Step Back from the Edge: The Florida-Michigan Dilemma
“It's easy to understand why the state party people responsible for the move to January are digging in their heels. They feel defensive about it. For one thing, both states blew it. If they had stayed within the approved calendar, each would have voted at a critical stage in what has become the closest Democratic battle for the nomination since 1984. ”
What are the Democrats going to do about Florida and Michigan? The answer to that question could determine the party's nominee for president in August, and it could affect the fate of that nominee in November.
As it stands officially, no delegates from either state will be welcome when the party gathers in Denver in August. That is because both defied the national party and held their primaries before the first party-sanctioned date in February. They did this in frustration over the favored role granted to four smaller states that held their events in January (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina).
The confrontration between national and state parties erupted last year and has festered through a winter of malign neglect and unlucky circumstance. But two things are pretty clear now: First, the full delegations from the two states must be seated in Denver. Second, their votes for president cannot be apportioned according to the primaries they held in January.
Obviously, some may disagree with the first of these points. They may argue for the "death penalty" for both states because they defied the national party and scheduled their votes outside the calendar window as determined by the proper party authorities.
But this would be ugly and alienating within the party and make a nasty spectacle on TV for all the world to see. It would also all but doom the national ticket in both states; and while Florida may be a reach for Democrats this year, Michigan is essential to any Democratic victory scenario.
Looking at the other side, there will be those, including the senior Democratic senators from Michigan and Florida, who insist the states have done nothing to deserve punishment and ought to have their seats and be allowed to allocate their votes according to the January primaries.
Such protestations of innocence are disingenuous, to put it politely, given the two states' willful rule-breaking in their bid for greater power in the nominating process. To be sure, either Michigan or Florida would be more representative of the big states and the diversity of the Democratic party than Iowa or New Hampshire. But it's equally obvious that every other Top Ten state could say the same, and virtually all of them wanted to move up into January too. The difference was that Florida and Michigan actually did it, thumbing their noses at the rest of the country in the process.
But it's easy to understand why the state party people responsible for the January move are digging in their heels. They feel defensive about it. For one thing, both states blew it. If they had stayed within the approved calendar, each would have voted at a critical stage in what has become the closest Democratic battle for the nomination since 1984.
Beyond that, the party sanctions kept the candidates from campaigning in either state, and in Michigan all the major contenders except Hillary Clinton removed their names from the ballot. Local broadcasters and other businesses lost out on a bonanza when the campaigns in both states were cancelled.
So at this point, those responsible need to come away with something of value or risk taking the blame.
The national figures in this fiasco are also in desperate straits. If they can't reconcile the competing interests they may bruise the party's nominee and degrade its chances in November. That would always be stupid, but this year it's insane. The country has not been this ready to put the GOP out of the White House since at least 1992, when Bill Clinton won -- or 1976, when Jimmy Carter did.
Fortunately, there is a reasonable zone of compromise to be found, provided both sides of this confrontation are ready to climb down from their respective high horses.
First, the states must be assured they will not be barred. Second, their superdelegates must be told they will be seated as well, under the usual rules preserving their independence. Third, the bulk of the delegations, the pledged delegates must be apportioned according to a system acceptable to the rule-making body the states defied.
The states could hold new primaries or caucuses, although this is unlikely because it would either require Republican cooperation or cost the state parties money they don't have. It would also alienate people who don't want to have to vote a second time.
But there are still other possibilities for compromise.
One would seat the full delegations but split their votes equally between the remaining candidates. Another would apportion the delegates according to the delegate split of the other 48 states. Yet another would give Hillary Clinton whatever share she won in the two states but give all the remaining delegates to Barack Obama. That way, no one is "disenfranchised."
In any event, what is most necessary is that these two states not be allowed to both seat their delegates AND determine the party's nominee. That would not only rescind the punishment for their brazen defiance of the rules but richly reward them for it.
7:02 PM ET | 02-15-2008 | permalink
