The prodigal states
IN ARGUING that voters in their states should have a voice in selecting the Democratic presidential nominee, the governors of Florida and Michigan are on the right track, but headed in the wrong direction.
Rather than pleading with national party leaders to bail them out, Governors Charlie Crist of Florida and Jennifer Granholm of Michigan should get busy organizing new votes. This mess was created in their states, and that's where it should be cleaned up.
Three powerful reasons justify ditching the results of unsanctioned and uncontested balloting held earlier this year, and starting afresh in these two large states.
First, new contests could be a win for everyone - the states, the parties, and, most important, the voters and the candidates.
Florida and Michigan political leaders, after all, broke the clear rules of the Democratic National Committee and held contests early for one reason: to have a greater role in the nominating process. That strategy failed. But now they have the opportunity to conduct balloting that would have enormous influence. With only Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, and a handful of smaller states left to vote, one-on-one contests between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Florida and Michigan could well be decisive. Surely state officials could organize contests for May 13, one week after Indiana and North Carolina, or May 20.
Some Democrats fear Obama and Clinton would bruise each other dangerously if they battle for two more months, essentially doing the work of Senator John McCain. But the two Democrats will spend part of the remaining campaigns demonstrating to voters their ability to challenge McCain effectively, and they will dominate press coverage as long as there is a contest. So two more months of campaigning would have some positive aspects for the Democrats. And in the end, if the choice is clearly the result of Democratic voters and not backroom dealing, the nominee will be greatly strengthened.
Second, failure to run legitimate contests in Florida and Michigan would be disastrous. No alternative makes sense. Disenfranchising so many voters altogether by refusing to seat any Florida or Michigan delegates would obviously be antidemocratic and a blight on the party. Seating delegates according to the renegade balloting would be unfair to the candidates who did not compete. How can the national party slap down Obama for acceding to its rules and taking his name off the Michigan ballot? And does Clinton want to spend the fall explaining why her campaign was all for the party rules when they were ratified, but is against them now that she could benefit? And any sort of negotiated deal on the delegates - even if satisfactory to both campaigns - would smell of cigar smoke and dirty politics.
It is true there was a good-sized turnout in Florida - more than 1.7 million people voted Jan. 29. But since both contests were run without active campaigning, there is no way to determine what the voters really wanted then. Florida and Michigan should jump at the opportunity to find out what voters want now.
Third, anything short of new contests would condemn American politics - certainly in the Democratic Party but probably in both - to chaos in future elections. With the states refusing to coordinate their primary schedules and Congress determined to stay on the sidelines, the only control in the presidential nominating process comes from the national parties. The parties haven't earned good grades - the season is far too long and starts much too early - but at least they have made some effort.
This has earned them a predictable response. DNC Chairman "Howard Dean and the rest of the small-minded party hacks at the Democratic National Committee created this debacle," blared the St. Petersburg Times in an editorial last month. But it was really the state's politicians, many of them Republicans, who did the damage.
Other commentators have deplored the potential negation of more than 2 million votes and then, in the next breath, bemoaned the long primary season, with its early-winter start. But the only way to shorten the season is to pass rules and make them stick. If the DNC does not follow through on its threat to discipline states that go too early, there will be no structure at all, and voting in the next presidential campaign will start in 2011, for sure.
If Crist and Granholm come to their senses and lead efforts to schedule new votes in Florida and Michigan, other states may question how the prodigals ended up in the spotlight. But there is no better solution. Florida and Michigan could provide a vigorous conclusion befitting this vigorous campaign. Besides, when in doubt, let the people vote.
Robert L. Turner, a former Globe writer, is the Boston Globe Fellow at the McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies at UMass-Boston. 