Uncommitted wins Michigan! (sort of)

If the Democratic Party ultimately decides to seat Michigan's currently banished delegates, Hillary Clinton will get 73 of them, and 55 will be uncommitted, according to The Green Papers.

The state also has 28 (hypothetical) superdelegates, who are by definition "uncommitted." So if you add it all up, Uncommitted wins, 83 to 73!

Of course, "winning" by a margin of 83 hypothetical delegates to 73 hypothetical delegates is sort of like being crowned the national champion of an imaginary college-football playoff. But still... way to go, Unc! (Can I call you "Unc"?) Unc all the way! Unc '08!! Yeeeeeaarrgh!!!

If only Uncommitted could give a victory speech! I'm sure it would be another transcendent political moment, a stirring celebration of yet another barrier-breaking victory:

"They said this day would never come... they said a non-corporeal entity, a mere word on a printed piece of paper, running against various homo sapien opponents, could never win this primary... but they were wrong, weren't they, Michigan? They were wrong!"

[crowd cheers, chants "Unc! Unc! Unc!"]

"You showed them that our undefined, noncommittal message is resonating with the American people! To all of my countrymen who don't know what the hell they want in a candidate, I say: join us! Together, we will take back this country for nobody specific and nothing in particular!"

Yes, as my dad says in comments, it would truly be an undefining moment in our nation's history.

Comments

[Joe Loy]

LOL! LMAO! :) I'm committing that stirring Oration to memory. :) Yes it's an Undefining Moment in our nation's history ;>

[Derek]

For the record, it's entirely possible that some, if not many, of those hypothetical "uncommitted" delegates end up supporting Clinton. The party Democrats in Michigan have a little grudge against Obama and Edwards for choosing to remove their names.

[Brendan]

Yeah, I realize that, Derek. But I had to treat them as Uncommitted in order to have my little joke. :)

[yea]

it was lame of the national party to strip michigan of its delagates. this iowa/nh garbage shouldnt be protected anymore.

[4-7]

Is it possible that the DNC could chose to recognize the delegates from Michigan post hoc ? Wouldn't that be controversial win it throws the race to Hillary.

[Derek]

yea, I believe the entire point of stripping Michigan and Florida was to ensure that Nevada and South Carolina were protected, and thus ensure racially-representative early primaries/caucuses. Michigan and Florida lost the attempt to get an early one, then tried to evade the national requirements. They'd have been among the most influential had the waited until February 5, but they tried to outgame the national, and they got burned. For what it's worth....

[JD]

CNN points out that blacks went big for "Uncommitted" over Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/michigan.uncommitted/index.html

Ironically, Obama's approval by two white states (IA/NH), coupled with the talk of the past week, may cause (is causing!) Democrats in future states to split their vote along racial lines. The problem is that Obama has done as well as he has because he has not run as a black candidate, he has run as a candidate who happens to be black, and this disparity doesn't help.

[Brendan]

Yes, I mentioned Hillary's horrible showing blacks in my earlier, more serious post about Uncommitted's "moral victory."

[etres]

How can we get an amendment to the US Constitution that there would be a "None of the Above" on all ballots and the winner must have more than 50% of the votes before declared the winner?

Unc or Uncommitted would only apply to a Primary but let's have a "None of the Above" (NOTA) for the actual elections.

[Brendan Loy]

Well, you'd probably have to start with a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College, since presently, whether the winner has "more than 50% of the votes" has no bearing on anything, unless you mean "more than 50% of the electoral votes." :)

And of course, eliminating the Electoral College may not be a great idea...

[Brendan Loy]

Also, what do you do if nobody gets 50%? Have another election, with all new candidates? What if none of them get 50%, either? Do we just keep having elections until we get a president? What if we never get a president? Does the current president stay in office forever?

[RebeccaH]

An undefining moment as spectacular as anything any of the candidates have shown us so far. Go, Unc!

[yea]

we should have runoff elections like a lot of other countries do. too bad that pesky constitution gets in the way.

[Brian Foster]

Well, you'd probably have to start with a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College, since presently, whether the winner has "more than 50% of the votes" has no bearing on anything, unless you mean "more than 50% of the electoral votes." :)

Not so fast my friend.

Article II, sec. 1 provides, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress," and "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

So as it stands, Congress lacks authority to tell how states how to choose their electors; it may only tell them when to choose their electors.

So to implement etres' suggestion, a constitutional amendment need only: A) grant Congress the power to regulate not just the time, but also the manner in which states choose their electors; B) mandate that in addition to including on their ballots the slates of electors pledged to the various candidates, states must include a line for a slate of electors pledged to "none of the above" candidates; and then C) require that a slate of electors not be recognized as chosen unless it receives an absolute majority of votes.

If, in a given state, no slate of electors receives an absolute majority, then it seems to be one of two things could happen:

1) Congress, under its newly acquired power, can further provide for a subsequent election, perhaps runoff-style, taking the top two slates of electors, and whichever one gets the majority of votes wins. If "none of the above" gets an absolute majority, then those electors will meet on the appointed Day and will cast their ballots for whomever they choose.

2) Or, in the absence of any further election provision, any state whose voters fail to support one slate of electors by an absolute majority has thereby failed to "appoint" Electors for that election. That state will therefore submit no certificate to the president of the Senate, its electors' votes will not be included in the official tally, and the total number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency will be slightly reduced, because all that is required is "the greatest Number of Votes . . . , if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed" (U.S. Const. amend. XII).

So if, say, California fails to support any slate of electors by an absolute majority, then California's 55 electors would never be appointed. When the electoral votes are officially tallied in Congress, then, it would only be necessary for a particular candidate to receive 242 electoral votes, i.e., an absolute majority of the 483 electors appointed.

Either way, the idea is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of the Electoral College -- and indeed, the notion of a slate of uncommitted electors having the freedom to debate among themselves who the President ought to be, and to cast their votes accordingly, would be a refreshing return to the original design of the system.

So I think I opt for scenario 1 above -- hold a runoff, and hope that None of the Above wins it. (But the idea of states depriving themselves of electoral suffrage is also quite intriguing . . . I can't make up my mind!)

[Mike O]

I thought by voting for 'Uncommitted' , they were demonstrating their support for the Clintons' marital arrangement.

[Mike O]

etras, note the link above. I beat you to it; the court papers have been filed :))

[B. Minich]

A-hem.

"Hail to the victor valiant, hail to the conquering hero, Hail! Hail! to Uncommitted, the winner and the best! Hail to the one not Clinton, hail to the unknown hero, Hail! Hail! to Uncommitted, the champion of the West!"

It just seemed appropriate.

[Mike]

Excellent post!

If no candidate has the necessary number of delegates going into the convention, I'd look for Hillary to try to get the Michigan delegation seated. She and her husband are very good at "inside baseball" and might well be able to pull it off. If that happens, or if Hillary wins only by twisting the arms of superdelegates, many Obama supporters will justly feel screwed-over. How that plays out in the general election could get very interesting.

[Alasdair]

But ... but ... but, guys, what happened to "Every Vote Must Be Counted !" ?

Surely the Democratic Party could not be party to disenfranchising anyone, now, could they ?

[Warmongering Lunatic]

Derek —
As Michigan pointed out when they advanced their primary, New Hampshire had already moved up its primary to an earlier date than allowed in the DNC rules, and the DNC didn't punish that rules violation. If New Hampshire is allowed to move up its primary date without penalty, why can't Michigan?

Over on the Republican side, every state that jumped the party-set date — including New Hampshire — was equally penalized; all lost half their delegates.

So, one party showed partiality by not punishing a rule-breaking state because it was traditionally privileged to go first, while clamping down harshly on other states who broke the same rule. The other party chose to evenhandedly administer a moderate punishment to all rule-breaking states.

[JD]

As Michigan pointed out when they advanced their primary, New Hampshire had already moved up its primary to an earlier date than allowed in the DNC rules, and the DNC didn't punish that rules violation. If New Hampshire is allowed to move up its primary date without penalty, why can't Michigan?

Because New Hampshire was an exception to the rule.

"Both national parties have said that states will be penalized for holding primaries or caucuses before Feb. 5. Democrats made exceptions for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to respect the historical early role of Iowa and New Hampshire and increase the geographical and demographic diversity by adding South Carolina and Nevada; meanwhile, Republicans give a pass to Iowa and Nevada, as their caucuses technically are not binding contests. As a consequence, both of Michigan's delegations have been cut."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080111/pl_cq_politics/politics2654438

[Briandot]

What's worse -- this, or John Ashcroft losing a race to a dead guy?

[David K.]

Historical roles are for Bowl Games not presidential elections. Let NH be the first and Iowa the second, but again, condense the whole primary process into a 2-3 week span such that ALL the primaries matter.

[Brian Foster]

David,

How is your suggestion all that different from what we actually have? Between January 3 and February 5, approximately 60% of the states will have held their nominating contests. Within two more weeks (by Feb 19) that increases to nearly 80%. Granted, that's more like six weeks than three, but it's already far more condensed than it ever has been. And those states that are still having their contests in March-June have only themselves to blame if they feel like their contests don't "matter."

I'm honestly curious as to what you're calling for that is a) significantly different from what we are currently experiencing, and b) not possible to achieve under the present system. (Again, states set their own primary/caucus dates, as MI, FL and others have shown, so it's not like anything is stopping them from all going within 2-3 weeks of each other.)

[David K.]

Well it is primarily different because instead of stretching it out over 6+ weeks its 3 weeks and done.

The difference it causes is that the states to pretty much all matter, no worrying about "momentum" and putting up with the endless press speculation and smear campaigns after one person takes the lead. Without candidates pandering to one state after another. Instead they'd have to make choices and present their message better, no refining it, no tailoring it, just presenting it. I think it would bring a little more truth back into the process, maybe not alot, but something is better than nothing.

[Warmongering Lunatic]

JD —
The DNC rules did not have a generalized exception for New Hampshire; the rules specified a date of January 22nd for the New Hampshire primary. When New Hampshire moved that up ahead of Nevada's January 19th caucuses, New Hampshire was just as guilty of breaking DNC rules and the DNC schedule as Florida had been when it moved up to January 29th.

As of that point, nobody had set a primary before New Hampshire's January 22nd. The only contests before New Hampshire's at that point were caucuses specifically authorized by the DNC. The New Hampshire move at that point was not to secure its place as the first primary, but instead was a deliberate breaking of the established schedule to leapfrog Nevada's rule-scheduled caucus.

Michigan waited until after the DNC refused to censure New Hampshire before it moved up its primary date, noting that if New Hampshire were allowed to ignore the DNC-established schedule, any other state should be allowed to, too.

Of course, we know exactly how much that argument meant to Howard Dean's DNC, don't we?

[Brian Foster]

David,

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure I agree with you though. For one thing, given the benefits you are hoping to derive, I don't see why 6 weeks is too much but 3 weeks is just right. Indeed, it almost sounds as if a one-day national primary (national in the sense that every state votes on the same day, not in the sense that the cumulative national vote picks the nominee) would be the best way to meet your goals. Even in a three-week primary calendar, I would think there would be days in between that would lead precisely to the momentum, press speculation, and smear campaigns you're concerned about. In fact, it would probably be even worse, because with only three weeks separating the first primary from the last, the winner(s) of the first set of primaries may get a bump that the other candidates never have time to respond to before it's all over with.

On the other hand, what if, because of the compressed schedule (whether 1 day, three weeks, or six weeks as we have now), no candidate ends up emerging from the pack and securing the nomination? The "chaos" that some are gleefully predicting (whether for partisan purposes or purely for enjoyment) would become the norm, rather than the exception. I'm not sure that is a bad thing in itself, but again, a brokered convention seems to me to encourage rather than discourage the spculation, smear, pandering, and message-tailoring that you seem to want to avoid.

And, a more-compressed schedule would, it seems to me, lead to even more "pandering" to particular states, specifically the delegate-rich ones, because there is no time (nor would the schedule likely be conducive) to start with small states and build momentum. So a compressed schedule would likely lead to CA, NY, FL, IL, PA, TX, and maybe one or two other states getting the vast majority of candidates' attention, at the expense of a whole host of states whose votes and interests ought to matter just as much as the big ones.

Alternatively, candidates may consciously adopt geographically-based strategies to try and navigate the shortened schedule -- brazenly pandering to the states they think they can win, hoping to get enough delegates to be a force at the convention (assuming they don't lock it up before then, which as I said above I think would be pretty likely).

I guess I'm not convinced that your underlying premise -- pandering to one state after another and refining/tailoring the message -- is a bad thing to be avoided. We are a diverse nation, and different states/regions genuinely have different interests and concerns. I think it's important for presidential candidates to be able to appeal to such a diverse grouping, which in turn requires them to both hold positions that receive support in multiple parts of the country, and explain those positions and their nuances in the most appropriate context for each state or region. The national news media, not to mention the other campaigns, will be sure to let us know if a candidate's "adaptability" crosses over into "pandering" or otherwise contradicting what s/he said in another state. Otherwise, I think it's a good thing overall to expect our candidates to demonstrate that they can earn the support of a wide array of voters from several very different states.

Of course, I have my own radical idea for how to improve the nomination process -- scrap the primaries and caucuses entirely, and restore the power to choose a nominee to party leaders themselves. If a given state party apparatus wants to hold a caucus, I guess that's fine, but the notion that the average citizen-voter has any right to participate in a party's choice of who its nominee will be is an unwarranted extension of the concept of the "right to vote" into the internal workings of a private association. State parties ought to just hold nominating conventions at which the party faithful attend and determine who the states' delegates will support. Rank-and-file voters -- particularly those unaffiliated with any party, or worse, affiliated with another party -- have no right to participate in this process unless they join the party and attend the nominating function, whatever it may be.

If nothing else, that would ensure that public dollars will no longer be spent on party nominating contests . . . . :)

[David K.]

Basically its practicality. While I would love to have a single day for nominating activities (caucus or primary) I see it as harder to push for that. I think one week would be just as good as one day, you allow the traditional "early" Iowa and New Hampshire events on days 1 and 2, then the rest of the states are spread between the other three days. Even a three days would be enough, NH on the first day, Iowa on the second, everyone else on the third.

As for your last paragraph, I don't think the parties would do well to just allow the party bosses to choose. Right now they allow party members to choose through either caucuses or primaries. They have actually pushed towards making it more exclusive. Washington used to have an open primary, you could vote for a democrat in one race, and a republican in another in the primaries. Now you have to choose, democrat, republican or neither, with all the non-primary issues being on all three ballots. I think caucuses are fine if tahts how you want to do it in your state as a party, and i think primaries are fine except that the state pays for it. I don't mind the state administering it along with the rest of the voting, i just think the parties should have to subsidize the costs.

[Brendan]

David, forgive me if this has already been said (I haven't been following this thread closely), but there is a decent argument that putting "Iowa and New Hampshire events on days 1 and 2, then the rest of the states ... spread between the other three days," would increase, rather than decreasing, the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire.

One of the big complaints about this year's primary schedule has been that it's so "compressed," it doesn't give the later states time to re-assess the choices made by the early states to anoint so-and-so as a front-runner. Because this year's races happen to be so fluid, with no real front-runners emerging yet, the "compression" of the primary calendar hasn't been a problem -- but the fear was that if one candidate swept the first few primaries, there would be no time for voters in the subsequent states to take a step back and say, "Hey, wait a minute, are we really sure about this guy (or gal)?" Instead you'd have a rush to judgment, based on nothing but the empty concept of "momentum." This complaint was made in 2004, too, and I'd argue it had a lot to do with why John Kerry ran away with the nomination... everyone got caught up in the momentum of "war hero fever" and didn't stop to re-examine him until it was too late. This year's calendar is even worse, and it's sheer luck that there are no early front-runners this time around to take advantage of it.

Anyway, under your proposed calendar, that problem would be even worse: there'd really be no time to take a step back and reassess the results of New Hampshire and Iowa if the whole rest of the country was voting within the next three days!! Iowa and N.H. could well have more influence than ever in such a scenario.

I don't think you can have it both ways: either you go to a national primary, all on one day, or your maintain the lengthy nature of the process -- actually stretching it out would be better, considering how compressed it's gotten. (And also pushing it back to where it starts in March or April, at the earliest, instead of January.) There is no good rationale for having a rapid-fire multi-day vote; all the benefits of a multi-day system are lost if everything is chronologically packed together so tightly. Might as well have it all on one day, if you're going to squeeze everything together that much.

Now, a better proposal, if you want to avoid a single-day national primary but decrease the influence of those early states, would be to rotate which states get to go first, second, third, etc. Of course, Iowa and New Hampshire would never stand for that. But a college football playoff will never happen either, that doesn't mean we can't dream. :)

[Brian Foster]

Brendan,

It was said, but there's nothing wrong with having it said again. :)

David,

I concur with Brendan's reiteration and expansion of my argument against your plan, but I see no need to continue hashing it out for no reason.

I do want to clarify, though, that I do not advocate having the "party bosses" pick the candidates themselves -- I fully agree that a more inclusive process is better than a less inclusive one. My only point is that right now, we measure "inclusion" by reference to the wrong universe. Instead of permitting any registered voter to participate, the parties should take greater control of the process in such a way that only those voters who are committed members of the party feel it is worth the time and effort to participate.

The choice of a party's nominee is not an exercise in democracy writ large, like the general election in November is. It's a discrete act by a private association to determine which of its members it will sponsor in that general election where "the people" make their choice. If there are people out there who want to have a greater say in who their options are in November, then it is incumbent on them to join (or form!) a party and exert influence on that party's choice -- they ought not be able to just drop in a voting booth on some random day and cast a vote. I'm rejecting the notion that Americans unaffiliated or only loosely affiliated with any party should have any say in who the party chooses for its nominee.

I understand what your saying Brendan, and you may have a point, but I'm not sure the benefit of "lets ruminate about this candidate more" balances out the "the candidates are pretty much decided at this point from the early primaries" problem I see. Sure you get more time to assess the candidates, but what if say, John McCain lost the first couple of races to Romney and he had large momentum going in, so his chances were played down in the media, etc. People who might otherwise have voted for him in mid-late states are less inclined to do so, or to even bother to vote, because the impression is that their vote no longer matters much.

Now I too would rather see a single day used for the primaries nation wide, but i don't think its going to happen. I think the smaller window would be closer to what I'd like to see, but still allowable.

[David K.]

Above was me, the blog is having memory problems :)