Sunday, February 10, 2008
Counting delegates, cont'd
It would be really bad if the 2008 election were to be decided by tricks and a shell game instead of voters.
I wrote here about how daunting it is to get straightforward and clear facts about delegate counts.
The NY Times acknowledges here that delegate counting is inaccurate, confusing and run by party operatives.
CNN states that their numbers are estimates; okay but apparently they have agendas as well since their overall results don't derive from their own details.
USA Today springboards from AP numbers but excludes two states and patently uses estimates for some figures.
MSNBC writes here about the complex process they use which is the closest to plain facts.
There are many important questions of which these are just some:
Who gave party bosses the power andfreedom license to devise and play this shell game?
When will someone who's audible and visible (not just little old me) pull away the wizard's cloak and reveal what's really going on, instead of letting us muck along thinking we're actually voting for the candidates?
How is that a candidate might be chosen other than simply by the votes?!?
Superdelegate voters may make the difference in the Democratic Party since the race is so close. Superdelegates aren't chosen by voters, they're chosen as rewards for party work and loyalty. And their votes are decided by party machine operatives, not by voting results. How can that be allowed to happen?? (As a friend of mine said, can you say back room wheeling and dealing, without the smoke?) Gifts of tickets to the convention are fine but how can it be that they don't have to ratify the votes of their primaries or caucuses?
Another swirling rumor is that Billary will sue to get Michigan and Florida delegates permitted since she won those primaries. Edwards and Obama withdrew their names there because the party had told them to but Billary ignored the party's edict and left her name on the ballots. If she got those delegates, the voters in Florida and Michigan would have been totally stiffed since they literally could not vote for all the candidates. It would be different if they'd been allowed to vote as they wished although the delegates were unassigned. How can this be allowed to happen??
Wouldn't it be bad for democracy if the primary - let alone another election - were decided by lawyers instead of voters?
I wrote here about how daunting it is to get straightforward and clear facts about delegate counts.
The NY Times acknowledges here that delegate counting is inaccurate, confusing and run by party operatives.
CNN states that their numbers are estimates; okay but apparently they have agendas as well since their overall results don't derive from their own details.
USA Today springboards from AP numbers but excludes two states and patently uses estimates for some figures.
MSNBC writes here about the complex process they use which is the closest to plain facts.
There are many important questions of which these are just some:
Who gave party bosses the power and
When will someone who's audible and visible (not just little old me) pull away the wizard's cloak and reveal what's really going on, instead of letting us muck along thinking we're actually voting for the candidates?
How is that a candidate might be chosen other than simply by the votes?!?
Superdelegate voters may make the difference in the Democratic Party since the race is so close. Superdelegates aren't chosen by voters, they're chosen as rewards for party work and loyalty. And their votes are decided by party machine operatives, not by voting results. How can that be allowed to happen?? (As a friend of mine said, can you say back room wheeling and dealing, without the smoke?) Gifts of tickets to the convention are fine but how can it be that they don't have to ratify the votes of their primaries or caucuses?
Another swirling rumor is that Billary will sue to get Michigan and Florida delegates permitted since she won those primaries. Edwards and Obama withdrew their names there because the party had told them to but Billary ignored the party's edict and left her name on the ballots. If she got those delegates, the voters in Florida and Michigan would have been totally stiffed since they literally could not vote for all the candidates. It would be different if they'd been allowed to vote as they wished although the delegates were unassigned. How can this be allowed to happen??
Wouldn't it be bad for democracy if the primary - let alone another election - were decided by lawyers instead of voters?
Labels: 2008 election, politics
Post a Comment