Let every vote count.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cutter, May 31, 2008.

  1. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a letter to the Editor in yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution.

    "Democrats must count all votes

    In 2000, Democrats nationwide were outraged that the Republican machine, all the way to their majority on the Supreme Court, stopped counting Florida's votes and handed Bush the presidency. What a difference eight years makes.

    Now the Democratic machine, led by Howard Dean, is refusing to count the votes of not only Florida but Michigan in order to hand the nomination to Obama. I can live with either Clinton or Obama as the Democratic nominee just as long as all the votes cast in primaries held by all 50 state governments are counted. Whoever actually wins, wins.

    What I cannot stomach is skewing the primary for either Clinton or Obama by giving any state less than its legally certified vote counts and number of delegates. The Democratic Party has always stood for counting all the votes. Will the real Democrats please stand up?"

    LINDA EDMONDS

    Decatur

    Although I disagree with her assertions of how Bush won the Presidency, you have to admit she has a point. What are your thoughts?
     
    #1 Cutter, May 31, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2008
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am watching the DNC Rules Committee meeting right now. My guess it that each state will be allocated half of its delegates as per the party's rules for minium penalties. This will probably end up improving Senator Clinton's position vis-a-vis Senator Obama by about 29 delegates.
     
  3. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rules prior to the primaries should be followed...
    Rules should never be changed in the middle of the game.

    If Florida or Michigan democrats are too stupid to follow the rules they should not be counted...

    What is wrong with voters in FL?
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Florida Democrats have a bit of a case. It was the Republican-controlled legislature and the Republican governor who moved up the Florida primary over the objection of the Florida Democrats.

    Michigan Democrats cannot make the same argument as they intentionally moved up their primary on their own volition.
     
  6. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    *I'm not arguing with Cutter who posted this comment, just taking issue with the comment itself*

    How can these "votes" even be considered as such when 1) Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and 2) he didn't campaign in Florida because he was told the state was a moot point. This is like the Yankees telling the Braves to stay home because the game's been rained out and then declaring that the Braves forfeited.
     
  7. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    The mantra of "let every vote count" rings hollow when one realizes the unelected superdelegates can ignore the will of the people and vote for whoever they wish...AND that these people (who answer to no one, and who are given these votes largely as rewards/payoffs) make up nearly 1/3 of the delegates.

    Irony, anyone?
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Irony? No. The superdelegates were not created to merely follow the will of the primary/caucus voters in their respective states. They were created to be an independent voice within the Democratic Party. I don't care for the idea of superdelegates; however, a political party is entitled to its own rules for selecting a presidential candidate.

    The main idea was to make sure that elected Democratic officials would be delegates to the national convention and avoid the credentials fights that happened in 1968 and 1972.
     
    #8 KenH, May 31, 2008
    Last edited: May 31, 2008
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    All the more reason he is unfit to lead. He does not have sound judgment. He voluntarily withdrew from the ballot in Michigan. He decided where to campaign and where not to. He has no one to blame but himself.

    If a person cannot make better decisions than that, do we seriously want him running the country?

    As a whole, this is just evidence of how messed up the Democratic party is. They have stupid rules about which states go first, and they have politicians that pander to it (that's why Obama and Edwards weren't on teh ballot here). Then they debate whether or not to break the rules and count every vote, or whether to disenfranchise two whole states.

    Good stuff ... You couldn't make this up.
     
  10. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    But since they don't have to follow the will of their respective states...

    Hey, look! Irony's back! :laugh:
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) As did every Democratic candidate except for Senator Clinton, who herself stated last fall that Michigan's primary vote wouldn't count.

    2) As did Senator Clinton. A major reason that she is losing is that, outside of Iowa and Nevada, she basically ignored the states with caucusus and also had no plan as to how to proceed if the nomination wasn't basically wrapped up by February 5. She has no one to blame but herself.

    3) The same can be asked of Senator JSM III, the co-author of the anti-1st amendment McCain-Feingold law.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    No irony there as that was the intention in setting up the superdelegate system.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which was dumb on all their parts. You don't ignore a major midwestern industrial state with a flagging economy.

    I agree. I think Obama is only slightly worse than Hillary. They are both unfit for public office.

    I agree to some degree, but given the options, McCain is a far better choice than anyone else who is electable. McCain vs. Obama is not even a tough choice for a thinking person. No one should seriously be entertaining a vote for Obama.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fortunately for us limited, constitutional government types we are not limited to Senator Obama and Senator JSM III. Limited government folks do not have to turn their back on their principles and vote for Senator JSM III.
     
  15. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    The true poor judgment was Clinton's decision to keep her name on the ballot, thus encouraging election rules to be broken, and now seeks to amend voting regulations to accommodate her disdain for the electoral process.
     
    #15 Ivon Denosovich, May 31, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2008
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hopefully, by the time 2012 come around something similar to the proposal by the National Association of Secretaries of State will have been adopted:

    http://nass.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=1

    Something I would change in the NASS proposal is that I would simply include Iowa and New Hampshire in their respective regional primaries.
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, the committee has heard the testimony and has stopped for an hour and fifteen minute lunch break. In my opinion, Florida made a much stronger case than Michigan did for the reasons that I posted on page 1 of this thread.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is "turning your back on your principles" what you were doing when you were professing to vote for Obama?
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't find it poor judgment to be on a ballot for election. I think the democratic process is how we run the government, and the democratic process runs by people putting their names on the ballot. That didn't affect Michigan's primary.

    The hypocrisy of Clinton is saying that the votes wouldn't count and now saying that they would.

    The DNC was stupid to have a rule about primary order. They should have regional primaries, or a national primary. If someone doesn't step in, next time around we are going to be having primaries just after Labor Day.

    I think a national primary is the best option, sometime around the middle to end of June. If a majority vote is not gained, have a run off with the top two sometime around the middle to end of July. That leaves four months for a presidential campaign.
     
  20. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I walked up to the brink, peered over the edge, and recoiled. I hope that limited government folks who are entertaining the thought of voting for Senator JSM III will do the same.
     

Share This Page

Loading...