Why Michigan Should Not Hold Democratic Party Do-Overs

One Michigander’s view of the political crisis and potential fallout

Living in west Michigan, I read the national press and watch the cable news networks with a mixture of gratitude and disapprobation. They shine a national spotlight on the problems of this state and on the potential disenfranchisement of millions of Michigan voters, but they do not expect those voters to be fluent or thoughtful regarding the nuances of the problem we face. Far be it from me to claim that these champions of my political voice should listen to what I have to say before speaking on my behalf, but the situation is more complex than just giving a voice to the voiceless. There are consequences to be considered.

As Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has recently reminded the nation, there were consequences to the early state primaries. He may have been speaking directly of the punishment given our two states, the stripping of our convention delegates, but the consequences range farther than that. One can make the convincing case that the very crisis with which we are struggling, that has party leaders are meeting and holding conversations to resolve, is a consequence of the states’ decision to move their primaries ahead of the schedule they originally voted to support. The gentle beat of the butterfly’s wings in Lansing and Tallahassee has, months and miles distant, stirred up a national tempest.

There is a great deal yet to be written and said about those state leaders who moved up the dates of the state primaries and brought us to this position, but that is ultimately a question that must be left to the voters of Michigan and Florida. Eventually, those officials will have to face the ire of their constituents as expressed through the ballot. For now, we need to know where we go from here.

There are three options for dealing with the delegations from our two states.

First, the delegates chosen as a result of the early primary voting could be seated at the National Convention. This is highly unlikely, as Dean has already indicated the Rules Committee is unlikely to look favorably on delegations from states that broke the rules. He rightly points out that changing the rules would damage the integrity of the whole system.

Alternatively, there is the possibility that the delegations could appeal to the Credentials Committee, elected and formed from the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. If this committee wishes to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, Dean says, the national party would have nothing to say: such things are permitted under the rules. Now that we know that it is possible for the delegates to be seated, the question is, should they?

The answer, for many reasons, is no. Just as the rules were well known by the states, the consequences were well known by the voters. Michigan and Florida voters were well aware that their states had been stripped of all democratic delegates. One cannot judge the effect this had on voter apathy in a primary election cycle that has seen record numbers of voters turning out. How many voters, myself and many others I know included, stayed at home specifically because we knew our votes would not count? This problem is exacerbated in Michigan by the fact that Barack Obama’s name did not even appear on the ballot. How many of his supporters did not turn out because they knew they wouldn’t see his name there as an option? Those who speak of the disenfranchised voters in these two states are not seeing this side of the coin. Seating the early-primary delegates will disenfranchise untold numbers of voters--voters who chose not to vote because the process was meaningless, and voters who would have voted differently had they known the democratic primary would count for something.

Let me give you a different perspective on this by way of analogy. We’ve just finished a very historic NFL season. Imagine a football game where on a certain play the ball carrier fumbles the ball, but the referees immediately whistle the play dead. Though most players on the field stop upon hearing the whistle, it seems inevitable that a defender picks up the ball and runs it to the opposite end zone. The points from this ‘score’ don’t count, of course. The play was whistled dead, and those are the rules. Now, imagine that after the game the team who was defending on that play lost by four points (six points are awarded for a touchdown). In the post-game press conference, the losing coach contends, “Well, we did score that touchdown there on that fumble that was ruled down. We are going to lobby hard for those points to be scored. I think they should be scored, and when they are scored, everyone will see we really won the game.”

That coach would be laughed out of the press room, if not out of the league. Unfortunately, that is exactly the argument that Clinton’s camp would be making. Sure, she ‘won’ the state, in the same way that the defense ‘scored’ a touchdown on a dead play. Those are the rules, and everybody has to play by them.

The second option for dealing with the states’ delegations is to have some sort of new primary or caucus, a do-over of delegate selection that falls within the window allowed by rule. This would seem to be a middle ground option, but upon closer examination there is no way to ensure the fairness of the process. Under normal conditions in Michigan, the individual voter has a choice to make as to which primary she wishes to vote in, Republican or Democrat. We have seen large numbers of cross-over voters, independents and independent-minded Republicans voting in the Democratic primaries. Certainly, among this number, there are a few mischief makers who thought their vote better spent in shaping the outcome of their rival party’s race, but that is entirely their own choice and absolutely their right.

Things are different now. The GOP primaries have come and gone, and John McCain has clinched his party’s nomination. This completely removes the drive for Republican voters to make their voice heard in the Republican primary. It simply doesn’t matter anymore. There is no way to preclude those who previously voted in the Republican primary from voting in this primary. Even if there were, there is no way to tell in which party’s primary an individual voter would have voted had they been presented with two primaries that mattered. How many people who voted in the Republican primary would have voted in the Democratic primary (for whatever reason) had the Democratic contest been meaningful?

That brings up a problem. With the GOP race settled, the Republican party has a huge and unfair advantage. Knowing who their nominee is, they are able to tailor their vote for the democratic contender they believe more easily defeated in the national election come November. Some might argue that this is no different than any late, open primary where one party’s race is settled before the other. Republican voters are, from Junior Tuesday forward, able to vote in open primary states yet to come. However, in Michigan the Republican primary has already come and gone. Are we going to allow those people to vote twice?

More than that, these Republican transplant voters have other information valuable to them. Normally, a cross-over voter takes two risks. First, they risk that the candidate they support in their own party will win that primary even without the voter’s support. In essence, they have to decide whether the own party’s race is too competitive to spend their vote crossing party lines in some sort of strategic move. Second, they risk that their cross-over vote will not get lost among the various candidates to choose from. If there are eight or more candidates on the Democratic ballot (as there would have been at that early primary date), the individual cross-over voter takes a strong risk that their vote will wash out among all of the choices such cross-over mischief makers could choose from.

Now stop and think about what the Republican cross-over voter risks in a make-up primary in Michigan. Their nominee is already locked in, so there is no risk that the Republican primary will be affected by crossing party lines and casting their vote in the Democratic primary. Similarly, the Democratic field has been narrowed down to two choices, considerably reducing the risk that a cross-over vote will get lost in the mix. It is very easy to determine between two options which would be the candidate the Republicans would rather face, and therefore which candidate the Republican cross-overs will vote for en masse.

Hazarding another analogy drawn from the world of sports, this is very much like a boxing champion hand-picking his number one contender. He knows his own strengths and weaknesses better than anybody. If he has a weakness against left-handers, for instance, and he has a choice between a southpaw and a standard boxer, of course he is going to pick the latter.

So, if both of these first two options for dealing with the state delegations are unfair, what is left to do? The answer, the third option, is: nothing. Don’t do anything. It might seem painful, but there is no way to fairly administer a re-vote, or to accurately represent the will of the democratic voters from our state. Any decision the party makes--even taking no action--will disenfranchise some voters. But for the moment, at least, the process still has the appearance of being trustworthy.

The best the party can hope for, the only way out of the hole they have dug for themselves, is that the super-delegates (those much-derided party insiders most often pictures, rightly or wrongly, as brokering deals in smoky rooms) coalesce behind one candidate or the other. In effect, the super-delegates could relegate the entire question moot. Both candidates are within range of the nomination given enough support from the super-delegates. If you’re an Obama supporter, you argue that the supers should back the candidate leading in the pledged delegate count. If you're a Clinton supporter, you argue that the supers should back the person who won the larger states. Whatever your argument to get the super-delegates moving, getting them to move is the only way to diffuse this situation without corrupting the process any more than it already is.