MyDD :: Dear DNC Right to vote is more important than When to vote.

Dear DNC Right to vote is more important than When to vote.

by DTaylor, Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:30:50 PM EST

Dear Howard Dean,

After seeing Texas give more delegates to the candidate with less people supporting him I have seen clear and un-refutable evidence that Caucus contests don't reflect the will of the people.

I have also seen this in Washinton state where the primary showed a 3% Clinton loss but the Caucus showed a 37% Clinton loss.

I also saw this in Nevada where Clinton clearly won the contest but got a net loss of 1 delegate.

This causes me to question the other caucuses and reject the notion that a crossover vote in Alaska from a Republican can be counted as 10 times more valuable than my vote in California's primary based on popular vote to delegate ratio. While we ware on that issue why do some states let republicans vote in our primary???? Is this to penalize me for being a faithful Democrat for all my life???

I will be voting for the primary popular vote winner Hillary Clinton in November.

But I will be angry about this issue in 2012 and 2016 and 2020 and I advise you to FIX IT.

If our party named after democracy believes in democracy for all not just those who are willing to be subjected to peer pressure over a time intensive process then I will support future nominees.

If on the other hand those who make the "RULES" in our party do not believe in 1 person 1 vote, privacy and no obstructions to getting to the pole then I will be forced in future to think of myself as an anti-democrat whenever the nominee is determined by these methods.

Its a different issue but I feel the same way about ANY state for ANY reason getting less than their fair say in the election due to red tape of any kind. I accept that inclusive measures like letting US territories have delegates do not constitute an unfair diminishing of other states rightful say. However issues like when to vote are subservient to the right to vote.

If states want to have their 2008 primary in 2006 and the voters of those states are happy with that than I am happy with that and will side with them in all future disputes. This is also an issue I will remember in 2012, 2016, 2020 and penalize the party for acting against what I believe in.

In closing I am a believer in Democracy far more than I am a supporter of the Democratic party, recently I have had cause to question my parties commitment to Democracy as I understand it, this was real shock and my reaction to it will be severe and sustained in the future unless the party fixes the problems.

DTaylor

Poll

Votes: 2
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: DNC (all tags)

Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Dear DNC Right to vote is more important than (none / 0)

they are meeting at the end of the Month to discuss MI/FL and then we will see what they say, MI is already thinking over 2 different proposals for how to split the delegates.

so I am confident something will be resolved at this meeting.

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM EST

Good soundbyte, says it all (2.00 / 1)

Hey this is a good point! Let's repeat this and get it out there.

by catfish1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:47:47 PM EST

Re: Dear DNC Right to vote is more important than (2.00 / 1)

good news .

4 new supers for clinton

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:50:37 PM EST

Hmm (none / 0)

"Un-refutable" is not a word.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:56:04 PM EST

Re: Hmm (none / 0)

ya its two words hyphenated together. thats what the - in the middle means

by DTaylor on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (none / 0)

Uh, no. The word you want is "irrefutable," and using the incorrect word speaks to ethos. And you don't get to just put hyphens between two words to make new ones. Also, "un" is a prefix, not a word, just like "ness" is a suffix and also not a word.

I only harp on the "un-refutable" thing because it makes your argument slightly less convincing.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (none / 0)

And clearly identifies me as not an elitist =)

by DTaylor on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (none / 0)

and what about that $110 million in 7 years, that makes the Clintons common folk?

by southernman on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (none / 0)

Eh. I'm with you on the subject, but education isn't - or shouldn't be - "elitist", and we ought not be making arguments which empower an anti-education attitude. It dismisses our educational system and our teachers, for one thing.

For another, in our current "global economy", it's more important than ever to encourage all of our citizens to genuinely value education - we can't compete with low wages, we can only compete via our intellectual expertise.

You've more errors than the one pointed out.

by aggieric on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:40:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (none / 0)

True about the errors, but I only harp on incorrect word usage or syntax, not on minor spelling or typographical slips. But "un-refutable" is about as wrong as "irregardless." Speaking of which, though it is technically recognized by Webster's as a slang word, "irregardless" not being underlined in red on Firefox makes me angry.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:56:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (none / 0)

Heh. "Irregardless" has been seared into my brain since I was a 20-y/o pre-law student. One of my classmates used "irregardless" in answering a question in my con-law class. The professor, who now sits on the 10th Circuit, ripped him to shreds in front of the entire class, and I've never forgotten it.

by aggieric on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What next a license to talk? (none / 0)

I went to Engineering school.

Engineering is all about making trade offs between efficiency and effectiveness.

Education is important but higher education is not a substitute for common sense.

As an engineer I understand a plethora of science phenomena at a level that you do not.

Were I to be pedantic about correct notation I could render any argument you make about a scientific subject matter to appear infantile.

I am sure you wouldn't appreciate that. Likewise those of you who have specialized in language will always find errors in my syntax and spelling.

Many others who unlike myself have not been the position of teaching English may be even more ill prepared to defend against this sophist tradition that socrates referred to as logic chopping. I could with arduous effort correct all my spelling and grammar mistakes.

But I make a better defender of those who with effort cannot correct their grammar and spelling just the way I am.

by DTaylor on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:43:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What next a license to talk? (none / 0)

First of all, sophistry has literally nothing to do with the argument for correct grammar and syntax. In fact, your argument that unrefutable is "two words added together" is much more akin to sophistry. Sophistry means making a logically correct argument for something that is, for some other reason, actually incorrect. Jonathon Swift's argument for eating Irish babies in "A Modest Proposal" would be sophistry if he meant it to be serious.

And I don't really care about typos or small spelling mistakes because we all make them. I DO expect people to use the correct word for something, since language is incredibly important.

And since I am not trying to use scientific or engineering language to make my argument, your analogy doesn't work.

And I never really understood the "common sense" argument. What exactly constitutes common sense? People use it to mean "something we all know is true," but I don't believe that definition. If we all knew it was true, there shouldn't need to be an appeal to common sense.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:38:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What next a license to talk? (none / 0)

Fox news was trying to argue that we are not in a recession. Their claim is that recession is generally defined to mean negative growth for 2 quarters and they were trumpeting 0.6% growth.

They were being Sophists in that when the common man says recession they don't mean negative growth for 2 quarters, they mean the economy sucks.

Thus in the common usage we are in a recession aka the economy sucks even though we are not in a recession aka 2 qtr negative growth. Fox was attempting to curtail the vocabulary of the argument to exclude and belittle those who are not familiar with the technical definition of recession.

You clearly understood what I meant above. You sought to move from the argument to the dictionary entry or lack of dictionary entry for un-refutable. In that you were technically correct but attempting to avoid my statement in favor of a statement regarding word definition in the same what that Fox Sophistry is technically correct but false in the greater sense.

by DTaylor on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What next a license to talk? (none / 0)

Well, that's an interesting point. In reality, though, I wasn't using my point about un-refutable to argue that you were wrong. I was just pointing out that the word was incorrect and that we all need to use the correct word. Take it as an attack if you want.

That being said "the economy sucks" is a bit broad and vague, isn't it? It sucks for whom? You? All working-class workers? All workers? People in Pennsylvania? Honestly, that's a bad definition in my opinion. But, like you said, "2 quarters of negative growth" is an equally bad definition.

My definition of a recession is when a majority of people in the country perceive a lack of economic growth, whether there actually is or not. And while I don't have the poll numbers off the top of my head, anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that most Americans THINK the economy is stagnant. Whether it is or not doesn't really matter, because a perception of stagnant growth will lead to people saving more (which is good for the country long-term) and spending less (which is also good for the country long-term).

Regardless, I get your point about distracting from your original diary. I disagree with it on the following grounds:

1) The rules on delegate apportionment can't be changed in the middle of the race. I don't really like that delegates are apportioned by congressional district, but there isn't anything I can do about it for right now. There is also nothing Dean (or anyone) can do about it right now.

2) I also favor primaries over caucuses, but you can't prove to me that one is "more democratic" than the other. I favor making it as easy as possible for people to vote, which means we should have primaries everywhere. But I understand that caucuses favor passion over passivity. If Obama wins because his supporters want him more than Clinton supporters want her, that doesn't seem undemocratic at all.

3) You make a biased assertion. "I accept that inclusive measures like letting US territories have delegates do not constitute an unfair diminishing of other states rightful say." This statement is completely incongruous with your claim in 1 person, 1 vote. I assume that "1 person" is an American. Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, and others almost never call themselves "American." Regardless, I don't understand how you can count their vote, but not a Republican's or Independent's who wants to vote Democratic. My conclusion is that you are ok with any scenario that supports Hillary.

4) You seem to support a completely unorganized primary season: "However issues like when to vote are subservient to the right to vote." That means you would be ok with states having primaries in November 2011? Or Summer 2011? Why not have it now? Because that is the logical extension (sophist that I am!) of letting states put their primaries whenever and wherever they want. I believe we need a rolling primary calendar that lets different states be first every year, but if states are allowed to shirk the rules whenever they want, no state will listen to the DNC on any new primary calendar rules.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What next a license to talk? (none / 0)

1) "The rules on delegate apportionment can't be changed in the middle of the race."

Great change them after the convention for 2012.

2) "I also favor primaries over caucuses, but you can't prove to me that one is "more democratic" than the other. I favor making it as easy as possible for people to vote, which means we should have primaries everywhere. But I understand that caucuses favor passion over passivity. If Obama wins because his supporters want him more than Clinton supporters want her, that doesn't seem undemocratic at all."

Primaries or its not democracy. Texas proved it.

I am ok with those areas not getting a vote. I am also ok with them gettting a vote. But like you say for next cycle in this cycle they count.

4) "You seem to support a completely unorganized primary season: "However issues like when to vote are subservient to the right to vote." That means you would be ok with states having primaries in November 2011? Or Summer 2011? Why not have it now? Because that is the logical extension (sophist that I am!) of letting states put their primaries whenever and wherever they want. I believe we need a rolling primary calendar that lets different states be first every year, but if states are allowed to shirk the rules whenever they want, no state will listen to the DNC on any new primary calendar rules."

You are correct I trust the voters in each state. I propose that they be free to decide as they see fit. America is largely about freedom. This cycle has shown clearly that the most important state isn't always the first state.

by DTaylor on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What next a license to talk? (none / 0)

Those are all reasonable responses; I definitely don't fault you for any of those opinions. We are going to have to strongly disagree on #4, though. I don't trust the states as far as I can throw them. I think that if they are given free reign to have primaries when they want, the primary cycle will be increasingly lengthened. This cycle has already been too long, in my opinion.

by ProgressiveDL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:01:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More sour grapes (none / 0)

If you are so concerned, why didn't you object to the process before clinton started losing?????????

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:13:05 PM EST

Re: More sour grapes (none / 0)

I did

by DTaylor on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shorter diary: (none / 0)

"Please change the rules now so my candidate can win."

by McNasty on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:15:37 PM EST

Re: Dear DNC Right to vote is more important than (none / 0)

1. The DNC doesn't have any right to tell the people of my state government or any other that we have to fund a political party's primary. 2. You lose all credibility when you make this claim:

I will be voting for the primary popular vote winner Hillary Clinton in November.

by RP McMurphy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:26:59 PM EST

Clinton's losses (none / 0)

in the caucuses are her own fault. She didn't organize for them, she didn't campaign for them, she didn't prepare.

That's not the DNC's fault, that's not Obama's fault. Had Hillary made any kind of a fight for WA or TX caucuses, she would have done better.

She didn't. She didn't think she'd have to. That's her own fault.

You're argument basically boils down to "It's not fair Obama won, b/c he prepared for them and Hillary didn't."

Find another argument.

And if you stay home, or vote 3rd party, you help elect Republicans. If you want to do that, fine...but so much for being a Democrat!

by southernman on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:28:43 PM EST

Actually, I think the argument (none / 0)

now has become "caucuses are flawed and anti-democratic, so let's pretend they don't count (since Hillary did poorly there anyway)."

If I'm reading DTaylor correctly.

by McNasty on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear DNC Right to vote is more important than (none / 0)

Look -

Obama's people may have been the only folks to read all 684 pages of Dem primary and caucus rules. ANd because they did, they outhustled the HRC campaign in February and won the majority of delegates that month - esp. caucus delegates.

But that was then and this is now.
If Clinton wins out - and it is looking more and more like she will - then it seems unlikely that the super delegates will give Obama the nod. Whether or not Clinton gets the nomination remains to be seen.

by johnnygunn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:31:54 PM EST

I love how the Clintonites contradict themselves (none / 0)

In one breath, they claim that calls for Clinton to drop out are ridiculous, let's let ALL STATES vote.

In the next breath, they're telling us that the votes in most of those states don't matter, only OH, PA, TX, CA, FL, MI, NY, NJ and MA matter b/c they're "big states."

Which is it Clintonites?

by southernman on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:36:59 PM EST

More sour grapes (none / 0)

How is it looking like more and more hillary will win? She is losing in the only metrics that matter pledged delegates and states won.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:38:41 PM EST

You lost me with the first sentence (none / 0)

It's not that I don't get your point and somewhat agree; but

After seeing Texas give more delegates to the candidate with less people supporting him I have seen clear and un-refutable evidence that Caucus contests don't reflect the will of the people.

you just have no evidence for this premise. In Texas, even with record turnout, only 29% of registered voters turned out. And that's registered voters, not everyone who's eligible to vote. So the winning candidate gets slightly more than half to claim that 15% of those who bothered to register, then bothered to go to the polls voted for her. That's "the will of the people"? Hardly. It's the will of the majority of the minority of the minority. It's a winning margin according to the rules, but it's hardly "the will of the people".

So let's take a closer look. It's a majority of people who are so dedicated to the process that they took time out of their lives to go somewhere and stand up for their candidate. It's a majority of people who feel so strongly about the process that a few hours of their time is less significant than the imperative of their participation. It's a majority of the people for whom the candidate they believe in has inspired them to go to their polling place and say "I want him/her".

So if the popular vote reflects only the will of this small, dedicated group, how is that different or more significant than a caucus which overall represents the same dedication, the same patriotism, the same passion for a candidate, and which has the same standing under the process?

There's no difference, and it's disingenuous to suggest that the rules that favor you are better than the rules that favor your opponent.

Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo

by rb608 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:16:30 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.