| This Michigan Primary situation has gone from bad to worse. It was bad enough that the Legislature, fully aware of the candidates’ decisions to boycott our state and the censorship from both the Republican and Democratic parties, decided to spend over $10 million of our dollars on this January 15th mistake, and then withhold the information from the very people who put up the money: the public! Now, just as there was beginning to be hope that Michigan delegates would be re-enfranchised with the close race, this issue of another, ‘do-over’ caucus/primary/who-knows comes up. Should we do one? Will it count? Who will pay? What form will it take? If we do one, how will it be administered: by the state or by the party?Governor Granholm’s got her plan for a ‘firehouse’ primary: a semi-open primary that would be done at community gathering places with a relatively low cost that would have to be shouldered by the state parties. Some throw out the idea of a party-run caucus. James Carville has publicly stated that he will raise $15 million (if the Obama campaign agrees to do the same thing) to contribute to the primary and cover campaign costs. Obama’s people have been non-committal, and Senator Levin (a Clinton supporter) agrees with Senator Clinton that the vote from January 15th should be honored and that’s that.
Everyone and their brother seems to have an opinion one way or another, most of them formed not out of reason, but from a feeling of being slighted. So far there are only two progressive ideas I have heard: one, from Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson, an associate professor of political science at Wayne State University, is to re-enfranchise our delegates and commit them 50/50 for Obama and Clinton. The other is from Mark Grebner, whereby we would do a mail-in primary, with low costs for everyone involved. This would also eliminate many of the barriers that exist with traditional polling places: harassment, wrongful disenfranchisement, and the inability of low-income citizens and seniors to turn out in as great number as their younger and wealthier counterparts. I have another idea: IT DOESN’T MATTER. A lesson in DNC politics: all delegates are only bound to their stated preference for the first round of balloting. After that, it’s anyone’s game. Therefore, if Michigan splits 50/50 for the first round of balloting, or if another proportion is found through a new primary, or if the results of Jan. 15th are upheld, it doesn’t matter. There are bound to be multiple rounds of balloting, with an intense floor battle that will render any apportionment we can think of moot. Some may complain that this is un-democratic; if so, it is the system’s fault rather than Michigan’s. We should not unfairly burden our people for another election that will not hold much water. Grebner’s plan is solid and provides the best compromise between the unfortunate reality of the DNC system and the preciousness of our tax dollars, while Mrs. Sarbaugh-Thompson’s plan would also be sufficient. Personally, I think the original primary should be honored, as the Uncommitted delegates in Michigan’s delegation hold a great deal of power, being able to make up their own minds and give the Superdelegates a small challenge. |
| TomChoske :: Michigan Primary Part 2: Who Cares? |