Ezra Klein flags an email from Hillary Clinton claiming that "It is a bedrock American principle: we are all equal in the voting booth... But millions of people in Florida and Michigan who went to the polls aren't being heard." This statement echoes her husband's claim that Obama has "this new strategy of denying and disempowering and disenfranchising the voters in Florida and Michigan."
This argument infuriates me. Even if we set aside the obvious hypocrisy in Clinton's changing positions on the two states, there's just no way to argue that Democratic primary voters in Florida and Michigan went into the voting booth as equals to their counterparts in other states. Why? Because they didn't have a real choice -- they had already been disenfranchised. As I wrote back in February, Florida and Michigan voters never had the opportunity to evaluate the candidates because there wasn't a real campaign in either state. Michigan voters didn't even get the option to vote for Obama. Under those circumstances, Hillary Clinton will win every time.
Also: These are votes for Party Nominations. This is different that voting for the President in November.
The Parties are free to make up all sort of crazy delegate allocation formulas that ensure that some individual voters have more say in the nomination process than other voters.
NC gets extra delegates because it is holding a late primary. Texas awards delegates by state senate district based upon voter turnout in the respective districts during previous election cycles. Iowa and NH gotta go first. And on and on.
The rules are the rules. They are not, strictly speaking, fair. They are not even supposed to be fair. Changing the rules after the fact to help one party win a nomination just ain't persuasive.
Posted by: TCG | April 03, 2008 at 10:40 AM
There's a delicious irony here. Democrats have been griping for years about being disenfranchised. Florida voters were disenfranchised by the butterfly ballot. Ohio voters were disenfranchised by long lines. Hispanic voters are disenfranchised by reminders that it's illegal for non-citizens to vote. Voters everywhere are disenfranchised by Republican voter suppression.
Is it any surprise that a Democratic candidate would roll out the disenfranchisement claim in a hotly contested nomination battle? After all, disenfranchisement is a vintage bottle in the Democratic whine cellar, and it appeals to the inner victim who lives within every true Democrat.
Posted by: Rob | April 03, 2008 at 10:49 AM
The argument is particularly absurd because the staggered election schedule typically means that people in many if not most states aren't supposed to count. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Mississippi, even Texas and Ohio weren't expected to be players in the Democratic nomination - just as they weren't players in the Republican contest.
Strangely, no one was worried about disenfranchisement back in January.
Posted by: Jinchi | April 03, 2008 at 05:24 PM