 masbury says: Eleven caucus states and Samoa aren't included! What kind of a popular vote ignores a fifth of the states? It's purely fictitious. Coincidentally, the Clinton campaign under-performed in the caucus states, and the Clinton campaign proposes this metric - popular vote - which leaves them out. The party of 'every vote must be counted' can't even count the votes in their own primary. Do you ignore the caucus states or ignore Florida and Michigan? It is a lose/lose situation for them which makes me as happy as seeing McCain hamstringed by his own stupid campaign finance laws. Really not so complicated - it's not a primary, it's a delegate selection process that allows the states to choose the method. The rules will allow FL and MI half representation, which should be reasonably satisfying. The only complication is Hillary's attempt to change the rules to favor herself by emphasizing an unrepresentative number. I don't think the Rules and Bylaws Committee will fall for it; it's just another case where Hillary threatens to take down the ship in order to get her way. So, they are giving the people of Michigan and Florida half a vote? Isn't that like declaring them half a person? Isn't that the way they used to count blacks in the census back in the days of slavery? I wonder, would you feel the same about your vote only counting for half if you were from Florida or Michigan? No, it's not like declaring them half a person, nor is it like blacks were counted. Those are both about the right to vote in US government elections. These are party elections, subject to the rules the party has set out, just like your local Kiwanis club or church board. If I were from Michigan or Florida, I'd be really angry at what the zealots in my state had done that started this fruit-basket upset, and I'd be looking into what it would take to keep it from ever happening again. The DNC's not to blame - they did the max the rules allowed them to do: half votes. They could have done less, as I understand it. The problem has always lain with outside-the-bylaws date cha... Whoever foots the bills for those elections should be the one who decides when they are held. And it Michigan or Florida having a PR nightmare right now, it is the DNC. Should read "And it isn't Michigan or Florida..." And while we are at it, why do the taxpayers have to foot the bill for party primaries anyway? Shouldn't that be something the party pays for through donations? If a group wants to be a part of an organization, it lives by the organization's bylaws. Argument can be made that the bylaws should be changed, and they often are, but playing by the rules is the price one pays to be a part of anything, from local chapters of the AARP to the KKK to the ACLU. These, however, were unsanctioned elections outside the bounds of the rules to which the locals had agreed. The settlement is a good compromise (the Obama camp had the votes to get more than they got, and declined to do so). It'll all soon be forgotten. I'm unfamiliar with how party primaries are funded, but you may have a point. |
View the Top Clips from May 30, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
