FL and MI disenfranchised long ago

I hate arguments like this one from Geraldine Ferraro:

But if [superdelegates switching to support Barack Obama] are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process, then I would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan. In those two states, the votes of thousands of rank-and-file party members will not be counted because their states voted on dates earlier than those authorized by the national party.

Because both states went strongly for Mrs. Clinton, standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in Florida and Michigan would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers. The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.

The sad reality is that Democrats in Florida and Michigan were disenfranchised the day that the national party punished them for moving up their primaries. Without a competitive race in their states, voters never had a real chance to evaluate the candidates. Under those circumstances, the frontrunner will win every time. The votes that were cast are just not a meaningful expression of Democrats' preferences, particularly in Michigan, where Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot (!).

Comments

[Jinchi]

I'd be more impressed with the disenfranchisement argument if the Clinton team were arguing that the nominee should be the candidate who won the popular vote. (I personally hate the whole delegate system).

Of course, they're arguing just the opposite - claiming that superdelegates may actually have a better sense of the voter's wishes than the voters do themselves.

My guess is that they don't demand full enfranchisement because they're also losing the popular vote, even when Florida and Michigan are included.

[Rob]

Like the selective recount attempted by Gore in 2000, the Clintons' approach to seating delegates is very much result-oriented. Their attempt to cloak the effort in principle is risible and hardly deserves to be taken seriously.

Hillary's supporters laud her pragmatism, which is a nice way of characterizing a will to do whatever's necessary to get what she wants--a mindset that explains not only the Florida/Michigan ploy but the entire misbegotten campaign.

The death throes of a feral animal are not pretty to watch.

[moddar alzoubi]

please help me i am in serious danger clinton and c.i.a threatened me my english isnot good enough my blog in arabic explain everything my blog http://494949.blogsome.com