Fair Rules and Unfair Rules

From reading this and other blogs, I get the impression that there are "fair" rules that must be followed, because they were agreed to in advance (whether or not they are democratic), and other "unfair" rules that must be patently opposed, whether or not they were agreed to in advance (because they are anti-democratic).  Let's summarize below the fold.

Fair Rule Number 1

States should be able to select their delegates via caucuses rather than primaries, even if that effectively disenfranchises many thousands of workers and caregivers.

Fair Rule Number 2

A difference in votes of a few thousand people in a caucus should be allowed to count for as many delegates as a difference in votes of tens of thousands of people in a primary.

Fair Rule Number 3

Delegates should be assigned to geographical areas based in large part on how many people voted Democrat in that area in 2004, thus disproportionately restricting the impact of communities that are growing in size and turning out to vote more now, such as the Latino community and Asian-American communities.

Fair Rule Number 4

Delegates (including super delegates) should be stripped from two of the largest and politically most important states in the country because the Republican-dominated  legislatures in those states voted to move up the primary dates.

Unfair Rule Number 1

Super delegates should have a say in the nomination process.  (This is unfair because they might potentially choose to throw their votes to the candidate who is likely to end up with the most popular votes in the entire nominating process rather than to the candidate who might end up with the most pledged delegates.)

Have I understood it correctly?

•  Tips or rants?

  by markw on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM PDT

  •  YES!!!

    Frankly this whining about superdelegates is a bit too much.  

    The same people argue that the 1.7 million Florida voters should be disenfranchised. (by the way, more democrats than republicans voted in Florida's primary, and it was a record turnout).

    The DNC's caucus idea for Florida and Michigan is quite stupid too.  How many people would attend that caucas??? How many would be aware that they should vote again?  How many wouldn't be pissed that they have to vote again? How many could take off from their jobs to vote again?

    by ghost2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:28:45 PM PDT

•  You forgot Fair Rule #5

  The candidate who has the least experience, but most resembles a rock star, wins.

  by Izarradar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:15:33 PM PDT

•  you got it!

  the REALLY tricky rules are here in FL. democrats who voted for hillary shouldn't be allowed to participate because they didn't follow the rules (or they live in a state where the republican-controlled legislature didn't). democrats who supported obama need to have their voices heard.

  by campskunk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:16:24 PM PDT

  •  Do you remember

    the whole deal over Iowa?

    Where are the people who gave a diarist 57 TR's for daring to question Obama's campaign tactics of busing in students, and questioning whether they are really from Iowa?? No, he/she couldn't do that.

    You are disenfranchising voters, they shouted.  This is similar to Jim Crow, they yelled.  Many of the accusations were beyond the pale...

    But, now, oh, Florida shouldn't be counted.  Rules are rules.  Except when the rules are regarding superdelegates, which are unfair.  But then what if the candidate with the most votes hasn't gotten the most delegates? Then, rules should say that only pledged delegates and not superdelegates (unless they are for Obama) take over.

    I am happy that Markw did this public service.  Otherwise, we couldn't keep track of the rules.

    by ghost2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:34:32 PM PDT

•  These fair rules will make the world

  much a better place for Obama.

  by JoeySky18 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:18:26 PM PDT

•  No but I have. You're a Clintonite.

  by Travis Stark on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:18:39 PM PDT

  •  "You're a Clintonite"

    What the hell kind of a response is that to the topic raised in this diary?

    by owl06 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:38:24 PM PDT

    •  Because only a Clintonite would frame it this way

      by Travis Stark on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:43:10 PM PDT

      •  Sort of Like a Cult, Huh?

        by owl06 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:44:49 PM PDT

        •  Not at all. Like a Clintonite. Didn't I say that?

          by Travis Stark on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:55:29 PM PDT

          •  ::whisssh::

            by owl06 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:06:30 PM PDT

•  I think Axelrod may have written the rules.

  by masslib on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:22:16 PM PDT

•  As usual MarkW

  you hit the nail right on the head.

  At least one area I can totally agree with Markos is to get rid of the caucus system once and for all.

  by Norwegian Chef on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:28:39 PM PDT

  •  Caucus is just plain wrong

    it includes only a hand few of people
    it allow the bullies to rampage and intimidate other voters.  
    that's not democracy.

    by JoeySky18 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:40:06 PM PDT

    •  Public Voting

      Is not fair voting and leads to coercion.

      by owl06 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:40:55 PM PDT

•  Fair's Fair

  Frankly, I've never been a fan of the caucus set-up.  I don't get a do-over in voting my my gal doesn't get 15% - why should they get a 2nd shot at it?

  They whole system puts shift-workers and low-wage folks with little or no flexibility in their schedule at a disadvantage too - shuts them out entirely in a lot of cases.

  And whatever happened to the secret ballot in those states????

  by Alegre on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:34:34 PM PDT

•  #6

  Is is fair to disenfranchise > 1 million democratic voters in Florida.

  by owl06 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:39:18 PM PDT

  •  1.7 million.

    1.7 million in Florida

    and 600,000 in Michigan.

    by ghost2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:37:01 PM PDT

•  Superdelegates absolutely should count. Thats the

  rule everybody agreed to when this shit started.

  As to what happens depending on what they decide? Thats an altogether different matter.

  by brooklynbadboy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:40:03 PM PDT

•  A fractured party might be a good thing.

  I'm not a fan of the caucus system either, nor am I a fan of this small states first stuff. NOR am I a fan of superdelegates or any of this typical Democratic party identity politics stuff. Black states. Latin states. White states. Its all a bad idea. If anything, New York and California should go first. (I'd like to see a candidate try and talk shit on my block. We aren't "Iowa nice" around here. We will say FUCK YOU right in the middle of a media event.)

  Still, these are the horrible rules everyone agreed to before this whole thing started. Thats whats got to stick, or else, yes, it is very unfair.

  by brooklynbadboy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:48:23 PM PDT

•  You're Making This Too Complicated

  I agree that it will be unfair if MI and FL don't have a voice in the nomination process.  Obama supporters don't contest that.  What would also be unfair, though, is if the MI and FL delegations were seated as presently constituted.  Do I really have to explain why?  C'mon.  Really?

  Where was Hillary Clinton, by the way, when the DNC adopted this rule?  I haven't seen anything on that aspect of the story.  Wasn't the best time to mount a challenge when the rule was adopted?  Seriously, does have an explanation for why she "discovered" the issue so late (because, of course, she didn't, she only spoke up late...hmm, sort of like what she did on another issue at the top of the national agenda).

  If Florida in 2000 proved anything, it's that a candidate's chances of prevailing on a matter of genuine unfairness plummet when he or she pursues a remedy which is itself unfair.  Do you want to know when Gore lost the Florida fracas?  When he petitioned for a recount in just a few counties.  His cause was just, the remedy he sought was legal, but by doing this he lost the high ground and never recovered.  Similar deal.

  by ClaudiusTheGod on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:50:51 PM PDT

  •  I support the idea of letting Fla and Mich

    vote for real sometime after March 4th if the race doesn't end. Hillary would still win FLA by a smaller margin and Mich would be close. It seems like the best solution to an awful situation.

    by nevadadem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:59:06 PM PDT

    •  Agreed

      But you are forgetting that Michigan has a lot of working class voters. It may not be so close.

      by owl06 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:04:33 PM PDT

    •  agreed

      Excellent suggestions, and a fair one, as long as their are primary-like voting conditions (i.e., being able to vote all day and by mail), even if it's technically called a caucus.

      by markw on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:03:58 PM PDT

      •  Not a good suggestion.

        I don't think it's feasible.

        one) it's expensive.  who pays?
        two) would people show up to vote when very little else is going on? whether this is a caucas or primary, this becomes a case of who can bus in supporters.

        I bet you that if they have a re-vote, they get far less ballots than the first vote.  Then, you will have FINE NEW MESS on top of everything else.  Do you not count Florida, or count Florida with 1.7 Million votes, or count Florida with 0.5 million votes??

        by ghost2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:44:43 PM PDT

        •  hmmm

          Yes, I see your point.  Let's go with the election they already had.

          by markw on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:14:48 PM PDT

  •  Look

    the other campaigns put Hillary on the defensive in IA and NH by taking their names off Michigan.  They got a boost in those states (at least they wanted to get).  They didn't have to.  

    In Florida, they all were equal and no one campaigned.  Why shouldn't Florida count, but caucuses with a few thousand votes do?

    Plus, I read somewhere that the rules restricted Gore to asking for recount in 4 counties (forgotten where I read this).  But then of course, the media narrative became something else.

    by ghost2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:40:55 PM PDT

•  when you start whining about the rules

  your'e losing.

  by nevadadem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:52:16 PM PDT

  •  John McCain Isn't whining About Rules

    You know how to pick a winner!

    by owl06 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:05:15 PM PDT

•  oh by the way

  no popular vote count really exists. None was taken in many caucus states.

  by nevadadem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:55:06 PM PDT

•  Mi legislature

     The MI Senate is repug controlled, but the House is dem and so is the governor. There was widespread agreement that this date change was a good thing.

     The fact that the RNC has taken away half of their delegates has received much less press than the dem's full denial of delegates.

  by happy camper on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:59:10 PM PDT

•  Yep. You pretty much summed it up.

  by SaneSoutherner on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:56:26 PM PDT

•  The essence of political parties is

  that they select candidates to run in general elections and can set rules free of government intervention. The parties can independently, from the grassroots up, choose how they wish to select their candidates.

  Personally, I think primaries don't help, and am in favor of returning the nominating power to conventions, but that's just me.

  The whole fair vs unfair argument seems to indicate a belief that everyone should be entitled to have an equal say in selecting a party's nominee, without also investing the time and effort in participating in the party in such a way as to build party strength, become known in the party, and willingly advance one's ideas in person. Primaries are built for this kind of "don't bug me but give me say" non-participation. That's why I don't like primaries.

  Sorry, I don't see this as something either the government nor I should be concerned about; what I want is an effective democratic party that can propel a progressive spirit and platform into government policy. Caucus states actually both  require and allow a bit more participation than non-caucus states. But that's the state party's choice. Because this is what I want, I participate in the local party activities throughout the year, every year.

  My advice to those who feel the party is 'unfair' is to become active in the party and help build a real progressive coalition.

  I am far more concerned the minority party has spent the better part of 30 years making our government serve elitist interests and making society less just and compassionate. And justice and compassion don't have much to do with fairness, but that's another debate.

  by Foxwizard on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:01:57 PM PDT