Moron the Delegates IssueI must confess I am enjoying watching the angst play out on the Democratic side about the delegates from Florida and Michigan and what to do about them. Sean Wilentz and Julian Zilizer check in with a
hand-wringing OpEd at the WaPo:
The magnified importance of the early showdowns also opens the door to abuse. This year, Democrats in Michigan and Florida moved up their contests, thereby drawing the ire of the national party, which vowed not to seat the delegates. Unless something changes, voters in these states will be unfairly removed from the decision-making process, and neither candidate will benefit from their support.
"Neither" candidate will benefit? But if we included them, which candidate will benefit? As Karl at
Protein Wisdom points out, they're both supporting Hillary for President, which explains this:
For one thing, caucuses can be highly undemocratic. They eliminate the secret ballot, forcing voters to declare their loyalties publicly, and are thus vulnerable to intimidation and manipulation. They also shut out many citizens who have to work during caucus times. If you can't show up at a specific hour, you can't vote -- a particular problem for people with fixed shifts, including many of the working poor. (The supposedly democratic caucuses can also discriminate, as happened to Sabbath-observant Jews who couldn't get to Nevada's Saturday caucuses.) And there are usually no absentee ballots, of course.
The caucuses, of course, have been a notable strong point for Obama and a weakness for Hillary. As I have pointed out in the past, they are raising arguments of convenience (caucuses favor Obama and hurt Hillary) to arguments of principle (caucuses are undemocratic). Indeed, if you look at the various "principles" being espoused, it's pretty easy to tell which candidate they support. Kos suggested the other day splitting the delegates from Michigan and Florida down the middle; somehow this would give them "representation". Kos supports Obama. Others suggest that they be allocated per the primary; those people support Hillary. Only Newt Gingrich, who appears not to have a horse in the derby proposes the sensible thing, which is to have a do-over.
Look also at the convenient arguments referenced in this,
better OpEd piece by John Broder.
“A reformer in office becomes an establishment figure by definition and then by definition resists the next round of reforms — it’s human nature,” Mr. Hart, a supporter of Mr. Obama, said. “They have an interest in protecting the status quo. That’s what superdelegates are, people against rocking the boat and taking a generational leap.”
Opposed to the superdelegates? We didn't need to wonder whom he supported.
