Given the almost mathematical certainty that Senator Clinton cannot overcome Senator Obama's lead in either pledged delegates or the popular vote, it was inevitable that Senator Clinton and her surrogates would return again to the question of Florida and Michigan. The esssence of their talking point is that "millions of voters should not be disenfranchised" in these two states. This is a powerful word, disenfranchisement, and evokes the historic American struggle to widen access to the polling place, to guarantee fair and equal representation. But, in this case, were the people of Florida and Michigan really denied their right to vote, were they really disenfranchised?
I think there is a fundamental conceit at work here, a conceit that is at variance with the structural goals of party primaries and caucuses. It should be stressed that--with regard to candidates on state primary ballots--these are party exercises, not elections for office. The process both picks candidates, not office-holders, and--it is hoped--contributes to party building. (Memo to Senator Clinton: The caucuses you ignored, and then later claimed were unfair are arguably the most democratic and powerful forms of decision making and party building). Party primaries are only about democracy to the degree that members of a given party believe it is in their interest for it to be so. There is no obligation on the part of any political party to be democratic in its functions. Of course, it will doubtless become a marginal party if it strays too far from what is imagined to be the "will of the people".
We might even go a bit further and note that the entire two-party system is a conceit. Indeed, the Constitution makes no mention of political parties, let alone a two-party system. This morning (April 23, 2008), I heard a Clinton surrogate link the disenfranchisment argument to the HBO series about John Adams and note that the framers put their trust in the wisdom of the people and not into "elite" hands. Why do politicans make such poor historians? The framers, in fact, had a great distrust of the passions of the people. This is why the Electoral College was devised. This is why direct election of senators did not come until the 20th cenury. This was why the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed during the administration of President John Adams. Additionally, many states maintained property requirements well after the ratification of the Constitution as a bar to "the people" voting. And, of course, no women were allowed to vote--there were some local exceptions--until the 20th century, and all slaves were not even considered "people" at all.
When making the argument that voters are being disenfranchised, I fear Senator Clinton is speaking solely about her race--her ambitions--and simply cloaking these ambitions in language that champions us, the little guys:
"In Florida and Michigan, nearly 2.5 million Americans made their voices heard and participated in primary elections. We think the results of those primaries were fair and should be honored".
But wait. Their voices were heard, just not with respect to the Democratic Party's nominating process. For example, Florida had a ballot measure--Amendment 1--that sought to lower property taxes in the state. It received a 64% majority. That counts Senator Clinton. Voters knew their pick for a presidential candidate would not count--all candidates including Senator Clinton made this clear--but voted because there were other issues on the ballot. It's not always about national races, and it's not always about Senator Clinton.