Throughout the speech, She grounds her appeals in the fundamental principles of our country, such as our shared civic faith, equal justice under the law, government cannot abridge our fundamental rights, government is derived from the consent of the people, and citizens need an equal voice in determining the the destiny of our nation. While the nation did not begin with full rights for everyone, overtime, movements fought for the expansion of rights. Clinton concludes this section of the speech by stating that Senator Obama and herself, "have an obligation as potential Democratic nominees - in fact, we all have an obligation as Democrats - to carry on this legacy and ensure that in our nominating process every voice is heard and every single vote is counted." A core mission of the Democrats is to expand the right to vote, e.g. Civil Rights, Voting Rights Act, fighting redistricting efforts that dilute vote of minorities, and voter identification laws. By analogy, seating these audiences would be an expansion of those movements.
Her overall argument is that since the voters in Michigan and Florida voted in Florida, it is the responsibility of the Democratic Party to respect that vote. Further, it does not matter whether or not Senator Obama's name was on the ballot. Connecting this vote to the Election of 2000, she argues:
Now, I’ve heard some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules. I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country - that whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their votes should be counted.
There are a few problems with her argument. First, while I'm not surprised she presently concerns herself with democracy, I wonder why she was not concerned with democracy in August and September of 2007, especially since members of the DNC, some of whom play a prominent role in Clinton's campaign-- Harold Ickes--, allowed this to go through. This just presents a conflict of interests. Like the other candidates and the DNC, she is just as responsible for not allowing the original votes to be excluded from the contest. This is also the problem of allowing the political parties too much control of the electoral process.
Second, if there is concern over Democracy, why is there no concern over the democratic process. The original votes developed through illegitimate elections as the candidates could not campaign or develop a get out to vote effort, and the ballots were not honest. Further, the re-votes proposed by the Clinton campaign would have disenfranchised voters in the two states. Yet, while pushing for revotes, she showed no concern over those aspects of disenfranchisement. Asking for votes to counts from elections that were illegitimate is not the best way to advance the cause of democracy or Civil Rights. Asking for revotes that would exclude the voices of citizens would not advance the cause of democracy or Civil Rights. This bothers me, and it would bother me no matter which candidate made the argument.
Third, Senator Clinton attempts to alter the rules of the game, again, asking the Super Delegates to focus on the popular vote and not the delegate count.
We believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will. We believe it today, just as we believed it back in 2000 when right here in Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren’t counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner. The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear. If any votes aren’t counted, the will of the people is not realized and our democracy is diminished. That is what I have always believed.
The problem with the popular vote is threefold. First, when preparing for the nomination contests, the candidates target areas in which they can win delegates. If they did not, no one would campaign in the small states, diminishing the interests of the citizens in those states. Second, the states employ different methods (primaries/ caucuses) and have different standards for who can vote (open/ closed primaries). The result of an election in the primary may be those who voted at a particular moment in time, but it is not the will of the people. If these elections were the will of the people, then New York State disenfranchised a good number of people in the Democratic Primary since it is a closed primary. Additionally, because the primary does not possess the same voting requirement as a primary, the results are not comparable to a general election. Third, when making the will of the people argument, Senator Clinton does not include those who voted in caucuses and those that voted uncommitted in Michigan. Her argument should be the will of some people.
Both candidates have handled this poorly but this speech does not advance voting rights. It only advances the interest of one candidate. While this is no surprise, it does not advance the cause of democracy. If the residents of Florida believe that the Democrats disenfranchised the voters in January, counting the votes now after the elections were not legitimate will not help the process. If the Democrats disrespected the voters in Florida, seating them now is not a sign of respect.
Postscript: According to MSNBC, in an interview with a Cleveland Radio station, Senator Clinton stated:
“We’ve got to change the way we nominate presidents for a lot of reasons,” she said. “I personally believe these caucuses are terribly unrepresentative. … [And] I think that what’s happened with Florida and Michigan raises serious questions about the principles of our party.”
In another irony, this quote subverts democracy as it challenges the caucus system. While the caucus system may not be the best method, that does not mean it is undemocratic. It is a form of deliberative democracy. And while people argue that these form of elections prevent people form voting, all elections prevent people from voting (closed primaries, teenagers, voter registration). Yet, states chose the caucus system democratically through their state legislatures.
3 comments:
One of the worst things about this is what you touch on in the beginning, only now, in late May, does either candidate address it in a major speech. And, again as you point out, she only addresses it out of self-interest.
It is to your credit that you would feel the same about this situation were the candidate's positions reversed.
It is to the eternal discredit of Obama and Clinton and the Democratic Party writ large, that this is true of none of them.
Most telling of all, to date not a single major player in the Democratic Party, that Harrogate is aware of, has apologized for their role in the drafting and enforcement of the INANE RULE that, like a dead rat, lies at the bottom of this whole mess.
Nobody has said, I shouldn't have signed it. This, even though it is so plainly dumb.
A Truth:
There are no 'good guys' in the upper echelon of The Democratic Party. They're just less noxious, measurably, than the other party.
Unfortunately, there are major differences in nomination contests and general elections. According to Supreme Court decisions, though the elections occur through the state, the parties possess a lot of power over the contests, to the point where they can exclude potential candidates from running as a Republican or Democratic or from allowing independents or members of an opposition party from voting. This is not "Democracy." It shouldn't be constitutional as states, not parties, control the election.
All of the candidates made political choices about these contests since these would not be legitimate elections. Edwards and Obama took their names of in Michigan with the understanding that they would not count and they could save time, effort, and money by focusing on other states where they could win and improve their chances. Senator Clinton left her name on, knowing that these would be beauty contests. And why not? She had an institutional advantage and, when she became the nominee, she would seat them without it being a problem.
Of course, very few expected the inevitable candidate to fall and that the Democratic primary would be so close all the way through. Even though Bill Clinton won the nomination in June, it was a formality from the beginning of Spring.
The only silver lining is that Obama has enough delegates where these MI and FL delegates, seated at full strength, do not make too much difference. Since momentum mattered little in this race, seating them or not seating them in January may not have made a difference in the primary. Maybe it cost Senator Clinton an opportunity to raise funds but, based on what we know of her ability to fundraise and means of fundraising, I do not think that the cost would be significant.
Of course, they may not be able to win the states in the fall. Though, if recent polls are correct, Senator Clinton wins Florida and Senator Obama wins Michigan. This occurs even without seating these states at the convention, which undercuts Senator Clinton's disrespect or disenfranchisement argument.
We are mostly talking past each other here, as we have been from the beginning on this issue. We have different concerns. Harrogate has zero interest in how this will all shake out for Obama and Clinton. Nor would he perceive a "silver lining" in the Dems conduct, based on the results.
What you say about the political choices that the candidates made is all. too. true. And it is of course says everything we need to know about them that they were so willing to screw over Democrats in those states, for whatever perceived gain.
For what they signed was not only an anti-democratic pledge.
From an artistic standpoint, its the sheer banality of the thing that, all else aside, really would serve justice by coming back to bite the Dems in the ass.
Only a small handful of political hyper-junkies would dare defend, in front of cameras with real people watching them, the rule at the bottom of all this, on its own merits. And yet, one of the two major parties put it into effect.
Noone will admit culpability. And yet they are soooo different from George W. Bush.
Still, Harrogate does see one good thing that can come from this:
The next time the Dems have a primary, they don't do this again.
Again from an Artistic Standpoint, the other good thing would be if the people Michigan and Florida had summoned enough balls to ban the Democratic nominee from their tickets. But then, such is they stuff of myth, legend, and dust.
Post a Comment