Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Michigan and Florida delegates in 2008 US elections
From Debatepedia
Revision as of 16:09, 18 March 2008 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→No) ← Previous diff |
Current revision (20:47, 25 October 2010) (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Yes) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style=""| | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style=""| | ||
=== Should delegates from Florida and Michigan be alloted in the 2008 US elections? === | === Should delegates from Florida and Michigan be alloted in the 2008 US elections? === | ||
- | |} | ||
- | |||
- | {| style="width:100%; height:100px" border="0" align="center" | ||
- | |__TOC__ | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 12: | Line 8: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|bgcolor="#F7F7F7" colspan="2" style= "border:1px solid #BAC5FD"| | |bgcolor="#F7F7F7" colspan="2" style= "border:1px solid #BAC5FD"| | ||
- | ===Background and Context of Debate:=== | + | ===Background and context === |
- | In the 2008 US presidential elections, Michigan and Florida were stripped of their Democratic delegates after they disobeyed Democratic Party rules and held their primaries before Feb. 5. Michigan held its primary on January 15th and Florida held their's on January 29th. While neither candidate actively campaigned in either state, Clinton won both primaries. To the surprise of few observers, Clinton began calling for reinstating the delegates either according to the results of the elections that took place in January or to according to some kind of a re-vote. Barack Obama, who stood to lose from any arrangement that would seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, not surprisingly objects to these proposals and Clinton's position. Both candidates tried their best to argue their cases. Given their opposing interests in making these cases, they've brought almost all of the arguments for and against this notion to the surface. | + | In the 2008 US presidential elections, Michigan and Florida were stripped of their Democratic delegates after they disobeyed Democratic Party rules and held their primaries before Feb. 5. Michigan held its primary on January 15th and Florida held their's on January 29th. While neither candidate actively campaigned in either state, Clinton won both primaries. To the surprise of few observers, Clinton began calling for reinstating the delegates either according to the results of the elections that took place in January or to according to some kind of a re-vote. Barack Obama, who stood to lose from any arrangement that would seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, not surprisingly objects to these proposals and Clinton's position.[[Image:Michigan.jpg|left|230px]][[Image:Florida.jpg|right|200px]] Both candidates tried their best to argue their cases. Given their opposing interests in making these cases, they've brought almost all of the arguments for and against this notion to the surface. |
+ | |||
+ | One of the main proposals has been to to hold a re-vote in Michigan and Florida and to use the results to allot delegates from the state. On March 18th, 2008, however, the Florida Democratic Party rejected the idea of holding a re-vote of any kind. This means that even if there is a rationale for doing so, it apparently will not happen. It appears to remain a possibility in Michigan. | ||
The debate surrounds a number of important questions. Do Michigan and Florida deserve to be punished? Is this essential to preserving the integrity of the primary election process and the authority of the Democratic National Committee who makes the rules? Is their an established process whereby the state parties can make appeals to the DNC to seat the delegates? Does the punishment unfairly disenfranchise Democratic voters in these two states? Need the primaries be fully democratic, or can they be largely determined by the party leadership. Is it fair to the candidates to seat the delegates according to the results of elections in which neither candidate campaigned seriously but in which Clinton campaigned more? Is it fair to seat the delegates between these two candidates when other candidates were still in the contest at the time? If a re-vote is held, who is going to pay, will it be too costly, and will the payment arrangement be consistent with democratic principles? Is a mail-in ballot an appropriate response to this problem? Is it practical and is it a problem that Florida has never done a mail-in ballot before? Is there public support in Michigan and Florida for these proposals? Is there national public support? How does public support interact with the question of who pays the bill? Would this be a good way to resolve the difficulties in concluding a dead-even Democratic nomination? Is this a "crisis" that requires making exceptions to provide an opportunity for the elections to be decided? Finally, would seating the delegates be good for the Democratic party? These are the questions of this debate. Many of them exist on the level of practicality, and many others exist on the level of the fundamentals of our democratic system and the primary nomination process. | The debate surrounds a number of important questions. Do Michigan and Florida deserve to be punished? Is this essential to preserving the integrity of the primary election process and the authority of the Democratic National Committee who makes the rules? Is their an established process whereby the state parties can make appeals to the DNC to seat the delegates? Does the punishment unfairly disenfranchise Democratic voters in these two states? Need the primaries be fully democratic, or can they be largely determined by the party leadership. Is it fair to the candidates to seat the delegates according to the results of elections in which neither candidate campaigned seriously but in which Clinton campaigned more? Is it fair to seat the delegates between these two candidates when other candidates were still in the contest at the time? If a re-vote is held, who is going to pay, will it be too costly, and will the payment arrangement be consistent with democratic principles? Is a mail-in ballot an appropriate response to this problem? Is it practical and is it a problem that Florida has never done a mail-in ballot before? Is there public support in Michigan and Florida for these proposals? Is there national public support? How does public support interact with the question of who pays the bill? Would this be a good way to resolve the difficulties in concluding a dead-even Democratic nomination? Is this a "crisis" that requires making exceptions to provide an opportunity for the elections to be decided? Finally, would seating the delegates be good for the Democratic party? These are the questions of this debate. Many of them exist on the level of practicality, and many others exist on the level of the fundamentals of our democratic system and the primary nomination process. | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | {| style="width:100%; height:100px" border="0" align="center" | ||
+ | |__TOC__ | ||
|} | |} | ||
+ | |||
{| | {| | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 31: | Line 33: | ||
|WRITE SUBQUESTION BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |WRITE SUBQUESTION BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
====Yes==== | ====Yes==== | ||
- | *'''Democratic primary rules offer states some options after being stripped of their delegates''' [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/michigan.florida.voters/ Michigan, Florida votes could be crucial for Democrats". CNN.com. February 14, 2008] - "Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons, an Obama supporter, said the rules are the rules. | + | |
+ | *'''[[Argument: The candidates never agreed to not seat Michigan and Florida delegates| The candidates never agreed to not seat Michigan and Florida delegates]]''' While it is accurate that Obama and Clinton did agree to not campaign in Florida and Michigan, Clinton maintains that this does not mean that they agreed to not push for the seating of the delegates after the election that took place in these states. This is a very important distinction, and it places Hilary's actions to call for the seating of the delegates appropriately outside of the agreement that was struck between the two candidates. | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''[[Argument: Florida Democrats are not responsible for violating primary rules so shouldn't be punished| Florida Democrats are not responsible for violating primary rules so shouldn't be punished]]''' The law to move the state primary forward was a state-wide legislative move that then obligated both the Democratic and Republican state parties in Florida to move their primaries forward. The Democratic party, while obligated by state law to obey, was not chiefly responsible for moving the election forward and became powerless to change the law. The problem for the Democrats is that they are not in control of the state legislature. And, despite the Democratic parties general disapproval of this action, the Republican state party pushed the measure forward. It is unfair to punish the Democratic party so severely for an action that they were not necessarily chiefly responsible for. Therefore, the Florida Democratic delegates should be seated at the national convention. | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''[[Argument: Dem primary rules offer states options after being stripped of delegates| Dem primary rules offer states options after being stripped of delegates]]''' [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/michigan.florida.voters/ Michigan, Florida votes could be crucial for Democrats". CNN.com. February 14, 2008] - "Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons, an Obama supporter, said the rules are the rules. | ||
:'Michigan and Florida both decided to violate the rules. They were told, 'If you violate the rules, this will be the penalty.' They violated the rules anyway. And so, now, here we are trying to change the rules after the game,"'he said. | :'Michigan and Florida both decided to violate the rules. They were told, 'If you violate the rules, this will be the penalty.' They violated the rules anyway. And so, now, here we are trying to change the rules after the game,"'he said. | ||
Line 39: | Line 46: | ||
:The first course of action is for the state parties to appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, a group that resolves any issues that pop up." | :The first course of action is for the state parties to appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, a group that resolves any issues that pop up." | ||
+ | *'''The primary system and late Michigan and Florida primaries disenfranchises these states.''' It is commonly recognized that Iowa and New Hampshire, by going first in the primary process, have a disproportionate sway in selecting the presidential nominee. This is because the results in these states can sway the results in other states. This means that voters in these two states have more power than voters in other states. Since Florida and Michigan have their turn toward the very end of the primaries, their voters have much smaller impact on selecting their parties' respective nominee. This means that Florida and Michigan's voters have less power or, other words, that they are disenfranchised on some level. This is undemocratic and unjust. Michigan and Florida's attempts to move their primaries forward were both a just protest of this system and a just attempt to give their voters a fair say in the nominations. They should not be severely punished for these actions by having their delegates stripped, which will only further disenfranchise these voters. | ||
Line 45: | Line 53: | ||
*''' Michigan and Florida knowingly violated the rules and so should be punished''' The Democratic National Committee rules were very clear in Florida and Michigan. The punishment for violating the rules was also very clear; the state party would be stripped of its delegates, meaning that the state's vote would not count in the primary election. With perfect knowledge of the rules and the punishment for breaking the rules, the Florida and Michigan Democratic parties, nevertheless, broke the rules. They should not now claim that the punishment is unfair. | *''' Michigan and Florida knowingly violated the rules and so should be punished''' The Democratic National Committee rules were very clear in Florida and Michigan. The punishment for violating the rules was also very clear; the state party would be stripped of its delegates, meaning that the state's vote would not count in the primary election. With perfect knowledge of the rules and the punishment for breaking the rules, the Florida and Michigan Democratic parties, nevertheless, broke the rules. They should not now claim that the punishment is unfair. | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''[[Argument: Obama and Clinton should stick to their agreement to not campaign in and count Florida and Michigan| Obama and Clinton should stick to their agreement to not campaign in and count Florida and Michigan]].''' Obama and Clinton agreed with each other that they would not campaign in either Florida or Michigan. They agreed with each other on this point because they both recognized that it would not count, and, subsequently, that any effort by one or the other candidate to campaign in these states and stake claim to the results could be unfair, would be wasteful, and would likely undermine the decision of the DNC. They should stick to this agreement to not count the results of the two states. | ||
*'''Florida and Michigan's infractions threaten to damage the election process and so warrant severe punishments''' The reason that these states deserve to be punished is because these rules are essential to preserving the integrity of the primary system. The rules ensure there is not an endless leap-frogging effect between states to move their primary elections earlier in the calendar to presumably achieve greater attention in the election process. If Florida and Michigan were not punished, other states would find the idea attractive to move their elections up in the calendar. The credibility of the DNC would be diminished and a chaotic, unstable, and damaging election process could result. In so far as Michigan and Florida's actions threaten to cause such damages, they deserve to be punished severely for their infractions. | *'''Florida and Michigan's infractions threaten to damage the election process and so warrant severe punishments''' The reason that these states deserve to be punished is because these rules are essential to preserving the integrity of the primary system. The rules ensure there is not an endless leap-frogging effect between states to move their primary elections earlier in the calendar to presumably achieve greater attention in the election process. If Florida and Michigan were not punished, other states would find the idea attractive to move their elections up in the calendar. The credibility of the DNC would be diminished and a chaotic, unstable, and damaging election process could result. In so far as Michigan and Florida's actions threaten to cause such damages, they deserve to be punished severely for their infractions. | ||
Line 50: | Line 60: | ||
*'''[[Argument :People's opinions converge towards the belief that rules within election campaigns matter for purposes of consistency and democratic values |People's opinions converge towards the belief that rules within election campaigns matter for purposes of consistency and democratic values]]''' After the precedent of 2000 where the intervention of the Supreme Court was necessary to determine the president of the United States and the current tight and challenging competition for the Democrat nomination, people feel that there is a need for rules and consistency to strengthen the democratic process of electing the most important person within the US political system. | *'''[[Argument :People's opinions converge towards the belief that rules within election campaigns matter for purposes of consistency and democratic values |People's opinions converge towards the belief that rules within election campaigns matter for purposes of consistency and democratic values]]''' After the precedent of 2000 where the intervention of the Supreme Court was necessary to determine the president of the United States and the current tight and challenging competition for the Democrat nomination, people feel that there is a need for rules and consistency to strengthen the democratic process of electing the most important person within the US political system. | ||
+ | *'''[[Argument: Changing the rules mid-game is sure to disadvantage one candidate| Changing the rules mid-game is sure to disadvantage one candidate]]''' Changing the rules to allow for the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates will undoubtedly benefit one of the candidates. Which candidate benefits depends on what course of action is taken. But, this does not matter. If a change in policy will negatively affect any one candidate, than no action should be taken. | ||
Line 62: | Line 73: | ||
*'''[[Argument: Seating Michigan and Florida delegates in 2008 gives a voice to voters there| Seating Michigan and Florida delegates in 2008 gives a voice to voters there]]''' In a democratic system, the voters of Florida and Michigan should have their votes counted. The implications of denying them the vote are very high. | *'''[[Argument: Seating Michigan and Florida delegates in 2008 gives a voice to voters there| Seating Michigan and Florida delegates in 2008 gives a voice to voters there]]''' In a democratic system, the voters of Florida and Michigan should have their votes counted. The implications of denying them the vote are very high. | ||
- | *'''[[Argument: Giving Michigan and Florida voters a voice in 2008 benefits the Democratic party| Giving Michigan and Florida voters a voice in 2008 benefits the Democratic party]]''' While the DNC certainly does have the right, to some extent, to limit the democratic nature of the primaries, upholding this very democratic nature is in their interests. In general, it upholds the legitimacy of the Democratic party to be as democratic as possible in the primary elections. If they fail to uphold these principles, their general legitimacy is undermined, undermining their agenda and chances in general elections. | + | *'''Giving Michigan and Florida voters a voice in 2008 benefits the Democratic party.''' While the DNC certainly does have the right, to some extent, to limit the democratic nature of the primaries, upholding this very democratic nature is in their interests. In general, it upholds the legitimacy of the Democratic party to be as democratic as possible in the primary elections. If they fail to uphold these principles, their general legitimacy is undermined, undermining their agenda and chances in general elections. |
- | *'''[[Argument: Giving Michigan and Florida voters a voice in 2008 ensures their support in the general election| Giving Michigan and Florida voters a voice in 2008 ensures their support in the general election]]''' It ensures that the nominee actually receives the support of the general public; support that he or she will need in the general election. It is also important that voters not feel disenfranchised in the primary elections. If this is the case, they may feel compelled to protest by not voting in the general elections. | + | *'''[[Argument: Giving Michigan and Florida voters a voice in 2008 ensures their support in the general election| Giving Michigan and Florida voters a voice in 2008 ensures their support in the general election]]''' It ensures that the nominee actually receives the support of the general public; support that he or she will need in the general election. It is also important that voters not feel disenfranchised in the primary elections. If this is the case, they may feel compelled to protest by not voting in the general elections. |
+ | |||
+ | *'''Deadlocked primary nomination could be resolved by Michigan and Florida delegates.''' If the nomination of the Democratic nominee is in a dead-heat going into the national convention, the Florida and Michigan delegates could be an important way to provide the decisive support to one Democratic candidate that is needed to end the contest, unify the party, and move into the general election with strength. | ||
*'''Punishing the Flor. and Mich. Democratic state parties should not also punish voters.''' Certainly, the Florida and Michigan Democratic parties are responsible for breaking the rules of the Democratic National Committee by attempting to move their state primary forward in the calendar. Punishing them is an appropriate measure. But, it is unfair and undemocratic to unseat the delegates of these states, as the chief recipients of this punishment are actually the Michigan and Florida Democratic voters, who are subsequently disenfranchised. Voters should not be punished for the mistakes of their leaders. Rather, punishments should focus on penalizing the State Democratic parties and their leaders. This would be a more just punishment and more democratic. In the 2008 elections, the best response would be to allow the voters to have their voices herd by seating the delegates, while devising better ways to punish state parties that break the rules. | *'''Punishing the Flor. and Mich. Democratic state parties should not also punish voters.''' Certainly, the Florida and Michigan Democratic parties are responsible for breaking the rules of the Democratic National Committee by attempting to move their state primary forward in the calendar. Punishing them is an appropriate measure. But, it is unfair and undemocratic to unseat the delegates of these states, as the chief recipients of this punishment are actually the Michigan and Florida Democratic voters, who are subsequently disenfranchised. Voters should not be punished for the mistakes of their leaders. Rather, punishments should focus on penalizing the State Democratic parties and their leaders. This would be a more just punishment and more democratic. In the 2008 elections, the best response would be to allow the voters to have their voices herd by seating the delegates, while devising better ways to punish state parties that break the rules. | ||
Line 70: | Line 83: | ||
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''[[Argument: The Michigan and Florida elections were not valid and the results should not be used| The Michigan and Florida elections were not valid and the results should not be used]]''' Valid elections require that certain democratic standards be upheld. One of these standards is that the rules are clear from the beginning. An election in which the candidates and voters are led to believe won't count, but that is later changed to count, violates this basic rule. Similarly, the most basic election standards demand that the candidates are all fairly and equally represented on their respective ballots. Michigan's primary violated this principle in that Obama's name did not appear on the ballot, while Hilary's did. | ||
*'''The Democratic party has the democratic right to enforce its primary rules.''' The Democratic party, with the right to free association, has the right to establish rules and to enforce those rules. If Michigan and Florida break those rules, the DNC has the right to punish them. If that right to set and enforce its own rules is limited, then the DNC's free right to association is infringed upon, which harms the democratic principle of the rule of law. | *'''The Democratic party has the democratic right to enforce its primary rules.''' The Democratic party, with the right to free association, has the right to establish rules and to enforce those rules. If Michigan and Florida break those rules, the DNC has the right to punish them. If that right to set and enforce its own rules is limited, then the DNC's free right to association is infringed upon, which harms the democratic principle of the rule of law. | ||
*'''Another re-count in Florida in 2008 will re-kindle old American wounds.''' Florida played a pivotal role in the 2000 Presidential elections, with its courts deciding on the critical issue of whether a recount would be conducted. It was widely seen in America as having a disproportionately large and undue impact on the outcome of the elections. This has caused resentment, and the notion of Florida having another re-count in the 2008 presidential elections re-kindles these resentments. | *'''Another re-count in Florida in 2008 will re-kindle old American wounds.''' Florida played a pivotal role in the 2000 Presidential elections, with its courts deciding on the critical issue of whether a recount would be conducted. It was widely seen in America as having a disproportionately large and undue impact on the outcome of the elections. This has caused resentment, and the notion of Florida having another re-count in the 2008 presidential elections re-kindles these resentments. | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''[[Argument: Michigan ballots unfairly contained Clinton's name but not Obama's| Michigan ballots unfairly contained Clinton's name but not Obama's]]''' This means that the Democratic voters in this election were simply not give a ballot that could ever live up to democratic, election standards. It is necessary, with any ballot that the primary candidates' names appear on the ballot. Both Obama and Clinton's names were absent. There is not chance that the results of an election that did not include the names of the candidates on the ballots could be used to later allot delegates for the Democratic Convention. | ||
Line 86: | Line 103: | ||
*'''[[Argument : The Jan. 29th Michigan and Florida primaries represent the public will|The Jan. 29th Michigan and Florida primaries represent the public will]]''' Roughly 1.7 million Democrats in Florida's primary. That's roughly fifty percent of the registered Democrats there. This indicates that these voters were paying close attention to the candidates and that they took the election seriously, despite knowledge that their votes would probably not count. This was certainly a legitimate election that sufficiently represented the will of the people. As such, it is valid to use the results to allot Florida and Michigan delegates. | *'''[[Argument : The Jan. 29th Michigan and Florida primaries represent the public will|The Jan. 29th Michigan and Florida primaries represent the public will]]''' Roughly 1.7 million Democrats in Florida's primary. That's roughly fifty percent of the registered Democrats there. This indicates that these voters were paying close attention to the candidates and that they took the election seriously, despite knowledge that their votes would probably not count. This was certainly a legitimate election that sufficiently represented the will of the people. As such, it is valid to use the results to allot Florida and Michigan delegates. | ||
- | *'''Florida voters were sufficiently informed despite not being campaigned to.''' The current media environment - with constant and comprehensive coverage of the candidates on the TV, Internet, and Radio - makes it impossible to argue that Florida voters, in order to become informed about the candidates, required that the candidates waged campaigns there. Given the massive turnout, it would appear that voters did not depend on the campaigns of the candidates to acquire information that would cause them to act so passionately in support of their respective candidates. | + | *'''Florida voters were sufficiently informed despite not being campaigned to.''' The current media environment - with constant and comprehensive coverage of the candidates on the TV, Internet, and Radio - makes it impossible to argue that Florida voters, in order to become informed about the candidates, required that the candidates waged campaigns there. Given the massive turnout, it would appear that voters did not depend on the campaigns of the candidates to acquire information that would cause them to act so passionately in support of their respective candidates. |
- | + | ||
- | *'''If allotting Michigan and Florida delegates is desired, using Jan. 29th, 2008 vote is superior to a re-vote.''' If it is deemed important that Michigan and Florida voters have a democratic voice in the 2008 presidential elections, that their votes be counted, and that delegates be accordingly alloted, using the results of the January 29th vote seems a superior option to doing a re-vote. The reason for this are a combination of practicality and of process. | + | |
Line 124: | Line 139: | ||
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "YES" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| | |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "YES" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| | ||
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''[[Argument: Florida's Democratic party rejected in March, 2008 holding a re-vote| Florida's Democratic party rejected in March, 2008 holding a re-vote]]''' On March 18th, 2008, the Florida Democratic Party rejected the idea of holding a re-vote of any kind. This means that even if there is a rationale for doing so, it won't happen. It also means that there is not popular will in Florida to make it happen, which would make it particularly inappropriate to try to push forward a re-vote. | ||
*'''[[Argument: A mail-in ballot funded by private interests risks conflicts of interest| A mail-in ballot funded by private interests risks conflicts of interest]].''' Given the costs of a proposed mail-in ballot system, some propose that it be paid for, in part, by private interests. This may, indeed, be necessary for such a system to achieve funding viability. The problem with this kind of arrangement, however, is that private interests could be seen as having a conflict of interest in funding such a system. The most obvious conflict is that many private interests will support funding this re-vote merely because it appears to favor a candidate they support. In Florida, this is Hilary Clinton, who is likely to win any re-vote there. And, as expected, Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey say they are willing to raise as much as $15 million to support mail-in re-votes. Both governors support Hillary Clinton in the nomination race. | *'''[[Argument: A mail-in ballot funded by private interests risks conflicts of interest| A mail-in ballot funded by private interests risks conflicts of interest]].''' Given the costs of a proposed mail-in ballot system, some propose that it be paid for, in part, by private interests. This may, indeed, be necessary for such a system to achieve funding viability. The problem with this kind of arrangement, however, is that private interests could be seen as having a conflict of interest in funding such a system. The most obvious conflict is that many private interests will support funding this re-vote merely because it appears to favor a candidate they support. In Florida, this is Hilary Clinton, who is likely to win any re-vote there. And, as expected, Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey say they are willing to raise as much as $15 million to support mail-in re-votes. Both governors support Hillary Clinton in the nomination race. | ||
- | *'''[[Argument: A mail-in re-vote in Mich and Flor risks encountering balloting issues| A mail-in re-vote in Mich and Flor risks encountering balloting issues]]''' Michigan Sen. Carl Levin (D) - "it would be very difficult to hold another vote in Michigan and that even a mail-in contest would have problems: 'Not just cost, but the security issue. How do you make sure that hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or more ballots can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided?'" | + | *'''A mail-in re-vote in Mich and Flor risks encountering balloting issues.''' Michigan Sen. Carl Levin (D) - "it would be very difficult to hold another vote in Michigan and that even a mail-in contest would have problems: 'Not just cost, but the security issue. How do you make sure that hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or more ballots can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided?'" |
*'''[[Argument: It is unclear who should pay for mail re-votes in Mich and Florida| It is unclear who should pay for mail re-votes in Mich and Florida]]''' The costs for a mail-in ballot are not small. At the low end, estimates for a Florida mail-in-ballot range from $4 million to $10 million. At the high end, there is an estimate of a total $30 million for both Michigan and Florida. Who's going to pay for this? Both the states and the DNC do not want the bill.[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88132194] | *'''[[Argument: It is unclear who should pay for mail re-votes in Mich and Florida| It is unclear who should pay for mail re-votes in Mich and Florida]]''' The costs for a mail-in ballot are not small. At the low end, estimates for a Florida mail-in-ballot range from $4 million to $10 million. At the high end, there is an estimate of a total $30 million for both Michigan and Florida. Who's going to pay for this? Both the states and the DNC do not want the bill.[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88132194] | ||
Line 137: | Line 154: | ||
*'''[[Argument: A mail-in ballot system entails risks of voter fraud| A mail-in ballot system entails risks of voter fraud]]''' The concern with mail-in voting surrounds the verification of voter identity as well as voter signatures. This requires a fairly well developed balloting infrastructure, standards, and administration. But, in the state of Florida, there is no past experience with mail-in ballots, making the risk of voter fraud very high. | *'''[[Argument: A mail-in ballot system entails risks of voter fraud| A mail-in ballot system entails risks of voter fraud]]''' The concern with mail-in voting surrounds the verification of voter identity as well as voter signatures. This requires a fairly well developed balloting infrastructure, standards, and administration. But, in the state of Florida, there is no past experience with mail-in ballots, making the risk of voter fraud very high. | ||
+ | *'''[[Argument: In Michigan or Florida re-vote, how would Democrats that registered Republican vote?| In Michigan or Florida re-vote, how would Democrats that registered Republican vote?]]''' Knowing that their vote would not count in the Democratic primaries in Florida, it is presumable that many Democrats and independence voted Republican, so as to have a voice. This means that they registered as Republicans. How would these individuals be accounted for in a re-vote? Would they be allowed, now, to vote Democrat? This couldn't happen, since that would mean that these voters would vote twice. So, these voters, who would have voted in the Democratic primary, would be effectively disenfranchised in the re-vote. | ||
+ | *'''[[Argument: Republican control of Michigan legislature makes Democratic primary re-vote unlikely| Republican control of Michigan legislature makes Democratic primary re-vote unlikely]]''' Despite all the logic that could accompany a re-vote, in Michigan, it is simply highly unlikely that the Republican-controlled legislature would allow for a re-vote. | ||
+ | |||
|- | |- | ||
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| | |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| | ||
Line 171: | Line 191: | ||
====Yes==== | ====Yes==== | ||
- | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | + | *'''Allotting delegates according to popular vote would help end deadlocked elections.''' The presidential race was deadlocked in early 2008. Many believe that this is bad for the Democratic party, as it means that the election will drag on, more attacks will be waged between the candidates, and this will give fuel to the Republican candidate in the general election. One way to solve this current deadlock is to allot the Michigan and Florida delegates according to popular will. This would give momentum to the candidate that is currently in the lead, would subsequently help end the election, and would do so in a way that reflects most closely the national will. |
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''Allotting Florida and Michigan delegates according to national will promotes a tyranny of the majority.''' This kind of an arrangement would completely strip Michigan and Florida voters of the right to have their voices herd, and would replace it with the will of the majority. Such an arrangement would promote a ''tyranny of the majority''. This is unacceptable in a democracy where every vote should count equally. It is also unacceptable in a country where state rights exist. To replace the will of a state's people with the collective will of the nation and other states would be contrary to the federal-state power-sharing principles in the union. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
- | + | ===Popular will: Is there popular support for allotting Michigan and Florida delegates?=== | |
- | ===Popular will: Is there popular support for allotting delegates?=== | + | |
|- | |- | ||
Line 200: | Line 226: | ||
====Yes==== | ====Yes==== | ||
+ | *'''Senator Hilary Clinton campaign.''' The Clinton campaign has favored allotting the delegates and/or a re-vote. | ||
+ | **[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88165077 "Clinton Says Michigan and Florida Should Count". NPR. March 13, 2008] | ||
+ | **[http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/polldancing/2008/02/hillary-seat-michigan-florida-delegates.php Evan Smith. "Hillary: Seat Michigan, Florida Delegates". Texas Monthly. February 22, 2008] | ||
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88074933 "Sen. Bill Nelson on a Mail-In Florida New Primary". All Things Considered, NPR. March 10, 2008] | *[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88074933 "Sen. Bill Nelson on a Mail-In Florida New Primary". All Things Considered, NPR. March 10, 2008] | ||
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88132194 Peter Overby. "If Florida and Michigan Vote Again, Who Pays?". NPR. March 12, 2008] - Asserts "Getting the money shouldn't be a problem." | *[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88132194 Peter Overby. "If Florida and Michigan Vote Again, Who Pays?". NPR. March 12, 2008] - Asserts "Getting the money shouldn't be a problem." | ||
- | *Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign has favored allotting the delegates and/or a re-vote. | + | *[http://www.taglobby.com/News/Detail.aspx?n=35 "Florida Voters' Record Turnout Surprises Experts". Orlando Sentinel] |
+ | *[http://www.fladems.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/#q17 Florida Democratic Party website] | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "YES" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| | |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "YES" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| | ||
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
- | *Obama campaign. The Obama campaign opposes the idea of seating the delegates and a re-vote. | + | *'''Barack Obama campaign.''' The Obama campaign opposes the idea of seating the delegates and a re-vote. |
+ | **[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88212282&ft=1&f=1012 "Obama: Michigan, Florida Do-Overs 'Not Realistic'". NPR. March 14th, 2008] | ||
+ | *[http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dwight_b_080312_no_fair_way_to_fix_m.htm Dwight Black. "No Fair Way To Fix Michigan/ Florida Primaries". OpEdNews.org. March 13, 2008] | ||
+ | *[http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/03/7428/ Paul Rockwell. "Clinton’s Duplicity on Michigan, Florida Delegatesz". CommonDreams.org. March 3, 2008] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| | |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| | ||
+ | ==See also== | ||
==External links:== | ==External links:== | ||
Line 221: | Line 257: | ||
|} | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Category:US politics]] | ||
+ | [[Category:2008 US presidential elections]] | ||
+ | [[Category:Elections]] | ||
+ | [[Category:US elections]] | ||
+ | [[Category:US electoral college]] | ||
+ | [[Category:US primary elections]] | ||
+ | [[Category:Politics]] | ||
+ | [[Category:United States]] | ||
+ | [[Category:Florida]] | ||
+ | [[Category:Michigan]] |
Current revision
[Edit] Should delegates from Florida and Michigan be alloted in the 2008 US elections? |
[Edit] Background and contextIn the 2008 US presidential elections, Michigan and Florida were stripped of their Democratic delegates after they disobeyed Democratic Party rules and held their primaries before Feb. 5. Michigan held its primary on January 15th and Florida held their's on January 29th. While neither candidate actively campaigned in either state, Clinton won both primaries. To the surprise of few observers, Clinton began calling for reinstating the delegates either according to the results of the elections that took place in January or to according to some kind of a re-vote. Barack Obama, who stood to lose from any arrangement that would seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, not surprisingly objects to these proposals and Clinton's position. Both candidates tried their best to argue their cases. Given their opposing interests in making these cases, they've brought almost all of the arguments for and against this notion to the surface.One of the main proposals has been to to hold a re-vote in Michigan and Florida and to use the results to allot delegates from the state. On March 18th, 2008, however, the Florida Democratic Party rejected the idea of holding a re-vote of any kind. This means that even if there is a rationale for doing so, it apparently will not happen. It appears to remain a possibility in Michigan. The debate surrounds a number of important questions. Do Michigan and Florida deserve to be punished? Is this essential to preserving the integrity of the primary election process and the authority of the Democratic National Committee who makes the rules? Is their an established process whereby the state parties can make appeals to the DNC to seat the delegates? Does the punishment unfairly disenfranchise Democratic voters in these two states? Need the primaries be fully democratic, or can they be largely determined by the party leadership. Is it fair to the candidates to seat the delegates according to the results of elections in which neither candidate campaigned seriously but in which Clinton campaigned more? Is it fair to seat the delegates between these two candidates when other candidates were still in the contest at the time? If a re-vote is held, who is going to pay, will it be too costly, and will the payment arrangement be consistent with democratic principles? Is a mail-in ballot an appropriate response to this problem? Is it practical and is it a problem that Florida has never done a mail-in ballot before? Is there public support in Michigan and Florida for these proposals? Is there national public support? How does public support interact with the question of who pays the bill? Would this be a good way to resolve the difficulties in concluding a dead-even Democratic nomination? Is this a "crisis" that requires making exceptions to provide an opportunity for the elections to be decided? Finally, would seating the delegates be good for the Democratic party? These are the questions of this debate. Many of them exist on the level of practicality, and many others exist on the level of the fundamentals of our democratic system and the primary nomination process. |
[Edit] [ ![]() Rules: Do the rules allow for seating delegates after they've been stripped? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Democracy: Is seating the delegates necessary in preserving democracy? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Original vote: Should Michigan and Florida's Jan. 29th vote be used to allot delegates? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Mail-in re-vote: Does a mail-in re-vote concept make sense? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Splitting delegates: Would splitting the delegates between Obama and Clinton make sense? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() National will: Would allotting the delegates according to national will make sense? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Popular will: Is there popular support for allotting Michigan and Florida delegates? | |
[Edit] Yes |
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Pro/con resources | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] See also[Edit] External links:
|