Counting popular votes - what do you think is fair?

[Technosoul]

As you know now two states cannot get their votes counted for in the Democratic elections.

Because of rules about holding an early primary.

The rule is important because we do not want them to start voting before Chirstmas - a line must be drawn for how long a primary might drag out.

None the less because a few stupid state officals did follow the rules the millions who did vote in those unlawful primary elections are being rejected. Not fair to the actural voters.

Should the Democrats prolong long enough to conduct a new primary election in those states?

Your opinon.

[Chancellor]

It's a fight between the states involved and the Demoncrat Party. Who gets to decide when to hold primaries? Is it for the states to decide or for the parties to decide? I think the states have the better argument for saying they get to decide, particularly since there is no mention of political parties anywhere in the Constitution.

[Domino]

There's no mention of primaries in the Constitution, either. They are purely a product of the parties whose functions they serve. If a party wanted to, it could just entirely remove itself from a state.

Florida and Michigan agreed to the rules that they knew they were breaking, and they knew what the consequences of their actions would be. If they'd like to void their illegitimate primaries and hold some more, that's their business, assuming they can get the party to agree that the new primaries are legitimate (which, since, as far as I know, they wouldn't be breaking any rules, they ought to be legitimate).

The parties own their primaries, and they set all the rules. If you let anyone else set the rules for a primary, you can bet that the two-party governance would soon find a way to prevent third parties from holding their primaries at all. Of course, for government to do any such thing would violate the right of assembly and association.

All the candidates agreed to these rules before anyone was even a candidate. For any of them to try to change the rules after the fact seems, to me, childish and petulant, if not downright despicable. This problem was resolved long ago.

Not to say the Democratic party has just a lovely system, but this is very much like trying to declare wildcards after the hand is delt and viewed: something only a child would try.

Of course, Hillary was planning on this all along, or she wouldn't have campaigned in the states in which she'd already agreed not to campaign. To me, it gives the impression that she's willing to do anything, break any rule, even destroy the party, if that's what it takes to get what she wants.

[Technosoul]

Those who support Obama suggest that rules are rules and you cannot change the rules half way through the election.

If you were playing chess or basketball I would agree. However it is not the fan club that selects which team scored the most points.

An election is a different situation then a sporting game because it should be the voters who determine the canidates and which one played the best game.

In the case of the two states now being contested I would say we should respect the popular vote and seat deligates accordingly. Obama does not agree.

Now once upon a time women and black people could not vote but someone in the middle of our history of elections changed the rules. I see nothing wrong with adjusting the rules for the sake of fairness.

[Captain Cardio]

Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot.

I think the obvious solution to make everybody happy and to be fair at the same time, is to hold a revote in Michigan, let Florida and Michigan be seated, and find a way of punishing the people who were responsible for the rules being broken in the first place, not the voters.

[tivodan1116]

Issue is resolved:

Officials say Fla., Mich. delegates will get half-votes - Yahoo! News

It's over, Johnny.

Obama needs 66 delegates to clinch. Between supers and pledged delegates he'll have it by Thursday or Friday.


And your whole argument of the "popular vote" is dishonest, since it doesn't count the 11 caucus states Obama won, in which there was no "popular vote".

[Technosoul]

The Rule makers for this primary election has just now ruled in favor of the Obama opinion.

Deligates from the two contested states will be seated but each deligate will be allowed only one-half vote each. So the overturned their rule about not seating those deligates.

However they split the deligates in a manner that did not reflect the votes cast by people in those states, giving Obama the clear edge over Clinton to become the Democratic nominee.

Those supporting this said that the "Democratic Party is more important then Democracy". Bringing loud objections from the Clinton supporters.

Because of this new ruling Hillary Clinton would need to get about 75 percent of the Super delagates who still have not supported a canidate.

The Clinton camp is unhappy that deligates given her by popular vote would be taken from her count and given to Obama. They reserve the right to contest that ruling at the Democratic convention.

Where as the Obama camp has made no comment (at time of this posting) but no doubt is pleased with the rule because it pretty much removes any chance Clinton had to win the nomination, short of having that rule overturned at the Democratic Convention. They Obama people claim that now the party can unite and focus on McCain with Obama as the their leading canidate.

[linda_mary_13]

So what you are saying is that the DNC can seat a candidate without considering any vote according to their rules. We know from their actions today they can take votes for one candidate and give them to the other candidate. Their rules permit that action. That is scary.

This entire mess in Michigan is as a result of Carl Levin blatently disregarding rules of the party so that Iowa and New Hampshire would not be first and second. His actions came from his interests over the people of Michigan's interest. His solution to the problem he created is take votes from Hillary and give them to Obama. The people's interest were sacrificed for Levin's. What was Levin concerned about. That two white states would set the pace for the primary campaign. Who is this guy, God?

Don't turn the little power you have over to a machine. Instead of cheering for the wonderful ability of the machine to punish you only 50% you should be throwing out the machine before it's too late.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: linda_mary_13 So what you are saying is that the DNC can seat a candidate without considering any vote according to their rules. We know from their actions today they can take votes for one candidate and give them to the other candidate. Their rules permit that action. That is scary.

Only because a bunch of old battle-axes told you it is...

What is "scary" about a PRIVATE organization choosing its own leadership according to its own rules?

[tivodan1116]

Adding this here, too, because it's brilliant:

Donald Sutherland: Hillary's Popular Vote Notion only 'Popular' with the Punditocracy - Politics on The Huffington Post

It is incomprehensible to me that Mrs. Clinton can seriously be touting the notion, with the support of the punditocracy of CNN and Fox, that she is leading in the popular vote and should therefore be seriously considered as the most electable candidate in the November election. She's including those who voted for her in Florida and Michigan's name recognition ballot saying that to exclude them would be to disenfranchise them. What about the Democrats in Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming who did not cast ballots because they were playing by the pledged delegates playbook and voted by caucus. What about them? Certainly if the rules are going to be changed and judgment is based on the 'popular' vote those voters in the eleven caucus states and Samoa will be disenfranchised. What about them? And what about us? What about the American people? Haven't we had enough of Mrs. Clinton's mad antics in her pursuit of the realization of venal personal ambition; her 'say anything, do anything, no matter what' effort to manipulate our all too willing media to gull this country's populace into believing that her wretched illegitimacy is indeed legitimate. How much mendacity do we have to suffer, how much brazenness do we have to swallow before someone, anyone, has the decency, the common sense, to relieve us of this terrible trifle, this pathetic madness?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Issue is resolved: Officials say Fla., Mich. delegates will get half-votes - Yahoo! News It's over, Johnny. Obama needs 66 delegates to clinch. Between supers and pledged delegates he'll have it by Thursday or Friday. And your whole argument of the "popular vote" is dishonest, since it doesn't count the 11 caucus states Obama won, in which there was no "popular vote".

Not totally resolved as Clinton has one last chance to contest that ruling at the convention. And the addition of seating the deligates in Mish and Fla has set a larger number of deligates that must be won to secure the nomination before the convention. Polls favor Hillary picking up a large share of the deligates in the next primary in P.R. (55 deligates up for grabs in that primary.

The fact that Obama selected to withdraw his name form the ballet in Mich. was his own fault and poor planning on his behalf (lack of experience). The ballet allowed for people to vote "uncomitted" if they preferred someone not listed on the ballet. Which many voters did who supported Obama. Obama would have been given all those votes if he had agreed to respecting the will of the people in that state.

The 11 carcus states could have been figured into the popular vote count (number of ballets cast for democrats) in favor of canidate with the most deligates awarded in those states, it was a well known fact that those states (which cantain mostly republican voters) had a low turn out at the democratic primary and so their numbers would have had only a tiny effect on the national count.

[linda_mary_13]

The primary election that took place in Fl and MI were legal elections.The DNC is basically refusing to acknowledge the outcome based on rules they made to serve the party rather than the electorate.I don't think most Americans realize this.The DNC is only comitted to their cause, (to control who the democratic nominees are) and not to the individual voter. It's amazing to me that the party that claims to stand for the disenfranchised voter proudly can do that very thing if it is for the party.

They say one thing and do the very opposite. And what they say is generally void of logic. A bunch of sweet sounding words that completely ignore core principals. I'm not fond of Harold Ickes but I recognize truth even out of his mouth.

I feel so upset by what i saw today. I watched and listened to the delegate debate in its entirety and was shocked that the rules comittee could be so brazen as to :

1. Ignore the results of a legal election.
2. Refuse to hold a new election.
3. Penalize the electorate for their internal meltdown.
4. Admit their desire for power and control was the motivation for their thoughtless tampering of the election laws.(by moving state primary up)
5. Tamper with actual vote counts to distribute delegate votes to their liking.
6. To publicly acknowlege the power they hold over U.S. elections. You know we don't need the DNC or the RNC to have elections. This monster is a modern creation of the movers and shakers of the world.

[linda_mary_13]

The problem with being stuck with these private clubs is that they have so much power now no one else can get in. If we base our government on elected representatives through free and fair elections but the private clubs are the ones with the last word, and their objective is to benefit the club and not the nation, we have a problem.

Hillary took Michigan. Why? Because Obama voluntarily removed his name from the ballot. The private club ignored that fact.

Michigan democrats are penalized 50% of it's influence in the primary and if they were Hillary supporters they lost more than 50% of the value of l vote. How is that fair by any standard? Unless, the standard is whatever feels good to these 30 people on the rules comittee. But that standard is not spelled out in the charter of the DNC. The exact opposite is spelled out so what's going on here?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Technosoul Not totally resolved as Clinton has one last chance to contest that ruling at the convention.

By doing so, she would be scuttling any hope the Democrats have of winning in November.

And the addition of seating the deligates in Mish and Fla has set a larger number of deligates that must be won to secure the nomination before the convention. Polls favor Hillary picking up a large share of the deligates in the next primary in P.R. (55 deligates up for grabs in that primary.

No, you're not getting it. The delegate count is OVER. Obama needs 66 to clinch the NEW number. Even if he only gets 1/3 of the vote in Puerto Rico, that's another 18 or 19. If he only gets 1/2 of the Montana pledged delegates, that's another 8. Add 12 if he gets half of South Dakota, this is keeping in mind he's leading by considerable amounts in both of those states.

18+8+12 = 38. That leaves 26 delegates needed to clinch. 5 superdelegates have committed to vote for the pledged delegate leader at the end of the primaries, so 5 more for Obama leaving 21 left. After those five, there are 200 uncommitted superdelegates.

Hillary basically needs to convince every single one to go her way in order to even come close to Obama's delegate count. Obama, on the other hand, only needs to convince about 1 out of every 10 to swing his way.

Hillary, like most women, just doesn't care for mathematical reasoning.

The fact that Obama selected to withdraw his name form the ballet in Mich. was his own fault and poor planning on his behalf (lack of experience).

LOL @ your skewing of the truth. Again, you use the same tactics that have lost Clinton this race. His lack of experience? Is that the same lack of experience that caused every other Democrat to withdraw their name as well? Edwards? Richardson? How many Michigan delegates would each of them be sitting on right now?

The ballet allowed for people to vote "uncomitted" if they preferred someone not listed on the ballet. Which many voters did who supported Obama. Obama would have been given all those votes if he had agreed to respecting the will of the people in that state.

The ballot had Clinton, Dodd (who had withdrawn), Kucinich (who had asked to have his name removed), and Uncommitted on the ballot. And Clinton STILL only managed 55% of the vote on pure name recognition.

The 11 carcus states could have been figured into the popular vote count (number of ballets cast for democrats) in favor of canidate with the most deligates awarded in those states, it was a well known fact that those states (which cantain mostly republican voters) had a low turn out at the democratic primary and so their numbers would have had only a tiny effect on the national count.

They were not figured into Clinton's "popular vote" argument. She has acknowledged this.

And your argument conveniently forgets Washington, a very populous "blue" state (7,000,000 people) which went heavily for Obama in their caucus.

Quote by: linda_mary_13 The primary election that took place in Fl and MI were legal elections.

And? So what? So was the last Parliamentary election in Canada, but for some strange reason the DNC is refusing to count their votes as well... It must be a conspiracy!

The DNC is basically refusing to acknowledge the outcome based on rules they made to serve the party rather than the electorate.

Which, considering they are the party, and not the electorate, is what they should be doing.

I don't think most Americans realize this.The DNC is only comitted to their cause, (to control who the democratic nominees are) and not to the individual voter. It's amazing to me that the party that claims to stand for the disenfranchised voter proudly can do that very thing if it is for the party.

It amazes me that people can still say with a straight face that they support a lying, rule-breaking, promise-breaking, manipulative, career politician like Hillary Clinton.

But hey, maybe some white supremacist will come and assassinate Obama. I mean, that sure helped Hubert Humphrey pick up delegates, didn't it?

They say one thing and do the very opposite.

LOL...

Hillary Clinton, January 2008: "The Florida and Michigan primaries will not matter."

Hillary Clinton, May 2008: "The Florida and Michigan primaries are ESSENTIAL."

Yeah, that whole self-serving hypocrisy thing really gets on my nerves, too.

I feel so upset by what i saw today.

I feel upset that this lame duck, politically bankrupt loser has to return to "representing" my state for at least the next 4 years...

[linda_mary_13]

Tivodan, you're not getting it. I could care less about Hillary Clinton or Obama. I'm concerned that the ignorant american people would allow the rationale for the decisions today, stand. They fly in the face of everything the democratic party says they stand for. Their hypocrisy is glaring and you cheer them on because it suits your choice for president now. Keep empowering them despite their obvious weakness and you are going to be at the mercy of idiots.
Well, we're already there so you could be at the mercy of the merciless. Get it!

Do you really think the outcome of this delegate debate is sound resolution to the serious problem the dems created? Is this what we can expect from a democratic controlled government? Yes, I'm scared. Scared for the blind being led down the garden path. You guys are so easy.

[Morality Games]

One of the reasons the national party schedules (or more precisely, coordinates states' scheduling) elections before Point A is because they want to allow Candidates A, B, and C time to present themselves to the public before elections can take place, so everyone has chance to explain what they are about. This makes ensuring elections take place at appropriate times one of the most serious affairs of the party, and if disenfranchising millions of voters is the only way to make sure people understand this, then it ought to be done.

[lsbskins1]

There is one thing that bothers me about this whole scenario. Obama supporters rant about Clinton not wanting to follow the "rules" of the game. Well, if part of the rules include a provision for being able to challenge decisions, she is playing by the rules. It's like claiming if a coach throws the red flag in a football game, he ain't following the rules.

Each candidate is attempting to manipulate the 'game" to their own end. Obama, through his surrogates, has attempted to paint Clinton as a self-serving wench with no reguard for the country. He has convientently ignored the fact that part of the "rules he agreed to play under" say that the Super delegates have the power to choose who they wish if no candidate can secure the nomination by amassing enough small "d" delegates and inflamed his followers into believing this is some attempt by "the man" to deny him what he earned. If he had secured enough delegates, the Supers would not be in play. The hurdle is the hurdle, and he ain't jumped it. When and if he does, he does. When and if she does, she does. The final second ain't clicked off the clock, and by "the rules", she has every right to keep playing. Either the rules matter, or they don't. He can't have it both ways.

But that is a matter of proceedure. He has the right to spin things to his advantage. I would be surprised if he did not attempt to secure the notion in the public mind that he has already won, just as I would be surprised if she did not point out that he hasn't yet. The game is the game.