Various Democrats are lamenting for various reasons this weekend's event at the Party's rules and bylaws committee meeting. Me, I don't mind the events at all, but I do mind some of the hyperbolic rhetoric that has accompanied them.

I do not join with those who complain that rules have been flouted. Yes, it was a rule that if Michigan and Florida proceeded with the unsanctioned January primary their delegates' votes would not be counted at the convention. But it was also in the rules for the seating decision to be reviewed by the rules committee, which is what happened this weekend.

Choosing the Party's nominee is a long and complicated process with many steps. Arguing one's case to the rules committee is just as much a part of the process as the caucuses and elections and wooing of superdelegates. It's entirely reasonable that both candidates should put forth their best effort in this sub-contest. If a candidate claims to be more electable or to have a greater share of the "popular vote" by some fanciful calculation, those are just issues in the debate. And if a candidate seems to have changed his or her position since earlier in the race, that's something to be considered as well.

What I really don't like is the hyperbolic mischaracterization of the process as being about democracy.

A commenter at FiveThirtyEight.com says:

Yes, and they are wrong. It is a party function. The Democratic Party has to choose a nominee, and it devises an elaborate procedure for doing so. That procedure includes elections, but it is not a democratic process, for so very very many reasons. There are the unelected and unpledged superdelegates. There is the staggered calendar, with contests spread over five months. There are caucuses and conventions. There are different rules in every state. Some states allow Republicans to vote; others do not. Most 17-year-olds are allowed to vote. Citizens of Puerto Rico and other territories are allowed to vote. The formula for delegate selection weights some districts more heavily than others. High turnout in your district and low turnout in mine increase the weight of my vote relative to yours.

It is utterly absurd to discuss this in terms of enfranchisement. But it's more than just stupid; it's harmful. Democratic elections are sacrosanct. There really are cases of disenfranchisement, and in a real election it really is important to count every vote.

When every mass murder is described as "genocide", it diminishes the seriousness of any consideration of real genocide. When every one-night stand where he was smooth and you were stupid and now you regret it is called "rape", it diminishes the seriousness of any consideration of real rape.

The reason I cringe every time I hear some idiot protester say "count every vote" is because I know that some time there will be a real case where votes aren't being counted. And when people say "count every vote" then, listeners will all tune out and say, "Yeah, they're just trying to jigger the rules in their favor again."

11:52:39 PM  [permalink]  comment []