Wrong, wrong and WRONG. In the electoral college system, a state's popular vote total leads to the granting of electoral votes. If you win the state's popular vote, you receive the state's electoral votes. In the Texas primary/caucus system, Hillary won the popular vote, yet did not receive the majority of the delegates. That is the opposite of how the electoral college system works. The opposite. What an intellectually ignorant argument you make. The difference is what happens inside of a given state, not in aggregate. Leave it to the obama supporters to not be able to understand that, though. Frankly this brings up the larger issue of how Obama has won so many pledged delegates -- through the caucus process which unfairly advantages him. As stated numerous times, the caucus system overvalues the votes of the unemployed, students (obama's base), and the intellectual elite, while undervaluing and disenfranchising the working class and seniors (Hillary's base). Tell me how that's fair. You can't. So when Obama supporters try to take the moral high ground by saying they've got the 'pledged delegate count', just know that many of those delegates came from the caucus process which is inherently unfair to selected voting blocks. But again, good luck trying to convince a kool-aid messiah follower of anything rational.
Personally, I think the Texas Two-Step is awesome. It forces campaigns to focus on both their base (those who will caucus) and swing voters (those who often carry a close primary). I personally think Hillary won Texas based not on uniform popular support, but because she played the demographics well--picking up undecided voters--and got a boost from Republicans who were voting in bad faith. Neither the undecideds or the Republicans are going to bother caucusing.
Primaries and caucuses are not about selecting a person to represent a district, county, state or country. They are about selecting a person to represent a political party. It is already against the law for anyone, including employers, to prevent someone from voting in a primary, caucus or election. Caucus locations are just as accessible as primary locations and people are permitted, even encouraged, to bring their families. I understand that not everyone wants to spend several hours hanging out with their neighbors talking about politics, but we are talking about selecting a candidate for a political party. Democracy doesn't have to be easy. Sometimes it is a drag. The idea that primaries are somehow more democratic or enfranchising because they are spread over several days and take less time is absurd. Why must we protect the secret of which Democrat or Republican a person voted for in a primary or caucus and not protect the fact that the person is a registered Democrat or Republican? The guy who used to run the elections in Harris County once told me that he has never once voted in a primary because he doesn't want anyone to know which party he supports on election day. To him, the secret ballot was more important than having a say in which candidates are on the ballot. When I was a kid, my aunt told me she wasn't registered to vote because she scared of being on a jury. Democracy does not have to be quick and easy. Everyone is free to sit out which ever step they want to. If you want your vote to be a quick, easy and anonymous, register as an independent and vote early in the general election.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. The caucus system disenfranchises some parents with small children, senior citizens who lack the stamina to attend, those in nursing homes, those who must vote absentee, those traveling, those who for practical reasons can not leave work, the list goes on and on... There just isn't any disputing that. Caucusus are also subject to intimidation and fraud, two accusations that have been leveled against the Obama campaign.
I don't normally respond to Senator Lieberman but I will take this opportunity to point out that at the Precinct 39 Caucus, there were several people who brought children of all ages, including infants. There were also quite a few senior citizens, one person in a wheel chair and one person on crutches.
Strange that they showed up, huh? Just think how many people like them couldn't show up. Thanks for invalidating your own argument with that anecdotal evidence though. It's funny that you think anecdotal evidence is even a good argument, but hey, what should one expect from a typical Obama voter...
In most years, senior citizens are the only ones who caucus. What was remarkable about this year is that young people joined them.
Caucus is always less democratic than primaries no matter how you spin it. Think about what will happen if the general election is done with caucus. I think you might see riot in the street. But then the democratic party is a private organization, so they can do whatever they like. If you are a democrat, you should abide by the rules or try to change the rules inside.
Agree on both counts. Both Obama & Hillary knew the rules ahead of time, he smoked her in the caucuses and her whining about caucuses after losing them rings hollow, like the sore loser she is. If Hillary becomes president, I hope she is better prepared on "day one" (LOL) than she was for caucuses seeing as she had "experience" with the process twice before with Bill. For 2012, I think the Dems should eliminate caucuses from their nominating process. But it's their internal decision to make.
When did I use the term required? I was merely speaking of the same argument you're speaking of. There is some logic behind it, yes, just like there's logic behind saying Clinton won Texas because the majority of the state's voters selected her over Obama. To claim one and not the other goes against the larger principle guiding those arguments.
No, it's not. The legal argument is absurd. All employers have to do is find a different reason to hide their real motivations. Happens all the time, and yes, I personally know examples of this. Many people -- especially those at lower levels of organizations without a lot of job security -- are unwilling to take off work. You limit the potential number of votes by taking a potential 11-hour window and condensing it to one or two. I don't view this as a solution to anything. Furthermore, there are certain people to which I would never in a million years reveal my vote to. Would that keep me from voting, if they were in my caucus? Probably not, but it's unfair to have to make that choice. And I've spoken to several people who it would prevent from voting in that hypothetical scenario. This country should seek to get more citizens to vote. Condensing voting from an 11-hour (and absentee ballot) process to a 1-2 hour span and changing it from a private act to one in which your friends and neighbors all publicly learn your decision would decrease turnout and I don't see that as good for anyone.
Funny how Obama's camp is whining about superdelegates potentially going against the delegate leader? He knew the rules ahead of time -- that supers could make their own choices regardless of voters. Why doesn't that make him a sore loser?
I know this is slightly off topic, but what I don't understand why the electoral votes in a presidential election are not awarded proportionately like the Dems do in their primaries. How is it fair that if you barely win a state, you get ALL the electoral votes...for all this talk about the negatives of caucuses, I'd say that could disenfranchise voters when you're living in a state like, say, Texas, when it's pretty obvious which party will win the votes come the general election.
It's not fair. You are absolutely correct. I always vote in the presidential election (democrat), but always tell people my vote doesn't really mean squat in that race. I'm really only voting in that instance because folks died so I could have the right to....
The only way the Obama camp would be trying to "change the rules" is if they were required to vote one way or another. Otherwise, it's just suggesting guidelines that no one is obligated to follow. In the Clinton case with FL/MI, it's actually changing the established, official party rules. In the Obama case, unless someone is suggesting that superdelegates should be required to vote one way or another, there is nothing of the sort.
