On Michigan, Florida, and Counting Votes

With the finish line of the Democratic primary season on the horizon, the campaigns and party big wigs are trying to figure out what to do with Michigan and Florida. Here's the problem - back before the primaries got rolling, the DNC told those two states not to move their elections up so as to screw with the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire. They did anyway, so the DNC stripped the states of their delegates. As a result, nobody actually campaigned in either state (Obama and Edwards even took their names off the ballot in Michigan).

If the primaries had gone the way everyone expected - just like the GOP race (in which Florida and Michigan lost half their delegates) - and a front runner emerged early and seized control, it wouldn't really matter. Once a nominee was clear, everybody would kiss, make up, and sing "Kumbaya" at the convention in Denver. But, the close race between Obama and Clinton killed that vision. Now the voters in those states have become a serious problem, as Democrats don't want to piss off all those voters come November.

Whirling around the issues is the craven nature of the Clinton campaign's position on Michigan and Florida. As this Slate piece makes clear, Clinton was on board with ignoring Michigan and Florida back when she was the presumptive nominee. In fact, when the DNC made the decision to strip those state's delegates, the only vote against the idea was an Obama backer from (take a guess) Florida. But now that she need every last vote and delegate to mount any argument for the nomination, she's falling all over herself to be the champion of the suppressed voters. It's embarrassing.

Which is not to say that coming up with some accommodation for Michigan and Florida isn't necessary (Obama is proposing a solution). Pissing off Democratic voters in two swing states isn't the brightest thing to do. Is another GOP administration a price worth paying for keeping Iowa and New Hampshire on their primary pedestals? I don't think so and I hope the Dems in those states don't think so, either.

You know, this entire primary campaign has highlighted how messed up the Democratic system is. It seems like every state does things differently - caucus, open primary, closed primary, convention, a combination of all those - and it makes it really difficult to get a national consensus about a nominee. Maybe this year's mess will lead to some changes for the next time around.

As in 2000 (and, to a lesser extent, 2004), democracy seems to be at its worst when the race is tight, which is just when we need it to be at its best.