Zynx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:42 PM
Original message |
The idea that crazy delegate allocation rules can negate the will of the voters is appalling. |
|
If the crazy system that was set up in Texas ends up giving Obama a greater representation than Clinton despite the fact that she won by nearly 100,000 votes, that is a travesty of democracy. The same is true for the fact that Alabama was nearly tied in delegate count despite Obama winning the state by a full 14 points. These arcane and ridiculous delegate allocation rules thwart the will of the voters in our primary processes. I find them nothing short of disgusting. A state's delegation should reflect the will of the voters in that state, not be distorted by some labyrinthine delegate allocation scheme.
|
meow mix
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:43 PM
Response to Original message |
1. yah, horrible to allocate more delegates to reliable democrats |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 10:59 PM by meow mix
admit it, you got out maneuvered and obama is a genius
|
Zynx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. What do you mean "reliable Democrats"? |
|
In Alabama it cut against you. Also, spell "genius" right.
|
meow mix
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
19. found another typo ty lol |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-05-08 11:04 PM by meow mix
i mean reliable, as in proven to vote democrat in previous elections. if a district voted bush they dont get as many..
|
HeraldSquare212
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:44 PM
Response to Original message |
2. The rules are created by the state parties, who are probably closer to the issues in their states |
Zynx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. I call bullshit. All voters are equal. |
|
Or did we forget our core Democratic principles in the heat of the primary?
|
dansolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
11. Including Republicans voting in Democratic primaries? |
HeraldSquare212
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
13. A lot of people put a lot of time and work into the rule, and surely considered the same issues. |
Bread and Circus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:44 PM
Response to Original message |
3. It's called the Texas two-step for a reason. Hillary lost. Deal with it. |
Zynx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. How very Republican of you. In Missouri and Alabma it cut the other way. |
Bread and Circus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-06-08 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
24. I will take your word for it and cede to you that Obama wins Texas |
Generic Brad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:45 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Tell it to the electorate college |
|
Oh, wait. They don't go by popular vote either.
|
Zynx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. I hate the electoral college with a passion. Just because it exists doesn't mean it is right. |
Generic Brad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
14. I don't like it either |
|
It really does subvert the will of the voters.
|
NMMatt
(523 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
15. That's hillarious seeing how you are from WI |
|
If they abolished the electoral college, WI would never see a wiff of the candidates apart from the television ads. As it is, they probably visit Wisconsin, a swing state, 20 times a cycle. States like WI are the reason that it is so hard to abolish the electoral college.
|
Recursion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
21. Eh, it's no worse than the Senate |
|
I'm not against the college per se (small states maybe shouldn't get run over by big states constantly), but I don't like how most states make it winner-take-all.
Incidentally, the states aren't even required to let you vote on your Electors; they simply have to be appointed in a manner prescribed by the state legislature (or Congress, in the case of DC).
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
22. The EC at least has the moral legitimacy of the Constitution to back it up. |
|
These delegate allocation rules are just the bright ideas of some state party chairmen.
|
ExFreeper4Obama
(122 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:45 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Can't change the rules in the middle of the game.
|
Zynx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. I am saying the rules are B.S. and undemocratic. I never said I want to change them. |
thewiseguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:47 PM
Response to Original message |
12. You should have said this before the fact not after the fact |
|
Sorry but Obama has won Texas!
|
joshcryer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message |
16. I find it appalling that someone without a mandate could take it without careful consideration. |
|
And it is a fact that neither Obama or Hillary will have a mandate going into the DNC.
|
pinkpops
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 11:03 PM
Response to Original message |
17. So you probably believe superdelegates should follow the |
Beregond2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 11:03 PM
Response to Original message |
|
And what have you done to change these "disgusting" rules? Or are you just another Clinton fan who never bothered to learn the rules until they negatively impacted on your candidate? Somehow I doubt you would be whining if these rules benefitted Hillary.
|
Growler
(896 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 11:23 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Since when have we lived in a Democracy? |
|
We have representational government in this country, and last I checked, the duly elected officials in Texas created their wacky process. As far as I know, Texans like it.
You don't like it? Move to Texas and work to change it. Anything else is just vapour.
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-05-08 11:28 PM
Response to Original message |
23. Blame Texas, not anyone here. |
barack the house
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-06-08 01:13 AM
Response to Original message |
25. It never got this far before Texas been flawed for a long time folks been telling Dems for a while. |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-06-08 01:25 AM by barack the house
Many things in the system are a travesty but that will take reform at a later point and can only be done in Texas. Let's be fair here, taking it to the superdelegates is 1000 percent undemocratic as their vote is 10000 votes each even if they vote fair it's wrong most have exited on points to avoid it. It is mass disenfranchisement. Texas is wrong BUT there is the option for all voters to vote twice to reinforce the first. HRC should of covered this tith voters and even if Texas wenther way will never regain the lead even thowingin FL and MI sorry. Howard Dean (an honest man )says the superdeleages will vote with the delegate winner.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:05 AM
Response to Original message |