Don't Count Every Vote!

Rich Lowry examines why the Democrats have abandoned their 2000 mantra to “count every vote”:

During the 2000 election controversy, Democrats brayed “count every vote” in Florida and discounted George Bush’s eventual victory in the Electoral College because he lost the national popular vote to Al Gore. Hillary Clinton has to yearn for the return of that Democratic Party of yore.

HBO just aired a docudrama — Recount, starring Kevin Spacey as a heroic Gore spokesman — that romanticizes the Democratic fight to count votes in Florida, even as Democrats have excluded Florida’s votes in their entirety from their nomination process this year and are eager to nominate the candidate, Barack Obama, who might end up with fewer popular votes than his challenger.

Back in 2000, Democrats were contemptuous of rules and technicalities about how ballots had to be marked and the process for recounts. All that mattered was the popular will. And the biggest ultimate obstacle to it was the Electoral College, which kept Al Gore from the White House in this “stolen election.”

Well, the Democrats’ attachment to the unadulterated popular will has gone the way of the hanging chad. Suddenly, Democrats are sticklers for rules. Florida and Michigan became non-states for moving their primary contests up in the calendar in defiance of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. A mere matter of timing has been enough to “disenfranchise” — to use the 2000 argot — 2.3 million Democratic voters.

It’s easy to imagine what Democrats circa 2000 would say about this. Denying the votes in Florida and Michigan would betray the “generation of patriots who risked and sacrificed on the battlefield” in the American Revolution, and be tantamount to “the poll taxes and literacy tests, violence and intimidation, dogs and tear gas” of the Jim Crow era. Counting the votes — ensuring “that every voice is heard and every vote is counted” — would be a cause worthy of the abolitionists and suffragists.

Of course, Hillary Clinton has said all of these things. But instead of being hailed as a crusader for justice, she has been greeted with impatient eye-rolls from most of the Democratic establishment and the press who can’t believe Clinton’s temerity in insisting on counting Florida and Michigan. What has gotten into the once-admirable junior senator from New York?

The change from 2000 to 2008 is simple to explain. Back then, the liberal establishment wanted Gore to beat Bush. Now, most of it wants Obama to finish off Hillary. The standards have changed accordingly.

… the Democratic delegate-allocation rules can make the Electoral College that Democrats maligned back in 2000 look robustly representative by comparison.

Obama won more net delegates from Idaho (12) in winning the state by 13,000 votes out of 20,000 cast than Clinton netted from New Jersey (11) in winning the state by more than 100,000 votes out of 1 million votes cast. Obama dominated in small caucus states — where a tiny percentage of tiny electorates participated — and through strange wrinkles in the rules won more delegates in states like New Hampshire and Nevada where Clinton notionally won.

But if Clinton hopes to be the Al Gore of the 2008 nomination process, the loser lionized by the great and good as standing for thwarted democracy, she can forget it. 2000 was a long time ago.

Byron York provides more detail:

…How did this come about? It stems from Democrats’ decision more than 20 years ago to switch from winner-take-all contests to the proportional allocation of delegates. It was supposed to make the system fairer, but this year it has produced results like these:

In the Texas primary on March 4, Clinton won by a margin of 100,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. For that victory, Clinton was awarded 65 delegates, while Obama got 61. Then, on election night, according to the Texas Democratic Party, nearly 1 million Democrats — many of whom had already voted in that day’s primary — gathered in party caucuses. We don’t know how many came down on either side, but we know that more came out for Obama than for Clinton. For that, Obama was awarded 38 delegates to Clinton’s 29.

…Put them together, and Obama left Texas with 99 delegates to Clinton’s 94 — even though Clinton handily won the contest in which votes were actually counted.

Or look at Idaho and New Jersey.

In Idaho, about 21,000 Democrats gathered for caucuses. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes. For that, he won 15 delegates to three for Clinton — a net gain of 12 delegates.

In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama’s 48 — a net gain of 11 delegates.

Now under what system does it make sense for Obama to collect more net delegates for beating Clinton by 13,000 votes in one state than Clinton does for beating Obama by 110,000 in another?

That inequity, by the way, won’t be repeated in the general election, when the winner of Idaho will collect four electoral votes while the winner in New Jersey will get 15 — and the losers get nothing.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: