wow... so hes gonna end up with the lead?! this is awesome! I went to my convention in Alvin, Tx, I was a delegate from my precinct. That **** was insane. I was a firsthand witness to the madness...
Clinton gets most of the votes but Obama gets most of the delegates. What kind of r****ded system is that. There is nothing democratic about it.
i don't know. this is a weird system. is there any other country in the world that uses something similar?
It's really no different than the electoral college. In 2000, Gore got more votes nationally, but Bush won the electoral votes. It's a screwed up system, no doubt. But it's also pretty institutionalized in US elections. And for what it's worth, Clinton got more votes in the *primary* - and got more delegates from it. Obama got more votes in the *caucus* - and got more delegates from it. The net total favored Obama, but it was essentially two separate elections.
I'd say it's a little different from the electoral college in that voters get to vote twice -- that's a unique problem with the Texas system.
Why? The original concern was: Clinton gets most of the votes but Obama gets most of the delegates. What kind of r****ded system is that. That is *exactly* what can happen due to an electoral college system, and *exactly* what happened in 2000. Gore got the most votes, but Bush got the most delegates. There are other concerns in regards to the double voting and such, but that's not what was referenced. In terms of the double voting, that's a different issue, and it seems like Texas was trying to come up with a compromise, but didn't do a good job. Most people think primaries are best because they get the most people involved. But many people believe that primaries should be closed to only have the "party faithful" involved. And others believe caucuses are even better in that they allow the people that take the time to be most involved to make the decision on the nominee. So Texas did a convoluted system of trying to do both. But as far as the concern of "you get to vote twice" - that's certainly true, but each vote also counts less. It all balances out. If Texas had just a primary, Hillary would have gained another handful of delegates. If Texas had just a caucus, Obama would have gained another handful of delegates. Instead, they ended up somewhere in between.
That they are just now figuring out that Obama may have won indicates a major problem with the Texas system -- of course just looking at the way it is set up this should be glaring red flag obvious.
I think we should ditch the Primary and just have a caucus. Caucuses force you to talk to your neighbors. About politics. I had a blast and thought it was awesome.
They also force you to vote within a very specific timeframe that is impossible for many voters, as well as take away the right to make your vote in private. That's a pretty serious issue. There are a lot of people who could be in a lot of trouble with employers, etc. if employers knew their vote. It shouldn't be like that, but it is. Also, this is the problem I have with some of the Obama supporters. Even though more Texas voters preferred Hillary, they're happy to claim "victory" based on the delegate system. Even though many acknowledge in the inherent flaws with this system, they claim the results are very legitimate because all sides agreed to the rules beforehand and the rules shouldn't be changed midway through the game. I could accept that argument by itself. But many of these same people refuse to back the independence of superdelegates to decide what is in their interest independent of whatever the delegate count is. It's the same principle. A few of you are quite willing to bend the preset rules -- when it benefits your candidate. But when it doesn't, you hide behind the rules and say the other side should seek to change them for next time. You can't have it both ways.
Who here has said that the superdelegates should be required to vote for Obama? Everything I see is making a logical argument that they should so they don't appear to be damaging the party or that they will do so for the same basic reason. Many Obama delegates, uncommitted delegates, and Clinton delegates have made the same argument that the superdelegates shouldn't overturn the "will of the voters". I haven't seen anyone say that they should be *forced* or legally required to vote for the popular vote winner (this would be the only case of "changing the rules"). And I haven't seen anyone complain about any superdelegate that isn't doing that (and there are about 200-250 right now on each side, so one group would have to be in the wrong under this argument).
Something like 15-20 states use caucuses and have used them for decades - including Iowa, which is the focus of more media scrutiny than any other state every single election. Have we ever had a complaint of this sort in regards to employers?
