A A A A Search :

Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)

login • sign up home • about • help • archives • index • tags • changes • search

» Ummmm....HUH?

From GraphicsGuy's workspace   

Ummmm....HUH?

---

created by GraphicsGuy on Jun 03, 2008 at 05:51:20 pm     Comments: 28

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

Theory: The non-voters are happier than the voters

posted by jr on Jun 03, 2008 at 06:02:45 pm     #

I thought the same exact thing. While this great country was based on a constitution that was written over 200 years ago, it should be reviewed and updated more often than it is now.
The election process in the U.S. is so outdated that it is funny. We put more security and accountability into our driver's licenses than we do to elect those who run this country.

It is sad that politicians are more concerned with keeping their jobs than doing what is best for it's people and this country.

How do we change it? Revolution? Voting? Something has to be done. We need a true leader to step up and lead us to change in politics and government.
Where is that person or persons?

posted by hockeyfan on Jun 03, 2008 at 06:32:22 pm     #

Seems to me that the voters are not well educated on the issues & have done a second rate job. That was G.Bush that lost the popular vote, which weakens my thesis.

posted by robertbrundage on Jun 03, 2008 at 06:55:47 pm     #

In a presidential primary election, you're not actually voting for the candidate, but for the delegates who represent the candidate. I think the actual language is that you cast a vote for the delegate for (insert candidate name). Because the parties select their actual candidate at a convention, you're voting for the delegates who will decide the nominee. It's a bit different from a November election...

Please don't ask me to explain the superdelegates - everyone is equal but some are more equal than others... The GOP doesn't have super delegates - every delegate gets the same vote and has been selected by the voters in the state...

Why should you bother to vote? Because even though you're not actually voting for the candidate, you're voting for the delegate or the electors, so it does matter.

my $.02

posted by MaggieThurber on Jun 03, 2008 at 07:39:55 pm     #

The primaries are not really government elections. They are conducted by the parties to determine their nominees in whatever manner the leadership and constituency of that party agrees upon. If you do not like it you are free to choose another party or even start your own and make your own by-laws and put your own nominee forward. Or you could just avoid the primaries altogether and vote in the election for the candidate of your choice or of least disdain.

posted by ilovetoledo on Jun 03, 2008 at 08:06:58 pm     #

You know the more I think about it the more it reminds me of picking teams playing sandlot baseball when you were a kid.

Remember, you toss the bat to your opponent and he catches it and then you take turns putting one hand over the other?

We used to come up with the most ridiculous variations to avoid losing, 1 finger, 2 fingers, 3 fingers, and of course, CHICKEN CLAW!!
LOL, the whole process seems very UN-democratic, particularly the super delegate stuff. It comes down to a bunch of rich good ole boys in the end.

posted by JeepMaker on Jun 03, 2008 at 08:37:53 pm     #

"...you're not actually voting for the candidate, but for the delegates who represent the candidate."

Understood. So why have my delegate(s) voted for Obama when their 'constituents' wanted Hillary? This has happened in other states, also.

Neither the delegates or the super delegates are bound to vote for that candidate, sooooo....why vote if 'the powers that be' don't listen?

(Medicinal use of marijuana in California is another great example of a Governmental 'F*CK YOU'!)

posted by GraphicsGuy on Jun 03, 2008 at 08:58:38 pm     #

The delegates are pledged, so Hilary's win in Ohio DID grant her more pledged delegates. The super delegates are not pledged, they can vote for anyone. Super delegates are kinda like the electoral college voters. They can give their electoral votes to anyone, despite the state vote.

On a sidenote, I'd like to see ALL of the primaries done on one day. I think it would give a darkhorse candidate a better chance.

posted by pink_slip on Jun 03, 2008 at 09:46:37 pm     #

I think the dems should have had a winner takes all delegate distribution like the GOP. If this was the case Hillary would be claiming victory tonight instead of Obamaramarama. States like Pa., Ohio, Tx., NY., Ca., would have given her the victory.

I am not a Clinton fan. I'm just saying.

posted by KraZyKat on Jun 03, 2008 at 09:52:33 pm     #

Actually, the official election system worked just fine. What was broken was the people of the nation itself, as they came to accept a two-party system that only represented ONE viewpoint for foreign affairs and the domestic economy.

I love watching the Democrats squirm as they struggle with the cognitive dissonance involved with the non-democratic nature of the modern party. Super-delegates? Some are more equal than others? The irony there is more delicious than a plate of garnished beef liver.

posted by GuestZero on Jun 03, 2008 at 10:55:09 pm     #

The entire Presidential election system needs to be tweaked. I think you'll see the Dems change things before the next election.

For the general election, I would like to see electoral votes become tied to congressional districts and then the extra 2 are State wide. Of course that would really make things interesting and it would definitely make every vote count.

Unfortunately our founding fathers didn't trust the common man enough to pick the President, so here we are.

And yes, the most recent candidate that didn't get the win is Al Gore. He won the Popular Vote in 2000, but Bush won the Electoral College Vote thanks to Florida.

posted by JustaSooner on Jun 04, 2008 at 01:25:42 am     #

I actually like the electoral college because it provides a level of equality across all the states. If it were just popular vote, only the populous areas would get the attention of the candidates. This was, imho, a brilliant process set up by our founders. And remember, we're a Republic, not a Democracy - specifically to ensure that the 'tyranny of the majority' didn't dictate to the 'minority' ...

I've seen several different plans for changing dates of the primaries.

This one

http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/rollcall.pdf

calls for the National Association of Secretaries of State to create four regional primaries, held after the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary at one-month intervals from March to June. The regions would rotate their position on the calendar every four years.

Several others were very similar...

posted by MaggieThurber on Jun 04, 2008 at 06:53:17 am     #

Your vote probably doesn't count or even matter in any almost any election or decision making process, unless you're on a 3 or 7 person board or a 1 man wrecking crew.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-abrams/voters-not-superdelegates_b_85791.html

Each of the superdelegates' votes is now equivalent to about 10,000 Democratic voters.

Voting is a supporting crime and a form of superstitious self-incrimination. I'd rather hang out with Jesus and play tennis when I die. I bet you you has one hell of a kick serve.

I usually just wear an over-sized foam thumb and it's usually down... the effectiveness of gubs are still beyond my control.

posted by charlatan on Jun 04, 2008 at 07:43:42 am     #

And remember, we're a Republic, not a Democracy - specifically to ensure that the 'tyranny of the majority' didn't dictate to the 'minority'

We're both. Call it a representative republic or a liberal democracy. I think it's important to be more specific than to just say we're a "republic". I believe the meaning of republic is that you're not ruled by a king or queen. After all, Iran is also a republic. So was the Soviet Union.

posted by pink_slip on Jun 04, 2008 at 08:29:06 am     #

JustaSooner said: « The entire Presidential election system needs to be tweaked. I think you'll see the Dems change things before the next election. »

What, like they changed after the 2000 and 2004 elections? Nothing changed except to throw more public money at corporations to achieve the same level of error in election systems. The Dems haven't changed anything since 2006, either. Has any federal law been passed that stops the overt vote fraud committed by Jeb Bush with his purging of the voter lists in 2000? No. What about stopping INTENTIONAL under-equipping in Dem districts in Cleveland? No.

I do know what's going to happen after the 2008 election: The election process won't change.

posted by GuestZero on Jun 04, 2008 at 09:12:35 am     #

Why would the Dems or Repubs change anything? The 2 political parties and the corporate media have a pretty sweet deal. The media short-changes anyone who doesn't raise millions of dollars. And the 2 parties spend millions on TV ads for their campaigns. Everyone wins. (except for the citizens of this country)

posted by pink_slip on Jun 04, 2008 at 09:38:08 am     #

Sorry Pink_Slip - we're a Constitutional Republic.

After the Constitutional Convention had finished its work in 1787, a woman asked Ben Franklin what kind of government had been decided upon. He replied: "A republic, if you can keep it."

posted by MaggieThurber on Jun 04, 2008 at 11:30:53 am     #

Yeah, the definition of a liberal democracy and a constitutional republic are practically identical.

posted by pink_slip on Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:05 am     #

The Democrats came up with super delegates so that they could hand pick the nominee regardless of who the people actually voted for. Think about it, Hilary has the majority of the popular vote but is gonna lose because Obama has more super delegates. Yeah its the will of the people alright, the people who control the national democrat party. Hence there is nothing democratic about the democrat party.

posted by Linecrosser on Jun 04, 2008 at 03:02:45 pm     #

Hilary has the majority of the popular vote

No she doesn't. They don't even release the "popular" vote totals from caucus states. And Michigan and Florida didn't even hold a proper primary. How would she even know? And the same type of scenario can happen in the republicrap party. Someone can win several big states, and lose the "popular" vote and still get the nomination. I wonder if you were as concerned about the popular vote back in 2000?

posted by pink_slip on Jun 04, 2008 at 03:27:00 pm     #

Where does everybody get these facts that Hillary has the majority of the popular vote? Are you counting "elections" that didn't have Obama's name on the ballots, since he followed the rules all parties agreed upon? Are you discounting states with caucuses? Are you just imagining stuff?

Hillary had the big superdelegate lead at the beginning of the primaries. I think that most probably switched so it wouldn't appear to be the undemocratic result where the candidate with more pledged delegates loses.

I'm not defending the notion of super-delegates or caucuses or terrible decisions about not letting a rust-belt state jump to the head of the primary season.

But the rules were established and all parties agreed to them. Obama won under those rules. Now is not the time to disagree - you should have done that a year ago.

posted by ifXthenWhyNot on Jun 04, 2008 at 03:29:35 pm     #

Real Clear Politics had a good running total of popular vote, delegates, etc...

But ifX has the right perspective. Regardless of whether or not you like the rules, the time to change them is not in the middle or only when you're losing.

And Pink - the GOP doesn't have superdelegates so the same type of scenario wouldn't happen there. The Republican party sends delegates who are pledged to vote according to their state's rules. Ohio is a winner take all state so all GOP delegates are pledged accordingly. States with larger populations and more representatives in Congress get more delegates. But every delegate's vote counts for one.

Perhaps, when you say the same thing can happen in the GOP, you mean something other than this. But as someone fairly familiar with the GOP, I don't see it.

posted by MaggieThurber on Jun 04, 2008 at 07:55:47 pm     #

Perhaps, when you say the same thing can happen in the GOP, you mean something other than this

If McCain (for instance) won the 15-ish largest states by a small margin, and then received zero votes in the rest of the 35-ish states---then he could get to 1,191 and still lose the "popular vote".

I know the GOP doesn't call their unpledged delegates "super delegates", but they still have them and they serve exactly the same purpose.

posted by pink_slip on Jun 04, 2008 at 09:25:20 pm     #

The GOP has 123 unpledged delegates for this year's convention. They are free to vote as they see fit.

This doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution, however. These are party rules for a party "election." There's actually no requirement by law that there even be "elections" for the primaries. For example, the Libertarian Party has chosen Barr without holding a single vote of the people. If these rules need to be changed, they have to be changed by the party, not the Legislature.

posted by HeyHey on Jun 04, 2008 at 10:11:05 pm     #

Has any federal law been passed that stops the overt vote fraud committed by Jeb Bush with his purging of the voter lists in 2000? No.

That wasn't fraud. That was the Governor of Florida removing people from the voting lists who were not qualified to vote in the State.

posted by madjack on Jun 04, 2008 at 10:31:27 pm     #

Like all the dead people in Chicago who voted for Daily for mayor?

posted by Linecrosser on Jun 04, 2008 at 11:02:37 pm     #

That was the Governor of Florida removing people from the voting lists who were not qualified to vote in the State

Except, the GOP used a tactic called voter caging--which is illegal

posted by pink_slip on Jun 05, 2008 at 08:42:00 am     #

I had to look that up, here is an interesting article on voter caging

posted by jshriver on Jun 09, 2008 at 10:41:17 am     #

home • about • help • contact

© 2003-2008 Toledo Talk

current date: 19-Nov-2008 1:24 A.M.

old version of Toledo Talk