It's Not the Candidates' Fault
Put people in a situation with well-defined incentives, and they will behave in predictable ways. That's an article of faith for economists, and it's definitely true in the argument over Florida and Michigan's delegates to the Democratic convention.
Why should Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton take the blame for the dispute that peaked with this week's ruling? They didn't make the decisions that led to the debacle. Rather, the party bosses in each state bear the lion's share of the responsibility.
They went against the national party's rules. What did they expect would happen? By scheduling their states' primaries earlier than the rules allowed, they deliberately entered some very uncertain territory. Would the national party simply allow this to occur unchallenged? Not, as an economist would say, if the party wanted anyone to obey in the future.
The primary-scheduling process is what economists would call a repeated game. Every four years, each state makes a decision on when to hold its primary. In the meantime, the national party can try to affect those decisions by changing the rules -- and punishing states that disobey.
Even if that punishment creates disorder in the short term, it is essential to guaranteeing compliance in the long term. And, as the following example shows, sometimes even self-inflicted pain today is necessary to create a desired outcome tomorrow.
Say you really want your child to do her homework. When she doesn't, you refuse to drive her to her soccer game. Now, you actually enjoy watching your kid play soccer. But you're willing to sacrifice your own enjoyment - as well as punishing her - in order to achieve the greater goal of homework completion.
If Michigan and Florida's party bosses had thought ahead, they might have realized that a punishment was in store. Without it, the national party would have lost its rule-making power. Meanwhile, the actions of the candidates revealed their own expectations about the punishment. Hillary Clinton essentially bet that the punishment meted out by the national party would be mild at worst, so she campaigned hard in Florida and Michigan. Barack Obama wagered that the punishment would be severe, so he didn't.
Yet voters are focusing their ire on the candidates and their supporters -- not the states' party bosses. That's a shame. As we saw this year, holding an early primary is no guarantee of a pivotal role in the process, which lends some weight to the national party's position. The Florida and Michigan party bosses gambled with their members' votes in order to grab the spotlight, and they gambled badly. Surely they, not the candidates and overall harmony in the party, should pay the price.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If either of MI or FL were to have held an election in the past month, they'd have likely decided the outcome of the contest.
The argument and metaphor are reasonable. As much as the enforcement hurts some people, I hope all will keep in mind that
1) At least this time and for all the world to see, discipline was applied and the established rules were enforced. It does appear that the state party leaders are guilty of ego-preening at their members' expense. I don't envy Howard Dean having to be the REAL decider on this one.
2) Ultimately, no one's GENERAL ELECTION vote was stolen, chadded, thrown in the garbage, lost in the mail, declaired null by a precinct goon, etc.
I for one would have liked to have seen Howard Dean as the candidate four years ago. As for the ONE infamous 'scream', compare that to Busho's NUMEROUS misspeakings, logic mangling, shoulder massages, talking with his mouth full of food, dancing, chest-bumpings... and those are only the things done in the public eye.
Dean was shafted by the corporate driven MainStreamMedia. The "scream" was played over and over on the "news" programs and mocked by the talking heads until his candidacy was unable to pull the knife out of his back and he had to give up. Bush was the choice of the Chamber of Commerce and the corporate owners of the news media.If you can tailor peoples' view of the candidate on the evening news, you can have enormous influence on the voters.
The mess that is the democratic party's primary and caucus system is not the fault of the candidates. On that point I agree with you.
However, the way the candidates have reacted to the situation is absolutely their own responsibility.
The Obama campaign has played by and accepted the rules all along. They agreed to compromises on MI and FL which gave Obama less than he'd originally hoped for.
The Clinton campaign first agreed to the rules, then turned around and compared the rules to Florida 2000, the civil rights movement, and Zimbabwe elections. They refused any offer of compromise and are now having hissie fits over 4 delegates while trailing by more than 170.
How candidates react to difficult situations during campaigns tells us quite a bit about how they'll react to difficult situations in Washington DC and in the international community.
Who has shown more rational, fair, honest and respectable behavior during this campaign?
Their own behavior and that of their campaigns is something which is very much the 'fault' (responsibility) of the candidates.
You can't blame the DNC for Clinton's *behavior.*
Here's a flash for all of you. Five states moved their primaries forward in violation of Democratic rules. They are; Florida, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The last three states received wavers, Florida and Michigan did not. I've not seen anyone address this anywhere in the media much less explain the difference in the treatment of the voters in these five states. Why were Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina granted wavers while Florida and Michigan were not? Howard Dean on this morning's "This Week" missed a chance to explain the unequal treatment of Democratic voters acting instead as if this were something he did not have to answer for. We are only left to wonder.
I believe it is not being covered because it is not true.
IA, NH, SC and NV were selected to have their contests in the pre-Feb 5 window. The waiver was issued to NH who moved there primary to 2nd in order instead of 3rd. Nevertheless, they were still allowed to go early.
Only MI and FL moved their primaries early without authority and hence that is why they are being punished.
"If Michigan and Florida's party bosses had thought ahead, they might have realized that a punishment was in store."
Don't quite understand this. Are you indicating that you believe that the punishment came as a surprise to them?... that they weren't warned in advance? ... that they didn't agree to rules stating that they would be punished as a result of their actions?
They knew and tried to bully thier way to the front of the line anyway... believing that Dean couldn't make it stick.
I appreciate your rationality.
Yeah, then why does he have the facts wrong? It wasn't the "party bosses" who made the decision, it was the rethugs who wanted their state's primary moved up because they knew the problem it would create. Rethugs have little regard for the history of the primary process, letting unknowns have a chance by personal introductions to the people of two small states; their primaries are more coronation than selection.
Actually, the Democrats all voted for the measure. It was a unanimous vote. Look it up. So, if they didn't protest then, why the uproar now?
Why didn't the Democrats protest?
Yes, in Florida at least (I live in FL) it was the Republican dominated legislature that moved the primary, not the Dem party bosses. Which leads one to ask why the passionate protesters were at the DNC meeting, but not at the Florida legislature when the measure was being decided.
The Democrats in the legislature went along with it, though, didn't they?
Because sadly the protesters were misrepresenting what they actually cared about...they weren't protesting for MI and FL voters, they were protesting for Hillary Clinton.
I believe that the resolution to move the primary was introduced by the Democrats in FL. When they discovered that the DNC was serious about punishment they tried to move it back but the Republicans wouldn't let them. The Dems played chicken and lost.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
