Clinton campaign views on superdelegates

I can't believe I almost forgot this.

[Harold Ickes, Clinton campaign spokesman) confirmed that the Hillary campaign could still try to woo super-dels even if she lost the popular vote, with Michigan and Florida counted.

So let me get this straight: it's OK to get superdelegates to overrule the pledged delegates because she might still win the popular vote at the end of the day, but even if she doesn't, it's still OK to get superdelegates to overrule the pledged delegates. So why are we even arguing about pledged delegate vs. popular vote? Even the Clinton campaign now says that it doesn't matter.

Let's rehash, because this is totally underreported: Clinton is now saying that even if every single metric imaginable says that the primary voters prefer Obama to her, she will still attempt to get the party establishment to overturn those results. WOW.

Primaries cont.

OK, I think we've talked the "who is accountable for FL/MI's actions" thing to death. Just a few parting responses.

You're right, they didn't do their best to express their opinions. If they had, they would have sent letters, made phone calls, and otherwise harassed their elected leaders demanding why they would risk having their votes not count. And you're right, it's possible that it's because they didn't realize what was going on, which I would argue is the most generous interpretation of the situation. But so what? Who's fault was it that they didn't know what was going on? We have internet news sites that track the actions of your representatives down to the hour. We have newspapers that were reporting on it for months. Hell, I remember when Florida and Michigan were threatening to move their election up, and I don't even live there. Ignorance is an explanation but it doesn't excuse responsibility, and it's obvious that in this case the voters of those two states did not do their due diligence, only bothering to pay attention after it was too late.

That's also the most generous interpretation. I tend to think that they (policymakers and citizens included) did know would could happen and just decided to take the risk because they didn't think that the DNC had the balls to enforce the decision. But I also have an irrational dislike for Florida, so maybe my personal biases are intruding (Michigan's cool though).

But let's remember something: both the DNC and MI/FL could get their votes to count. MI/FL could just do a revote. They chose not to. Why is the Clinton campaign not blasting MI/FL for not ensuring that their citizens' votes would count? Because they never wanted a revote in the first place (see here and here for evidence). It's obvious why: they'd rather have this issue as a political football than actually get a real election in those two states, and it's a helluva lot easier to bash the national party (the Clinton wing of the party never liked Dean anyway) than it is to bash the very state policymakers that are your biggest supporters in MI/FL. It's sad that her campaign is playing politics with civil rights issues because it dilutes the validity of all legitimate claims of voter disenfranchisement, of which there still are plenty.

OK, done. Next topic, primary calendars.

We have a problem with the primary calendar. State faces a prisoner dilemma, when deciding to schedule their primary: they have an incentive to move their state up (defection), but that hurts everyone else. Because each state's dominant strategy is to move their state up, in the end they will all arrive at a suboptimal outcome, which is the following: campaigns will start years and years before the actual voting starts. Presidential candidates will declare for 2012 two years earlier, in 2010. Presidential and midterm campaigns will start to overlap. The perpetual campaign will be the multilayered perpetual campaign, with campaigns running for 2010 and 2012 at the same time. Time spent campaigning displaces time spent governing, and as a result the quality of policy will decrease.

The solution to a prisoner's dilemma is to create an independent entity that can rearrange the payoffs by punishing defection, thus making it more sense for states to follow the rules than defect and move their states up. That's what the DNC tried to do, and it was successful for 48 states (actually 44, because IA, NV, NH, and SC got what they wanted). But Michigan and Florida pushed their elections forward, and actually laughed in the face of the DNC while doing it. No, literally. Watch the video for yourself.

A teacher friend of mine once told me that when you get a new class, you have about a week to succeed in bringing order, which you do by establishing yourself as someone who lays out the rules and then enforces them. Of course, there are always a couple students who want to test out the rules and see if the teacher will actually follow through on the threats. If the teacher does not enforce the rules for those students, he or she will have lost the class for the rest of the year. It is that critical.

The DNC's power to solve the frontloading problem rests on the credibility of its threats. Like the rest of the class who watches to see how the teacher handles the unruly students, all the other states are watching to see if the DNC will enforce its rules. If it does not, it will be lord of the flies chaos, with each state trying to leapfrog all the others, and the DNC sitting on the sidelines, its credibility demolished, impotent to create order.

In this situation, we the voters, all the voters, suffer. My question is this: how would you solve this problem? If you argue that the DNC should not have the power to issue a credible threat to states, how can we possibly prevent the frontloading chaos in the next election?

Primary Pathos... just about done

1) I respond to this point in the most creative way possible: by using a Public Enemy song AND a Spiderman quote. Think it can't be done? Watch this:

If: power to the people
And: with great power comes great responsibility
Then: the people have responsibility

Ok, I'll add one thing. Yes, you personally may not be responsible for a decision that your representative might make, because hell, you're just one person, and while that letter you wrote might be strongly worded, it probably won't make it past the representative's Legislative Correspondent. But I still maintain that the people in aggregate assume responsibility for the actions of the politicians. In fact, not holding them responsible would seem weird. Do you really believe that Americans hold no responsibility for anything that our government does? Vietnam wasn't our fault, it was the Johnson's fault. The Iraq war wasn't our fault, it was Bush's fault. Tax cuts for the rich wasn't our fault, it was the GOP Congress's fault. Nothing is our fault!

Personally, I find that buck-passing to be disturbing. We the people, through the democratic mechanism of voting, have the power to make sure that our representatives actually represent us. If we fail in adequately exercising that power, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

2) Ok, that's just glib. I said "Wikipedia, et al", meaning that if I really wanted to look, I'm sure I could find a source or two that says that America practices a form of democracy. I mean, do you really doubt that we live in a democracy? If so, then join company with about a handful of political philosophy professors, but the rest of us are gonna go on living in what we call a democracy. Seriously, pointing out that we don't actually live in a democracy is like correcting someone when they incorrectly use the term "centrifugal force" - even if the correction is true, what's the point?

3) That is true, caucuses are confusing and overwhelming to a lot of people. I should know, I attended one in Iowa this year. But I also found that people tend to be much more informed. Part of that may be a selection bias; that is, caucuses attract only the most well-informed and engaged voters. But I think there's a reverse causation as well: caucuses make voters more informed than they otherwise would be. First off, unlike a primary, a caucus is a communal event, which of course comes with its own share of community pressures. Voters feel a need to be more informed because they will be expressing their political views in front of their neighbors, and so they want to be able to back them up. Second, the caucus isn't just where people vote - actual voter education goes on there as well. Neighbors talking to neighbors about who's better on the environment, who voted for the Iraq War, etc. And after the vote, members of the community were elected to act as delegates in the county convention. You don't get that kind of political participation in a primary.

I'm not saying that caucuses are better than primaries. But what they lose on turnout, I think they gain by bringing citizens to a higher level of political participation. Furthermore, I don't think that we should be answering these normative questions for the rest of the country. Both voting system has its benefits and drawbacks, and it's up to the states to decide which trade-offs they want to make.

You also said that we can't change the rules now. But using the popular vote as a measure would do just that! It is an unfair measure that is biased towards certain states and away from others. How can you say that we can't change the rules now, but then in the next sentence argue that we should use the popular vote to judge the winner of the primary?

By the way, I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am. Why no one else is chomping at the bit to jump into our little debate is beyond me.

Primary Pathos Plethora

C'mon, democracy, democratic republic? You might have been correct 230 years ago to draw a contrast between the two (Madison makes the distinction in Federalist #10), but nowdays the term democracy has been broadened to include more than just direct democracy, but also democratic republic (see Wikipedia, et al). The contemporary use is that democracy is the overall system of government, while democratic republic is the form of government (the other major form of democracy being direct democracy).

But who cares? The terminology is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, because even if we didn't live in a democracy, we do subscribe to its democratic ideals. Are you really going to disagree that a fundamental principle of our system of government is the use of elections as a means of the people to keep the representatives accountable for their actions?

You also mention that party representatives aren't that accountable because most people don't pay attention to them... but they don't set elections - rather, it was the FL and MI legislatures who decided to break the rules and push the elections up early. So I guess I don't really understand your point there.

On your sidenoted question of delegate seating, it is actually not Dean nor the state reps who decide whether or not to seat FL and MI, it actually is Obama. DNC bylaws state that the DNC Rules Committee determines who is and is not eligible to be seated, and the rules committee is made up of a proportionate amount of representatives from each campaign. So if Obama has a majority of delegates, he will thus have a majority on the Rules Committee, and he can then decide whether or not to seat them. In this circumstance, Dean and the reps really don't have much of a say in the matter.

Ahh, the popular vote argument. It's enticing, but it's totally fallacious. Here's why: would you argue that the Redskins are a better team than the Nationals because they score more points per game? Of course not. They're two different games, and in football you always score more points. Likewise with primaries and caucuses: turnout is always higher in a primary than a caucus, so therefore the same percentage point margin of victory will thus translate into a higher popular vote margin for primaries than caucuses. This means that using the popular vote measure essentially favors primaries over caucuses, or rather favors the candidate that does better in primaries than caucuses. Is this fair? Hell no. Let's use an example. Both Minnesota and Missouri were given 88 delegates (72 pledged and 16 super). This year, 214,000 people turned out in the MN caucuses, which was nearly three times more than had ever turned out in the history of Minnesota's caucuses. But, because Missouri uses a primary instead of a caucus, they had 827,000 voters show up to vote. So while the current system in place gives MN and MO equal weight, using the popular vote measure would make MO count four times as much as MN. That would be like, the day after the general election, "Oh I'm sorry New York, but you didn't have quite the turnout that we thought you would have, so we're gonna give you ten less electoral votes to hand out to your favored candidate. Oh my, Georgia, what a turnout you had... we'll give you those ten electoral votes that New York no longer deserves. Well it looks like that changes who becomes president. Sorry Hillary/Obama, now McCain wins."

I'm sorry, but tying the state's electoral weight to its electoral method is just crazy, and doing it after a state has already voted is just wrong.

Three other problems: first, how would you count the caucus states that did not tally their popular vote? Not count them? Second, what about Texas? They had a primary and a caucus. You can't just count the primary and not the caucus, but you can't count both of them because then you're counting voters twice, which is unfair to every other state that had the lack of foresight to let voters vote twice. Third, what about open/closed primaries. More people vote in open primaries, but do we really want to favor them over closed primaries?

If only there was a way to take all of these different contests and give them a common denominator by which we can fairly compare the contests in equal terms. Wait! There is such a system, and luckily it's already in place. It's called the delegate system, and it's been the name of the game for the past four months now. If we want to change it, do it for 2012, but let's finish this election first. With delegates, just like it was supposed to be.

Re: Primary Pathos

First off: yes, I am posting at 6am on a Saturday morning, and no, that does not make me a blogger extraordinaire. I had to drive a friend to the airport at 4am, and when I got back I decided to check Policy Hippo instead of going back to sleep. Now, I do plan on going back to sleep at some point this morning. But now is not the time for sleep. Now is the time... to blog.

My disagreement is twofold. First, I disagree that we can completely separate the citizens from the politicians who voted to move the primary. The fundamental principle of democracy is that politicians are held accountable to the citizens for the decisions that make. But that accountability goes both ways - the citizens are thus accountable for the decisions that their elected representatives make. If the representatives are not making good decisions, it's because the citizens aren't doing their job of keeping their representatives in check. Ultimately, good policy and good government arises from an informed and engaged electorate, a fact for which no amount of wonky GAO reports or management reform or multi-year budgeting can compensate. If the voters in FL and MI are complaining that their elected representatives aren't adequately representing their will, they have no one to blame but themselves.

My guess, however, is that the voters supported the early elections, even if it meant breaking the rules. It's a bit like us in 2008 blaming the invasion of Iraq on Bush. Sure, he pulled the trigger so to speak, but we let it happen. We supported it at the time, and hell, even if we didn't, the fact is is that we reelected the guy.

When I traveled around Europe, I, like many other American tourists, was given a hard time and often hassled about our inane and short-sighted foreign policy. Of course, I would tell my critic that it wasn't me, that I voted for Gore and Kerry, and that I campaigned against Bush in both elections. But that usually wasn't enough to get me off the hook, nor should it be. As an American, I bear responsibility for the actions and policies of my elected representatives. That is a fundamental principle of democracy, and, with all of FL and MI's blather about voting and representation, perhaps they should have cared as much about their role as citizens and voters when they put those policymakers in office. Remember: a democracy, if you can keep it.

My second point of disagreement was the main subject of my previous posts: that the voters were represented, and did have a say, because they altered the narrative, and thus the dynamic of the race.

Last point: the delegate race is not close, even if you include FL (I don't see how you could include MI given that Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and if they had a do-over he'd most likely win it anyway). Lemme give you an example of just how hard it would be for Hillary to pull ahead. Currently, Obama has about 170 more pledged delegates than Hillary. You count FL, and that deficit decreases to 130. At first blush, doesn't seem insurmountable at all. But consider the fact that Hillary's March 4th "blowout" netted her a grand total of... about five delegates. Obama then went on to net two delegates in WY and five in MS.

Now, Hillary is betting all her chips on PA, but not because it could save her, because nothing really can. After all, a 60% win in PA only nets her about 32 delegates, which still leaves her about 100 short of Obama. The reason she's putting it all on PA is that she's gotta move her chips in somewhere, and all the other states look even worse for her. North Carolina (115), the biggest state after PA (158), will probably go for Obama, as well as Oregon (52). But in order for her to catch up to him in pledged delegates, she's gotta run the board with 55-60% wins in all the remaining states, including NC and OR. That would be hard for any campaign, Obama's included, but let's also keep in mind that Hillary has only exceeded the 20 point margin twice: Arkansas and Oklahoma. Hell, she didn't even get 60% of the vote in New York!

Basically, if we start from the premise that the leader of the pledged delegate count should win, then, barring Obama being caught with a dead girl or live boy, there is no way that she can win. Even if FL is included. Hell, give her the 18 delegate margin in MI too. Doesn't matter.

This thing's over.

So now what happens? Well, Obama will be the nominee, and he'll then seat the FL and MI delegations because they no longer matter. Seriously, this whole FL and MI is a moot point, only brought up by the Hillary campaign because it creates the impression that it might actually matter. And if something that matters isn't resolved yet, then the race can't be over, can it?

See how well that works?

More on voter disenfranchisement

I know that I already commented on Lisa's post on FL and MI, but, I honestly can't help myself.
The argument is that FL and MI are disenfranchised because they won't be seated (not yet a foregone conclusion, by the way). As I stated in my previous post, they most likely did have an effect on the momentum of the campaign, which is usually a bigger aspect of the primary than delegate awarding.
But lets turn the tables around. In the '04 primary, CA voted on March 2nd. By that time, Kerry had won 18/20 primaries and was the de facto nominee. So did CA have an opportunity to make an impact on the election? Hell no they didn't. Neither did NJ, which voted June 8th, after every other state voted. In fact, really only the first 10 states mattered in the '04 primary - all subsequent states just ratified their decision, which was Kerry. Personally, I'd say that those 40 other states were more disenfranchised than FL and MI.

Democracy in the U.S.

Last week I was in a seminar at the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, a German think-tank closely allied with the Social Democratic party. The discussion leader, to break the ice, asked all 23 of us to introduce ourselves, say what country we're from, and rate democracy in our country and Germany on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being perfect democracy and 10 being no democracy. What an eye-opening exercise.

The others in my group come primarily from Southern and Eastern Europe (Poland, Slovakia, Belarus, Macedonia, Kosovo, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Hungary, Russia, etc.). For many, democracy is a relatively new development, and their annoyance with corruption and incompetence is tempered by excitement that things are moving in the right direction. It made me more bitter and angry at the failures of the U.S. system, which should serve as a model.

I mentioned only three failures:

1. The Electoral College, which gave Bush the presidency despite his popular-vote loss in 2000. (Of course, corruption, incompetence, and the Supreme Court added to the shame.)
2. My D.C. residence means I have no vote in Congress. No voting representative or senator. And this in the capital of the free world.
3. The current delegate system, crucial in such a close race for Democratic candidate this year, is broken, giving no say to the voters of Florida and Michigan, delegates not based on popular vote, and super-delegates completely without accountability.

I could've gone on, but my German isn't good enough to convey Jack Abramoff, gerrymandering, and the complacency of incumbents. At any rate, I think that we're not going to get the policies we want if we can't elect the politicians of our choice. Sorry to sound so snipy on Easter, but we've got a long way to go.

I gave the U.S. a 4. What do you give it?