Not Technically A Hurdle In Michigan

I said this might be a hurdle.

Turns out that DNC rules do prohibit cross-over participation. The state party has to comply with rule 2.E, which states:

"No person shall participate or vote in the nominating process for a Democratic presidential candidate who also participates in the nominating process of any other party for the corresponding elections."

So as far as the DNC is concerned, the objection of potentially disenfranchising Dems or indies who voted in the GOP primary is not valid. For the Obama campaign, this may well be a political hook on which to hang their argument about unfairness. But it's within the rules of the party.

Comments

Nonsense. "Voting" in a meaningless invalid "primary" is not "participation" in any reasonable sense. Also, the rule has the word "participate", in the present tense, not "participated". There is no good argument for disenfranchising those people wbo would have voted in the Dem primary had there been a real one, unless "it's good for Hillary" counts as an "argument".

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 17, 2008 9:46 PM

Marc, this is different. People who voted in the GOP primary thought the Democratic primary was not going to take place per DNC rules which Michigan Dem Party violated.

So I don't think rule 2.E applies in this case.

Posted by Micah | March 17, 2008 9:46 PM

I don't see how this applies in this special case.

This is obviously intended to keep someone from voting twice in the same election...once in each party's primary.

Here, though, the technical difficulty is that some voters crossed over to vote in the GOP election because they thought the Dem election wouldn't count. Otherwise they wouldn't have voted in the GOP side.
Thus, for these people, they would be disenfranchised; they would not be able to vote for their candidate of choice.

And yes, the fairness matters, particularly in gaining acceptance from the Obama camp.

Any revote is likely to turn into another fiasco, with even greater questions of legitimacy. Better to keep it as is; otherwise, the DNC is playing with fire.

Posted by cm | March 17, 2008 9:48 PM

Here's the real problem: any re-vote at this point in time, given the highly charged political environment, will inevitably create more problems than it solves.

Also, I am sick and tired of people thinking that an election can be thrown together on the fly so easily. Logistically, it's a nightmare. And to try to throw together an election with such short notice is inviting huge problems. And sad to say, I bet the people who would be shafted most would be the black community.

The delegates will eventually be seated, once a nominee is decided upon. End of controversy.

Posted by cm | March 17, 2008 9:51 PM

Seems like Marc is over lawyer-ing this one. I agree with cm on this: the rule sounds like it is intended to prevent someone from voting twice in the same election.

In any case, a "re-vote" is another election, technically.

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 9:52 PM

I still think the 50/50 split is the best deal we can come up with. Neither candidate would gain any advantage from this unfortunate rules snafu. The delegates from FL and MI get seated. And those two states don't have to spend a bunch of money on running new elections.

Posted by cousin vinnie | March 17, 2008 9:53 PM

40% of democrats went out in 6 inches of snow to vote against Hillary in Michigan. She doesn't want a revote just like Obama doesn't.

Obama needs to stop playing prevent defense.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by brian | March 17, 2008 9:53 PM

"People who voted in the GOP primary thought the Democratic primary was not going to take place per DNC rules which Michigan Dem Party violated."

"Thus, for these people, they would be disenfranchised; they would not be able to vote for their candidate of choice."

They did vote for their candidate of choice - of those running in the GOP primary. They could have stayed home, or voted for 'Uncommitted' or voted for Clinton.

They voted, which makes it silly to claim they're being disenfranchised. If they vote in both primaries that would make them DOUBLY enfranchised.

I'm an Obama supporter, but it seems pretty clear the intention of the rule is to avoid people voting in both primaries.

If people who voted in the GOP primary could now vote in the Democratic primary, that would violate this rule.

Incidentally, if you allow GOP primary voters into a new Democratic primary or caucus, then you'd probably get a lot of Limbaugh listeners voting for Hillary.

Posted by Jon H | March 17, 2008 9:54 PM

So Hillary gets to keep her FL delegates and gets a chance to deliver a valid knockout blow to Obama in MI. What's not to love about these developments if you're in HRC's camp?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | March 17, 2008 9:57 PM

ENOUGH!!!

Hillary's friends (Granholm etc) already messed up by the primary. Now again they want to vote in June when all the students will be away. Now they say no independents, and no republicans.

OVER OUR DEAD BODY.

Posted by Yiannis | March 17, 2008 9:59 PM

Some wishes may be easier to grant than others.. Yannis.

Should Hillbilly file a writ of habeas corpus?

Posted by D | March 17, 2008 10:08 PM

I think Jon's right. But I think the Republican legislature not cooperating means it'll be moot.

Matt, just because they're trying to argue for the illicit primary to count doesn't mean the committee, staffed by Dean's people, is going to give that any more weight than they did the last 180 times they tried. Property tax referendum beat all the Dem candidates combined by a hefty margin; perhaps it could have the delegates.

Posted by Deborah | March 17, 2008 10:09 PM

I'm against what seems the conventional wisdom in this issue.

Only 60,000 registered Dems voted in the GOP primary. Accordingly to the exit polls, only 30,000 Indies were liberal-leaning. So, let's assume 90,000-110,000 potential voters wouldn't be allowed to vote.

On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of Limbaugh republicans wouldn't be able to mess with it. I believe there's a net gain.

Posted by Andrew P. | March 17, 2008 10:48 PM

I'm a Limbaugh voter and didn't vote in the Republican primary because I knew the Dems would revote and I had to wait to throw my monkey wrench in.

I will listen intensely day and night waiting for the Limbaugh clue on what I am supposed to do. I have no life and I will ruin it for the way my god like idol says.

So you lose. Just throw out the Michigan results. Or I vote the way I am told by the fat guy on the radio.

All praise Limbaugh and how to orders us to vote.

Posted by Ron | March 18, 2008 2:19 AM

The only fair solution is to allow people who voted in either contest to vote in this one. OR just don't seat Michigan delegates. This would be like an umpire changing balls to strikes in a later inning. That never happens. Once a call has been made and the contest proceeds on that basis, it cannot be reversed, even if it wasn't the right call.

Posted by Tim_G | March 18, 2008 2:38 AM

You guys wear your politics on your sleeves, no?

Put aside the question of what is fair for the moment, because that certainly won't be the criteria for who can vote in this election. Do you honestly think that legally that provision doesn't absolutely block GOP primary voters from voting now? Do you think that wasn't part of the nominating process of the other party?

As Andrew points out, we are talking about a small number of people (60K) who voted in the GOP primary. There is absolutely no data to support the idea that those people broke completely disproportionately for Obama. Ss say they broke 60-40 for him, which would be a big split. That is a net gain of 12K votes for Clinton in a state in which turnout is likely to be around two million.

Posted by FuzzyDunlop | March 18, 2008 8:29 AM