Dems: Don't Change the Rules in the Middle of the Game

Here it comes: Obama supporters denouncing suprdelegates as "party bosses" who could dictate who the nominee is and Clinton supporters insisting that Florida/Michigan delegates be seated based on those primaries' voters.

Such appeals don't compute. Sure any of us could have originally come to a different method than creating 796 superdelegates or unseating delegates from states that violated DNC edicts. But now trying to alter the rules after the voting has begun -- which guarantees that one side or the other will piously whine "we wuz robbed," in the immortal words of the Brooklyn Dodgers -- is a formula for defeat. Any changes now will not only infuriate the losing candidate's supporters but also could delegitimize the nomination this Fall.

You don't change a law if you don't like the results -- you don't move the goal posts during the game to advantage your favorite team. I've lived through this one. When Mayor Giuliani tried to change a century-old constitutional precedent because he personally didn't want me, as Public Advocate, to succeed him if he won a U.S. Senate race in 2000 (against Hiillary Clinton) and left office, the public rejected him 3-1 in a referendum because we had both run under the existing law.

So is it unfair that Bush won the presidency over Gore because of a stupid two century procedure called the Electoral College? Or that multi-millionaires can self-finance because the stupid 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision overturned a 1974 congressional law? Yes to both. "Life is unfair," JFK famously said. And rules are rules. Gore knew about the 1789 Electoral College before he ran. And Obama and Clinton knew about the 1982 superdelegates rule before they ran.

The late Senator Warren Magnuson once sagely said, "All anybody wants in life is an unfair advantage." So is it an unfair advantage that Clinton had a long head start with party officials who are superdelegates because of her husband's administration? Or that Obama's very newness makes him a less inviting target of the Far (F)right accustomed to swift-boating Democrats? Sorry, the answer to both is not yes or no but -- it now doesn't matter. Each candidate will now play the hand they're dealt, according to the Rules of the House.

So I hope that we can be spared petitions and threats unless Florida and Michigan delegates are seated based on the prior votes or that superdelegates must be neutered. First, superdelegates are not Martians sent to screw up our democracy but governors, senators, representatives and party leaders who are surely interested in Democratic values and winning the White House; all together, they're less a Boss Daley than a huge focus group which wants to win. (And since smoking is prohibited in such venues, at the least critics should avoids references to "smoke-filled rooms.")

Second, if they should make the margin of difference, it's not that they'd be ignoring voters but, in effect, helping break a tie because voters themselves are essentially split between two evenly matched and superior candidates. For all but the most intense Obamamanics and Clintonistas surely now get that we have two extremely skillful center-left aspirants, each with 75%+ favorable ratings among Dems and each likely to prevail against a McCain seeking a 3rd Bush term.

Unless, that is, naive and immature supporters threaten ruin unless their guy or gal wins the nomination according to their suggested revised rules. This year, my-way-or- the-highway is so. so Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham.

When a legislative body considers election law changes or pay hikes, it normally goes into effect in the next cycle so that the presumptions governing current election laws or pay levels are not altered mid-term.

Ditto the race for the Democratic nomination.

If someone wins the nomination who has the most delegates and most pledged delegates, votes in primaries, states won and superdelegates secured, wonderful. But if one candidate has, say, the most overall delegates according to the rules -- even though he/she has slightly fewer pledged delegates, votes and states won -- then let's unite behind him/her...and empanel another commission to reconsider the rules next time.

For now, every petition circulated, every threat made is a stalking horse for McCain. The most important thing by far is that Dems unite behind either Clinton or Obama. After eight years of serial catastrophes, I'll be happy with a Democratic president who's law-abiding, fact-based, progressive and competent -- which describes both aspirants. Remember disaffected, sanctimonious Democrats who in 1968 found such fault with Hubert Humphrey that they then indirectly helped Richard Nixon win?

That was brilliant.

Democrats, it's time to win, not whine.

Comments

[peternyc]

You don't get it Mark. It's not about whining. It's about real change. Not the change from Bush to Clinton, that is like Coke to Pepsi. Obama addressed it the other day; Hillary supporters will get behind him, but his supporters may not get behind her. Don't blame those people or call them spoiled. That thinking, you're thinking (which is obviously pro-Clinton, is a part of the problem) This goes beyond the Democratic Party and securing a spot in the white house for a 'D'. The Democratic Party has failed us during this administration. Obama represents a change of the entire system.

[Nonamnesiac]

RERUN THE MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA PRIMARIES

The most democratic (Democratic?) way to resolve the Michigan/Florida divide is to rerun both primaries, perhaps on the same day as the Puerto Rico contest (June 7, I think).

The DNC should pay for half of the cost for running the primaries and the other half should be paid for however primaries are normally funded. In this way, a potentially party-dividing resolution at the Convention would be avoided in a manner that is equally fair and unfair to the candidates but wholly fair to the Democratic primary voters of that state. The so-called "super" delegates from Michigan and Florida should be forced to vote however the voters of the state vote. If it is a "winner-take-all" state, then the super delegates should vote however the majority in the state vote. If delegates are proportionately apportioned, then the super delegates should vote however the voters from the district from which they come vote.

Admittedly this resolution means a very different primary than it would have meant when the states original primaries occurred, as, among other things, there would only be 2 candidates on the ballot. However having another primary would be democratic and would also give the states what they were seeking by moving the election in contravention to DNC rules, in that each state's primary would be of major importance to determining who the candidate is. At the same time, having another primary would put to bed a division that could literally jeopardize the outcome of the national election in November and resolve the NAACP complaints that minority voters would be disenfranchised if the FL and MI delegations are not seated, and the delegates from those states would not be the subject of a bitter tug-of-war that would anger significant proportions of the campaign workers from those states necessary to get out the vote (who is exactly who state delegates to the Convention are) regardless of whether the delegations are seated or not.

Rerun the primaries in Michigan and Florida.

[liveandlearn]

we did already vote, and the broke state paid for the election. if the dlc insists that we vote again, let the dlc pay for the new election. otherwise, let the direct votes for hillary count and the indirect votes for obama count 2/3, since he was sharing those votes with edwards.

michigan has every right to be heard in this primary.

[rahgolf]

Rerun nothing! As a Florida resident (R) I see no reason to waste another million on a forgone conclusion.

However Mr Green missed the ultimate conclusion
the Dem Super Delegates will rationally be casting their ballots for the candidate with the most direct votes. Voiding that nefarious procedure of hucksterism that flys in the face of one person one vote (hows that for PC BS)

[Nonamnesiac]

During this primary season, "foregone conclusions" and "conventional wisdom" have ended up leading to results opposite to "foregone conclusions" and the "conventional wisdom".

Neither Michigan nor Florida had fair primaries on the Democratic side of the table. The DNC should pay half and the other half should be paid for in the normal manner primaries are paid for.

It's the only way to have a fair result -- a result that will not cause one side or the other to refrain from working as hard as they can to win in November, as the exact people who will be seated or not seated at the Convention are those who get out the vote -- and which ever side wins the seating issue will cause many of the other candidate's campaign workers to sit it out.

[stop7997]

Wish I could be on the Air American cruise to see the sparks fly between Mark Green and Randi Rhodes , who is LIVID about the whole superdelegate mess.

[DrPaulProteus]

This is a win-win situation:

a) Super-delegates are unseated giving un-super delegates an equal say, or

b) Super-delegates prevail, and the barnacled and corrupt Democratic Party establishment yet again subverts the will of the base, nullifying all the hope and disenfranchising new voters that Obama has gotten to engage in the process. Hopefully if the super-delegates prevail, these voters, and others who've been around a while and are tired of being used, will leave the traitorous and useless Democratic Party en masse after yet another major betrayal, rendering it even more craven and impotent (if that's even possible), and less able to withstand the next onslaught of popular will.

Either option is good for democracy.

[patrice37]

Great post! Mark Green doesn't understand --- and maybe this is one reason why he loses elections himself --- that we have not all signed loyalty oaths to the calcified Democratic Party. The goal is not enforcing a set of Holy Rules (though I suspect Mark likes some rules more than others) but getting voters to like your party and vote for its candidate. If the superdelegates don't understand this, they are free to continue their weird fraternity rituals in a vastly depleted party. They will always have each other, and Bill Clinton, too.

[Collielady]

The American people have turned out in unprecedented numbers to speak their peace. But, once again, we participated in a corrupt system, trying to make-believe that maybe, just maybe, this time our votes would count.

In Michigan we were told that we had to vote for Clinton, Kucinich, or "Undecided". A write-in would invalidate the ballot. "Undecided" would be decided by delegates.

It seems to me that "the powers that be" aren't at all happy with the way this election is turning in Obama's favor. So, now they want to change the rules and have super delegates be the deciders. Watch it all miraculously go to Clinton. Once again, corporate America will have their way and the changes we had hoped for, that motivated us to vote en masse, will die a slow death.

[rahgolf]

MOVE!

[GoldCanyonGal]

Thanks! I needed that little slap in the face today, to keep me on track...as my dreams of both candidates on one ticket appear to be fading rapidly. At a time when I should be celebrating a Democratic victory either way, I find myself fraught with foreboding...not another 1968 Convention. My common sense tells me there is something wrong with Obama, he promises more than he can ever deliver, more than WE can deliver. He gets more egotistical and grandiose by the day...this morning I was listening to him give a speech and he said "...together we can save this country, together we can save world..." The World? Please, stop! I felt like I was sitting the front pew at a Pentacostal sermon..a very uncomfortable place for me to be...it made the hair stand up on the back of my neck in an icky way...I just have a bad (worse) feeling in the last few days that I didn't seem to have a couple of weeks ago. I wish the Party would just broker a deal...whatever it is...so I can stop being uncomfortable and return to being soooo glad to see the Repubs bite the dirt.

[liveandlearn]

as an object of people's hopes, obama is all things to all people. as an object of people's hatreds, whatever hillary does will be bashed.

too bad that people cannot look at their relative qualifications. hillary would make a great president.

[schoolmaster]

I agree. The voters are sometimes like a donkey, the symbol of democratic party. They turn based on which side you slap. Politicians play tricks and take advantage of the psyche of voters of all age groups.

[Mikie]

Let's see Mark, one of you Super Delegates is worth about 10,000 of us regular peon democratic primary voters. And, that is as it should be, because who knows what kind of a candidate us regular peon democrats might nominate. I mean just look at 2004. No the DNC should keep the Super Delegates in place to make sure that us regular peon democrats don't screw up the party. I realize that it isn't that you party insiders don't trust us regular peon democrats or that you think we are stupid. But, we certainly don't care about the party as much as you Super Delegates and none of us regular peon democrats is as dedicated to the party as any of you, so you need to have a way to make sure that we don't mess up. I mean what do us regular peon democrats know anyway. Shoot most of us aren't even politicians.

[nellie]

"You don't change a law if you don't like the results... "

Tell that to the civil rights movement.

[oligodendroglia]

"You don't change a law if you don't like the results -- you don't move the goal posts during the game to advantage your favorite team."

In other words ... you can't change the rules in the middle of the game ...

what does this have to do with the civil rights movement? how can the 2 (civil rights and election rules) be compared?

when it comes to the civil rights movement ... all established rules should have been challenged at any time.

but rules of an election? sorry ... apples and oranges ...

[PinkoAttic]

It is true that comparing the civil rights movement to this campaign is like comparing apples and oranges. The former was an attempt to alter the course of a society. This campaign is merely a competition, and the competitors knew what the rules were when it began and should be expected to abide by them. Nobody predicted that it may come down to the choice of the Superdelegates however, who would normally vote en masse at the convention for the candidtate who was the prevailing choice of the voters. Superdelegates have no democratic mandate since they are elected by no one, and were they to give one candidate the nomiation even though he/she did not win a plurality of the elected delegates, then they would be deriving the process of any democratic legitimacy. Another rule that cannot be changed is the exclusion of Michigan and Florida from the vote count. All candidates ran their campaigns on the assumption that these states would not be available and it is too late in the day to allow their delegates to corrupt the process (if they were allowed to vote now, then they would gain the very primordial influence that they sought by moving their primaries forward in the calender, since there are only 2 candidates left to choose from rather than a pack). A) Superdelegates must respect the democratic process and either vote in proportion to the delegates elected from their respective states; B) Florida and Michigan must not be counted.

[deltamark]

You're wrong as usual, party yes-man. If the superdelegates vote contrary to the popular vote, you'll destroy the grassroots enthusiasm for this election. It's been hard enough to be a Democrat the last 7 years w/ the gutless performance of our Congress. Steal the Primary from optimistic voters, and we'll lose again in the general election, as usual. Wake up!

[xcrunner77]

Exactly. all of us grassroots people who have poured our time, energy, and money into Obama will not sit still if he goes into the convention with the most pledged delegates -- as chosen by the voters -- but does not come out as the nominee.

This is all happening because everyone knows that the superdelegates would only throw the nomination to Hillary if she is behind. If Obama is behind they won't hesitate to endorse Hillary.

A stolen nomination *will* result in a McCain victory, and demonstrations in the streets.

Meanwhile, let's all chill and let the people vote. For once, those of us in states other than Iowa and new hampshire matter. Let's enjoy the fact that later voting states still have a reasont to go to the polls.

One last thought.. obama and edwards weren't even on the Michigan ballot! Who knows, maybe edwards would still be in the race if people were allowed to vote for him. In any case, how is it fair to seat the delegates of Hillary Clinton when she was the only one on the ballot? The only other places I know of with a single name on the ballot are fascist and/or totalitarian states. (The difference is that in those states the one person on the ballot usually wins 95%+ of the vote. Hilary couldn't even do that!)

[chuckieboy]

We need an internet campaign. Publish the names, email, phone #, home address, etc. and start to bombard these people to do the right thing. It's only our country that is at stake.

[Luc65]

Do you really think that, after the 2000 election, the Democratic party can afford to forget about Florida?

It seems to me that the Democrats are on their way to loose again this year. Continue to fight with the procedures, change the way electorate works and make sure to upset people who vote. That's the sure way for the Dem to loose the general election.

And in a true democracy, if somebody does not like a law, he/she should be able to challenge it and change it. It's called Direct Democracy and the only true one.

[donaldw6]

Can we perform a mental exercise, and consider these questions exclusive of the candidates involved?

Florida and Michigan held primaries in which some of the candidates were partially or entirely unrepesented, under conditions which all agreed were unofficial due to infractions of party rules. Irrespective of any candidates involved, does it seem fair to include delegates that would disadvantage candidates who adhered more strictly to the rulings of the Democratic party?

The superdelegate question is just as easily considered separately from the candidates involved. The possibility exists that a handful of political insiders can overturn the selection of a candidate from primaries all across the country. This process makes a dozen or so bigwigs the equivalent of an entire state's worth of the voting public. To me, this smacks more of Tammany Hall than modern democracy, regardless of which candidate it might advantage.

That wasn't so hard, was it? We're still capable of stepping back from our emotions and looking at things somewhat objectively. These issues tie into basic principles of fairness and democracy. I would much prefer to discuss them on that level instead of the emotionally charged advocacy that blurs the perspective.

[TerryFL]

.
Democrats here in Florida were told that our votes would not count. Many, believing Dean, Clinton, Obama et al, did not bother to go to the polls. We believed it was akin to filling out an absentee ballot for Putin (a waste of time at best, a joke at worst). Now they want to validate the results. I do not believe these results are representative of the electorate.

.

[GeorgeKaplan]

These rules have been in place since 1982... you don't like those rules? Lets change those rules... right after the election.

Nothing else makes sense...

[xargaw]

MI and Fl should not count unless there is another contest. Obama was not even on the ballot in MI because he respected the DNC rules. As far as the Supers, they should honor the voters choice and go along with whoever has the most earned delegates when the primary/caucuses are over.

[rahgolf]

See above! The winner is the one with the most direct votes. Failure to put your name on a ballot can be construed as a kick in the face to the voters in that state! As you placxe party over the people's choice!

[WIDESTANCE]

after 8 years of voter disenfranchisement and suffering at the hands of a small group of republican neocons who are intent on the destruction of the (once)great American middle class, i find it horribly ironic and indefensible that the Clinton machine is now attempting to do exactly the same thing all over again

clinton agreed to the florida/ michigan delegate deal along with everybody else, but now that it looks like she's gonna need them, she's working hard to get them back in

if this is any indication of the kind of behaviour we can look forward to "from day one" and for the next 4 years, i say

NO THANK YOU, HILLARY, I PREFER TO HAVE A PRESIDENT WITH SOME CHARACTER, HONESTY AND INTEGRITY

[Maxine]

I can live with either winner as long as it is not a Republican.