Hillary's only hope: the popular vote

I think Jonathan Alter is right:

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Clinton's only hope lies in the popular vote—a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee (wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Of course, a big question is, which popular vote? The Clinton campaign is currently quoting the popular vote including the January "primaries" in Michigan and Florida, but that's absurd -- at least with regard to Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot. Moreover, Clinton herself said, months before Michigan voted, that "it's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything."

There's a more plausible case to be made for including Florida's votes in the "popular vote" tally (though not the delegate count), since Obama was at least on the ballot there, and the Florida Democrats were basically forced to move the primary date by Florida Republicans (though they didn't exactly fight it hard; it was something of a "please don't throw me in that briar patch" situation). But it's definitely a fuzzy-math situation.

If there's no Florida revote, and if Obama "wins" the overall, non-Michigan/Florida tally by less than 294,772 votes (Hillary's Florida margin), then both candidates will be able to somewhat-plausibly claim a popular-vote "victory." But are the superdelegates really going to reverse a clear Obama pledged-delegate majority on the basis of a hotly disputed, extremely narrow (less than 1%) popular-vote "win" by Hillary? I doubt it. Barring re-votes, she probably needs to win the non-Michigan/Florida tally outright, which would give her an edge of at least 300,000 with Florida included (and at least 600,000 if, absurdly and indefensibly, Michigan is included).

Obviously, if Florida and Michigan hold re-votes, it would settle that issue. But there are still other problems with using a straight-up popular-vote tally. Four caucus states -- Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington -- don't report popular vote tallies at all, so for all Hillary's talk about the effective "disenfranchisement" of Michigan and Florida, she herself is effectively disenfranchising the voters of these states by relying on a popular-vote tally that necessarily excludes them.

The website ObamaIsWinning.com estimates the vote tallies from these states by extrapolating from delegate counts and caucus turnout figures -- not a perfect method, but better than ignoring them altogether -- with the end result that Obama earns a net gain of 94,573. Somehow, I doubt Hillary will extend her opponent, or those states, that courtesy. She'll simply ignore the votes of the approximately 600,000 Democrats who participated in those caucus.

More broadly, of course, there's the following problem: the system in place is not designed to tally popular votes; it's designed to select delegates. If the object of the game were to count up popular votes, candidates and voters and the media would have behaved differently, inevitably resulting in different results. Also, no state would hold caucuses in such a system, and thus Obama would have racked up much larger margins in many of the caucus states that he won. (Hillary's people love to talk about how he's stronger in caucuses than primaries, but the cause-and-effect is murky there. Yes, he's a good organizer, but also, demographically, he would have won most of those states even if they had primaries -- and by larger raw margins, even if by smaller percentage margins.)

Simply put, adding up the vote totals from different states' primaries and caucuses, and combining them into a single, undifferentiated mass, is a pretty crude, apples-and-oranges sort of process. As such, the whole concept of using the "popular vote" as an arbiter of legitimacy is pretty unfair on its face.

But alas, that intellectual/philosophical/procedural argument won't carry much weight with one-person-one-vote-obsessed Democrats, in the event of a split between the delegate count and the "popular vote." As such, I agree with Alter. As a practical matter, Hillary's only hope is to win the "popular vote" (and do it without relying on her 328,309 to 0 margin in Michigan). If she can do that, I give her, oh, maybe a 20% chance of capturing the nomination. If she can't do that, she's toast.

Comments

[David K.]

If the DNC allows the seating of the Florida and/or Michigan delegates (especially the later) I'm voting for McCain in the general election, simple as that.

Even if Florida and Michigan hold a re-vote I may very likely do the same, I don't like they idea of giving them a do-over, they knew what they were doing, and went ahead anyway. I am less critical of Florida given that they were semi-forced into the position by Republicans (shocking, the GOP in Florida messing with elections...).

[Joe Loy]

" Hillary's only hope is to win the "popular vote" (and do it without relying on her 328,309 to 0 margin in Michigan)...."

Yes but given that she Wants to count the Michigan PV, it follows that she has to "win" the "national PV" (and what a Waw-haw-haw concept That is, just as you suggest :) whilst relying on her 328,309 to 238,168 margin in Michigan ~ a transposition notably less absurd than Counting Michigan in the first place. :} By the way that Returns site, though correctly listing Uncommitted Status as a Democrat, unfairly omits its Home State. This is a Fraud and a clear violation of the Party Rules. :)

[Brendan Loy]

David, on the issue of re-votes, please consider that the rules all along allowed for the possibility of Michigan and Florida "re-votes." It's not some strange idea that's being floated now as an after-the-fact rule change. It was always available to the states as an option. Dean's statement yesterday just reiterated that they have the option of rescheduling their votes for anytime between now and June 10. It's an option they've always had.

If this was actually a matter of "changing the rules in the middle of the game" -- as simply seating the illegitimate delegate slates would be -- then I'd share your outrage. But the "re-vote" solution is different because it's still playing within the rules.

It's sort of like how USC legitimately won the AP championship in 2003-04, yet LSU fans say that was somehow "outside of the rules," even though the rules all along allowed for the possibility that the AP would select a different champion. (Whereas seating the delegates would be more like if the AP had promised to respect the BCS champion, and then suddenly changed its mind during the season.)

[Joe Loy]

PS: since It Always Comes Back to Puerto Rico {hola Señor Sean ;}, I look forward to Hillary's intellectually-consistent exclusion of the meaningless Popular-vote tally from THOSE restrictive & unfair caucuses at the End of the process when it transpires that if Counted they will Put her Over the PopTop ;>.

[Patrick]

Brendan,

Isn't it more like you HOPE Jonathan Alter is right (and forgive me if I'm incorrect in assuming you're an Obama supporter ... I haven't been around too much lately)? I tend to fall in line with Novak's assessment. Hillary does have a shot, especially if there are re-votes in Michigan and Florida. Obama supporters should do everything in their power to thwart said, prospective re-votes.

At the end of the day, this all amounts to fratricide; the in-fighting could very well continue through labor day and thereby cast a truly dark cloud over the Democratic Party. It will send the message that they stand consistently for so little that they can't even agree on who to nominate. McCain won't even need to raise money - Clinton and Obama will accomplish all the mudslinging that he would need for either of them were the Democratic nomination uncontested. The Democrats could really screw the pooch on this one, and we could very well end up with McCain as a result.

I never thought I'd utter these words, but GO CLINTON!!! BEAT OBAMA ... OR AT LEAST PROLONG THE SELECTION OF A NOMINEE!!!!!

[Brendan Loy]

Patrick, you're correct that I support Obama over Obama (I'm undecided about the general election), but no, I don't think my opinion here is based on "hope." Even with "re-votes" -- which I support -- Hillary is not going to catch up among the pledged delegates. She'll be lucky to break even in the Michigan delegate count when both candidates are on the ballot, and her net delegate gain in Florida would probably be Ohio-esque... 10 or 12, maybe 15 or 20 if she's lucky. It's still not going to be enough to make up the gap, what with Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina and Oregon still on the calendar for Obama. She can't win a pledged-delegate majority; she can't even come close. And I think Alter is right that the supers won't reverse a clear pledged-delegate majority unless Clinton has a clear popular-vote majority to combat it with. If she loses in both categories, she won't win (even if she does fight all the way to the convention).

[Brendan Loy]

"I support Obama over Obama" -- LOL -- that's too amusing to go back and correct. I meant over Clinton, of course.

We are the change we seek! We are the opponent we will beat! Heh.

[Brendan Loy]

Oh, and Dad, yeah, I've been thinking along the same lines vis a vis those illegitimate, undemocratic Puerto Rico caucuses. :)

[Alasdair]

"Patrick, you're correct that I support Obama over Obama (I'm undecided about the general election), but no, I don't think my opinion here is based on "hope." " - is that Barack over Michelle ? Or Michelle over Barack ?

At this rate, you are on your way to losing your discussion with yourself, Brendan ...

(grin)

[gahrie]

shocking, the GOP in Florida messing with elections

I assume you are talking about 2000.

Let's see:

1) Left leaning media calls the Florida results while the Republican dominated panhandle is still voting.

2) Democratic Party officials create a ballot that their voters apparetly are too dumb to understand.

3) Democratic lawyers launch lawsuits disputing the results.

4) A Democratically dominated Florida Supreme Court (unconstitutionally)interfers in the election process and orders a blatently biased "remedy" that clearly violates Florida law.

5) Democratic lawyers file a lawsuit to get absentee ballots cast by the military thrown out.

6) Democratic party officials paw through ballots to find Democratic votes.

David K. just can't help himself. Any chance to take a shot at the GOP, whether it makes sense or not.

[David K.]

When it deserves it yes, #2 doesn't make any sense as it was the GENERAL election in which the ballots were confusing, the media has nothing to do with what either party does, so #1 is out, lawyers SHOULD have launched suits because there was very questionable behavior going on, Catherine Harris should have recused herself from the process since she was blatantly involved politically with one candidate, and yes the Dems looked for valid and invalid ballots, the GOP was allowed to do the same. My primary beef is with the Florida state departments handling of the situation, especially in regard to katherine harris, had a less involved (and inept) person made the right decisions the supreme court need not have been involved.

[gahrie]

David K:

If you had bothered to do a little research, you would know that the infamous butterfly ballot was in fact created by a Democrat employed by Palm Beach.

The Florida State Department is the body constitutionally and legislatively tasked with running elections in Florida. Hariss was doing her job. If she had recused herself, Democrats would be accusing her of causing the crisis by neglecting her responsibilities.

The Florida Supreme Court has no role in overseeing Florida elections, and should have refused to hear any lawsuit and instead referred the lawyers to the Florida Legislature where the controversy belonged.

[Jim]

"If you had bothered to do a little research, you would know that the infamous butterfly ballot was in fact created by a Democrat employed by Palm Beach."

I hear Jeffrey Dahmer was a registered Republican. I know there is a logicall fallacy in here somewhere, I just can't be bothered to pin down which one it is.

"Hariss was doing her job."

Uh, right:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30

Either through ignorance or malice, she botched the election. Ignoring the strong possibility that the results would have been different, it just reflects poorly on our democracy that that many people are disenfranchised and reduces the legitimacy of the election.

[Brendan Loy]

Jim, gahrie isn't saying Theresa LaPore is a Democrat, Theresa LaPore is bad, therefore Democrats are bad (as in your Jeffrey Dahmer example). Rather, he's addressing a specific point about who was at fault for the Palm Beach County debacle. To review the back-and-forth between David and gahrie...

David: "shocking, the GOP in Florida messing with elections"

Gahrie: "Democratic Party officials create[d] a ballot that their voters apparetly are too dumb to understand."

David: "[That] doesn't make any sense as it was the GENERAL election in which the ballots were confusing."

Gahrie: "the infamous butterfly ballot was in fact created by a Democrat employed by Palm Beach."

Do you see the logical train of thought now? Gahrie's not engaging in an ad hominem attack on Democrats generally by referencing LaPore's party affiliation. Rather, he's participating in a specific fact dispute about which party was to blame for what occurred.

[David K.]

But Gahrie WAS ignoring the fact that I wasn't attacking Florida for their ballots, I was attack the GOP and Hariss in particular for her behavior.

[Brendan Loy]

David, I'm not saying Gahrie's argument is correct, necessarily, I'm just saying it isn't wrong in the way that Jim suggested. :)

I do think Gahrie's point about Palm Beach, while worded more harshly than necessary, does clearly contradict your assertion that it "doesn't make any sense" to talk about Democratic officials creating the ballot "as it was the GENERAL election in which the ballots were confusing." However, that assertion was not central to your broader point.

[David K.]

The Florida State Department is the body constitutionally and legislatively tasked with running elections in Florida. Hariss was doing her job. If she had recused herself, Democrats would be accusing her of causing the crisis by neglecting her responsibilities.

Ever heard of conflict of interest?

[David K.]

Possibly Brendan, but the fact that the ballot was created by someone who happened to be a democrat is significantly different than claiming it was the Democratic party's officially designed ballot.

[Brendan Loy]

David, gahrie never "claim[ed] it was the Democratic party's officially designed ballot."

Rather, he said that "Democratic Party officials create[d] a ballot..."

In other words, his claim was limited to saying, as you put it, that "the ballot was created by someone who happened to be a democrat." (A.k.a., a "Democratic Party official.")

This is an example of you clinging stubbornly to a minor point which a) you're clearly wrong about, and b) is in no way necessary to your broader argument. You need to let it go. You can still maintain your broader point. It will help your argument to concede this extremely minor point.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. I suppose you could object to gahrie's use of the plural "officials" rather than the singular "official." But I'm guessing Theresa LaPore had a staff, and I'm guessing her staff was probably made up of Democrats (that's usually how these things work), so you'll fail there, too.

In any event, stating that "Democratic Party officials" did something is emphatically and obviously NOT the same thnig as stating that the "Democratic Party...officially" did something. The first wording merely indicates that individuals who happen to be Democratic officials did something. The second wording indicates that their actions are the official actions of the Democratic Party.

Gahrie just didn't say what you say he said. You hate it when people do that to you -- putting words in your mouth. So, don't do it back.

[Alasdair]

Ummm ... "Theresa LaPore is a Democrat" and created and brought into use the Butterfly Ballot ...

If Ms Harris should have recused herself from running the election because she is a Republican, then every single Democrat (and the few Republicans) running an election in Flordia should also recuse themselves for being partisan ...

David - you're also being a tad harsh about the Florida Supreme Court - the SCOTUS got involved cuz the Florida Supremes injected themselves into what should heve been brought to the Florida Legislature, not the Florida Supremes - "had a less involved (and inept) person made the right decisions the supreme court need not have been involved." ... the Florida Supremes were inept, but it's polite to say that they should have kept out of it - no need to be so harsh !

[gahrie]

The Florida State Department is the body constitutionally and legislatively tasked with running elections in Florida. Hariss was doing her job. If she had recused herself, Democrats would be accusing her of causing the crisis by neglecting her responsibilities.

Ever heard of conflict of interest?

You are kidding right? Or just who do you think should run elections if not elected officials?

[gahrie]

As to David's broader point, the story David himself linked to makes the following points:

1) The purge of the Florida voting rolls was not some political decision by Harris. It was mandated by the Florida legislature because a previous election in Miami had been invalidated by the courts because invalid voters (felons and non-citizens) had been allowed to vote.

2) A private company hired by the Florida legislature to purge the voting rolls of invalid voters made some mistakes, primarily because the State of Florida inexplicably failed to record the SSNs of convicted felons.

3) The company warned the State of Florida about the inaccuracies, and the state informed county election officials (many, if not most of whom {especially in the precincts cherry-picked by Gore's lawyers} were Democratic) that the lists were inaccurate, and directed them to refine the data supplied by the private company while removing invalid voters.

4) Each county official decided for themselves how to use the data, and some didn't use it at all.

So, Harris did not choose to purge the voting rolls of invalid voters, she did not hire the company who gathered the information, and she did not oversee the removal of invalid voters from the voting rolls.

So tell me, why is Harris (or the Republican Party) responsible in any way for what occurred?

[gahrie]

Excuse me, the story I referenced above was not linked to by David, but by a third commentor.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

[gahrie]

The above having been said, are there any other credible allegations as to misbehavior by either Harris or the Republican Party, in the Florida elections of 2000?

[David K.]

gahrie, elected officials are one thing, elected officials who are responsible for running the election while simultaneously being the chair for one of the candidates in the election is another thing entirely.

[Brendan Loy]

Hmm. So then, can I surmise that you don't object to elected officials who are affiliated with a political party being "responsible for running the election"; you only object to elected officials who have a formal role in a political campaign for one of the offices in the election they're overseeing?

I see two problems with that stance. One, it accomplishes little. If Katherine Harris was not formally the Bush campaign chairwoman, but was nevertheless totally in the tank for Bush, would that actually be any better? Wouldn't it, in fact, be worse, since it would be the same conflict of interest with less transparency?

Second, what do you do about an elected Secretary of State (or equivalent office) running for re-election? Any election-administration official running for re-election must necessarily "oversee" the election in which he or she is running!

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. Basically, when you trace it to its logical conclusion, your argument is only logically sound if you ultimately advocate making Secretary of State (and equivalent jobs) unelected, "non-partisan" offices. But does that really solve the problem? You make it an appointed position, and it'll still inevitably get filled with political hacks who are in the tank for one party or the other. There isn't some mythical set of totally neutral public officials with no political leanings whatsoever from which to choose. Everybody's got opinions and loyalties. Nobody's going to be appointed or elected to an important position in state government because they sat on the fence their entire careers and never took a position on anything or made alliances with anybody or affiliated themselves with any group.

The way to deal with this issue is through transparency (so everybody knows what everybody's affiliations, loyalties and opinions are), checks & balances (so you can be sure any abuses won't go unnoticed), and an appeals process (so you can be sure that any abuses that do happen are corrected). The way NOT to deal with this issue is to impose overly stringent "conflict of interest" requirements that will only result in things becoming less transparent, without actually eliminating the possibility of abuse.

(E.g., if Katherine Harris, who was formally involved in the Bush campaign, had "recused herself" from administering the 2000 election, and the election had instead been administered by a deputy of hers, who would in all likelihood be a lifelong Republican who was a Bush supporter but who had no formal role in the campaign, and therefore passed your "conflict of interest" test... would that make ANY difference??)

Bottom line, human beings are not neutral, especially if they're involved in politics. But certain jobs require them to act neutrally, and that's all you can ask of them -- that they act neutrally in the performance of their jobs, not that they be politically neutral in all other aspects of their lives.

If you can show that Katherine Harris, or any other elections administrator, took actions that are inconsistent with neutral application of the laws, then you've got a legitimate gripe. If all you can show is that she was a Bush supporter, you've got nothin'. Everybody's a supporter of somebody. That doesn't tell us anything about whether or not they acted in a proper manner.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - it is even simpler than that ...

David is proposing that Katherine Harris should have either been disenfranchised or unemployed ...

Transparency is what matters and what is important ... that is why I am strongly against the fascist tactic of chasing a speaker off a stage ... I prefer to hear the David Dukes (who sets himself as a Republican) and Lyndon Larouches (who sets himself as a Democrat) speak - so that folk can hear how *wrong* they are ... and the only folk more wrong are the PC folk who seek to prevent their words being heard ...

[David K.]

No Alasdair, thats nto what I'm suggesting. Disenfranchisement would mean i think she shouldn't vote, and recusing oneself temporarily due to conflict of interest does not mean being unemployed. Next time atleast read the definitions of the words before you use them, understanding them is an added bonus.

[David K.]

Brendan to address your points, yes I realize that you can't eliminate bias from people and that its entirely possible that someone could have strong preferences towards a candidate and allow that to color their judgment even if they are not directly involved. By the same token their is no way we can ever eliminate people who cheat from schools. In both cases however we should atleast TRY to make the system as good as we can, and when someone in a position of authority such as Hariss puts herself in a position where their is a strong conflict of interest thats even worse because she KNOWINGLY chose to do so. It was not just wrong for her to stay involved with the elections because of the conflict of interest, it was wrong for her to become involved with the campaign in the first place.

So how do we handle secretaries of state and partisanship? First I think it SHOULD be a non-partisan office. Second, just because in one case (where they oversee their own re-elections) we can't eliminate a potential conflict of interest does not mean in cases where we CAN we shouldn't do so.

[Brendan Loy]

Do you have any thoughts on the points I raised about transparency? I.e., the idea that it's worse when biases are hidden rather than in the open? Your argument that "we should atleast TRY to make the system as good as we can" is premised, obviously, on the notion that your proposed solutions, while admittedly not making things perfect, will at least make them better. I question that premise. I'd rather have an openly declared partisan secretary of state than a secretly partisan one.

[gahrie]

I'm still waiting for a citation of anything Harris or the Republican Party did in Florida 2000 that was inappropriate.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - AMEN !

[David K.]

Brendan, thats incredibly fatalistic, by the same logic its better to have legal drugs so we know who is using them, legal child porn so we know who is watching it, legal everything as long as it lets us monitor it. I don't know about where you work, but at my place of employment we go by the policy that if there is a potential conflict of interest the right thing to do is to remove oneself from the situation and/or not get into the situation in the first place, its also what I was taught is right long ago by my parents.

You're argument assumes that someone who is told they can't be in a situation that is a conflict of interest would immediately attempt to subversively act to still promote that interest. Perhaps thats true, but I prefer to follow the thinking that for the most part once people are told of the appropriate boundaries they are more likely to follow them, not less.

[Brendan Loy]

I prefer to follow the thinking that for the most part once people are told of the appropriate boundaries they are more likely to follow them, not less.

I completely agree. That's why i think the proper solution is to tell people to do their jobs in a neutral fashion, rather than taking the overinclusive, yet inevitably ineffective, prophylactic measure of telling people they aren't supposed to have any partisan affiliations whatsoever, regardless of whether they impact their job duties or not.

I understand your point about potential conflicts of interests, but I really don't think you're grappling with the practical realities of trying to impose a totally apolitical ethic on an inevitably political realm. I'm not being fatalistic, just realistic, by saying that such a politically charged position as Secretary of State is always going to be significantly political, whether we acknowledge it as such or not.

[gahrie]

Elections are political. Trying to remove politics from elections is like trying to remove oxygen from water. It's impossible.

We aren't talking about the law, finincial matters, medical matters etc. We are talking about elections. If harris had been a lawyer, doctor, financial advisor etc, then perhaps David would have a case.

Harris made no attempt to hide her poltical affiliations. As Brendan has been asserting, she did the proper thing and was transparent in her politics.

But I must again go back to the underlying argument at hand:

Cite an inappropriate action by Harris or the Republican Party in the Florida election of 2000. The only inappropriate actions I am aware of were committed by Democrats or the liberal media.

[David K.]

Gahrie, Harris' decision to take the position of head of the Bush election campaign in Florida was inappropriate given her position as Secretary of State.

Beyond that while she was required to hire a private firm to come up with a purge list, she was responsible for choosing the firm (choosing not the previously chosen firm, but a new firm (who had the highest bid price). When given the choice the Department of Elections chose a wider list despite the availability of the company to give them a more accurate narrower list. The DoE also requested ChoicePoint (the private company) require only an 80% match on last names, allowed for first and last names to be switched, ignored Jr and Sr or difference in middle names/initials. 1% of Floridians (and 3% of black Floridians) were thus classified as ineligible and not allowed to vote. Hundreds perhaps thousands of eligible voters were thus excluded, and supposed "felons" were excluded even though their records showed NO conviction date, or conviction dates set in the future. Seems like some incredibly questionable behavior, especially given the general knowledge that Florida ould be a very tight race, and her decision resulted in more voters would demographically would be likely to vote Democrat from being excluded.

[David K.]

Brendan, acknowledging that it might be political is one thing, Harris' choice to become so directly involved with the Bush campaign crosses that line, especially her involvement with GOP officials (including housing them) during the post-election chaos.

[gahrie]

David:

1) Perhaps you missed my point above....each county election official (many, if not most, of whom were Democrats)was responsible for purging the voting rolls. Not Harris, not the Florida Dept. of State, but each elected county official. Each official came up with their own criteria for using the information developed by Database Technologies, and some simply ignored it.

2) The firm, not Choice Point which later bought the company, Database Technologies was hired by Harris's predecessor in 1998. Database Technologies at the time was the leading provider of such services, and the hiring was done in response to the Miami mayoral race being invalidated by the courts.

3) Florida law requires that felons be prevented from voting. Ignoring this law had already caused one election to be invalidated. If the Florida DoS erred on the side of too liberally including names on the list, it was in response to a fear that the courts interfer and would invalidate another election, this one a statewide election. (a valid fear given the actions of the Florida Supreme Court in 2000)

[David K.]

Gahrie, Harris was responsible for the choices made to the voter roles between her department and the company, she communicated with them the criterion to use for the voter roles and unlike her predecessor in 1998 did not provide guidance to the county election workers on how to use the results.

Florida law may require preventing felons from voting but the constitution requires that you DON'T disenfranchise people who shouldn't be. The right to vote is constitutionally gaurenteed for those who have not commited a felony. I'd argue that the overzealous actions of the Department of Elections was so far beyond reasonable, its a joke. 80% match? Not using middle names? Not checking for people whose conviction dates did not even exist or were IN THE FUTURE??? Its either a sign of gross negligence and incompetence or incredible corruption, especially given the disproportionate rate at which probably democratic voters were disenfranchised. Blacks were listed as felons at over a 200% greater rate than the national average. Are you telling me that wouldn't cause someone to raise a red flag and say that the data doesn't make sense? There were a number of ways that the firm could have gotten much better more accurate data, but the DoE specifically told them to choose a dramatically more inaccurate method. I'd imagine that allowing one felon to vote is less likely to get an election invalidated than not allowing hundreds if not THOUSANDS of non-felons to vote as is their constitutionally guaranteed right.

[Jim]

"1) The purge of the Florida voting rolls was not some political decision by Harris. It was mandated by the Florida legislature because a previous election in Miami had been invalidated by the courts because invalid voters (felons and non-citizens) had been allowed to vote."

I don't think the claim here is that it was a nefarious plot. At least that wasn't my claim. The claim here is that she was incredibly incompetent. The facts bear this out.

"2) A private company hired by the Florida legislature to purge the voting rolls of invalid voters made some mistakes, primarily because the State of Florida inexplicably failed to record the SSNs of convicted felons."

So who, despite being warned (see below) allowed this plan to go forward despite this obvious flaw?

Harris.

"3) The company warned the State of Florida about the inaccuracies, and the state informed county election officials (many, if not most of whom {especially in the precincts cherry-picked by Gore's lawyers} were Democratic) that the lists were inaccurate, and directed them to refine the data supplied by the private company while removing invalid voters."

And what follow up was taken to ensure these concerns were addressed? Apparently none. Who was ultimately in charge of this?

Harris.

"4) Each county official decided for themselves how to use the data, and some didn't use it at all."

Exactly, and what does the article say following this point:

"With little guidance from the state, county supervisors devised their own rules."

So the state implements this project, is being told it isn't accurate, and then leaves people uninvolved with the process of gathering this data to use it however they see fit.

And how is this not incompetence?

And who, just to remind ourselves, was ultimately in charge of the state's elections?

Harris.

These things happened on her watch, she was ultimately responsible for the state's elections. Had these events happened without her knowledge, I might be able to forgive her. But note that in each issue we talk about, the state had knowledge of the events and failed to provide proper oversight.

[Jim]

Brendan:

re: http://blog.brendanloy.com/2008/03/hillarys-only-h.html#comment-106252004

I wasn't attempting to follow David's line of thought on the ballot issue, more trying to point out the absurdity of the implication it was the fault of the Democratic party.

The phrase "Democratic party officials" is clearly meant to imply that the action was purposeful on the part of the party.

While I understand the primary goal of the statement was to refute the point that the GOP screwed up the election, perhaps more precise language would be useful.

But yeah, I do recognize your advice to David as being valid. Personally I think he should have dismissed it as irrelevant from the get-go. That's the beauty of someone creating a list of six issues they believe you to support from a single sentence, you can dismiss them at will. :)

[gahrie]

Harris ..... did not provide guidance to the county election workers on how to use the results.

You are aware that you are simultaneously arguing that Harris was too involved in the election of 2000 and not involved enough right?

It just proves the point that nothing she could have done would have appeased Democratic partisians determined to make her the scapegoat for Gore's loss.

[David K.]

First Gahrie, i'm not a democratic partisan, as i've pointed out before NOT being a Republican is not the same as being a Democrat.

Second, her involvement given her position with the Bush campaign was improper or rather her involvement in the Bush campaign was the improper part.

Third, her specific lack of action in some places and poor choices in others is exactly why someone who is so involved with the campaign of one of the two primary participants in the election is wrong. Lack of action when action is needed is the same as incorrect action in that both are indications of at the least ineptitude and at worst willful corruption. I'm sorry you are incapable of seeing this from any perspective of that but a blind partisan that you are unwilling to consider such possibilities and must resort to illogical conclusions such as the above.

[sam]

If Hillary Clinton were to win the popular vote, she would not dereve a 20% chance to win the nomination, she would deserve a strong chance.

The results of the Texas primary throw strongly into question whether or not caucuses reflect the 'will of the people'. Clinton won the contest where almost 3 million people took part in an open election. Barack Obama won the chaotic, much less well attended caucuses. It is now fair to ask the question - if states where Obama won caucuses had the full traditional voting instead, would the results be reversed? Of course we will now never know, but at least we do know that greater emphasis should be payed to the popular vote.

[gahrie]

David:

I'm not a blind partisian. I am a Republican, and have voted for Republicans since 1988 simply because the alternative was worse. The only time I was proud of my presidential vote was in 1984.

I am a classical liberal, and now that the leftwing has started to abandon the term liberal (after ruining its reputation) and migrate to progressive, I have hopes that I will be able to describe myself as such without confusion in the future.

You however, are either incredibly naive, incredibly bitter, or incredibly ignorant of the the electoral process, I haven't decided which.

Harris had the option, which I fault her for not exercising, of simply declaring the votes counted and the electors chosen and ignoring the Florida Supreme Court. The issue would have then gone to the legislature to be decided. The whole attack launched against her by the Gore team which you have swallowed hook, line and sinker was designed precisely to prevent her from doing that.

In every election (after 1792) we have had in our republic, political partisians have been involved in the electoral process. There simply is no other option, nor should there be. Elections are supposed to be political.

If the 2000 controversy had been handled properly, it would have been decided by the Florida legislature and eventually Congress, instead of the courts. That is the way the process was designed. (See the presidential election of 1800) You can't get more political.

Close elections happen. For an example of how mature, rational adults handle them, I refer you to Washington State governor's race in 2006 and the presidential election of 1960. Republicans lost both of those, with much more serious electoral improprities invloved than in Florida 2000.

[Jim]

"You are aware that you are simultaneously arguing that Harris was too involved in the election of 2000 and not involved enough right?"

No, I'm not aware of this. I missed where I claimed she was too involved. In fact, I think the constant theme of my comments has been her incompetence.

[David K.]

Gahrie, you are yet again missing the point. I have argued both her ineptitude and or corruption based on her involvement with the firm her department used to create the purged voter rolls and her choice to be involved so intimately with the Bush campaign. Neither of these are complaints about the ACTUAL election which you are pointing to.

I am infinitely aware as a resident of Washington how close elections can be, but i'd love to see some proof behind your accusations towards the 2004 governors race. Despite what the GOP would have you believe there was no evidence whatsoever of corruption or impropriety in that election, it just happened to be ridiculously razor thin. Florida's election was also razor thin and i accept that the actual vote came out the way it did, again my problem is with Harris' actions which prevented thousands of voters from being able to excercise their CONSTITUTIONAL right to vote based on her piss poor decision making, decision making that is completely indefensible. She had the option of greatly increasing the accuracy of the list and CHOSE NOT TO. That is inexcusable incompetence at BEST and corruption at worst. Based on her intimate involvement with the Bush campaign and the targeted nature of her decisions I am inclined to believe she was corrupt, but even without proof of that she certainly was incompetent.

[Andrew]

There are only two debate subjects more tired and lame than the decision to go to war in Iraq:

1. The 2000 election fiasco in Florida; and
2. The decision to impeach Bill Clinton.

Why am I not surprised that, yet again, David is charging the windmills with all his might and force?