Friday, May 30, 2008

What's Fair is Fair ... but what's Fair?



I’ve heard so much emotionally-laden argument about the delegate counts for Michigan and Florida, with a lot of strong, negative language and inflammatory allegations being thrown around. And once again, the issue that trips me up as I listen to all of this is not who did what when, but whether the scrutiny and moral judgment applied to one candidate is also applied to the other. It’s the fairness thing that bugs me. It seems a sort of hypocrisy to criticize one candidate for doing something, while simply refusing to consider whether the other candidate did it too.

Maybe I’m just fed up with a vocal number of Obama supporters who, in their avid support of their candidate, do a whole lot of Clinton-bashing. I’ll say it again: I think Obama is a FINE candidate. Impressive. Smart. Capable. But isn’t it ironic that the very people who tout how Obama is not involved in dirty politics and doesn’t engage in nasty personal attacks are the ones making the meanest, most personal negative attacks against Clinton? That’s the sort of hypocrisy (on the supporters’ part, not Obama’s) that gets my ire up pretty fast.

So with all the talk about now bad it would be if Clinton were "allowed" to "change the rules in the middle of the game," I did some research about what the rules were in the first place. And I came across some interesting things. Make of them what you will.

I read the DNC rules on the selection of delegates. ( Wanna read them? They’re here.) There were some specific rules that seem to apply here.

First, there’s rule 13, "Fair Reflection of Presidential Preferences." The rule states: "Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention or caucus participants."

"Shall" means that the rule is mandatory, and that the DNC must allocate delegates in a way that fairly reflects what the voters expressed. So, if the DNC were to decide to seat any of the Michigan delegates, how can it award any delegates to Obama without violating this rule? Obama withdrew his name from the ballot, so there was no "expressed presidential preference" in his favor. If Obama and/or his supporters end up with him getting any delegates for Michigan, isn’t that a way of changing Rule 13 in the middle of the race? And isn’t that what Obama people castigate Clinton about?

Second, there are the rules about what happens if a state sets its primary date outside of the timeline approved by the DNC, as Michigan and Florida did, and what that means for the democratic candidates.

Rule 20(C)(1)(b) says: "Any presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provision of these rules ... may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state." The famous "pledge" that people talk about turned this DNC rule into a promise from the individual candidates.

But in January, 2008 (prior to the Florida primary), Obama ran campaign ads in Florida via national cable networks (CNN and MSNBC) contrary to the terms of the pledge. When Obama was charged with violating the pledge, his campaign manager replied that the advertising was a "national buy" and the networks could not eliminate Florida from the national cable advertising. Other candidates (such as Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson) had chosen to buy local advertising for other areas which would not run in Florida, and had refrained from national advertising which might run in Florida to avoid violating the pledge and the DNC rule. Obama’s campaign manager also stated that they had received "permission" to run the ads in Florida from the chair of the South Carolina democratic party. However, the pledge itself makes no provision for any one state or individual to permit deviation from the terms of the pledge, nor does it provide for any exceptions other than fundraising. And, of course, one person in South Carolina can’t waive DNC rule 20.

So if Obama is given any delegates from Florida, or if he and/or his supporters argue that he should get any delegates from Florida, wouldn’t that allow a violation of the pledge, and Rule 20, and result from a change of the rule in the middle of the game?

But if the DNC sticks with the rules as they are, two whole states’ worth of democratic voters will be ignored. And to me, that is simply an intolerable option. I hate the thought in our democracy, especially after the 2000 election fiasco, we’ll end up with a result where people came out and voted and their votes will be meaningless. That just seems hugely wrong to me, regardless of who those votes favor.

So any compromise will involve changing some rule or another. From my perspective, if there are going to be any rule changes or creative interpretations, I’d favor the ones that give voice to people who cast actual votes that we can count. I’m extremely uncomfortable with making up figures out of thin air or reaching some artificial apportionment that doesn’t reflect what voters actually did. Isn't the actual vote count the only actual number we have? Isn't it a strange and dangerous precedent for our democratic system to disregard an actual vote count in favor of some theoretical, imagined number, no matter how "fair" the imagined number might seem to the unelected DNC committee members?

This situation is so complicated. The rules say what they say, and the candidates made their strategic choices for their own political reasons. That's fine -- it's a competition, after all, and they're both in the race to promote their own interests. But I can’t stand how lopsided the discussion seems sometimes. Clinton and Obama are both smart, strategic politicians. They wouldn’t be where they are if they weren’t. They’ve made the decisions that they thought would best benefit them at the time. But when we sort how to address this very difficult mess, let’s just apply the same rules to both competitors.

And while I’m on the subject, one more thought: It feels wrong to me that a political party, and not our elected representatives in state government, gets to decide whose votes count and whose don’t. And in challenging the awkward situation that now exists, I have more respect for a candidate who bucks the party view in favor of sticking up for people, than I do for one who complies with the party line but disregards voters’ voices.

So what’s fair? It’s not an easy answer, is it?

12 comments:

Penny said...

Well, I am not sure how all that works since each state appears to be able to choose how they want to handle their caucuses/primaries. Seems pretty arbitrary, to me. I'm a not a democrat so in many states, I'd have no vote, anyway. Yet in others, I would. I suppose the political parties can do what they want in terms of picking "their" nominee. This whole thing looks weird but at the end of the day, it really isn't any of my business, as an Independent.

As for bashing and dirty politics, the hypocracy I see from partisans is disgusting and it doesn't matter what political party they fall into. Sometimes I wonder if any of them have a moral center - most of the mud slinging seems to be aimed at the opposition with silence or a vigorous defense of "their" candidate who does pretty much the same thing.

My two cents. I appreciate the debate.

Kristin said...

Good food for thought -- and here's some more:

America is not a democracy.

Technically, it's a republic.

Amy said...

Your post is great, Diane! But, I believe any other Democratic candidates pulled their names from the Michigan ballots because it was likely they would be punished in some way by the DNC. From what I have heard, Sen. Clinton wanted to pull her name from the ballot but did not do so in time. While I heartily agree that what the Michigan Dem party did by trying to jump ahead was ridiculous, as a Michigan voter, I already feel cheated by the primary itself. I'm not sure how the Michigan delegates can be seated according to the rules when the process for which the rules were written is not the primary that happened. I was not able to vote for my candidate of choice through no fault of my own. I thought about staying home, but decided that was a cop-out. I think many voters here didn't see the point of voting in such a messed up primary. I would prefer the Michigan delegates not be seated at all. Sorry to go on; this is a subject very dear to my heart.

Diane said...

As I've continued to think about this all, I conclude that I wish Obama had agreed to seat all the delegates from Mich and Florida. He'd still be ahead in the delegate count, he'd still have the argument to superdelegates that those additions to Clinton's count don't reflect true popular support because of the confusion for Mich and Fla voters about whether to vote at all ... and he'd be seen as standing up for making sure that people's votes counted. In my mind, that would have been the high road and one that would have ended up with him garnering more respect and presidential cachet. But maybe that's just me.

suzietee said...

I suppose you can sympathize with the California voters after what happened to them earlier this week. Judges overruling the decisions of the people. What will be next.

Gerrie said...

I was not going to say anything, but that last post made me mad. Since I have a gay daughter, I applaud the "judges" for giving her rights that suzietee probably takes for granted.

I believe the advertising that Obama did in Florida was part of a Georgia market by that covers northern Florida

All the delegates will be seated. I think this was a very fair resolution. And yes, I am an Obama mama who just can't understand the support for Hillary.

We need a clean break with the past and Obama gives us that.

Gerrie said...

And I wanted to say, thank you for the thoughtful commentary and the chance to debate and discuss this with you in a very civilized manner!!

JulieZS said...

suzitee, quoting from your blogger profile: "Why do we not all try and live by the most wonderful words in the world - treat others as you would like to be treated."

Sounds good to me.

But, back to Diane's great post on this subject. What a colossal screw-up this is! No good choices remained because they put off the decision so long. Changing rules is changing rules, but it won't be spun the same way by either of the campaigns will it?

I think that Florida was the worst of this mess, as the Republican congress and governor moved up the date of the primary to January. Thus violating the Democratic party rules. They should have gotten a "do-over" or vote-over. In Michigan on the other hand, the Democrats made the choice to flaunt the rules and are not having to suffer the consequences. Not a good example to be setting, we've had enough of that lately around my house with unruly teenagers...

Kristin said...

Julie, I'm with you -- the mom in me says that the State party was told the consequences of holding early primaries (no delegates) and now that they've done it anyways they should suffer the stated consequences. End of discussion. Because I said so. ;-) (Sounds flip, but I do mean it in earnest -- I'm tired of the rules applying to everyone except those in power.)

suzietee said...

I have read two posts on this blog and I think I am being misunderstood. I am only against the judges going against the voters of the people in the state of California. Those judges did not have the right to overrule the decision - no matter what decision it is. I do believe that if two people love each other it doesn't matter who or what they are - read the post - it is the overruling that I am against. I still believe in treating others as you would like to be treated.

Diane said...

I so appreciate everyone's comments here.

Suzietee, the lawyer in me is compelled to add that one of the main role of judges is to ensure that the laws made (whether by the legislature or, here in California, by our citizen initiative process) pass muster on constutional grounds. And as well intentioned as people are in expressing their "will" through legislation, it is often executed in an unconstitutional way. So our system of checks and balances only works if the judiciary branch scrutinizes the legislative branch to ensure that the legislation is legally okay. It's important to remember that most judges just don't willy-nilly turn over some law because they disagree with it -- they're charged with the hugely important job of overturning laws that are inconsistent with the state or federal constitution. So even if people "want" something (say, like segregated schools) judges have the duty to overturn that sort of thing because it nevertheless violates constitutional principles like equality and fairness.

suzietee said...

Diane,
Thank you for the polite way that you explained this to me. I am always willing to listen and learn. I do not have a problem with this decision, but I am worried (just like we all probably are) about where our nation is headed to at times.