Michigan And Florida Need A Mulligan

Mulligan -- (noun)  A golf shot not tallied against the score, granted in informal play after a poor shot especially from the tee.

This is about fairness. Because with the delegate count in the Democratic presidential nomination race so very close, every state is going to matter this year. Which should include Michigan and Florida. But, as amateur golfers know, sometimes you have to take a Mulligan. And get a "do-over."

Democrats in Michigan and Florida need to vote again. It's as simple as that. Because it is the only fair thing to do. People are already shouting "Unfair!" about the situation, from many directions. Most of them are right, or at least have a valid point. The only way to resolve this mess is to go back to square one and do it all over. Because while it's not the best outcome for every faction, it is the only truly fair way to handle the situation as it stands now.

There are many reasons why where we find ourselves is unfair. A quick review is in order. To begin with, the Democratic Party decided upon a new scheme for the primary calendar this year. This was a compromise to balance out Iowa and New Hampshire, which are entirely bereft of minority votes. The new calendar added South Carolina and Nevada to the early primaries and caucuses, giving both Hispanics and African-Americans a voice in the process. All other states were supposed to schedule their primaries not earlier than February 5th. Michigan and Florida broke the rules, and moved their primaries earlier.

Now, this is unfair, akin to line-cutting in front of the other 45 states, and blatantly disregarding the rules laid down. Democrats warned the two errant states that they would be stripped of their delegates unless their binding vote was held February 5th or later. Michigan and Florida ignored this, and went ahead and voted early anyway. Democrats stripped all their delegates as a result.

The "votes" in both states were not fair either. In Michigan, John Edwards and Barack Obama followed the party's wishes and removed their names from the ballot. Hillary Clinton did not. So of the three major candidates, Clinton's name was the only one on the ballot. Not exactly a fair way to run an election. In Florida, all three names appeared on the ballot, but even this wasn't a fair test because none of the candidates campaigned in either state, again at the direction of the party.

But wait! Florida Democrats have a very valid point, too. Their state legislature (the people who schedule elections) is overwhelmingly Republican. So they had no effective way of selecting the date for their party's primary, because the Republicans controlled the process. This is yet another facet of the unfairness of the situation.

Normally, this would be an intra-party spat relegated to the "slow news" column in the back pages during the party's convention. If there were a clear nominee, nobody (outside of those two states) would care much about the outcome.

But this isn't a normal election year. There isn't a clear nominee. Every delegate is going to count this year. The superdelegates may even wind up deciding who is the party's nominee. Which means that we have to include Florida and Michigan somehow. Now, the Clinton camp is already arguing that the result of the vote as taken should stand, because she "won" both states. But the unfairness of this (especially in Michigan) should be apparent to all.

Luckily, there seems to be a loophole in the rules. The rules as written seem to allow a re-vote. Because the rules say that delegates will be seated for any state that votes February 5th or afterwards, but it doesn't specifically outlaw holding two contests, one of which counts and one of which doesn't. So all Michigan and Florida have to do is schedule another primary or caucus, and that vote will count -- the delegates so chosen will be seated and will have a vote at the party's convention.

This would be desirable for a number of reasons. The first and most obvious is that we shouldn't only count 48 states when adding up the totals at the convention. The second is that by doing so, Florida and Michigan will become the most important two states in the race, especially if they scheduled their primaries last (say in mid-June). Both states have a lot of delegates to win, and are very important states in the general election already, so this would only serve to boost their relative clout within the party. This should be a cause for pride in both states, which should serve to mollify any grumbling about having to vote twice. Plus, in both states it will be a contest between only two candidates, which makes the choice clear for the voters. If these two states are last, and one candidate or the other is within range of winning the nomination outright, then the race will be fierce indeed in both states.

There would be obstacles to overcome, of course, in implementing such a scheme. The cost of a re-vote is sure to come up. Getting such a plan through in Florida will involve shaming the Republicans in the legislature to do what is right (an iffy proposition). And the whole concept of a "do-over" or a "re-vote" is a strange thing for Americans to accept, mostly because we "just haven't done it before."

But none of those obstacles should stop Howard Dean from making the attempt. Because not seating Florida and Michigan's delegates at the convention is unfair, even if they did break the rules. But seating them as a result of the "votes" taken already would also be unfair.

If this were golf, it would be like the gardener firing up a leaf blower ten feet from where you're just teeing off, right in the middle of your swing. [Sorry, I don't play golf, so maybe someone else can help out with the sports metaphors.] In any case, sometimes taking a Mulligan is the only thing you can do to make things fair.

Within the pressure cooker of Primary Season 2008, the only fair and right thing to do in this particular case is to allow Michigan and Florida to vote again.

 

My Crab Cake Tuesday Primary Picks

[Because tomorrow's another primary day, I had to shoehorn this in at the end of the above article. Sorry for the disjointed nature of it. Just consider it two columns for the price of one!]

I started this series because I strongly felt that political pundits should be as brave as the average local television news sports reporter, by publishing our "picks" for each primary contest -- before it happens. At the beginning, with multiple candidates in either race, and by making predictions for first, second, and third places, my accuracy wasn't all that great. Actually, it stank. Whenever dismal percentages are talked about in any context, the fallback is always: "You know, in baseball, if a batter is batting .300, he's doing pretty good." I didn't even have that excuse, because even as a baseball player I would have been sent down to the minors. Or traded.

Having said all that, I just had a pretty good weekend. Of the eight contests over the past two days, I picked seven correctly. If it hadn't been for Obama's Maine win, I would have had a perfect score! So this weekend has definitely helped my averages. On the Democratic side, I'm up to 61% right, and on the Republican side I'm at 69%.

Total correct Democratic picks so far: 23 for 38.
Total correct Republican picks so far: 29 for 42.
Total overall correct picks: 52 for 80 -- 65%.

But enough of past glories -- onward to Crab Cake Tuesday (a.k.a. "Chesapeake Tuesday," "Potomac Tuesday," and "Beltway Tuesday"). Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. will all be voting tomorrow in both parties.

For the first time, I am predicting two clean sweeps. John McCain will wipe the board for the Republicans, and Obama will pick up all three for the Democrats. Huckabee will lose by less in Virginia, but he'll still come up short in the Old Dominion State. McCain may not go over the top in delegates, but he'll get a whole lot closer to wrapping it up. And Obama will continue what is shaping up to be a dominant month for him.

Those are my picks, what are yours?

 

[Previous states' picks:]

[Iowa] [New Hampshire and mea culpa] [Michigan (R)] [Nevada] [South Carolina (R)] [South Carolina (D)] [Florida (R)] [Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday {includes AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, ID(D), IL, KS(D), MA, MN, MO, MT(R), NJ, NM(D), NY, ND, TN, OK, UT, WV(R)}] [Louisiana] [Kansas (R)] [Nebraska (D)] [Washington (state)] [Virgin Islands (D)] [Maine (D)]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[Thatcher]

Chris - I tried emailing you on your blog site - but I kept getting a wordpress error that I needed to be logged in to do so - here are some breakdowns for Texas and Ohio delegate predictions (I tried finding some on non-candidate supporting sites - but these are the only two that really came up - both have shown support for Obama - so take these with a grain of salt each).

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4937

Burnt Orange Report

How Barack Obama Can Win Texas

http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/ohio_primary_analysis

Buckeye State Blog

Ohio Primary Analysis

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Thatcher -

Sorry about that, you do need to register and log in to email me, but it's an easy process and the only info you're giving me is your email address (which I'd need to answer you anyway). I apologize for the security, but it's necessary otherwise I get an absolute flood of spam.

Thanks for the links, I will check them out.

-CW

[CanCar]

Both states have a lot of delegates to win, and are very important states in the general election already, so this would only serve to boost their relative clout within the party. This should be a cause for pride in both states, which should serve to mollify any grumbling about having to vote twice. lasvegasgolfing.net

[Thatcher]

Florida and Michigan did go against the stated rules of the Party - they shouldn't be seated, out of fairness. If you don't play by the rules, then you shouldn't expect to be a part of the game.

That being said - I think it would be unwise for the DNC not to offer the states a Mulligan. However, there needs to be some kind of penalty so that this doesn't happen again in the future. If Florida and Michigan are allowed to seat the current delegation as is - there will be nothing to stop many states in the future from pushing their caucuses and primaries up.

To "play fair" I believe the state parties, if they want their delegates seated, should hold a caucus on their own dime.

1) they should be penalized 1/2 their delegates for early primaries (Democrats in Florida who say they were bullied by the Republican Legislature, knowing they wouldn't be counted if held early - the party there should have said that the primary won't be used to count delegates and should have held a separate caucus anyway)

2) 1/2 of the remaining delegates be determined by the caucuses in those states

3) at the caucuses, unless there is at least 2/3rd of caucus goers against the following concept - the remaining 1/2 of the delegates are voted to follow the percentages of the early primaries

this way, you now have a vote after Feb 5th, there is a penalty (both in having to front the cost and losing delegates), and in some facet - the results of the early primaries are included in the equation.

Since a vote in a statewide caucus to include the previous results into the delegate count would be held after February 5th - this seems to still hold up the rules.

As for my prediction for today -

DC
78% Obama
22% Clinton

Maryland
54% Obama
46% Clinton

Virginia
52% Obama
48% Clinton

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Thatcher -

You have outlined what seems to me to be a reasonable compromise on what to do. I like your idea of penalizing the two states with the 1/2 of delegates who would have to vote the way the early states did.

Your picks seem like a pretty good guess too, although I'm thinking Obama will win by a bigger margin in MD. Well, we'll know in about 8 minutes when the returns start coming in!

Thanks for writing!

-CW

[Thatcher]

Thanks Chris - I thought I was being pretty honest with the totals - but turns out I am conservative on the percentages ... I figured the pollsters were in err again on the high side for the Obama momentum ... it appears they were on the low end (trying to keep up with the momentum) in VA.

And I worked in VA in 1999 and 2001 - And I knew Mike Henry was on HRC's staff (who is a long-time veteran in VA politics) - so I figured they would do a little better than expected in VA. Man, was I wrong. And now I see Mike Henry has resigned after the change in campaign managers in HRC's staff.

We'll see what happens in 18 minutes in MD ... if tonight is a preview of things to come ... The Clinton campaign is going to have to do more than change managers .... they need to take the next 5 days to re-evaluate their entire campaign strategy, or even if they should truly continue on.

I know they are targeting March 4 as the big day with Texas and Ohio ... but I have been watching the polling in Ohio and Obama is making a little improvement there and he hasn't stepped it up there, yet.

[diksagev]

As a FL resident, I find allowing new elections in FL and MI little more than a cosmetic fix. I'm not sure there's anything the DNC can do other than stick to the rules established in the beginning. Choosing a nominee for Pesident is no game and carries more significance than the World Series or Super Bowl. Choosing one of the two people with the chance to become our next President has far greater and longer lasting implications than who wins a premier sporting event. Would fans allow MLB or NFL to change rules in the middle of the 7th game of the WS, or at half time of the Super Bowl (especially if that change appears to give even a slight edge to one side over another)?

The DNC made their bed; now they are going to have to lie in it. Yes, it sucks that two major players (MI and FL) will have to sit out the convention, but that decision was made when it was widely assumed that Hillary would be annointed and some magnanimous gesture could be made to seat those delegations with a "no harm -no foul". Well, the voice of the American people is speaking loudly for a candidate who was dismissed too early in this campaign, and now there's no way to change the rules and be fair to both candidates.

[diksagev]

Even if votes could be scheduled in MI and FL giving Obama time to campaign, he's already been placed at a distinct disadvantage. There is a perception that Hillary already won both states based on unsanctioned beauty contests. Obama played strictly by the rules of the DNC and abided by an agreement between the candidates, while Hillary (at the very least) stretched those rules about as far as she could. At this point, voters in MI might hold it against Obama that his name was removed from the ballot the first time around, and voters in both states have almost certainly been influenced by Hillary's victory parties and her public statements supporting seating the MI and FL delegates to respect the rights of voters in these two states (a position she took only after "winning" both contest). In effect, Hillary has been campaigning for votes in these two states while Obama has continued to abide by the rules, and it would not be fair to penalize the candidate who has most strictly adhered to the spirit as well as the letter of the law.
Let Clinton take this fight to the courts. There is no way a Democrat with an ounce of self respect can accept this procedure after having an election stolen from Al Gore in 2000. Hillary is already showing in polls that she has less chance of defeating McCain than Obama, and any attempt by her to hijack the nomination through Super Delegates or seating MI and FL delegates or filing any kind of law suit in the courts would seal her doom as well as destroy the Democratic Party.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

diksagev -

Yeah, but don't we really really want to avoid a big court case and the resultant "Dems are bitterly divided" media message? I think Hillary's got a good chance of re-winning in FL, although I could see Obama pulling off Michigan (maybe). If Clinton could accept a re-vote, she probably would come out of it fairly even. It's risky for both sides, but a lot more palatable than an extended court fight.

-CW

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

diksagev -

While I would not agree with seating the delegates as is, that's the beauty of this plan -- it doesn't actually change the rules. If FL and MI declare that since the national Dem party will not seat their delegates as a result of their vote, then the vote is null and void by definition. But there's nothing in the rules to keep them from voting again. It'd be more like one of those "trick plays" in the fourth quarter, where even the ref has to go check the rule book to see if it was a legal play, but it would not in fact be changing the rules.

I'm better at football sports metaphors than golf, I have to admit. :-)

-CW

[Pquilson]

It is my opinion that if Michigan and Florida are allowed a "mulligan" the result will be unfair. I know, nobody said life was fair. However, in Michigan, the candidates, aside from Ms. Clinton removed themselves from the ballot. Result? Win for Ms. Clinton.
The state parties in both states knew the risks they were taking, and decided to take the risks anyway. They should have the consequences of their "bet". They lost, because they broke the rules.
What this sounds to me like is to keep having elections till the result you want is achieved.
The delegates should not be seated.
There, that's my two cents worth, and worth exactly what was paid for it!

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Pquilson -

"Advice is free, and usually worth what you pay for it."

You make a good case for disallowing Michigan's delegates. But what about Florida? The GOP forced Dems into the schedule in FL, so how is that fair?

-CW

[nypoet22]

agreed completely. but since clinton is likely to win those states, i think it could be a hard sell with the obama camp. it would be a good idea on her part to avert a possible disaster by having her agree as a condition of the re-vote to the "super-delegates" not being counted unless the pledged delegates come out in her favor as well. it would do her good on a number of fronts, one of which is to dispel her image as a "win at all costs type who would destroy the party for her own ambition." i put that in quotes because i don't think that's who she is, but many people do. showing a sense of fair-play on this issue would go a long way toward helping her image, and if she wins, her electibility.

[stavros]

An excellent post but I must disagree. My state (Michigan) screwed the pooch by playing chicken with a bus. They knew what could and did happen. But the most negative thing that will happen is that Michigan being an open primary will allow cross over voting to be wide spread. It's already being mentioned by some that the republican base will stack the vote for whoever they feel has the best chance of losing the general election against McCain. I'd rather pick a fight with my elected officials than to let a Lieberman style vote happen here.