Democracy Is Apparently Overrated When You Are Behind

For the last few weeks there has been a plot slowly unfolding in the background of the Democratic primary. This subplot, if you will, is Hillary Clinton’s most flagrant attempt to hijack the Democratic process to date. The scheme I’m referring to is of course the Michigan-Florida delegate controversy, which she is currently in the process of shamelessly exploiting for her own political gain, to the detriment of the Democratic Party and the entire Democratic process.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, let me give you the quick and dirty. Last year Democratic Party leadership in both states decided to defy the rules set down by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and move back their primary dates earlier than February 5th which, according to the rules, was supposed to be the earliest date for states not given special permission to hold their primary sooner. The purpose of the rule was to keep some semblance of order in the primary, so that the whole thing didn’t become a mad race to January 1st. 48 states followed these rules, 2 did not. The Democratic leadership in both states was warned of the consequences in advance: if you break the rules, your state will lose its delegates at the Democratic Convention where the eventual presidential nominee is chosen. Michigan and Florida broke the rules anyway, and so the DNC stripped their delegates of their right to vote at the Convention. All of the presidential candidates promised not to campaign in these states, and it was agreed, by everyone, that Michigan and Florida would not count in the election. So Michigan had its primary, Hillary won Michigan with 55% of the vote, to “Uncommitted”, who got 40% of the vote (Hillary was the only 1st tier candidate to not take their name off of the ballot). In Florida Hillary won with 50% of the vote, to Obama’s 33% and John Edwards’ 14%.

So okay, they held elections that everyone agreed didn’t matter, because they had no delegates, thus no say in the nomination, because they had broken the rules, which were established for a very good reason (to keep the Democratic Party from total chaos), even though they knew the consequence of this would be every Democratic voter in those states being disenfranchised. Seems pretty cut and dry. It was. Even Hillary agreed:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

That is until it was in Hillary’s best interest to change the rules mid-game. After her loss in Iowa, and her big loss in South Carolina, Hillary was in desperate need of a “win”, so she looked for one in the only place possible: outside the rules. She didn’t show any care for the disenfranchised voters of Michigan or Florida until she needed to exploit their plight for her political gain. After the South Carolina defeat she suddenly came down with a bad case of caring. All of the sudden seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida (who had voted for her, because she had the benefit of being the “default” candidate in a race that was basically based on name recognition) became a moral issue, their voices must be heard! (It kind of reminds one of the sudden moral importance of limiting the accessibility of voters in Las Vegas just hours after the dominate union in the area voted to endorse her opponent--but of course that was good disenfranchisement, because it benefited her.)

So basically Hillary was just fine with not giving voters in Michigan and Florida a voice, and fine with imposing a campaigning ban there which essentially served to freeze her lead there by not allowing for competing exposure and information. Then as soon as both these states predictably hand her victories, she suddenly wants to lift the ban, and let the delegates vote for her at the Convention, even though the elections were in no way fair to her opponents. So at this point we are stuck. The voters of Michigan and Florida were disenfranchised, at the sole fault of their state Party leadership. Hillary wants to exploit the situation to her political advantage, to basically give herself free uncontested bonus delegates. Most everyone outside of the Hillary camp sees this as a completely unfair, an utterly transparent and shameless attempt to snatch up delegates because she is on the verge of losing the election because too many voters in states with real elections would rather have Obama as their nominee.

So how to solve this? Hillary of course wants to seat the delegates as they stand now, so she gets the majority of their votes, with basically no effort. This cannot happen for obvious reasons. First, the elections were not fair, so the votes are essentially invalid and should not be allowed to sway the outcome of the election. Second, 48 states and a handful of territories followed the rules, and seating the delegates of the 2 states that broke the rules would be a huge slap in the face of these law abiding states. Also, if the DNC isn’t able to enforce its own rules, the Democratic Party will be in a state of anarchy. The next election will be a disaster as all states will know there are no rules, so anything goes. Needless to say, seating the delegates as they are is not an option, no matter how much Hillary would love to distort the system for her advantage.

Obama, Howard Dean and the DNC understand that this is unfair, and would rather have Michigan and Florida hold new elections in the summer (after the 48 states that actually obeyed the rules), and let both Hillary and Obama campaign their equally. This makes sure order is maintained, Michigan and Florida are penalized by having their primaries moved to the back of the line, yet the voters in the states are given a voice, and that voice will be based on fair campaigning as all candidates will have equal access to the voters. Hillary opposes this option not because it is unfair, but because it doesn’t benefit her. Once again, see how it has nothing to do with fairness or Democracy or the voters, it is all about what will benefit her the most. What a humanitarian.

Today Al Sharpton hit the nail on the head, Hillary isn’t fooling anyone:

"I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic Party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice," Sharpton said in a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

"As former presidential candidates we both know that, whether we liked them or not, we adhered to the rules set forth by the Democratic Party to select its nominee for president.”

"That claim, if true, should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters," Sharpton wrote. "To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument."

There could be a potential problem with this however, as an article from a couple days ago mentioned, the cost of holding new elections might be prohibitive. So what can we do? We have three options:

1) Bite the bullet and spend the millions to hold new elections in both states and have them seat their delegates last after fair campaigning. This is a win for everyone but Hillary, who would rather Democracy not get in the way of her candidacy.

2) Decide the costs are prohibitive, and leave the delegates stripped of their voting status. This is obviously not a good option for anyone.

3) There is one possibility that makes this all go away at no cost, namely, if Obama racks up such a delegate lead before the Convention that he wins with or without the delegates from Michigan and Florida being seated. This actually isn’t all that impossible. Notice even though she was running virtually unopposed in Michigan, she only won by 15%. In Florida she only won by 17%. So for some quick and inaccurate math, let’s just assume for the purposes here that a compromise is reached, and we assume the 40% “Uncommitted” in Michigan stands in for Obama (and this would be the case if Edwards endorses Obama). So Michigan has 128 delegates, if we assumed delegates were assigned proportionally (which of course isn’t that simple), Hillary would gain about 19 delegates. In Florida using the same math with its 185 delegates and 17% margin, giving her about 32 more delegates. So if we went ahead and seated the unfairly won delegates, Hillary would pick up 51 delegates.

Current Obama is ahead by about 136 pledged delegates, last night alone he gained 50 delegates. So if you put it in context, even if you include Hillary’s tainted delegates, she is still way behind. Granted none of this includes superdelegates, but I’m not concerned with those because if superdelegates overturn the popular vote, there are going to be big problems inside the party. So our best hope for resolving this issue is to have Obama rack up enough of a point lead that the whole controversy is moot, and Hillary can’t even win by cheating the system.

Let’s hope..

Update (2/15): Hillary supporter Bob Kerrey, well known for speaking his mind regardless of political considerations has added his two cents:

You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Period.

No new vote and no new caucuses, either. Just stick to the rules that they agreed to.

Talk about no-nonsense. Anyway, kudos to a Hillary supporter for placing principles over Hillary's political ambitions.