Friction and Fiction

If there is one thing Howard Dean is not, it is careful. His lack of meticulousness seems to have infected the ranks of the Democratic National Committee, and the latest debacle with Florida and Michigan marks the boiling point of the hot water in which Democrats have been sitting.

As I have said for a while now, totally disenfranchising voters in Florida and Michigan was not, under any circumstances, an appropriate response to the states’ unauthorized rescheduling of their primary elections. The Republicans offered a similarly single-minded approach, by cutting the delegate count of the rogue states in half, but the difference between the two parties is this: the Republicans made sure that the issue would not come back to haunt them, while the Democrats’ epimetheal reaction will most certainly come full circle and end in utmost regret.

First, there is the issue of principle. Preventing registered voters from having any say in whom their party’s nominee will be, simply because the legislature of the state in which those voters reside broke an agreement, is comparable to sentencing an entire family to imprisonment because one parent stole bread to feed them. Who broke the agreement anyway? Certainly not the millions of Floridians and Michiganders. They simply showed up to vote when and where they were instructed. But that didn’t stop Howard Dean and his followers in the party from punishing them all.

Now the quagmire is complete, and everyone whose title is followed by a (D) will be hurt by it. Along the lines of principle, the Democrats have shown that the value they place on the democratic process is not above the value that they place on rules that will allow the party to conduct their contests in a self-beneficial way.

But since the elections have proceded and the candidates have established themselves in the national spotlight, the issue pertaining to Florida and Michigan is no longer viewed as simply a matter of principle. It is now virtually impossible to separate the three remaining options to the Democratic party from the obvious benefactors of each potential decision. And so for the party to act in one way would be seen as benefitting Clinton, while to act in another would be seen as benefitting Obama.

This is precisely why the first two options are not feasible (aside from the principle blunders), and the third one must be followed. They are as follows.

Option 1: Stick to the punishment that the Democratic party initially decided upon and grant the states no delegates at the Convention.
Pros: Enforcement of original decision will make an example of the two states who decided to go against the rules, and the Democratic party will retain its credibility.
Cons: The disenfranchisement of millions of Democratic voters will not go over well, in principle or in practice. Michigan and Florida are both swing states in the general election, and telling Democrats in those states that their votes don’t matter is bad business if the party wants to put a Democrat in the White House.
Favors: Obama

Option 2: Seat the current delegations as they stand from the original primary elections.
Pros: The voters in Florida and Michigan count for something.
Cons: The Democratic party loses credibility and the results are based on ballots that, in Michigan, did not even include Obama. “Uncommitted” votes then would be fuzzy in delegate translation, as “uncommitted” was, for our purposes, a vote against Clinton — not necessarily a vote for either Obama or Edwards, or even Kucinich or Gravel. Therefore, the Clinton delegation would be clear, but not the delegation for the other candidates.
Favors: Clinton

Option 3: Hold a revote in the two states, allow voters to choose a candidate, and appropriate the delegates accordingly.
Pros: The voters in Florida and Michigan are counted, and the contests are held in a manner that presents both candidates fairly, with both names on the ballot.
Cons: The Democratic party loses some credibility for not following through with their ridiculous punishment, but retains some for making sure the elections are done within the rules. Holding a second set of elections will also cost a very large sum of money, something on the order of $20 million per state ($4-8 million for a caucus, or up to $25 million for a full-fledged primary).
Favors: Clinton slightly, at least in contrast to the way things currently stand, but no candidate will be treated unfairly in this process.

As I said, the only viable option is the third one, which leaves two problems. The first is the partial loss of credibility of the Democratic party in abandoning their original (albeit totally irrational) course of action. The party will have to deal with this in whatever way possible as the responsibility for the lack of foresight is entirely upon them.

The second problem, however, is a bit trickier. A second round of primary elections, even caucuses, would cost an enormous amount of money. Deciding who should pay for it, when both the involved states and the party can be blamed for bringing about this problem, is not so clear cut. As a revote is emerging as the only viable possibility, the fingerpointing has escalated to determine just who should fund such a project.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist, a Republican and supporter of John McCain, believes that the delegates, at least in Florida, should be seated as they are, but that if there is to be another contest, that the DNC should foot the bill. Clearly, a this would help Republicans. If the delegates are seated, then Clinton gets a boost, prolonging the battle between her and Obama. And if she wins the nomination, many Republicans feel she would be a weaker opponent to have to deal with than Obama.

If the DNC pays for a second contest, then they will be millions in the hole for backing a presidential candidate. Dean said, “We can’t afford to do that. That’s not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race.”

Another problem with a revote is that, even though it is the most fair option left, there may not be enough support within the DNC itself for this course of action, as the party members who are loyal to a particular candidate have fallen behind the plan that would favor him or her.

I don’t want to sound unfair in my critique of the DNC. It is true that the states erred and should be held to the rules to which they agreed. Dean remarked, “Everybody has to play by the rules out of respect for both campaigns and the other 48 states.” If he had stopped here and demanded that Florida and Michigan rectify the problem, then he would have had principle on his side. But as soon as the DNC silenced the voters in the two states, the principle took a neutral stance, and now can be claimed by neither side.

The only winner in all of this is John McCain. He will be the nominee of the party who can point to a simple response that neither disenfranchised voters nor left the deed unpunished. And this mere forethought on the part of Republicans will go a long way in aiding their electoral image. Protecting the Democratic process needs to be the main goal in solving this problem. Then, party considerations may follow. Unfortunately, that means that the DNC may have to bite the bullet. Whatever happens now, we can be sure that Howard Dean’s successors will never let a disaster like this happen again.