Josh Marshall: Who's Disenfranchised?

[babylonsister]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/197852.php

Who's Disenfranchised?


As both campaigns prepare to make their case for what to do about Florida and Michigan before the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), I wanted to focus your attention on an issue that has gotten too little attention.

The Clinton campaign argues that if the delegates from these non-sanctioned primaries are not seated hundreds of thousand of voters in Florida and Michigan will be disenfranchised.

The other side argues that it is wrong to change the rules under which the nomination process after the fact in order to advantage one candidate over another. The latter is an argument I agree with -- but there's no question it lacks the emotive impact of the disenfranchisement argument.

What doesn't get mentioned, however, is this: it was widely reported and understood in both Florida and Michigan that the results of these primaries would not be counted. And based on that knowledge, large numbers of voters in both states simply didn't participate.

If the DNC were now to turn around and decide to make these contests count after all, these non-participating voters would be disenfranchised no less than the people who did turn out would be if the DNC sticks to the rules and doesn't seat any of the delegates. The simple fact is that large numbers of people, acting on accurate knowledge and in good faith, decided that there wasn't a real primary being held in their state on the day in question and on that basis decided not to participate.

Now, the question is how can we really know how many people didn't show up because they were told it wasn't a real election? There is of course no way to arrive at a direct answer, at least no practical one. But this post by Eric Kleefeld, which on a statistical analysis by Gregory P. Nini and Glenn Hurowitz, makes a very strong statistical case that as many as one million voters in Florida and probably more than a half million voters in Michigan did not vote who otherwise would have if they had not believed that the results would not be counted. Take a look.

--Josh Marshall

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I'm recommending this . . .

I posted a similiar thought earlier today - though not nearly as elegant as you did.

If the DNC were now to turn around and decide to make these contests count after all, these non-participating voters would be disenfranchised no less than the people who did turn out would be if the DNC sticks to the rules and doesn't seat any of the delegates. The simple fact is that large numbers of people, acting on accurate knowledge and in good faith, decided that there wasn't a real primary being held in their state on the day in question and on that basis decided not to participate.


What about the people that stayed home because they assumed their vote wouldn't count?

[Yotun]

2. Its simple- elections for A do not count as elections for B

The Florida and Michigan election were clearly understood by their voters to NOT be elections that would count towards representation for the Democratic nominee. To now pretend that they were anything but, and that the results are representative of some other election, is undemocratic. It is exactly the same as saying that if 70% have an unfavorable rating of Bush, 70% feel he should be president again. You simply do not count elections for A as elections for B. But since we're too scared to tell Hillary to just go away, we are more than happy to make a mockery of democracy, and go on with this nonsense.

[Andy823]

3. Senator Nelson

Was just asked that same question, what about those who were told their vote would "NOT" count, so did not go to the polls. He says that was not the case, and that since there was a record turnout, the idea that so many did not go out and vote was not true. What BULL! He is not trying to be fair at all, he is simply pushing for all the votes to be counted so Hillary can get "MORE" delegates. He is so full of crap it makes me sick!

We all know if this war reversed, and Obama would gain more delegates in Florida, he would be "against" seating all the delegates with a full vote!

[babylonsister]

4. Except, according to this, he's lying. There was no record turnout...

Do Florida And Michigan Primaries Really Reflect The Will Of The People? Nope.
By Eric Kleefeld - May 30, 2008, 5:46PM


As the DNC prepares to decide the fates of the Florida and Michigan delegations tomorrow, a key question has to be asked: Did those rogue primaries truly reflect the will of their states' Democratic voters?

The case against that proposition, it turns out, is a fairly compelling one in statistical terms.

Here's why: If you take a close look at the numbers, it turns out that while the Florida primary turnout was high relative to past primaries within the state, the relative Democratic turnout vs. the Republican primary lagged way behind relative party turnout in other primaries and caucuses across the country, where the voting counted from the start. And in Michigan in particular, the voting level there was simply abysmal.

This suggests the possibility that far more Democratic voters would have come out in both states if they'd expected the contests to count, meaning that it's hard to argue that the primaries that actually took place really reflected the will of the people.

more...


http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/primaries.php

[Martin Eden]

5. Damn good point

I just wish that none of the voters in those states had been disenfranchised in the first place. The Democractic Parties in those states were not solely responsible for changing the primaty dates, and this issue is hurting the party as a whole.

BTW, I voted for Obama in Illinois.

[qanda]

6. About a month ago, Tiki and Ronde Barber were on MSNBC

And they asked Ronde if he voted in the Florida primary and he said that he hadn't because he didn't think his vote was going to count. I just found the video (it starts about 30 seconds in):

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-barber-brothers-share-stories/2619931454

[NotThisTime]

7. I remember that - People who owned homes voted in FL due to a homeowner referendum

[jsmirman]

8. I posted a thread on this earlier. I think it just destroys the Clinton argument on MI and FL

k & r

[TexasObserver]

9. Fact: If they had a do over in both states, the delegate spread would be closer.

Hillary still benefitted from having the bogus elections.