What a Michigan Primary Would Look Like

07.03.2008

Via the Detroit Free Press, Michigan Democrats are still trying to figure out how they'd finance a new vote, which they figure would cost around $10 million. But if they do find the money, here's how it would probably work, according to state party chairman Mark Brewer:

Brewer said if there were a do-over, it most likely would be a party-run primary, but one in which he'd have to plan for a huge turnout. Like a caucus, a primary would have sites around the state for people to cast their votes, but unlike an Iowa-style caucus, it would not involve people separating into groups for their candidates after hours of debate.
Voters would cast paper ballots just as they would in a primary and the sites would be open for long hours; there also would be absentee and Internet balloting. The big difference would be that the party, not the secretary of state, would run the election.
And pay for it: Brewer said he'd expect turnout to hit 2.5 million -- compared with about 600,000 in January, when Clinton was the only major candidate on the Democratic ballot. He said he'd need to pay for probably 1,000 sites across the state, whereas the typical party-run primary might involve a couple of hundred sites. ...
Brewer said if the party held an election, anyone who voted in the state-run Republican primary could not participate. Independents and Republicans who didn't vote in the GOP primary could declare to take part. Ballots would be public.

As a Michigan voter, that all sounds good to me. Where do I vote? And when?

--Jonathan Cohn

Posted: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:47 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

stgla said:

Jon is a Michigan voter?? Does anyone at TNR actually live in DC any more? Or does he have a bullshit voting address like many DC residents manage to do?

March 7, 2008 1:04 PM

cmachnacki said:

As a former Michigan resident, I am deeply skeptical of the idea that there is still $10 million in the state for anything, let along a do-over election.

March 7, 2008 1:19 PM

Jonathan Cohn said:

Stgla-

No bullshit address, I assure you. I'm a legal and openly declared resident of Michigan, have been for several years now. Before that I was based in Boston. (You may have heard I'm a bit of a Red Sox fan.)

I like to think it puts me closer to the heartland -- although, living as I do in Ann Arbor, it's probably more accurate to say that I live closer to Berkeley.

For what it's worth, I'm reasonably sure most of my colleagues still live in the Washington area. If not, they must have a hell of a morning commute getting to the office every day.

Best,

Jonathan

March 7, 2008 1:44 PM

sdemuth said:

"but unlike an Iowa-style caucus, it would not involve people separating into groups for their candidates after hours of debate."

I've been to every Presidential Democratic caucus in Iowa since 1980, and I have never seen "hours of debate." Maybe minutes, after a candidate group turned out to be too small to survive the rules.

March 7, 2008 1:52 PM

lukevanh said:

I have a major concern with chairman Brewer's comments regarding what a new, party-run election would look like. On my suggestion (I'm an Obama supporter) my mother, sisters, and even some of my aunts - all Obama supporters, and long-time, die-hard Democrats as well, voted in the original primary - for Mitt Romney. They did this because the election was understood to have no real significance in picking the Democratic nominee, and on the theory, I still believe sound, that Mitt Romney would have been an easier Republican to beat. You'll recall that Romney did win Michigan, and it kept him alive a bit longer. (Even if the theory that Romney would have been easier to beat was far too speculative, there was no question that having him and his attacking ways in the race a bit longer was good for Democrats). Now, if a new party-run election goes forward as Brewer envisions it, so that those who asked for Republican ballots in the January, open, primary, they still won't be able to vote for their preferred candidate (remember, while some Obama supporters were pushing people to vote for "undecided" or whatever it was, Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, thus they couldn't affirmatively vote for him). There may be many more Obama supporters (and former Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Richardson supporters - if I recall, only Hillary and Kucinich avoided taking themselves off the ballot) who voted in this fashion; certainly DailyKos was pushing this idea. Many of these people are unquestionably Democrats, and voted, as Democrats, as strategically as they thought was possible, in light of the understanding at the time that the vote wouldn't count.

I fully understand that in a given open primary, a voter has to make a choice of what party he or she will vote for; imagine the bizarre and confusing potential of a primary in which you could vote in both parties. And I suppose there's a danger of allowing Republicans, whose nominee has now been determined, being able to cross over en masse to make problems for the Democrats. But I also imagine there's a number of independents and Republicans who might've voted for Obama if he'd been on the ballot, but because he wasn't, voted in the Republican primary.

I'm not sure what my suggestion would be. Whatever a new vote looks like, if my mom, who spent last weekend driving from Traverse City, MI to Akron, OH (probably a good eight hours each way) and canvassing over two days for Obama, and who voted in the original primary with the very best, strategic, interests of the Democratic party in mind, can not vote in it, then it's unfair, It certainly wouldn't solve all the problems that having had such a farce of a primary (one major candidate on the ballot, an understanding, recognized and shared by voters and all candidates, that it wouldn't count for anything) created.

I hope the state party, and the press, take these issues into consideration when evaluating how to hold some sort of revote, and cover its results, once held.

March 7, 2008 2:07 PM

tarfon said:

"Ballots would be public"? Is this a primary or a caucus?

March 7, 2008 2:09 PM

timteeter said:

Does Michigan have registration by party? If it does, the simple solution would be to allow Democrats and indpendents, but not Republicans, to vote in the do over, regardless of whatever primary they voted the tirst time. That would wound a small number of Republicans, but would probably allow the overwhelming majority of those who would ordinarily vote in a Michigan Democratic primary to do so.

March 7, 2008 2:47 PM

CRS9TNR said:

Brewster is the idiot that got Michigan in this mess in the first place.

He opens a really big can of worms when he tries to exclude Republicans who voted in the Republican Primary. Why let Democrats vote twice? Is he really going to allow the Deomocrats who crossed over to vote again? What about Republicans that want to vote for Obama who wasn't on the ticket?

And who pays for the $ 10 Million? Hillary and Obama who will both have to spend another $ Million campaigning? I think not. The US Government or DNC? Nope.

Wishful thinking.

They blew it.

March 7, 2008 5:58 PM