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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
But there is a way to take this disenfranchisement talk a little too far. Consider this message<\/a>, distributed by the Clinton campaign yesterday, describing the Obama campaign’s pre-convention strategy:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The meaning of “disenfranchise” has grown a little fluid of late, but this isn’t it. As Inigo Montoya told us<\/a> years ago, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” 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.<\/p>\n There are 10 Republican primaries left, too. Have Republicans in these states been “disenfranchised”? Of course not.<\/p>\n
\n
\nThis Wiki definition<\/a> 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.”<\/p>\n