« An Economist Calculates The Cost Of Daylight Savings TimeFront PageCould Higher Fuel Prices Lead To Lower Speed Limits? »

Clinton Disenfranchisement Disconnect

Due to the failure of Michigan and Florida to come up with suitable "re-vote" plans, the debate over whether or not the two states should be represented at the Democratic convention is becoming a moot issue. But for several weeks the Clinton campaign tried to make the "disenfranchisement" of voters in these two states an issue.

I never bought the calls on the national party to do something for two reasons:

(1) The states were at fault because they rescheduled their primaries.

(2) Initially, the Clinton campaign agreed to bypass the elections in the two states. It was not until it became apparent that Clinton needed delegates from those states to win that she started complaining about unfairness.

But whatever merits Senator Clinton might have had in complaining about voters being heard have been complete discredited by her simultaneous argument that pledged delegates are not duty-bound to support the candidate that his or her voters chose.

What's the point in holding elections if the delegates need not honor the results? Why bother voicing your choice if the ballots are ignored? We could save a lot of hassle and expense by forgoing the voting exercise and simply having the national party appoint selectors to pick the nominee.


March 28, 2008 6:36 PM


Well said. The truth is so simple, I don't know why some refuse to see it.

Also, according to Karen Thurman, Fla Dem party chair...
"We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again," she wrote. "So we won't. A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it."