::::::::
Read the whole post here.While reading Hillary Clinton's increasingly outrageous arguments that the Florida and Michigan primary votes should count (e.g., the Zimbabwe analogy), I decided that rather than just getting angry it might be useful to try to take an objective look that isn't simply based on candidate preference or Democratic Party rules. Did the Democratic voters in these two states make their preferences known in the primaries? Of course, for Michigan the question sounds completely ridiculous because Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot (Kucinich, Dodd, and Gavel were also listed). However, voters were also able to choose "uncommitted", which 40% of them did, and there was an exit poll that showed 46% for Clinton, 35% for Obama, and 12% for Edwards.
So, I thought that the best starting point for assessing the primaries was to look at the turnouts. What I was expecting to find was that the turnouts for both primaries were extremely low, well below those for the other primaries. In that case, Clinton's argument -- that the voters in some sense would be disenfranchised by not counting the results -- would clearly have no basis.
This is exactly what I found for Michigan. Only 594 thousand voters participated, compared to the 2.5 million who voted for Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, i.e. a turnout rate of 24% (I recognize this isn't the usual way to calculate a turnout, but for the question at hand it doesn't matter). This was well below the average of 61% (through Feb. 19th; the turnout rates actually became even higher after that date) and was by far the lowest in any state (the next lowest was 40% in NM). The NH primary a week earlier had a turnout that was 84% of the 2004 Kerry vote, and the SC primary immediately following Michigan had a turnout rate that was 80%. In conclusion, there is no reasonable basis for counting the Michigan primary votes, even if one were to somehow use the exit poll results. The Democratic voters of Michigan were indeed disenfranchised, but this was due to the decisions of their state party and the DNC on the primary date, and cannot be remedied by validating the primary votes.
The story for Florida is quite different. Here all of the candidates were on the ballot, but (for the most part) didn't campaign within the state. The voters actually turned out in fairly high numbers in this case: 1.75 million, compared to 3.6 million who voted for Kerry in the 2004 presidential election (49%). This is lower than the average of 61%, but within a standard deviation (16%), and higher than the turnout rates in NM, CT, NY, LA, and DE (40%, 41%, 43%, 47%, and 48%. respectively). It is also much higher than the turnout in the 2004 Florida primary (752 thousand), although that primary was fairly late (March 9th, just at the time that Kerry accumulated the necessary number of delegates)....In light of these considerations, it is fair and reasonable to count the Florida primary votes. It is also politically wise, in terms of promoting a Democratic (presumably Obama) victory in November. After watching "Recount" on HBO last Saturday and seeing in graphic detail how the Democratic voters in FL were disenfranchised in 2000, largely due to missteps of the Dems on the national level, I think it is especially important to make sure that the votes of the Florida Democrats count now. How many times can we expect them to get excited and go out to vote when their votes don't count?
