The cognitive dissonance is pretty glaring in any discussion of popular vote. The "count every vote" principle is a good one, but there is a reason behind that principle: democracy needs to be fair and non-arbitrary.
It doesn't mean making caucuses and primaries arbitrarily equal even though the voting systems are not. How would we like it if in the general election Democratic strongholds were forced to caucus while everyone else could vote in a primary? We'd point out that such a system is profoundly undemocratic and would not tolerate it. We certainly shouldn't tolerate such a system in our own primary.
Being fair and counting every vote doesn't mean count every vote in rigged elections. Florida and Michigan were nothing less than rigged. Having one very well known candidate and no campaigning allowed is not remotely fair or democratic. Having one candidate not even on the ballot obviously isn't democratic.
Embracing undemocratic methods of counting votes should be a profound embarrassment to anyone proposing it. It is shameful for Clinton and her surrogates to suggest that the Democratic nominee be chosen in such a manner under the guise of fairness when it is anything but.
There is an obvious solution to this which the Democratic Party has used for years. It's called delegates which represent districts and states in proportion to the number of people who vote Democratic for president. Then the delegates go to the convention and choose the nominee.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 29, 2008 10:04 AMwell, since Hillary agreed not to participate in the Michigan primary then her votes should count (snark)
Posted by gay veteran at March 29, 2008 10:24 AMbut then I guess it depends on what the meaning of "particpate" is (more snark)
Posted by gay veteran at March 29, 2008 10:25 AMI understand some people are unfamiliar with the undemocratic concept of revotes.
Posted by eriposte at March 29, 2008 10:36 AMClinton and Scaife under a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
well, since Hillary agreed not to participate in the Michigan primary then her votes should count (snark)
gv, how many times have I got to tell you that Hillary believes all votes should count...unless you're a Black or Hispanic Texican, or stomped the crap out of her in a Texas district.
Posted by phidipides at March 29, 2008 11:33 AMI understand some people are unfamiliar with the undemocratic concept of revotes.
Both Florida and Michigan rejected revotes. Not participating in the Democratic primary process was their choice, and both Clinton and Obama agreed to that.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 29, 2008 12:45 PMSo eriposte, do you think your method of counting popular votes is democratic?
Sorry, but your candidate lost by the rules set out before the primary process began, which is the only way to have elections without playing Calvinball. I'm used to my candidate losing - it's not the end of the world. Denial isn't very satisfying in the end.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 29, 2008 12:52 PMThe mess is the mess. MI and FL will get seated but that'll be after the adults swing the superdelegates for Obama this June. Once he gets a solid majority and the nomination is settled, no harm. The proposed MI revote wouldn't have been legal, with the MI Dems insisting on excluding those who had voted Repub and the court saying that the process was unconstitutional, so no lists of voters could come. FL had a Republican Gov. who has no interest in Dems. FUBAR. The Dems have an odd mix, with all the caucuses mixed with proportional primaries, undemocratic on the one hand with too much democracy on the other--indecisive results. I confess I'd be more concerned if it were anybody but the Clintons raising this. Their campaign has been so disgustingly racist that Hillary's loss of FL and MI seems like an act of cosmic justice. If she's the nominee, I'm back to 1976, when I watched Ford and Carter and ended up voting for Eugene McCarthy, would feel the same about a McCain-Clinton race. Back to the Norman Thomas-Michael Harrington strand for me if she's the nominee.
Posted by JohnShreffler at March 29, 2008 05:42 PMSo many disgusting comments from so many disgusting people who disgustingly care nothing for voters and democracy. They only care about getting what THEY want. I sincerely hope you all realize that your pathetic justifications of placing "THE RULES" above the voters' right to vote makes you right next to Karl Rove in ethics.
Posted by at March 29, 2008 06:18 PM>I sincerely hope you all realize that your pathetic justifications of placing "THE RULES" above the voters' right to vote makes you right next to Karl Rove in ethics.
I'm sure they don't. And if Obama gets the nomination and loses in the fall, they will blame Hillary and her supporters, not Obama and themselves. So much for The Reality-Based Community we were supposedly building the last few years.
Comment by John C.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
OBAMA EXPOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2008/02/28/its-about-time-sean-wilentz-on-obama-playing-the-race-card/
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
PASS THIS ON TO OTHER BLOGS PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Geez Louise, the straw men just won't go away, and they just keep getting screwier:
Now the idea seems to be that supporting Obama is synonymous with proclaiming "Why Won't the Stupid Bitch Quit?".
eriposte has been doing way, way, way too much inhaling the fumes of the shriller bits of the blogosphere, I fear.
There are plenty of people such as yours truly who favor Obama and do not see Hillary Clinton as some sort of evil monster. What am I suppose to do, jump up to reject, renounce, denounce yadda yadda yadda whenever someone anonymously posts an obnoxious comment on a blog somewhere?
Posted by joeldanwalls at March 30, 2008 07:37 PMYou know, there is way to much invective with this campaign. I am tired of how one side tears down Obama and the other side rips Clinton. we have the 2 strongest candidates we democrats had in a long time. This site seems to have a Clinton bias, ok I can deal with that, but it shouldn't be a vehicle to rip a potential nominee. Yes the delegate process is weird, but it wasn't a surprise. MI and FL violated party rules, they got sanctioned. All the candidates agreed on it. The facts are the facts
A progressive blog should be ripping John McCain and the Bushinistas a new asshole, not Hillary or Barack. Pining over the non revote will not help us win in November. I am an Obama supporter, but I will support the nominee who ever that might be. Let us bring it down a notch. i don't want a 100 year old McCain running the country for the next 4-8 years
Posted by Edinmissouri at March 30, 2008 11:10 PM