Worries About a Florida Primary Do-Over Through Vote By Mail
There are strong reasons, both equitable and political, to do something about the current standoff over whether Florida's delegates to this summer's Democratic National Convention should be seated. But the idea currently floated by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) of conducting a "do-over" via an all vote-by-mail primary makes me very concerned about the security and accuracy of such a vote. A far better option would be to award delegates 50-50 to Sens. Clinton and Obama.
Politically knowledgeable people know the relevant background. As I recently explained at Slate, "Florida and Michigan famously held their primaries too early this year, violating the scheduling rules set by the Democratic National Committee. None of the Democratic candidates campaigned in those states, and Obama's name did not even appear on the Michigan ballot. ("Uncommitted" got 40 percent of the votes, compared with Clinton's 55 percent.) Clinton won both of these contests, and she has taken the position that the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated, a position rejected by the DNC chair, Howard Dean."
Certainly seating Florida and Michigan delegates elected from these early states a very bad precedent for the Democratic Party. It would only encourage states in future elections to buck party rules and increase the race to the front of the line in an already front-loaded primary system. But Michigan and Florida voters didn't make this choice of when to vote; politicians made if for them, and it seems unfair to punish these voters by not allowing their votes to count or their delegates to be seated. And in any case, these states are too important to the Democrats in the November general election to risk angering them now.
One possibility some have suggested is simply seating Florida and Michigan delegations with an even split between Clinton and Obama delegates. That's not what the Florida and Michigan voters chose, but that seems fairer than approving the results of a contest run under unfair rules and conditions.
A fairer option -- if it is feasible -- is a "do-over." Michigan, which already has great experience running caucuses, is rumored to be planning a late spring caucus.
Florida presents a much more difficult problem. It has no experience with caucuses, and it is in the process of transitioning, yet again, between voting technologies. (Florida was one of the first states to phase out those inaccurate punch card voting machines, but they were replaced by electronic voting machines. The state has now decided to scrap the electronic machines, given public distrust over their use, and is replacing them with other technology such as optical scan equipment.)
Sen. Nelson's call for voting by mail has some surface appeal. The election is simple -- a single question with a small number of choices. Poll workers would not be required, nor the rolling out of election machinery. It will be cheaper, which is especially important because there is a large argument over who should pay for a do-over primary.
But an all vote by mail primary makes me very nervous. Putting aside the fact that such a vote is not allowed under current Florida law and would need approval of the Florida legislature, vote by mail simply is not as secure as polling place voting. Vote by mail is essentially a mandatory absentee ballot election. Absentee balloting raises the specter of voter fraud and coercion, for the simple reason that polling officials are absent when voting choices are made. In the absence of a secret ballot, it becomes much easier to enter into an illegal vote buying contract, because the buyer can verify how the seller has voted. In addition, because voting takes place out of the public eye, the possibility of coercion or intimidation about how to vote becomes possible. Even if a Florida do-over would not produce a clear delegate winner between Clinton and Obama, it would have great political importance and could well influence the votes of the superdelegates, who will hold the balance of power if this issue goes to the convention.
It might be that my concerns over the security of vote-by-mail in Florida are overstated. After all, Oregon's vote by mail system has been touted as an excellent and fair system. Perhaps so for Oregon. But what is true for Oregon is not so true for Florida. One need only think back to the massive absentee ballot fraud in the 1997 Miami mayoral race that led a court to order a new election. And there's something especially worrisome about rolling out a new system for counting votes for the first time in a presidential contest. It is like debuting your new play straight on Broadway.
The worst-case scenario for a Florida do-over is that the race is exceedingly close, and credible questions are raised about the fairness of the voting process. That won't help anyone -- especially Democrats -- when Florida voters return to the polls in November.
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
Michigan is also pursuing a mail-in redo as the only viable solution, as another primary violates state law,and Clinton will not concede to a caucus. A mail in vote is highly problematic due to fraud. But my question is to what end? A net of five delegates for someone? That's going this once and for all? And what about next election cycle, anybody addressing that?
Considering the nightmare we had with Florida with Gore and Bush and hanging chads, why the hell did the DNC have to punish the 2 states in the first place. It was dumb. Just have a do over and take us all out of our misery!
I understand the reasons why Dean wanted it, but when Criss pulled his stunt -- putting the date into the big bill that promised hard recounts and paper receipts -- I don't think Florida Democrats had any choice. Imagine the Republicans crowing when they voted against what they'd been talking about for years. That's what happens when Republicans rule both houses and the governorship by 2:1; they play you for fools, and they win either way. I think it was Dean who got outfoxed, much as I love the guy.
Can we arrange to have Cuba annex south Florida?
50/50 cancels each other out and is the equivalent of ZERO.
utterly stupid and ridiculous. Florida's 1.7 million Dem voters (and my mom is one of them) will be up in arms (they already are).
I vote by mail and it's a breeze. A do-over is the only fair way to resolve the Florida and Michigan controversy. These states not only should hold special vote-by-mail do-overs, they should use this opportunity to transition to vote-by-mail systems, leaving behind their clunky caucuses and questionable voting machines. Online voting -- assuming a secure system could be developed -- would make the process even more efficient.
I visited a care home once during elections in another country. Party workers went from room to room and had the residences sign forms, which were ballots for their man. Of course these people did not even know what they were signing. This kind of thing would happen in Florida, I imagine.
There are a lot of old people in Florida.
New rule: if you vote for a Republican for president, you may not die until the next election.
First of all, the talk about delegates": "she has taken the position that the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated' is a misstatement. There are no democratic delegates in Florida or Michigan. The Democratic Party decides who is or is not a Democratic part delegate. Since a Democratic primary/caucus did not occur in wither state, the Party has not defined anyone as a delegate, to be seated or not. What happened were elections carried out at the behest of states; states don't make decisions for political parties (at least not for now). Whatever people were labeled as "somethings" by MI and FL they are persona-non-grata vis-Ã -vis the DNC.
Saying that those somethings are "delegates' is like saying Barry Bonds is an outfielder for the San Francisco Giants. Yes, he's a baseball player, and an outfielder. And he wants to be a Giants outfielder, but his desire and my labeling him as such doesn't make him a SF Giants outfielder. It takes the SF Giants (in conjunction with Bonds) to make him their outfielder. They haven't. Hence, he’s not a SF Giant.
Just like the MI and FL "somethings" aren't delegates.
This is far more than pedantry. If the salience doesn’t occur to you, keep thinking. The whoel dialogue would be better off if true meanings of these terms were used, because the inaccurate meanings distort the underlying political reality. Far be it for our press to foster intelligent political dialogue and clarity in the face of spin, deception, and obfuscation.
Splitting a delegate slate for each state 50-50? Why? I think the furor is over being disenfranchised as voting delegates, not not being merely "seated." Then again, pledged delegates aren't required to vote for the candidate they are pledged to support (another ludicrous rule) so what constitutes 50-50?
In some variations of the delegate scenario, a 50/50 split would help the leader go over the top. An even 50-50 split would also have a disproportionate effect on the percentages of delegates held by each by increasing the percentage held by the candidate with the lower vote total nore than the other candidate. Do the math on (made up figures) 1700 vs. 1500 delegates re: % of total and then after adding some number X to both and recalculating.
in addition to the delegates themselves, it is possible that actual voting totals will allow Clinton the possibility of over taking Obama in the National popular vote even if the actual delegate count doesn't change much.
Mr. Hasen's concerns are well-founded. I live in Oregon, and practiced election law here for many years representing Democrats. Oregon's vote-by-mail system works very well. However, I do not believe that a state with no experience in this system can put it in place for a special election after a few weeks preparation. In our system, ballots are sent to registered voters and are returned in a special security envelope, included inside a larger return envelope. After including the marked ballot in the envelopes, the voter must sign the outside of the return envelope. I believe there would not be enough time to train and hire the legions of election workers needed to check voter registration signatures on the millions (in Florida) of return envelopes containing the marked ballots; registration would need to be cut off several weeks before the election to allow for proper inclusion of registration signatures in data bases; technical requirements include a system which allows for quick cross-checking and examination of signatures when ballots are returned; and the state would need to acquire and install an optical-scan system to quickly and securely read all the returned ballots. Also, the state would need up-to-date, purged and clean registration records to make sure ballots are not sent to voters who are no longer alive, resident, or registered. Finally, Oregon has a very long history of clean elections. We have never had the types of massive voting frauds which have occurred in other states. In a state where election chicanery is recent and not unlikely, and the security of ballot preparation, mailing, receipt, and counting is not air-tight, the opportunity for fraud will be present.
actually, there has NEVER been massive voting fraud anywhere. It's a republican myth. But, they are good at creating the illusion of the reality they would like people to think exists.
Never say never.
Thank you for your comments, they are well articulated.
So, um...how is awarding delegates in equal number to both candidates any different from not awarding any at all? Am I missing something here? Is the goal just to make voters from Florida and Michigan feel better, and hope they're not very good at subtraction?
No it is not about making voters of FLA and MICH feel better. It is about counting their votes for the candidate they voted for.
Hey, since Hillary overwhelmingly won Florida, why not just assign all the delegates to her?
I know, won't accomplish your Obama campaign damage control.
As far as your 50/50 suggestion, how about.....
NO WAY!!! Why don't you just suggest giving all the delegates to Obama, accomplishes the same exact thing as splitting them 50/50, which IS NOT what the voters of Florida VOTED FOR.
Nice try. Slink back to the Obama campaign.
Hillary cheated in Florida to get that vote. She had three big fund raising visits to the state before that vote. Those were noted by the media, and that is campaigning. Most people note such visits and any interviews or conjectures associated with the politician involved. That counts almost as much as a speaking tour because most people do not go to hear the speeches anyway.
Hillary is a disgusting cheat. Her "big wins" that "stopped Obama's momentum" were aided tremendously -- maybe even created -- by the Neocon Canadian false leak and Hillary's knowingly using that in her fake news report radio ads. The timing was perfect, just in time to have maximum effect and no correction. That correction came on the day after the voting. Intererestingly the false report was greatly amplified in our media, but there has been no such reporting of ther truth.Does that look as though some crooks want a Clinton McCain race in
the fall? Obama is bering given the well known shaft.
sorry,, but you are wrong. The dem rules allowed the candidates to hold private fund raisers in FL and MI. Both candidates did it.
If you want to talk about cheating, Obama ran TV ads in FL prior to the vote. That was cheating. But, the DNC let him get away with it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
