Florida and Michigan 2008: Forcing Delegates To Stand

After Barack Obama carried eleven straight primary wins with a seemingly unstoppable momentum, Democrats suggested that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the nomination if she could not win in two key states, Texas and Ohio. The positive results for Senator Clinton last Tuesday, however, effectively legitimized the continuation of her campaign and have perpetuated the tremendously fierce competition between her and Senator Obama. The wins seem to have leveled the playing field, if not mathematically, then definitely for supporters who witnessed what appeared to be the downward spiral of the Clinton campaign. Unpledged or superdelegates have been in the media spotlight, but not until recently, have the forgotten Michigan and Florida delegates re-commanded the media's attention. Throughout 2007, state legislatures across the country conducted votes to move their primaries back in order to play a significant role in the nominating contests, to garner national influence, solicit candidate visits, and have the needs of voters in their respective states addressed; candidates in the past have often sealed party nominees long before later states get a chance to vote. Super Tuesday was packed full of states anxious to conduce their primaries directly after the big four. Florida and Michigan, however, violated Democratic National Committee rules by moving their primary dates before Super Tuesday, knowing that the move would effectively strip them of delegates. Florida's primary took place on January 29th, just after South Carolina and Nevada while Michigan moved their primary election right behind New Hampshire's on January 15th. (A Florida polling place is pictured on the left.)

Both Michigan and Florida have effectively garnered much national attention, but the repercussions for the moves have largely been negative. Instead of luring candidates to their states, candidates agreed not to campaign at all in Florida and many Democratic candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot. Though Hillary Clinton won by an overwhelming majority in each state, the wins did not noticeably provide Clinton with national momentum; in fact, as mentioned previously, Obama went on to win eleven consecutive primaries. Most importantly, however, is that the primaries will not seat delegates at the DNC National Committee Meeting. Although Republicans also stripped Florida of half of their delegates at the nominating convention, John McCain has already been selected as the nominee and there is no dispute within the party. For Democrats, the climate is right for people to start worrying again about Florida and Michigan, since a nominee has not been selected yet and there are 210 delegates at stake in Florida and 156 in Michigan. The question is how state party leaders and the DNC can negotiate an answer that is both fair and practical. In crafting a solution for the allocation of delegates in Florida and Michigan, Democratic leaders must be committed to prioritize voters in their states.

The situation is complex and multifaceted. As the Democratic National Committee has taken a "you got yourself into this mess" approach, the resolution will rely on negotiation. Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC pictured on the right, has said repeatedly that Florida and Michigan must develop their own comprehensive plan and present it to the DNC. The first major issue is whether or not the original primary elections should be upheld. If so, each state will have to apply for an appeal for the original results to be counted. While some party leaders like Michigan senator Carl Levin don't believe holding another election is feasible, several party leaders in each state agree that entirely new elections should be conducted. After all, the election was not traditional or fair in many regards. Voters were well aware that their votes would not result in seated delegates, and in Michigan many candidates were not even on the ballot. A suggestion has also arisen that delegates could be split evenly between candidates at the convention; this "solution" would disenfranchise voters, completely ignoring their preferences and leaving them unrepresented. For these reasons, a new election is the only justifiable option for voters in both states. The next issue, then, is that holding another primary will cost each state millions of dollars--states and the DNC have refused to finance the elections and state Democratic parties cannot afford to pay. A widely suggested solution has been private financing to the state Democratic party who will then have the resources necessary to conduct the election.

A fair primary election must be conducted for Florida and Michigan voters and the delegates representing their votes need to be seated at the Democratic National Committee meeting in August. Any compromise of this fact will greatly undermine the United States' democratic and would be an incredibly tragic mistake. Hillary Clinton has suggested that the results should be counted. Barack Obama has stressed the importance of DNC rules. (You can find the campaign's opinions here.) Candidates obviously weigh their political interest over voters' interests. Howard Dean has stressed that although he wants voters in Florida and Michigan to have a say, the DNC's job is get a nominee elected in the national election and as such, the situation is really out of his hands. Thus, I must stress the importance of state leaders to fight for the fair representation of their constituents. Party leaders in each state, especially those responsible for the initial primary date move, should craft a responsible solution with voters in mind. If not, the national and international consequences will be great. For the Democratic party to be viewed as a capable, cohesive organization, all voters must be represented at the convention. Millions of dollars will be required for this to take place, but it is a small price to pay for justice.