Michigan Presidential Primary Delegate Controversy

First of all, let me say that I do not at all agree with the decision of the National Democratic and GOP Parties to punish their Michigan counterparts for holding their Presidential Primaries too early. I firmly believe that the business of choosing our government is far too important for them to allow "small state" tradition to skew this outcome. No offense to Iowa and New Hampshire, who can't be blamed for doing whatever they can to maximize the influence of their own citizens in the process. But, it should not be the job of the National parties to protect that influence. Their only job should be to produce the best nominee for the general election. And I can't see how stripping a state, particularly a swing state such as Michigan, of its Convention delegates advances that process. That being said, I believe it would be ill advised, and even irresponsible for either party to now, after the primaries, relent and seat the full Michigan delegations at their respective Conventions. There are two reasons why I think doing so would be a terrible mistake, one of which applies equally to both parties, and another pertains specifically to the Democrats.

The first reason is that for the National parties to fail to follow through now would undermine their own authority, which they may well need to exercise for something more legitimate or important in the future. What message would they hope to send by removing the punishment after the infraction? This would be little different from when a parent takes away a child's privilege for breaking some household rule only to have their spouse promptly give it back. The child quickly learns that the threat of punishment is, at least to some extent, hollow. This in turn changes the child's risk versus reward calculation and produces more of the behavior the parents are trying to curtail. Now, if you show the state parties that they can effectively thumb their nose at the Nationals without consequence it is only a matter of time before they do so again. In fact, if you listen to much of the commentary coming out of Michigan right now you'll find that most of the party hacks believe, or at least want us to think that they believe, that the state has actually benefited from the early primaries despite the sanctions. They feel that by drawing extra attention to the state and it's economic troubles they have accomplished what they set out to do. And they also seem quite sure that the parties will relent. Just imagine the victory cry we'll hear if their delegates do end up being seated.

Now, the second reason to hold to their decision, and I believe the most important one, regards the Democrats alone. What has occured on the Democratic side alone is that their actions have materially changed the outcome of the primary. By having 2 of the 3 front runners pull out of the primary, they have effectively invalidated the outcome. Quite obviously, Mrs. Clinton could not have earned 57% of the vote if she had been forced to face her closest rivals. Now, if the delegate count were to remain close enough that the Michigan delegates could actually swing the outcome, then to seat them would be to not only hand the nomination to a candidate who hadn't earned it, but also to the one and only candidate who thumbed her nose at the National party along with the Michigan Democrats. Now wouldn't that be a great lesson to teach those people who they are ostensibly charged with keeping in line?

The fact is, the parties are in a no win situation. On the one hand they can choose to appease a potentially very important state before the general election, but at the price of their own future ability to effectively discipline their charges. And on the other, they can each stick to their principles, hoping that the other party does likewise, or at least that the citizens of Michigan will respect their decision and not allow it to sway their votes in the general election. It's a decision I'm sure they wish they didn't have to make.