TPM: Do Florida And Michigan Primaries Really Reflect The Will Of The People? Nope

[mod mom]

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.

This is important context to keep in mind given that the Hillary campaign will argue tomorrow that the only way of preserving the people's will is giving them the solution they want -- a full seating of both delegations in accordance with the primary voting.

-snip

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


DETAILS AT THE LINK!

[mod mom]

1. BOTTOM LINE from the piece:

Bottom line: As these numbers clearly show, if these two states had held recognized contests with turnout in line with the best-fit curve for the other states, it seems likely that many more voters would have turned out -- possibly as many as one million in Florida, and over half a million in Michigan -- and we simply can't know how those people would have voted. These simple facts render both contests, especially Michigan, seriously dubious as actual measurements of the will of each state's electorate.

[cyclezealot]

5. As if the Nevada caucus really reflected the will of Nevada Democrats.

No one had the choices offered to New Hampshire Democrats. I only wish I could have had their broad range of choices. Maybe then I would have cared to vote.

[mod mom]

9. they were open to all Dems to participate w/o comment that their votes would not count.

What about the Dems who didn't bother to take time out of their schedules because they were told their votes wouldn't count? You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. That wasn't done in Nevada.

[cyclezealot]

12. you forget the headlines

Caucus sites chosen away from where certain union members were more likely to vote. Many union members in Vegas work odd hours, long shifts and unable to caucus during the hours the caucus' sites were open. Any attempts to accomodate certain unions. No . hardly representative. I am so sick of 'change the rules, ' over and over. Sounds like Fox news. Mich. / Fla was not important until Hillary or obama needed to work their disenfranchised delegates. I could give a good crap whether Michigan gets represented or not. The Primary system is to screwed up. Who gives a flying frig.

[Perry Logan]

2. And the Obama protesters cry, "Don't count the votes..or we'll lose!"

[mod mom]

3. Did you bother to read. Many voters stayed home because they were told there

votes would not count-should these voters be disenfranchised and their voices not counted?

[Sancho]

4. They should have had a campaign & proper primary in FL,MI like the GOP did

Then we would have a candidate by now.




:dem:

[George_Bonanza]

6. Blame Ickes and McAuliffe

[Coexist]

7. .

[remember2000forever]

8. The Florida Turnout Was High Due To A Property Tax Referendum That Was Being Voted On.

The Primary was ancillary.

[mod mom]

10. apartment dwellers and renters don't pay property tax so these folks might not

have bothered to turn out.

[Usrename]

11. Yep, and also Edwards dropped out the next day.

If the Florida primary were held on super-Tuesday, like it should have been, then a whole lot of the Edwards people would have probably switched to another candidate.

[cyclezealot]

13. Not us . We stayed with candidates with whom we most agree

Whethere they are running or not. Why would I vote in a primary for someone with which I mostly disagree. We voted for our favorite, even tho they had dropped out. Particularily considering how they were treated by the media. The media gave time only to the chosen few. No way that will sway our votes. It only makes us more adamant.

[Usrename]

14. Some voters are much more pragmatic.

Just sayin' it was a botched affair from the beginning.

[cyclezealot]

15. Pragmatic.

Not without a little kicking and screaming first. Principal first. Politics being turned into a game show. I'd rather quit.

[Usrename]

16. I certainly understand what you mean.

But you have to realize that some people are expressing their preference for the anti-war candidate over the pro-war candidate.

Obama over Clinton.

For some folks there is plenty of principle involved in expressing that preference.

[Ravy]

17. The DNC is solely to blame for this.

They were the ones that said the votes would not count, only to count them later but (in the case of Michigan) impose their own will for the delegate selection.