choice. Why should we be sympathetic now when they didn't make more of an effort back then? If they get to re-vote, why not let other early states re-vote, too? You can always argue that we know more now than we did then.

Who will be arguing for and against re-voting, and what will the most compelling argument be? And what will the Democratic Party decide?


Technorati : , , , ,

9 comments:

Julie said...

I don't know how much say (or knowledge) those people had in moving their primary, but I don't blame them for wanting to have it sooner. With other states changing their primary dates too, they couldn't have guessed that their votes would still be worth something if they'd waited till March.

I do blame both the state and national party leadership for not working this out beforehand. Of course they don't deserve a second chance, but I am more concerned about the voters.

If you really want to disgust Democrats in Florida and Michigan, then saying no to a revote - a first, not second, chance at getting an accurate outcome - is a great strategy. I don't remember if Michigan is a swing state or not, but Florida is. To alienate those voters is lunacy.

Their Republican governor is willing to foot the bill - probably because he thinks Clinton will win. I'd prefer that she didn't win, but I don't feel that that's a good enough reason to shut those voters out. I can't think of anything that's a good enough reason to shut voters out.

If they get to re-vote, why not let other early states re-vote, too?

Because the candidates were allowed to campaign in the other states, and the voters weren't told that their votes wouldn't count. Those people had a chance to vote in good faith. FL and MI people did not.

Maggie said...

Obviously many of us had hoped that Obama would appear the clear leader after yesterday, superdelegates would commit, and then the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

I'm wondering if there's still a chance for that. There really isn't a chance that Clinton will emerge as the clear leader because she trails Obama in pledged delegates and realistically has no chance of catching him (unless something really changes).

I'm sure there's A Very Good Reason, but why on earth can't we all vote on the same day? The last states usually feel disenfranchised, which is why states want to move their primaries up. Why can't it make sense?

Dr. Momentum said...

I agree with your point that there is a chance they will antagonize voters. Strategically, this should be considered.

However, I disagree that this has anything to do with whether they should have or could have imagined this close primary situation. Why not shift to the beefy Super Tuesday? Why didn't any Democrats in those states complain when the rules don't leave Dean any choice?

Because they traded "having their votes count" for "being on the news."

The argument that will likely win is "let the people vote" because it's clear and simple. But I don't find it more valid.

Of course Dean knows Hillary will win. We all know how crooked Florida politics are. ;)

Dr. Momentum said...

Maggie: It gives the candidates a chance to campaign all over the country, and tailor their message to different sectors for consumption.

Voting all at the same time would spare us this, but it would also likely favor the large population centers.

I think you actually have more of a chance for progressive candidates with this system. Painful as it is right now.

Abacquer said...

I think a revote in Florida and Michigan is necessary. If we don't like superdelegates because allowing them to cast votes ignores the will of the people, then we can't be behind states delegates not being seated at the convention. And since the ballots didn't include all the candidates, the primary that they should have had, will have to be had now. That's my opinion on the matter.

RadioKeri said...

A deal is a deal. She agreed -- just like everyone else -- that these states would be punished for causing an avalanche of early primary jockeying. If she didn't agree -- she shouldn't have agreed and SIGNED that agreement with the Democratic Party. No fair changing the game mid way just because you're behind in delegates.

Dr. Momentum said...

There isn't an issue of seating those delegates based on the primaries that were held in Florida and Michigan. The delegates were forfeit as soon as they held the primaries. It's not even worth discussing because even Howard Dean can't put the toothpaste back into that tube. It isn't a matter of possibly doing that, the Democratic Party rules forbid it.

Before these primaries were held Florida and Michigan agreed to those rules. And then later decided to break them.

The new issue is a suggestion of whether the primaries should be held again.

Yet the delegates were already forfeit. Holding a new primary doesn't suddenly create new delegates.

Do the voters in Florida and Michigan deserve another vote? I think what they deserve is a kick in the behind for not just following the rules, like other state parties seem to have been able to do. Then we might not have had this headache.

I'm thinking that the head of the Democratic party organizations in Florida and Michigan must be Republicans.

Julie said...

I love the idea of having all the primaries on the same day. I realize that this creates a problem for candidates who would like to be able to hit *each* state at the last minute; but the world is so much smaller now than it used to be. You can follow these campaigns online and all over TV and through newspapers and blogs.

It's not as if you're going to see them when they visit six weeks before the primary and then forget that they existed... unless they completely fail to resonate with you.

I really think this idea needs to get resurrected every four years until it happens. Give us our Martes Gigante! (Just trying to give it a more festive sound.)

Julie said...

Just to be clear, my concern about the revote is that I'm very worried that they will attempt to seat the delegates based on the first primary, even though they said it wasn't valid.

Because if there's one thing that's worse than excluding a whole state's votes, it's counting votes in an primary that people were told wouldn't count. Because all the people who stayed home will feel that they were tricked, and that's even worse than being excluded.