To the DNC: Michigan Voters Object to the MDP Solution

It is beyond argument that the primary goal of the Democratic Party and, by extention, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is to see to it that the principles of the Democratic Party are advanced and that Democratic candidates are elected to office.  The DNC's stated purpose, aside from planning and operating the quadrennial nation presidential nominating convention is to "work[ ] with national, state, and local party organizations, elected officials, candidates, and constituencies to respond to the needs and views of the Democratic electorate and the nation."  Throughout the last several months, since the unfolding of events that have resulted in the embarassment and disenfranchisement of the Michigan and Florida electorates, the Party and the DNC has heard from the state parties, elected officials, national officials and the two remaining presidential candidatates.  Now you've heard from the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP), which, we assume, has a similar mission.

     

The loudest and clearest argument for seating the Michigan and Florida delegations--in some form, at least--is that if these delegations are not seated, Democrats will surely suffer for it in the November election.  I don't dispute the legitimacy of the argument, but I also believe, much as Howard Dean and Mark Brewer, as well as the Obama and Clinton campaigns have often said, that the delegations from these states will be seated in Denver.  How we get to that point is the conundrum that must be resolved.  As I live and am politically active in Michigan, and because the arguments for and against seating its delegation vary from that which obtains to the Florida situation, I will limit my statements to Michigan.

Any attempt to seat the Michigan delegation in such a fashion that doing so will affect the so-called delegate math while the nomination remains in contest is inherently unfair and should be rejected as further disenfranchising the voters of this state--the constituency that the DNC and the Party are duty-bound to promote.  Further, any attempt to seat the unpledged superdelegates from Michigan, especially with greater voting rights as the plan proposed by unpledged Michigan delegate Joel Ferguson envisions, is so anathema to the concept of fairness so as to amount to the style of smoke-filled room dealing that results in the justifiable cynicism that once prevailed in party politics and which, we are told, is the type of political gamesmanship that the Democratic Party abhors.  

This entire mess was created, not by the people of the Michigan, but by many of the superdelegates themselves.  Whether well intentioned or motivated to advantage one candidate over the others, the actions of Carl Levin, Debbie Dingell, Jennifer Granholm, and Mark Brewer, in conjunction with the Michigan Legislature and the Michigan Republican Party, have taken the Michigan electorate's only chance to express their voice in the nominating process--for our vote is our voice--and, in accordance with the sanctions clearly threatened by the DNC, and turned that voice into sham.  In his role of state party chair, Mark Brewer voted to uphold the sanction against counting the Florida primary vote, and now the Michigan Democratic Party is seeking to undermine that vote, as well, by legitimizing an even more egregious vote?  Have you all lost any sense of fairness?  

Now, those same individuals who so flagrantly broke the voted-upon rules affecting the primary process and schedule want to take the sham results of our so-called primary and turn those results into something potentially meaningful: a 69-59 delegate allocation that benefits the only remaining candidate whose name was on the ballot.  I'm not going to go into any sort of overblown rhetoric, as others have, that such an "election" resembles the Soviet-styled farces of the 20th Century, but what I will say is that any recognition of the Michigan delegation based upon the results of that primary, when we were assured by the DNC that the results would not be credited to the delegate totals, removes this mess from the sham category and squarely places it into the category of outright fraud.    

Registering a vote in the primary that was operated under one set of rules is wholly inconsistent with having that vote actually count under another set of rules.  How many Michigan voters voted "Uncommitted" because they supported Barack Obama?  How many voted that way because the supported John Edwards?  How many because they saw the Uncommitted line as the only way to register a protest against what was then only a sham of a primary?  How many supporters of Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson actually voted for Clinton (or Dodd or Kucinich) because those were the only named candidates on the ballot?  How many stayed home?  The fact is: you cannot answer those questions.  So are you now going to work to count those votes, too? And in the context of a contested nomination?   About the only thing you can measure is the number of people who opted to write in Obama, Edwards, Biden or Richardson under the mistaken presumption that their "vote" would be registered, if not counted.  See? It's a fraud.

We do understand that any resolution of the Michigan delegation will likely result in a resolution of the Florida situation, as it can be argued that Florida's circumstances are not as egregious as those in Michigan.  We also understand that what appears to be a modest compromise to seat the pledged delegates of Michigan is, in actuality, a proposal to seat the entirety of the unpledged delegates.    

If the DNC wishes to legitimize the January 15 results, and further give full voice to the unpledged delegates whose actions created this fiasco, you will do more harm to the Michigan voters, the Democratic Party, and any sense of fairness in elections than can be allowed to stand.  Moreover, if by doing so you advantage one candidate over another--as the MDP endorsed plan surely does--that harm will, for many, be irreparable. This Party should not allow for the changing of the rules at any point after the rules were established, and it should especially not to do so to legitimize the vote and voice of the very people who created the problem. That is a recipe for causing Democrats to stay home in November.  

If at some point the DNC or the nominee should wish to seat the Michigan delegation (and thereby Florida), it should only do so after the nomination is no longer in contest.  But if you go even that far to undo the rules, at least tell the unpledged delegates, the architects of this mess, that they should abide by the December vote of the DNC and stay home.