MyDD :: How good, really, is the case for excluding Florida?

How good, really, is the case for excluding Florida?

by Austinitis, Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:32:13 PM EST

So let's start with the observation that, barring some huge and unexpected event, neither candidate can realistically win the nomination without the help of a fair number of super-delegates. This in turn means that a lot of what's left to be done in this race consists of making moral arguments to super-delegates to garner support.

One of these arguments, and the argument obviously favored by the Obama camp, says that super-delegates are obligated to support whoever amasses the most pledged-delegates. That a pledged-delegate lead, however small, reflects the will of the Democratic electorate and that to vote for anyone but the pledged-delegate leader would be to overturn the will of the people.

But another, quite plausible position insists that super-delegates are, instead, obligated to support whichever candidate leads in the popular vote. There's a strong case to be made for the claim that the popular vote reflects the will of the Democratic electorate far better than pledged-delegate tallies (though I'm going to leave that case for another entry), and if super-delegates want to avoid overturning the popular will, they should look the popular vote tallies in making their decision.

And while Obama currently leads on both of these metrics, it's certainly within the realm of possibility, depending on which votes are counted, for Hillary to overtake Obama in the popular vote. Importantly, if Florida's votes are counted, Hillary finds herself only 400,000 votes behind, and that's nothing that couldn't be overcome with an Ohio-like victory in Pennsylvania (Ohio, after all, netted Hillary 200,000 votes) and decent performance in other states. (That said, I think the popular vote is Hillary's only realistic path to victory. If she doesn't win that, although she may stay in the race, it'll be impossible for her to win.)

So let's take a look at the sort of case that can be made for counting Florida's votes in the popular vote tally (and, conversely, the sort of case that can be made for excluding those votes).

Arguments for Inclusion:

Individual Florida voters aren't responsible for the primary dates and deserve a voice in the process. Even if Florida behaved badly in moving its primary date forward, most Floridians had nothing to do with the date of their primary. To silence the voices of all Floridians as punishment for the actions of their legislature is communal punishment, and is just as morally problematic here as it is when practiced by the Israelis against the Palestinians. Moreover, punishing people by taking away their votes is already morally problematic when done to felons, and is even more so when done to largely innocent Floridians.

Florida votes reflect the will of Florida voters. The rational being urged on super-delegates here has the following structure:

Vote Results --[act as evidence for]--> Popular Will --[which creates]--> Moral Obligation on Super-Delegates

Note that nothing in the chain above is obviously broken by the misbehavior of the Florida legislature. The election held in Florida still creates legitimate evidence of popular will, and popular will still creates a moral obligation on super-delegates. The fact that Florida broke DNC rules simply isn't relevant to a "popular will" line of reasoning. Super-delegates have no good reason to cite the behavior of the Florida legislature as an excuse to disregard the votes of Florida citizens.

Florida is a swing state, and it doesn't help us in November to disenfranchise them now. Obama already has serious problems against McCain in Florida and if Floridians think that Obama won the nomination by silencing their voices it's going to be hard to win them back over to our side. We go a long way towards healing those wounds if we at least count their votes into our popular vote.

Arguments for Exclusion:

Counting Florida's votes will change the rules mid-game. The Florida legislature moved its primary forward against the rules and the DNC decided to strip them of their delegates as punishment. Both candidates have been operating under the assumption that Florida's election wouldn't count and they might have behaved differently had they known the rules would change. Counting the votes would thus be unfair to both candidates (even if Hillary would like it).

Reply: The argument given here displays a misunderstanding of both the DNC's actions and the popular-will arguments being made.

The argument misinterprets the DNC's decision to conclude that the DNC stripped the state of all of it's relevance in the nominating process. In fact, while the DNC stripped the pledged-delegates from Florida there simply are no rules declaring that the Florida's votes should not count in the popular vote tally (partially because there is no "official" tally). Moreover, DNC rules allow super-delegates to vote as they wish, meaning that there are no DNC rules requiring super-delegates to exorcise Florida's votes from their moral calculus.

Furthermore, the argument misinterprets the moral reasoning being urged on super-delegates when popular-will is referenced. As noted above, there never have been rules governing the way super-delegates can vote. This means that super-delegates are urged to vote on the basis of some metric (e.g. popular vote or pledged delegate leads), there simply are no rules to change.

Because of the DNC's decision, neither candidate campaigned in Florida. Moreover, many voters stayed home under the impression that their vote wouldn't count. The election results are thus flawed and fail to be good evidence for popular will. Since Florida's votes only link into the popular will argument via their value as an indicator of popular will, this fact severs the link and justifies excluding their vote.

Reply: Arguments of this sort are by far the best justifications for excluding Florida's votes from the popular vote tally, but even this argument suffers from obvious flaws.

Importantly, in every national election there are states which match the description above and yet we still consider the national popular vote tally including those states morally significant. For example, in the 2000 election Gore almost certainly declined to campaign seriously in Montana and Utah while Bush almost certainly declined to campaign in Vermont and California. Nonetheless, we consider the fact that Gore won the popular vote morally significant, even though the popular vote total includes those states.

Furthermore, it's likely that people in those states may have stayed home on the assumption that their vote was unlikely to change the outcome. Again, we nonetheless find Gore's popular vote victory significant.

Finally, there are other states in the current primary that no one wants to exclude from the popular vote but which neither candidate campaigned in. For example, it's unlikely that Hillary ran seriously in Illinois or that Obama campaigned seriously in New York. Nonetheless, there don't seem to be many cries to throw out the 600,000 extra votes picked up by Obama in Illinois.

Conclusion:

The case for excluding Florida's votes, thus, seems in many ways rather weak. While there are always inadequacies in any voting system, excluding Florida's votes from the popular vote tally seems to create more problems than it solves.

(Finally, before anyone responds. I'd like to stress once again that we're talking about the popular vote tally here. I'm not making an argument for seating Florida's pledged delegates.)

Poll

Votes: 23
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Florida, Democratic Primary, Super Delegates, Pledged Delegates (all tags)

Permalink :: 26 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: How good, really, is the case for excluding Fl (2.00 / 1)

No problem! Once June 3rd comes around, they'll seat Florida probably with a 50% penalty (as should have been levied in the beginning), and the nominee will be the one with more pledged delegates; the superdelegates will line up behind them.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:40:56 PM EST

Re: How good, really, is the case for excluding Fl (2.00 / 5)

Has anyone ever told you that ragekage is a very fitting name for an Obama supporter these days?

Anyhoo-

Why are you trying to change the rules midgame? The rules don't say anything about this being a pledged delegate contest, do they? No where, not in any single instance, is it written or even suggested that superdelegates must assign their vote to the candidate who has the most pledged delegates as of June 3rd.

In fact, as a matter of technical correctness, none of the delegates has even voted yet - they do not do that until the convention.

So, what's with all this changing the rules to benefit your candidate?

More importantly - why are you willing to compromise the bedrock principle of one person, one vote, simply for the ambitions of a single politician? Politicians will come and go. We must never put them above principle. I think the Bush years should have taught us this lesson.

by bobbank on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:08:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How good, really, is the case for excluding Fl (2.00 / 1)

Has anyone ever told you that ragekage is a very fitting name for an Obama supporter these days?

Why, do Clinton supporters have something against Tenacious D?

Why are you trying to change the rules midgame?

Err, I'm not. I'm just stating the obvious. The rules say the Superdelegates will choose however they please; and I promise you the way they'll please to do so is to whomever has more pledged delegates in the end. Easy way to make a decision; if anything bad happens, no one can fault them for such a decision. If that's coupled with popular vote, as it seems likely, it'll be an even easier decision for them.

Tell you what- if I'm wrong, I owe you a coke.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How good, really, is the case for excluding Fl (2.00 / 4)

There's just one problem with your argument - if you were right, all of the superdelegates would have already voted, Hillary's would have changed to Barack, and this would already be over. Trouble is, that hasn't happened. She's gained four Superdelegates in the past two days, in fact, which by itself completely disproves your point.

by bobbank on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:43:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How good, really, is the case for excluding Fl (2.00 / 2)

Uhh, no.

The contest's not officially over, and as long as Hillary can create the illusion she's still got a chance, none of the real fence-sitters (the majority remaining) are going to commit. If she does poorly in PA, I'd wager we may see a run to Obama with the superdelegates (which will certainly be the case if he wins PA, however unlikely that seems).

June 4th, whoever's got the most delegates'll get the support of the remaining undecided superdelegates. But heck, maybe you made your point because you don't like Coke- we can do Diet Coke, Sprite, Mello Yello, or Minute Maid Lemonade if you'd prefer.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How good, really, is the case for excluding Fl (2.00 / 2)

Oh, and before I forget, by percentages, for every one superdelegate Obama gets, Clinton has to get three to make up the difference in weight to attain the nomination based off of likely delegate percentage models.

So, Obama gets one more superdelegate and it'll almost erase the impact of Clinton's four.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:48:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd be fine with seating all pledged FL... (2.00 / 1)

... delegates, as long as no superdelegates who opposed a revote (starting with the entire Democratic House delegation) -- and especially State Senate Minority Leader Steven Geller -- are seated.

Ignorance is weakness. Get strong.

by tbetz on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:22:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How good, really, is the case for excluding (2.00 / 3)

Your conclusion about the use of popular vote tallies is flawed.

Popular vote tallies in a mixed system (caucus and primaries) will never show the true will of the people. The Caucuses do not have popular vote totals and are just plain disregarded in the total tally. If you include an estimate that become subjective and will be disputed later. If you include caucus voter totals in some states but disregard caucus voter totals in others (say WA or TX where there were primaries and caucuses) then your tallies for popular vote are wrong again.

There is NO scenario where people will feel the popular vote is truly indicative of the popular will unless all states utilize the same system of voting. That boat has sailed. In this election the rules for this cannot be addressed. In the future, who knows?

by Why Not on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:47:44 PM EST

Re: How good, really, is the case for excluding (2.00 / 3)

Add to this the granddaddy of all the reasons not to consider the popular vote in this case:

The nomination race is a race for DELEGATES. The one with the most delegates wins. The popular vote in this race cannot supplant the basic premise of the primary to begin with.

The premise is that the will of the people is determnined by the delegates selected by each state.

by Why Not on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:52:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How good, really, is the case for excludi (none / 0)

by Why Not on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:52:40 PM EST

Same old tired story (2.00 / 1)

Oh god, this broken record AGAIN. How many desperate times will camp Hillary keep trying to run with this ridiculous notion of the popular vote? It's another attempt to try and change the rules after the fact.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:08:07 PM EST

Re: Same old tired story (2.00 / 4)

You mean like forcing superdelegates to vote based on pledged delegate count?

by bobbank on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One Person, One Vote (2.00 / 6)

Before Barack Obama, I would have never thought this even possible: that on a progressive website people would be arguing that we should not count votes.

But that was before Barack Obama.

by bobbank on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:10:27 PM EST

Re: One Person, One Vote (2.00 / 4)

yeah, down here in FL, we expect it from katherine harris and jeb buash. but hearing the same lies coming from the mouths of democrats is a bit surprising.

by campskunk on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Person, One Vote (2.00 / 1)

skunk, so when Obama wins the nomination, and seats Fl you'll be happy??

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:21:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Person, One Vote (2.00 / 4)

That sounds like Soviet Russia. Who needs the people to vote? Obama will vote for them!

by Austinitis on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Person, One Vote (2.00 / 2)

I never thought on a progressive website anyone would want to change the rules of the primary only because their candidate is losing. But that was before Hillary, do anything to win, Clinton.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:16:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Person, One Vote (2.00 / 4)

false information: check

character destruction: check

failure to address issue being discussed: check

Must be New Politics(tm), courtesy of another hopeful, unifying Obama supporter! Thanks for stopping by and sharing your views.

This should not be about hiding behind a buearocracy of rules, for cripe's sake. All votes should be counted. Good grief, what is happening to this party?

by bobbank on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Person, One Vote (2.00 / 1)

Riddle me this, do the voters of the caucus states count?

I guess you have your own opion about which voters matter more and which ones shouldn't have their votes count.

by Why Not on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Person, One Vote (2.00 / 2)

This is a legitimate question, I concede.

The best we can do is count the people who caucused as individuals, the same way we count votes in a primary. It's imperfect, but certainly closer to "will of the people" than delegate math.

by bobbank on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:50:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Person, One Vote (none / 0)

Since you concede that caucus votes should be considered in the tally. How, Pray tell, do you propose we do this?

1. There aren't exact counts in every caucus that have been released (sure we could estimate, but that will not satisfy many).

2. Some states had both a caucus and a primary.

You could argue that the primary should count, but in one (WA) of these states the caucus was the place to register your preference and not the primary. Hence some people will be upset that the tally of popular votes came from either source of counting.

In the other case (TX) BOTH the caucus and primary counted. Which one of the contests would count for popular votes? You certainly can't count just the primary since the people who voted in the caucus also had their preference for candidate count towards delegates (this wouldn't be as much of an issue if both contests were won by the same candidate although for overall numbers is still is an issue). If you count the caucus voters and not the primary voters the people will rightfully feel as if the votes did not count in the primary. Finally you cannot count both, since that would be in effect giving the people of Texas two votes per person (that voted in both contests).

You see this issue of using the popular vote (even if we disregard the obvious problems with counting MI and FL votes) is not one that can be settled reasonably except though one device:

The will of the people as determined by this contest is to be expressed in delegates. The delegate counts are the only fair way to asses the will of the people because it was the only way that was agreed upon by all parties prior to the start of the contest. The popular vote would be a nice solution had all contests been run in the same manner, but this was explicitly not the case since each state determined their way of expressing their popular will to the national convention. Some states decided to use a caucus, others primary, and some both. It is not fair to penalize any state for this decision (as they all fell within the rules as stated prior to the contest), and therefore the only agreed upon method left to us is the (pledged) delegates.

by Why Not on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How good, really, (2.00 / 2)

Bob, I live in California and usually by the time we vote, the candidate has already wraped up the nomination, so our votes really don't matter. So why should Fl., which broke the rules, then be given even MORE influence in choosing the nominee?

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:35:36 PM EST

Re: How good, really, (2.00 / 3)

California is part of Super Tuesday. Did you just try to tell me that the states that vote on Super Tuesday "really don't matter"?

Your credibility = lost.

by bobbank on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How good, really, (2.00 / 1)

Bob, read my comment again. I said usually, as in most primary years!

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How good, really, is the case for (2.00 / 2)

You virtually ignored the stay-at-home argument. That some people will stay at home in any election is hardly comparable to a situation in which they are specifically told that their votes will not count.

Here's one study that attempts to account for this message:

http://www.dcourage.com/Nini%20-%20Probl em%20with%20Existing%20FL%20and%20MI%20P rimaries.pdf

The takeaway is that 1.15 million Floridians stayed home because of this messaging.

by rfahey22 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:22:22 PM EST

Steve Geller makes the case... (2.00 / 1)

... for Florida's exclusion in his own words right here, in a blog entry by madfloridian:

Florida's Geller joked about his amendment: "sarcasm and audible laughter in chamber"

Posted by madfloridian

Tue Aug 28th 2007, 10:46 PM

Geller added an amendment to the January 29 primary vote, and then he joined the rest of the House in laughing his own amendment down. Then in a letter to Dean two months later, he said they were outvoted on the amendment. But the Rules Committee had the transcript.

Here is the letter from Senator Steven A. Geller to Governor Howard Dean apparently in May of this year...after the vote was taken in March.

Geller's letter to Dean

The Democratic Leadership in the Florida Senate and House of Representatives attempted to adhere to the rules of the DNC by offering amendments to keep the presidential preference primary on February 5, 2008. A copy of the amendment offered by myself and the Senate Democratic Leader Pro Tempore is included with this letter. An identical amendment was filed by the House Democratic Leader and the House Democratic Leader Pro Tempore. But as we are still the minority party in a Republican controlled Legislature, our amendments were overwhelmingly defeated. Simply put—we were outvoted, a scenario which - I’d like to caution - will be difficult to change should you move forward with any sanctions because of the primary date change.

In addition, while our amendments failed, we as Democrats voted for the final product. The legislation we supported finally moved our state from the punch lines into the headlines with regard to election reform, including the creation of a verifiable paper trail, a change long overdue. A verifiable paper trail was one of our Caucus priorities and important to many members of Congress as well.

Well, that sounds very good. But here is more of what the Rules Committee knew before they took their vote on Saturday. Actually Geller laughed out loud at his own amendment. Amazing. From the comments which refer to an Adam C. Smith article.

The DNC members had handouts that included quotes by House Minority leader Dan Gelber brushing off Howard Dean, and the following transcript of Steve Geller making the motion to move the primary to Feb. 5:

Geller: "...So the Democratic leader and the Democratic leader pro tem are jointly making this motion, which we will duly show them later, that we tried not to have the election on, um, before (Feb. 5).

President: "And so Sen. Geller are you urging a negative vote or would you like us to pass this vote?"

Geller: "Oh no sir. We really, really want this. Don't we senator? (sarcasm and audible laughter in chamber).

Somehow that humor just doesn't sit well with me. Not when the party's votes are at stake. So they really did not make an effort to oppose the Republicans. It was all a joke to them.

Curiously, the video of Geller's introduction of the phony amendment that used to reside at

http://www.youtube.com/...

... has been pulled down.

Does anyone have an archived copy available? It should go back up.

Ignorance is weakness. Get strong.

by tbetz on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:17:16 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.