home
Pelosi's Daughter: Popular Vote Winner Not Important, Pledged Delegates Are | 133 comments (133 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

they SHOULD overrule the voice of the people (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:28:35 PM EST
is what you are arguing if that means the Popular Vote winner is denied the nomination.

Do to someone what was done to Al Gore in 2000 is what you are arguing for.

By reviewing the votes (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:33:15 PM EST
Are you UNAWARE that people have popular vote counts NOW?

[ Parent ]
People come to vote (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:37:24 PM EST
in caucuses. Granted many less people, but hey, that is why they are undemocratic, that and the apportionment process.

But there are actual votes cast in caucuses too.

But if you arguing that primaries are much more legitimate democratic processes, no argument from me. I HATE caucuses. Hated them LONG BEFORE the Iowa results.

[ Parent ]

One is more DEMOCRATIC (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:42:17 PM EST
That was the word I used.

You switched it to legitimate.

It so happens I believe the more DEMOCRATIC system is the more legitimate one, but hey, that's just me.

[ Parent ]

and me (none / 0) (#31)
by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:44:00 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Undemocratic means (none / 0) (#57)
by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
So it would be fine to employ undemocratic means to justify democratic ends to get a desired result?

Doesn't the undemocratic nature taint the democratic nature or is that not important?


[ Parent ]

Caucuses (none / 0) (#138)
by mouth of the south on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:40:43 PM EST
You can argue until you tongue falls out and it won't change the fact that we have ALREADY had caucuses.  We can't go back and change that.  And Clinton blew them off as you are doing and look what that got her!  Stop arguing about the value of the caucuses.  It is done!

[ Parent ]
How about adding combined total delegates (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:10:31 PM EST
in these two types of events? Is this fatally flawed and a losing argument too?

So your position is that it's legitimate to combine the total number of delegates that were obtained from two different "animals" but not to do the same with votes?  Is there a particular reason for this seemingly arbitrary distinction?

[ Parent ]

Major Problem (none / 0) (#122)
by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:12:58 PM EST
One of the major problems with this process is not the primary/ caucus distinction, it is that states have delegates regardless of the turnout.

There are virtues within the caucuses system, especially for citizen participation and public debate. Voting itself does not lead to greater civic action within the United States. In fact, voting seems to be the lowest form of citizen involvement since it asks very little of voters and seems to perpetuate s system of rule by elites and citizen apathy.

There may be a solution for the primary/ caucus problem in terms of awarding delegate:

States should be allowed to determine their own means for selecting a nominee. However, delegates should be based on voter turnout rather than states having a selected amount before hand. This would mean that states should not have bonus delegates for wining the states but only award based on proportion to those that voted.

Of course, there needs to be some form of balancing between large and small states as the importance of the vote should not be based on geography. If you decided that delegates should be awarded based on actual turnout, then the smaller states should vote first. You may need to try and arrange a system on both population (fewer people within a state) and region (to cut out travel costs). This way larger states still may have the final say but small states begin the conversation.  Proportional representation should still be the norm for the states.

[ Parent ]

Liberty of Conscience (none / 0) (#19)
by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:38:05 PM EST
Before John Lewis switched his vote, you believed that the Super Delegates should vote their conscience? Once he changed, and as others defected, you have changed your mind.

We are still waiting for your defense of the "popular vote" and how you account for the different methods by which states determine who receives the delegates?

And, what happened to liberty of conscience for the Super Delegates?

I would just like a principled account of why the popular vote should matter, regardless of what candidate anyone here supports.

[ Parent ]

Lewis says he hasn't switched to Obama (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM EST
from Clinton.

[ Parent ]
You simply have no understanding (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:43:14 PM EST
of what I have written.

I simply say that your characterization of my position is false and that I have no desire to discuss the matter with you.

[ Parent ]

Your position... (none / 0) (#38)
by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:49:01 PM EST
Is this: "I for one would be dismayed if the Popular Vote winner were denied the nomination due to the undemocratic pledged delegate process - with its undemocratic caucus and apportionment processes."

Yet, you have brought up that Super Delegates must vote their conscience, which does not support this. You have also failed discuss how states employ different methodologies that  alter the "popular vote."

If you do not want to debate this point fine, but you do your readers a disservice by (1) not making a coherent principled argument on the matter, (2) failing to discuss why your argument is inconsistent, and (3) failing to offer evidence for your claims.

You have similar discussions on other threads, make ad hominems against other uses, and suspend those who disagree. But you still do not answer the questions.

All I am asking is for an intellectual debate on the matter. I have not attacked you; I have just attempted to understand your position.

[ Parent ]

Suggestion: read BTD's posts and his (none / 0) (#42)
by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:54:05 PM EST
comments to those posts and you will see that he has discussed the issues you state he has not discussed.  

[ Parent ]
For the past two days... (none / 0) (#48)
by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:59:46 PM EST
We have posted on this subject matter and when I have asked BTD about certain aspects of the nomination process, he has not provided a consistent account nor answered my objections.

I am not trying to be partisan supporter for one candidate; I am trying to study the issue through debate.

It is a disservice to BTD's readers to make inconsistent arguments. He if chooses to support a candidate, then after every claim, just state "because I support this candidate."

[ Parent ]

I'm suggesting you go back further (none / 0) (#72)
by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:16:04 PM EST
than two days.  I've been here lots longer than that have a pretty good idea what the answers to your points are.

[ Parent ]
The popular vote matters (none / 0) (#132)
by mexboy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:30:06 PM EST
because it clearly says the majority of people want X candidate to be the president.

MAJORITY equals WILL OF THE PEOPLE equals DEMOCRACY.

[ Parent ]

Pelosi's Daughter: Popular Vote Winner Not Important, Pledged Delegates Are | 133 comments (133 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft