The Democratic party sucks...

[Cruentus]

I thought that would get your attention

Nothing against the candidates so much, but I really am irritated with the way the democratic party has chosen to run itself this year.

Because the Michigan Democratic Party decided to do an early primary to be at the same date as the republicans, the National Democratic party are not allowing Michigan delegates to vote at the convention. So, as it stands right now, Michigan will not be represented by the democrates at all this year.

If I were voting democrate (and I frequently do, even though I am not for this primary), I'd be more then pissed. Hell, I am pissed. The republicans at least allowed states like Wyoming to get 50% of their delegates for going early against the wishes of the party. That is a hell of a lot more fair then no representation at all.

Now, the MDP (Michigan Dem. Party) says to vote anyway, because chances are they will be able to negotiate some representation anyway, meaning that the delegates earned (even if it was only a %) would go to the candidate who won that state.

However, because of no state representation, Other viable democratic candidates (like Obama and Edwards) are not even on the ballet, and Hillary is. So, this means that Michigan democrates are forced to vote Hillary if they vote for a front runner, and this means that by default she will get any Michigan delegates if we are represented at all.

So, we are now in a rock and a hard place. If Michigan dems get no delegates, then we aren't represented at all. If they negotiate last minute and we get any delegates, then they all go to Hillary because the others weren't on the ballot, therefore unfairly swaying the nomination on a national level.

This all may seem confusing, but when you understand it you realize how ****ed up this is.

All I have to say is that I am glad I am not voting democratic primary this year. I recommend sending a letter if you are voting in this primary, because this is totally dicked up...

C.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I am pissed and wish I could protest the process.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think both parties stink!

 

[Empty Hands]

Well, I can appreciate your frustration, you have a point. However, both parties here are acting appropriately to stem a ridiculous primary arms race between the states. We could have primaries for next time right after the current general election at the rate these guys are going. Perhaps the Democratic Party should have chosen a different stick in this case, but they had to do something.

 

[Cruentus]

Well, I can appreciate your frustration, you have a point. However, both parties here are acting appropriately to stem a ridiculous primary arms race between the states. We could have primaries for next time right after the current general election at the rate these guys are going. Perhaps the Democratic Party should have chosen a different stick in this case, but they had to do something.

Right. I agree that the real problem is the stupid primary arms race. The answer is pretty simple, though, and that is to have a lottery system or some sort of order where different states get to go first each time.

But the solution is not to completely remove the voice of an entire state. The people of that state didn't choose to do an early primary, yet now either they are punished for it by not having a voice, or the election is fixed by handing over delegates. It is B.S.

I think both parties stink!

Well Brian... maybe so. But that is an easy cop-out. The Democratic party is clearly wrong here for their decision on this.

This has nothing to do with favoring one party over another either, btw. I would be saying the same thing about the Republicans if they choose to completely remove a states voice; but they did not.

 

[Cruentus]

Just FYI; the reason Hillary is on the ballot and others are not is because at some convention she, Obama, and Edwards pledged to not be on the ballot in any state that goes early and will not be represented because of it. Obama and Edwards stuck to their word, and Hillary did not.

Nice, huh?

 

[michaeledward]

The Republican National Committee is taking similiar action in this election season. Wyoming, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire and South Carolina have forfieted one half of their usual delegates for their primary day leapfrog.

 

[Cruentus]

The Republican National Committee is taking similiar action in this election season. Wyoming, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire and South Carolina have forfieted one half of their usual delegates for their primary day leapfrog.

Something had to be done. Forfieting 1/2 the delegates is a hell of a lot better then not being represented at all.

 

[Ceicei]

And apparently for the supporters whose preferred candidates aren't on the ballot, they can select "uncommitted". I wonder how many did...

- Ceicei

 

[Cruentus]

And apparently for the supporters whose preferred candidates aren't on the ballot, they can select "uncommitted". I wonder how many did...

- Ceicei

In our state they were told that they couldn't write in anyone, and that if they did then the vote wouldn't be counted. I think this is crap!

 

[terryl965]

I think both parties stink!

I have said this before I Vote for Mickey Mouse at least he stand for something a good time.

 

[Andrew Green]

I have said this before I Vote for Mickey Mouse at least he stand for something a good time.

Mickey Mouse stands for little that is good legally, just a bunch of stupid laws to protect him and erode the public domain.

Why not make the Simpsons come true, everyone write in "Ralph Wiggum"

Campaign website: http://www.thesimpsons.com/wiggum/

 

[Cruentus]

Michigan end results for Hillary:

Clinton 58%, Uncommitted 37%. Nothing against Clinton, but this seems like a completely unfair advantage for her. It just looks like she has a 58% approval rating from Michigan dems., when there was an extremely low turn out due to the controversy, and confusion regarding the whole "uncommitted" thing. We just don't really know if this number is a true representation of our state or not, which is unfair...

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Well Brian... maybe so. But that is an easy cop-out. The Democratic party is clearly wrong here for their decision on this.

This has nothing to do with favoring one party over another either, btw. I would be saying the same thing about the Republicans if they choose to completely remove a states voice; but they did not.

Yet Paul, worse yet is blaming one side when both sides pull stuff like this on multiple levels.

Dirt is very easy to find on either party and any candidate. There are no squeaky clean politicians nor are there squeaky clean political parties.

Having said that it does not mean one should not vote but choose wisely after deciding what candidate you think will do the best job. However do not buy into all the junk that either party spews out. Filter through that junk carefully!

 

[crushing]

Michigan end results for Hillary:

Clinton 58%, Uncommitted 37%. Nothing against Clinton, but this seems like a completely unfair advantage for her. It just looks like she has a 58% approval rating from Michigan dems., when there was an extremely low turn out due to the controversy, and confusion regarding the whole "uncommitted" thing. We just don't really know if this number is a true representation of our state or not, which is unfair...

Uncommitted votes for the Democratic Party presidential primary in Michigan ended up at 40%.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI

I think the eventual winner at the DNC convention will choose to have Michigan's delegates represent. Telling the Michigan voters they don't matter at all right now won't hurt as much as telling them they still don't matter going into the general election. The Democratics want to continue to carry the 17 Michigan electoral votes.

 

[FearlessFreep]

The two big parties have worked it so that the two big parties say who you get to vote for.

The media helps... only the 'electable' candidates get press... but only candidates that get press will be 'electable'. So right off the start, most people get very limited exposure to any available candidates. Of course, the parties pretty much tell the media who the main candidates will be.

So in the end, you will be left with one of two candidates, one from each party. Of course, how you get down to those two candidates has very little to do with what the people in general would want. First the list of potential candidates is designated by the party (yes, anyone in the party could conceivably run, but if you are not a party favorite you will get little support or money). However throughout the primary process up to the anointing of the two chosen, the system favors the party loyalist. In some states, you already have to be a party member to vote in the primary to begin with. However even after the primary process is the 'super delegates', party people with position and power whose votes count a lot more then yours. In addition, the staggering of the primary system means that by the chance many people get a chance to vote in the , most of the candidates have already dropped.

The system is definitely rigged in favor of the party loyalist and insider against the normal folks.. and that's by design. Throw in silliness like Florida and Michigan and Nevada this year and even more people are intentionally disenfranchised by the party power structure

 

[Rich Parsons]

Michigan end results for Hillary:

Clinton 58%, Uncommitted 37%. Nothing against Clinton, but this seems like a completely unfair advantage for her. It just looks like she has a 58% approval rating from Michigan dems., when there was an extremely low turn out due to the controversy, and confusion regarding the whole "uncommitted" thing. We just don't really know if this number is a true representation of our state or not, which is unfair...

Not to mention that they moved all the voting locations in my area. Rezoned some areas so people were in new districts. I saw one old couple just leave as it was the third place they had been too to try to vote.

 

[FearlessFreep]

From Supreme Court denies Kucinich ballot bid

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Texas to print presidential primary ballots without Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich's name.

The court refused to step into a dispute between Kucinich and the Texas Democratic Party over a loyalty oath all candidates must sign to make the ballot.

Kucinich and singer-supporter Willie Nelson objected to the party oath that a presidential candidate must "fully support" the party's eventual nominee. Kucinich crossed out the oath when he filed for a spot on the primary ballot.

A federal judge in Austin ruled against Kucinich last week. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled the state party has the right to require the oath. Kucinich and Nelson argued it violated Kucinich's First Amendment right to free speech.