The Many Moons of Senator Clinton
When things started to go wrong in 2007, Senator Hillary Clinton changed her view about the nomination process; and her surrogates did so, too. I take a look at how far Senator Clinton has gone to redefine victory in the democratic nomination process.
Looking back to the time in Nevada, people supporting her asked a judge to stop caucuses from being held in casinos, a measure taken by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to accommodate workers that could not leave their jobs, often thought to support Obama. Also in the same vein, early on, she accepted that the Florida and Michigan elections were invalid. She held that the nominee needed 2025 delegates to clinch victory. According to Senator Clinton's new position, nothing is more sacred than counting every vote. She contended that Michigan and Florida must count, which appears to contradict her earlier view.
According to Senator Clinton, when she was ahead in super delegates, we are advised to choose the strongest candidate--period. She held that the number needed to win the nomination is 2118, though she is in the process of contesting that, too. According to Senator Clinton's new position, super delegates should support the person that has won the popular vote, the only scenario, using her calculations, she could be considered victorious.
Further, in order to change the rules of the game, her surrogate Harold Ickes presented two arguments to the Democratic Rules and Bylaw Committee that are curious and are various types of false analogies. Arguing that Michigan and Florida should be counted, Ickes said first this: If we had such stringent rules as the DNC requires, no one would be recognized as "elected". He concluded, "All elections are flawed". His argument is the fallacy called "converse accident": Just because all elections are often flawed does not entail this one need be. Specifically, since we cannot count votes that are deemed "unacceptable as per the regulations", does not entail we should not try to count the ones that do fall within the regulations.
Second, arguing in an opposite direction, he claimed, referring to people that did not vote in Michigan and Florida, that sitting out the election is okay because people often do not vote. This argument is often called a "accident". Just because some people do not vote is not a sound rationalization to mislead people about their access to vote. As any reasonable person can understand, some voters just will not carry out their civic duty if told their vote will be void--as happened in Michigan and Florida. So the vote in these states will unlikely be representative of the will of the people because people did not vote.
Whatever the merits or demerits of any one candidate, we should be appalled at the inconsistency and fallacious reasoning Senator Clinton and her surrogates have employed to win. I would be going too far to say she is worst than the Republicans when it comes to policy, ability, and accountability; but her means are equally sinister, an affront to reason and a mockery of democracy by flouting the rule of law.
Looking back to the time in Nevada, people supporting her asked a judge to stop caucuses from being held in casinos, a measure taken by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to accommodate workers that could not leave their jobs, often thought to support Obama. Also in the same vein, early on, she accepted that the Florida and Michigan elections were invalid. She held that the nominee needed 2025 delegates to clinch victory. According to Senator Clinton's new position, nothing is more sacred than counting every vote. She contended that Michigan and Florida must count, which appears to contradict her earlier view.
According to Senator Clinton, when she was ahead in super delegates, we are advised to choose the strongest candidate--period. She held that the number needed to win the nomination is 2118, though she is in the process of contesting that, too. According to Senator Clinton's new position, super delegates should support the person that has won the popular vote, the only scenario, using her calculations, she could be considered victorious.
Further, in order to change the rules of the game, her surrogate Harold Ickes presented two arguments to the Democratic Rules and Bylaw Committee that are curious and are various types of false analogies. Arguing that Michigan and Florida should be counted, Ickes said first this: If we had such stringent rules as the DNC requires, no one would be recognized as "elected". He concluded, "All elections are flawed". His argument is the fallacy called "converse accident": Just because all elections are often flawed does not entail this one need be. Specifically, since we cannot count votes that are deemed "unacceptable as per the regulations", does not entail we should not try to count the ones that do fall within the regulations.
Second, arguing in an opposite direction, he claimed, referring to people that did not vote in Michigan and Florida, that sitting out the election is okay because people often do not vote. This argument is often called a "accident". Just because some people do not vote is not a sound rationalization to mislead people about their access to vote. As any reasonable person can understand, some voters just will not carry out their civic duty if told their vote will be void--as happened in Michigan and Florida. So the vote in these states will unlikely be representative of the will of the people because people did not vote.
Whatever the merits or demerits of any one candidate, we should be appalled at the inconsistency and fallacious reasoning Senator Clinton and her surrogates have employed to win. I would be going too far to say she is worst than the Republicans when it comes to policy, ability, and accountability; but her means are equally sinister, an affront to reason and a mockery of democracy by flouting the rule of law.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, reasoning
posted by Anoop Gupta at 00:36
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home