Vote Count Carnival

Cite your sources. These aren't the polls I have looked at.

Pramono these questions are not your concern. Can you stay focus on the subject matter.

Don't waste your time on Factreal, he belongs in a zoo and should depart from this board!!!!

The problem with a national primary is that it would unduly favor candidates who start out with great name recognition and large bankrolls. The reason for the staggered primaries is to let lesser know candidates become known and raise money. A national primary would actually return us to the days of the "smoke-filled rooms" where party insiders picked the candidate because these would be the candidates who would go into a national primary with backing and money. A better system would be regional primaries with the order of voting rotated every primarily season. That way, every state would get a chance to go first. Lesser known candidates would be able to build a following. Candidates could take advantage of media buys in regional markets and save a little money. And they could focus on the problems of each region individually. And I think primaries in whcih you can change your registration at the time of voting are actually a little more democratic because they bring more people to the polls. Yes, there's some possiblity of mischief, but it's relatively minor compared to the advantage of a higher turnout. Democrats will also have to decide whether or not to keep the proportional allocation of delegates or move back to the winner-take-all system. The proportional allocation was put in place because it seemed more democratic. It just didn't seem fair that a candidate who won by a small margin should get everything and the one who lost by a small margin get nothing. I still like that thinking. But it is a lot messier and it can take longer to get a candidate. If the Dems (or the GOP, too) really want to clean up elections, they will move to public financing with NO private fundraising allowed and they will shorten the campaign season rather than prolonging it every election cycle.

It is the state parties that decide to hold caucuses rather than primaries. Would you take away the right of Democrats in states different from yours to chose their nominee in the way they see fit? That's not very democratic of you. People in caucus states seem to like caucuses. If you don't live in a caucus state -- frankly, it is none of your business how Iowa and Nevada and Maine and Washington select their delegates. . If you do live in a caucus state and you want change, get involved in your local party organization and work for change. If all the people who grouse on this message board about unfair political parties actually got out and worked for their local party, we would have a stronger democracy. Parties are accessible. They're usually begging for help. In many local organizations, you can get elected to a management position just by showing up and putting your name on the ballot. If you really care; if you're not just looking for something to complain about, there are avenues for change.

Again, you guys are missing the point. While caucuses might be unfair, it is besides the point. If that is what one really beleives, it is well within their rights to do so. But even voting in publice does not limit your right to vote any way you want. You can vote any way you like whether in private or in public and the same argument holds true for all the candidates, by the way. That is, there were some people also who wanted to vote for Obama but got intimidated to vote the other way. In the end, though, she agreed to use this way ie through the Democratic Party, and therefore through Caucauses and Primary. She could have gone Repblican or even Independent if she thought the Caucauses were so unfair but she did not. Crying foul now only make her seem like a sore loser. Remember, it was her who predicted that this was going to be over by SuperTuesday; it was her who had the majority of the Superdelegates, it was her who said that the small states did not matter; it was her who said that the popular vote is more important than the elected delegates ( although these delegates in most cases are a reflection of the popular vote ). She has said a lot. I was indifferent in the begining - and I still am to an extent - but she loss not because she is a bad person or anything, but that she ran a horrible campaign and that says a lot. An established candidate like her running such a lowsy campaign is pathetic and, qutie frankly, unforgivable.

Perhaps you should go to a caucus and see if anything you stated is really true.
Caucuses may be more democratic than primaries.

The DNC rules are just..wierd..I have no idea what the heck Ickes and others like him were thinking. But I assure you that Barack Obama whom you all scream is such a newbie..had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING OR APPROVING THOSE RULES.

BUT HILLARY AND BILL CLINTON DID! I mean they've basically been in charge of the democratic party since Bill got the nomination 16 years ago haven't they?

And while you're all so busy worrying about OMG POOR FLA. and MICH.!!
How about Washington State, Nevada, Maine, and Iowa that Hillary Clinton has to disenfranchise in order to make her tortured popular vote count work out for her.

Are you only worried about fairness for 2 states, but don't care if she is unfair to 4 states?

And yes, those rules are obscure, but they are the rules. They were the rules when this started and they are NOT the same as segregation and slavery rules, AT ALL.
Is everyone in FLA. and MICH. going to be forced to share-crop or go to terrible underfunded schools because of this? NO.

And don't you think it's unfair to say here are the rules now start playing this game, and then when one team is losing..change the rules so that they win?

You'd sure as heck think it was unfair if it was going to cost YOUR KID'S winning team the game wouldn't you?

I sure as heck hope that they DO change those rules to a better system that will hopefully avoid this sort of hurt feelings and division in the party next time.