If there were a revote, the DNC, the State Party, the State Legislature, the candidates, and the voters would need to achieve consensus on the process. Senator Obama has the upper hand since he is the leader in pledged delegates. Senator Clinton is using surrogates and the media to achieve a revote. If there were revotes, it would give Senator Clinton an enormous advantage because of her institutional strength, especially with the new Super Delegates. This may or may not be a problem as to the credibility of the race. There are a few ways in which a Senator Clinton victory in the revotes will not be a problem.
Fairness to the DNC and the candidates:
For the election to be fair, then candidates need time to enact a ground game and raise awareness in the state. I am not sure if this option is available since there are only a few months left in the primary season and it takes a long time to develop and enact a strategy. Additionally, by scheduling a revote at the end of the primary season, the DNC will hurt its chances for the General Election. See my post here. Also, the DNC will diminish its own authority and will have no power to sanction the states in 2012 (yes, this is a parenting argument but it remains valid when states will jump the gun in 2012). More importantly, the DNC punished Florida and Michigan for trying to increase their influence on the primary. Yet, the answer to this is to give them more influence on the primary? Not only would you break the agreement in place but reward the states for breaking the rules by having them decide the election. The DNC may as well just close up shop because even if you fired Dean et al, as no one would listen to the new leaders. They may as well hold the primaries for 2012 right after the 2010 midterm elections as that makes just as much sense.
If there were revotes, it would give Senator Clinton an enormous advantage because of her institutional strength, especially with the Super Delegates. Awarding the election to the Clinton Campaign in the basis of a revote in these two states will tarnish the convention unless Senator Clinton has a lead before the revotes and these were the last two votes.
Type of vote:
Senator Obama would prefer a caucus in Michigan, especially since the state has a tradition of using caucuses, and settle for a primary in Florida, where he would not win. Senator Clinton would prefer primaries in both states. I do not know how the delegate count would go in either state as I am unfamiliar with their plans. If it were a caucus in Michigan and a primary in Florida, then the candidates would split the states. If they both held primaries, Senator Clinton will win Florida while Michigan would be competitive.
To revote, the cost may exceed $50 million and neither the DNR nor the states have the money to pay. Clinton donors have been working the PR battle to raise money for the primaries.
There has been talk of a mail in ballot, which would be cheaper in relation to the primary as it would only cost $5 million. There is some concern about a mail-in-vote because of voter fraud in Florida. However, Politico suggests that the state may have a plan together soon, even though there are concerns it will disenfranchise voters, which seems to undermine the purpose of having a new election as it would not be fair to citizens. If there is reasonable evidence to suggest a mail-in-vote would not be fair to the candidates and the citizens, then it would be reasonable to reject it as an option.
Finally, there is a question as to when the DNC and the states will have the votes. If everyone agreed, it may not be fair to hold these until the middle of June, which would allow other states to hold their primaries. Further, it would take an enormous amount of time and effort to arrange polling places & workers. If these have not been planned well and there is a hint of corruption, the DNC and the Democrats will have major problems at the convention and in the General Election.
Is it fair to the citizens?
For Michigan, either a caucus or primary would be fair. For Florida, only a primary would be fair since it only uses the primary system. The ballots will be honest as the voters will know that their voices will be heard though the circumstances of the vote has changed dramatically and, consequently, the meaning of the popular will be skewed as it reflects a choice at a different point in time with fewer candidates. This seems unfair, especially to the candidates who dropped out of the race. If only there were a different schedule, maybe Edwards or Richardson or Biden would have faired better.
There are a few logistical problems with the vote, especially since according to The New Republic, half of the state of Florida would not have voting machines to use. A mail-in-vote would counter this, but then we have the problems of a mail-in-vote.
Who would be able to vote?
This is one of the major stumbling blocks. First, since the first vote was not honest, some people did not vote or wasted their vote. Consequently, limiting the vote to those who voted in the first primary hardly seems fair. Second, would the candidates be able to register new voters? This may dramatically alter the race but this hardly seems fair to citizens in other states that did not register in time for their primaries. Third, allowing states a revote seems very unfair to citizens in other states who may not have had the ability to vote on the scheduled day. Finally, the new vote may disenfranchise those who need an absentee ballot. Citizens who serve, college students, and the elderly may not be able to vote in this new primary. If there were a mail in ballot, those who live in an urban area may suffer. If you argue that the first primary disenfranchised voters it would seem odd to allow a second vote that would disenfranchise those who voted the first time.
No comments:
Post a Comment