Let’s define ‘disenfranchise’

March 22, 2008

In light of the ongoing controversy surrounding Florida and Michigan, their non-binding primaries, and their convention delegates, the word “disenfranchise” has been thrown around quite a bit. Probably, a little too much.

As it happens, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have a reasonable case to make. For Team Clinton, millions of Democratic voters turned out to participate in these contests, and while the contests were declared non-binding in advance, it’s wrong for the party to turn its back on these voters and discount their voices. This, Clinton supporters argue, would amount to disenfranchisement.

For Team Obama, there were millions of Democrats in Florida and Michigan who would have loved to participate in their primaries, but didn’t because they were told their votes wouldn’t count. If we decide after the fact that the non-binding primaries suddenly matter, it’s effectively disenfranchising those other Dems whose voices wanted to be heard, too.

But there is a way to take this disenfranchisement talk a little too far. Consider this message, distributed by the Clinton campaign yesterday, describing the Obama campaign’s pre-convention strategy:

First, disenfranchise voters — Prevent new votes in Florida and Michigan. Stop voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana.

The meaning of “disenfranchise” has grown a little fluid of late, but this isn’t it. As Inigo Montoya told us years ago, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

This Wiki definition seems as good as any: “Disenfranchisement or disfranchisement is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) to a person or group of people, or rendering a person’s vote less effective, or ineffective, through processes such as gerrymandering.”

Now, how this applies to Florida and Michigan is open to plenty of debate, but for the Clinton campaign to argue that Obama wants to “disenfranchise voters” in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, and Indiana is pretty ridiculous. Obama wants the nomination fight to end, Clinton doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean he wants to “disenfranchise” voters in the remaining states. That’s just how things go for states at the end of the nominating calendar. Indeed, the states know that, and have a choice about moving their contests up.

There are 10 Republican primaries left, too. Have Republicans in these states been “disenfranchised”? Of course not.

Christopher Beam added, “So if Clinton had sealed the deal on Super Tuesday, that would have disenfranchised half the nation? Also, the idea that Obama wants to “stop voting” in North Carolina — a place where he’s all but guaranteed to win — is just … I’m not sure there’s a word for it.”

I don’t know, “dumb” keeps coming to mind.

“Inigo,” not “Indigo.”

  • I feel sorry that both Florida and Michigan votes will not count, but I’m more trouble if they would count. There are rules and they felt justified to overstep them. Now, the consequences are handed to them, and they scream and yell. Unfortunately, there’s bigger issues in the world then worry about people who can’t follow party rules.
    Florida has shown then can’t do anything right when it comes to voting, and Michigan seems to be following suit.

  • “Inigo,” not “Indigo.”

    You know what’s funny? I typed it correctly, and Microsoft Word changed it to the wrong name.

    Either way, good catch. It’s fixed.

  • Dumb is a good word for most of the arguments coming out of Camp Clinton lately. There is a letter over at TPM where a reader gives 6 things Obama has done that have resulted in him/her voting for McCain if Clinton isn’t the nominee. You want to debunk some of this nonsense? The only valid issue I can see is maybe counting Florida since at least everyone was on the ballot there. The rest of it makes no sense, either stuff I don’t remember at all or blaming Obama himself for random stuff said by his supporters on the internet (particularly calling Clinton supporters racists: when has Obama ever hinted at going there?).

  • My apologies, Steve, if i have been a part of the issue getting out of control on TCBR.

    I agree, disenfranchise is the wrong word. Political parties are private organizations; to prove my point, scan through the comment sections here and look for people talking about how primaries should be closed so that the “real” Democratic candidate can be chosen. I’m not ever going to join one of our two political parties, but i have no problem with the parties closing their primaries…as long as the parties pay for it. As it stands, two private clubs have the public funding their activities. If that’s the case, keep them open. The real disenfranchisement would be for me to have to foot the bill, but not be allowed to vote.

    Again, i won’t speak for/about Florida because i can’t. But the only people who “disenfranchised” this MI voter were the big wigs of the MDP. My personal anger is directed wholly at them. If the delegates must be seated (and i see no reason why they must), then the least the DNC can do is strip all of MI’s superdelegates. After all, we voters didn’t decide to move the primary.

    I don’t feel like i’ve been “disenfranchised”…but it’s a convenient term. I feel like i got screwed over by a group of powerfully incompetent politicians who were pulling a stunt to distract us from their incompetence. (Take a look at what was happening, politically, in MI at the time this decision was made.)

    I could go on for a long time on this issue…but as always, Willy Shakespeare can probably do it better than me:

    Out, out brief candle. Life is but a poor player, who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale full of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing. (apologies if i quoted incorrectly, it was from memory)

  • You wouldn’t know from the sound of some Obama supporters.

    The longer things play out, the happier I am as a Democrat.

  • John McCain has now gone beyond the spending limits of the public financing rules that have his name on them – Hillary Clinton now wants to count votes in two states whose primaries were disqualified under rules partially written by her surrogate Ickes. Both of them have crossed a threshold, but it’s one laid down by the criminal Bush administration. “Rules, what rules? Rules don’t matter for people like us!”

    And who are the Clinton apparatchiks to talk about disenfranchisement – they have very happily declared that the votes of any state or population group that didn’t support Clinton don’t matter – which is closer to the definition Steve posted than anything they accuse the Obama campaign of.

  • Pingback: Balloon Juice

  • Lex (5) Your MacBeth is close enough, but is the point you are making, “I’ve said enough”?

    If so how about this one from Hamlet”

    herefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
    And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
    I will be brief: your noble son is mad.     🙂

  • Thanks for posting this, Steve. The widespread misuse of this term has been bugging the hell out of me.

  • The Clintonistas don’t give a damn about rules, least all rules of grammar and definition. “The meaning of ‘is’ is” pretty much sums them up.

  • Shalimar said:
    Dumb is a good word for most of the arguments coming out of Camp Clinton lately. There is a letter over at TPM where a reader gives 6 things Obama has done that have resulted in him/her voting for McCain if Clinton isn’t the nominee.

    Dumb is also a good description of anyone to the left of center who votes for “Ace” McCain.
    http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_record.htm

    I didn’t get to vote in Maryland’s closed primary because I refuse to register as a member of the Democratic party. If I did join the party, I would feel obligated to vote for the party’s candidate — no matter how strongly I oppose the party’s choice.

    In 1996 and in 2000 I voted for the Green Party. Yes, Ralph Nader was the Green’s candidate — but I was voting for the party, hoping to help them reach the 5% threshold that would earn them an automatic spot in the next presidential election. Also, I was living in Minnesota at the time, and if the Democratic party nominee had needed my vote to win in Minnesota the election was lost anyway.

    So if anyone can’t stomach voting for Hillary Clinton — and I’m seriously leaning that way myself — then at least vote for someone like the Green party who shares your views. All you do by voting for McCain is add to his “mandate” and help the corporate-controlled media to say that the country is truly conservative. By voting for the Green party, you can at least demonstrate that there are still liberals out there and — maybe — you can convince the closeted progressives in the Democratic party leadership that they would have support if they were to grow a backbone and vote their conscience.

  • I discussed this matter with a friend a couple of weeks ago, and he said, “The Democratic Party, like many organizations, is a private club. No one compels you to join. However, if you do join the club, you are obligated to follow its rules. If you don’t like the rules, you may strive to change them or leave the club, but you don’t have the option to disobey them.”

    He registered as an independent in NJ, which excluded him from the primary vote. The word “disenfranchised” never passed his lips.

  • No matter how much animosity Hillary Clinton may engender in me, and she sure seems to be trying, once I think about who Hillary or McCain would appoint as Supreme Court justices, there is no question in my mind who gets my vote..aggressively. Hillary. Anyone voting Green or any other party just tells me that they do not care about the Supreme Court, and by extension, for example, civil liberties and the environment. So, I must assume Green Party voters do not care about the environment of the future.

    The composition of that court is the singularly most important issue of the rest of my life. To imagine a court with more Alitos, Thomas’ or Roberts’ chills me to the bone.

  • I’m going to go with Lex (@5) on this one. We’re all used to “gerrymandering” being a thing that occurs on a map; requiring a physical location change of an invisible barrier, and depending on the physical interpretation of where. But if we take that invisible barrier, and apply it to a physical location on a calendar, then we can interpret “disenfranchisement” as a term applicable to the equally-physical location of when.

  • First, disenfranchise voters — Prevent new votes in Florida and Michigan. Stop voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana.

    To be frank, these petty and misleading press releases should be an embarrassment to the Clinton camp. Are these the people who want to be in charge of the Democratic Party? Is this what they’re offering?

  • On March 22nd, 2008 at 9:08 am, Ashley said

    Ashley, those same rules applied to NH moving their primary up, yet the DNC, or Howard Dean, selectively punished MI and FL. Dean knew full well what was going on every step of the way..When pressed to answer if he would sanction NH, he refused to answer, so FL and MI pressed it. Dean keeps saying he is trying to uphold the rules, but I am curious as to what rules and why is he selectively upholding them.

    The RNC was faced with the exact same issue..they dealt with it immediately and sanctioned the states by taking half the delegates away..

  • If I did join the party, I would feel obligated to vote for the party’s candidate — no matter how strongly I oppose the party’s choice.

    Careful, SteveT. I’m not sure we allow that kind of loyalty in the party.

  • it’s a silly use of the term.. i’d venture that if you got to november 4th …and the democratic voters in florida and michigan couldn’t have their votes counted .. then and only then would they be “disenfranchised” .. under the true meaning of the term …

    i’m surprised the “democratic” party can’t find a “democratic” solution to this “democratic” issue …

  • Mudge said:
    No matter how much animosity Hillary Clinton may engender in me, and she sure seems to be trying, once I think about who Hillary or McCain would appoint as Supreme Court justices, there is no question in my mind who gets my vote..aggressively. Hillary. Anyone voting Green or any other party just tells me that they do not care about the Supreme Court, and by extension, for example, civil liberties and the environment. So, I must assume Green Party voters do not care about the environment of the future.

    I’m sorry I didn’t make myself clear. If anyone to the left of center can’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton, I suggested they vote for the Green party instead of McCain. If Obama supporters are thinking about staying home, they should vote for the Green party and then vote for Democrats on the rest of the ticket.

    As with my votes while living in Minnesota, if my vote this year determines whether Maryland — another reliable ‘red state’ — goes Democratic or Republican, then the election is lost.

  • It’s hard imagining sitting the delegation from Michigan. Senator Obama wasn’t on the ballot, the Democratic Party in Michigan decided to jump the schedule, and Senator Clinton, like Dennis Kucinich, left her name on the ballot.

    They really ought to have a redo.

    On the other hand, Florida Democrats are in no way responsible for their early date, Senator Obama was on the ballot, and no one campaigned there (if you don’t count money raising, which seems an absurd exception). And the Florida Democrats asked nicely for a waiver of the 5 February rule from the DNC, which New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada also had to do.

    Seems some states are a little more equal than others.

    The convention should seat the Florida delegation.

    Of course there is a serious problem for the Obama campaign in letting that happen, as not only will Senator Clinton pick up pledged delegates, she’ll also gain more ‘popular votes’.

  • You can quibble over the meaning of the word “disenfranchise” but what does it amount to if you argue that one candidate should withdraw from the race leaving the nomination to the remaining one? The people in those late primaries would have had no opportunity to participate in determining who the nominee is.

    When dictators win with 90% of the vote because their name is the only one on the ballot, that is not considered democracy, no matter what you think the meaning of “disenfranchisement” is.

    The problem with Michigan and Florida should have been resolved before any of the primaries took place. It is ridiculous to tell a state that their votes will not count — a failure of leadership. Now we are in a situation where Obama’s and Clinton’s arguments are BOTH self-serving.

  • The Obama line that there were all these voters in Florida who didn’t turn up because it wasn’t official is just strange – Florida had a record-breaking turn-out. Just like saying “rules are rules” and then trying to change the rules (by saying superdelegates should follow the pledged vote).

    Obama and Clinton are both political machines. Both have ideas and ethics far greater than John McCain, but let’s not pretend that one is a saint and the other is a devil, both know how to play the game.

    “Have Republicans in these states been “disenfranchised”? Of course not.” Of course they have! The primarry voting system usually (the Democratic race this year is an exception) ignores voters who live in the final states. Do you honestly believe that the right to cast a vote where there is only a single candidate left is a real right to vote? Of course it isn’t. The American primary system (and general election system, come to think of it) needs to be completely overhauled. How about a simple mail-in national primary with preference voting?

  • There as many of us “FLORIDIANS” who did not even bother to vote in the primary so to claim Clinton won by the margin she got is a way to really disenfranchise many more than just those who voted. If you are a renter, there was no reason to go to the primary and vote. If that election counted, I would not doubt that at least a million or more would have voted for Obama or even Edwards over Clinton. From the turnout in all the other states, what would have been the number in Florida is a pure guess. Florida’s governmental officials sought to disregard the DNC and the Florida resident can only blame the republican governor and congress for placing the election too early. Remember, Florida is also being penalized in the Republican convention for having the Primary too early.

  • Just pretent the FL and MI results are reversed, HillBill’s suit to prevent the delegates from being seated would be heading for the appellate couts after a ruling against her in the Federal Court.

    I do not recall either Clintom weighing in the last time Florida was”disenfranchised”.

  • Danp @8,

    I was kind of saying that i’d said enough…but i was also pointing out that this whole thing is a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  • On March 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am, Lance said:

    There were no rules keeping anyone’s name off the ballot in Michigan. All the candidates were given ample time to put their name on the ballot, and in this case, Obama chose not to.

    Again, NH jumped the schedule as well, why was there no punishment? Michigan asked nicely as well, they received no reply..

  • Arguing the details and niceties of our crazy-quilt nomination process is just silly; the whole thing is one big half-democratic, half-arbitrary parliamentary nightmare. If you’re serious about not disenfranchising people then have a single national primary under uniform rules. Otherwise you’re just using a fake principle argument to push your own self-interest.

  • On March 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm, jimBOB said

    If the people did actually have a choice and got to make the rule..I would bet that we would see this…

  • You can quibble over the meaning of the word “disenfranchise” but what does it amount to if you argue that one candidate should withdraw from the race leaving the nomination to the remaining one?

    Mary’s totally right. How dare Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich and the others disenfranchise millions of Democrats by dropping out of the race before it was decided? For that matter, I’d like to have voted for Carpetbagger in my primary. How dare he disenfranchise me by not running for president. Or JFK, I’d like to nominate him. But that turd went ahead and disenfranchised us all by getting assassinated.

    As Mary says, we have a right to vote for all of these people and it disenfranchises us for anyone to not be running for president. And that includes Mary, who disenfranchised people by not running. This is all just a continuation of the disenfranchisement that happens EVERY election cycle when candidates drop out early and others decide not to run and it’s time we put an end to it. From now on, EVERYONE is running for president until every voter gets to vote. Just brilliant.

  • one of the sad things about politics in gerneral is .. everytime principle runs up against political expediency .. politics wins out .. and you can quote me on that ..

  • Mary: When dictators win with 90% of the vote because their name is the only one on the ballot, that is not considered democracy, no matter what you think the meaning of “disenfranchisement” is.

    I think its a little unfair to call Hillary a dictator simply because she was the only person who’s name was on the Michigan Ballot. In any event, a large number of voters voted “uncommited” in Michigan to show their support of the other candidates, and her numbers were not quite that high (90% I mean). Let’s keep it civil.

  • The problem with Michigan and Florida should have been resolved before any of the primaries took place.

    And here I thought that Clinton’s efforts to impede the caucus count in Texas was an exercise in voter-disenfranchisement—and now Mary suggests that the entire Democratic nomination process be held up, thus preventing scores of millions from voting….

  • Pingback: When Is “Disenfranchisement” Not “Disenfranchisement?” | Political Information

  • Seat the FL & MI delegations, each split 50-50 between Clinton & Obama.
    That’s the consequence of breaking the rules.
    Next problem?

  • Consider this message, distributed by the Clinton campaign yesterday, describing the Obama campaign’s pre-convention strategy:

    First, disenfranchise voters — Prevent new votes in Florida and Michigan. Stop voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana.

    I voted for Dean in 2004 even though he dropped out. It didn’t occur to me to feel disenfranchised just because Kerry had sewn up the nomination.

    The vote would go through even if the nomination were conceded by HRCptui.
    A write in blank would still be available for Clinton, or they could choose Mike Gravel who hasn’t dropped yet despite his slightly lower chances of victory.

    This kind of claim is at the heart of that poll where 52% said Hil was not trustworthy. The pile of evidence keeps getting higher because they keep shoveling dirt onto it from the hole they keep digging.

    I must admit, though… the contortions performed by HRC supporters are entertaining.

    • Comments are closed.