In Michigan and Florida, No One Can Hear You Vote
Published January 9th, 2008Hillary Clinton will win Michigan by a landslide. You can take that one to the bank.
What you can also take to the bank is that it won’t affect her delegate total at all. Currently, she leads Obama 183-78. And after Michigan it will be the same. And as for her “shocking” victory in New Hampshire, not much changed - both her and Obama picked up 9 delegates. It’s really pathetic how much hype the media puts on winning a state - especially small states. In fact, reverse it - assume Obama had won New Hampshire by the same amount as Hillary. The media would have announced his coronation as the Democratic Choice, and declared Hillary dead. But he would have tied 9-9 in delegates. The delegate total would have been exactly the same. It was a wash. It’s absurd. New Hampshire is worth fewer delegates than Washington D.C. Basically, Hillary won a small city named New Hampshire. Iowa is worth less than two Washington D.C.’s. Basically we’ve seen the primaries of 3 homogeneous cities. But the media makes out like winning them means a coronation - and to be honest, it ticks me off. It’s pathetic, dishonest and offensive to let 2 small states effectively choose the leader of the entire nation.
But that’s not as bad as what the Democrat Party Leadership (I’m not sure if it’s the DNC or the DLC that has done this) has done to disenfranchise voters of 2 entire states - Michigan and Florida. Because these two states had the audacity to move their primaries up before February 5th, the leadership has stripped the states of all their delegates. All of them. So not a single vote cast in these states for Democrats will count.
Where is the uproar from the candidates? They’re all about change, right? Well, everyone but Hillary has protested Michigan’s arrogance by taking their name off the ballot. You can’t even vote for Obama or Edward in Michigan. But it doesn’t matter - why even go to the polls? Why even have an election, when the party leadership is going to just control who has a say? If Obama, Clinton or Edwards were really interested in changing the culture in American politics, they’d be standing in Michigan making speeches about The Party stealing the voice of Michigan’s citizens. Hillary said she “found her voice” in New Hampshire - which is nice, since everyone in Michigan and Florida has none. Maybe she should be using that voice to speak for them.
What is the reason behind this? It’s baffling, but somehow two small states - Iowa and New Hampshire - have such strong political pull that any state that encroaches upon their “traditional” (which isn’t all that traditional) first-votes-in-the-nation status incurs the wrath of The Party. So Michigan and Florida are being made examples of - if you challenge the status quo, you will be punished. It’s politics as usual. So much for change. I’m especially disappointed in Obama for not making a big deal of this. But maybe he felt he couldn’t win Michigan and Florida. Politics as usual.
Additionally, stripping delegates from the states not only muffles the voice of the electorate, it amplifies the voice of the establishment. The delegate total for the Democrats includes 842 votes that are not bound by any primary. That’s roughly 40% of the total number. So in theory, a candidate could only get 11% of the delegates available through primary votes, and then sweep The Party vote and win the candidacy. That’s an extreme case, of course, but it illustrates the point. And by disenfranchising Michigan and Florida - two fairly populous states - those votes become even more important. And those votes are why Hillary currently leads Obama 183-78 - she is clearly favored by The Party.
So has there ever been a more compelling case for voting reform, elimination of parties and regional or national primaries? I don’t think so. I think the Feb 5th nearly-national primary is a good thing. I’d like to see it extended. We’ve already seen how winning a crap state like Iowa gives a candidate disproportional press. We’ve seen how the media can’t interpret polls correctly leading into a primary - who’s to say that doesn’t influence people not to go to the polls? One theory for New Hampshire is that so many independents, seeing the polls on how Obama was a sure win, simply voted for McCain instead, since that was the closer race. Oops. Take the media out, let the people decide who is going to win. Let the candidates speak to the whole country to win - not just 2 small boring states.
Very interesting. I’d never heard of this “superdelegate” stuff (gg media).
I’m not really sure where I stand on the national primary issue. On the one hand, it leads to undue influence for early states due to the extreme hype a candidate receives if they win one. I think its better for the people to decided on issues rather than having certain candidates’ names pounded into their head by the press.
On the other hand, it does give candidates with less money to run a national campaign a chance to prove themselves and serve as a launching pad (e.g. Huckabee). The press only begrudgingly mentioned his name prior to Iowa even though I heard a lot of positive things from fellow republicans.
So I’m kind of torn on the issue. I’m very much in favor of eliminating the influence of money on politics so I’m beginning to think early primaries are perhaps a necessary evil. Maybe it would be better if the states rotated their primary election dates so that early influence could be spread more fairly? I’m not sure what the answer is.
ps- Go McCain!
i think we should do what they do in other countries and have a shorter time span for campaigning and limit how much they are allowed to spend. my poor candidate dennis kucinich has been left out of televised debates because he is not considered a front runner. i think the media has FAR too much control over elections!
jennifer juniper