Some 4,500 voters' ability to vote is in limbo, the complaint alleges, due to the efforts by a few individuals to challenge their registrations. The NAACP-NC accused state and local officials of violating the National Voter Registration Act and the federal Voting Rights Act in their handling of the challenged voters. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
The former CNN contributor / DNC interim head in the news, seems she resigned from CNN after the last wikileaks email that said she shared a town hall question with the Clinton campaign (which she denied and CNN denied sharing the question, and the question asked at the town hall was somewhat different than the question she shared), now CNN is cutting ties with her over another wikileaks email where she shared a debate question (which CNN denies sharing with her).
In what way(s) is a caucus "the least democratic way to choose a party leader"?
I'm not sure it's the least democratic... but I definitely have less approval of a non-secret ballot and it's process that discourages mass participation.
In what way(s) is a caucus "the least democratic way to choose a party leader"?
Well look at right now for the general. Options aplenty for when people can vote, absentee ballot, in person, mail in. Caucusing means you show up the day of, generally during a restricted time frame of a few hours, and generally have to stay for the entire process and can't simply vote and leave. Options? None basically. Just look at Washington State, Bernie won the caucus with nearly 80%. They also do a non-binding primary vote as well, which naturally Hillary won.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
In what way(s) is a caucus "the least democratic way to choose a party leader"?
Very simply in favours activists and lowers voter turnout. So if your goal is to reflect the will of the people they are a poor mechanism of determining that. In Washington they have both a caucus and a primary. The caucus counts for delegates and the primary doesn't. Sanders won the Caucus easily whereas Clinton won the primary.
That Sanders out performed his polling in all Caucus states demonstrates that caucuses poll enthusiasm rather than preference of an electorate.
Caucusing means you show up the day of, generally during a restricted time frame of a few hours, and generally have to stay for the entire process and can't simply vote and leave. Options? None basically.
Well, that is democracy, in a sense: If you want to effect something, being expected to actually show up and sacrifice some of your time to accomplish said something (and persuade others to join you in doing so) shouldn't be all that surprising.
Whereas I suggest that voting by mail, or voting through "click on a link" methods of the future, or anything that makes the voting process easier and less involved actually encourages less voter involvement and a slacktivism mindset, which then increases the level of voter disengagement and disassociation between a candidate and their constituency while concentrating electoral power in those that already have it.
I think this sums up Comey's position really well. He wasn't trying to be overtly partisan, but since he was under so much scrutiny by Congress after not giving the verdict Republicans wanted over the emails (and even then tried to mitigate that at the time by stepping beyond norms) he felt he had to write the letter to avoid further scrutiny.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Well, that is democracy, in a sense: If you want to effect something, being expected to actually show up and sacrifice some of your time to accomplish said something (and persuade others to join you in doing so) shouldn't be all that surprising.
Whereas I suggest that voting by mail, or voting through "click on a link" methods of the future, or anything that makes the voting process easier and less involved actually encourages less voter involvement and a slacktivism mindset, which then increases the level of voter disengagement and disassociation between a candidate and their constituency while concentrating electoral power in those that already have it.
Spoken like someone who has the means to book off time to leave work to take part in an electoral process.
Believe it or not, there is a significant portion of the working populace (especially in the US) that have no vacation days, can't take time off (even in advance) and aren't willing to lose their jobs to caucus at 1 PM on a Tuesday.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
The superdelegate system seems less "democratic" but would have prevented someone like Trump from even making it out of the gate. The Republican system is more "grass roots" but allows someone who didn't even earn the majority of the votes to drive the bus.
Republics are more trouble than they're worth
EDIT: At today's rally Trump touts Doug Schoen's (Fox's pet Democrat?) withdrawal of support for Clinton. As Trump reads from his post, supporter yells, "Hang Her!"
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Looking forward to Trump stiffing everyone on his campaign team once the election is over.
Why wait until it's over?
Quote:
Donald Trump's hiring of pollster Tony Fabrizio in May was viewed as a sign that the real estate mogul was finally bringing seasoned operatives into his insurgent operation.
But the Republican presidential nominee appears to have taken issue with some of the services provided by the veteran GOP strategist, who has advised candidates from 1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole to Florida Gov. Rick Scott. The Trump campaign's latest Federal Election Commission report shows that it is disputing nearly $767,000 that Fabrizio's firm says it is still owed for polling.
Trump campaign officials declined to provide details about the reason the campaign has declined to pay the sum to Fabrizio Lee, the pollster's Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based firm. “This is an administrative issue that we're resolving internally,” said senior communications adviser Jason Miller. Fabrizio did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Fabrizio was an ally of former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who persuaded a skeptical Trump in the spring that he needed a professional pollster. The abrupt departure of Manafort in August and Trump's hiring of pollster Kellyanne Conway to be his campaign manager raised questions about whether Fabrizio would stay on. There have also been multiple reports that Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner have rejected Fabrizio's advice.
Even though he was hired in May, the campaign did not make any payments to Fabrizio until September, when his firm received nearly $624,000, federal filings show. Trump's finance reports show that the campaign owes the firm an additional $55,300 on top of the $766,756.67 in debt that it is contesting.
Believe it or not, there is a significant portion of the working populace (especially in the US) that have no vacation days, can't take time off (even in advance) and aren't willing to lose their jobs to caucus at 1 PM on a Tuesday.
Which is a good reason to make each election day (for primaries, caucuses, or the general, for all elections, whether local, state, or federal) a state/federal holiday so that everyone gets the day off to participate in the voting process.
That all said, and more specifically to your comment, the US election system was never intended to be open to everyone.
Which is a good reason to make each election day (for primaries, caucuses, or the general, for all elections, whether local, state, or federal) a state/federal holiday so that everyone gets the day off to participate in the voting process.
That all said, and more specifically to your comment, the US election system was never intended to be open to everyone.
How do you legislate what is, effectively, a private group's "election day"? Each state caucuses on their own days, and those days are different for each party.
To your second comment, the questions is, why not? Isn't that kind of like, exactly confirming what you were protesting against?
Well, that is democracy, in a sense: If you want to effect something, being expected to actually show up and sacrifice some of your time to accomplish said something (and persuade others to join you in doing so) shouldn't be all that surprising.
Whereas I suggest that voting by mail, or voting through "click on a link" methods of the future, or anything that makes the voting process easier and less involved actually encourages less voter involvement and a slacktivism mindset, which then increases the level of voter disengagement and disassociation between a candidate and their constituency while concentrating electoral power in those that already have it.
That certainly isn't what democracy is.
Demcracy is supposed to be a reflection of the people's will with each person having the same influence.
You seem to be arguing that people who are more involved deserve to have more influence. This is not democratic philosophy. It also effectively leads to trump a small vocal minority is able to highjeack the silent majority.
How do you legislate what is, effectively, a private group's "election day"? Each state caucuses on their own days, and those days are different for each party.
Seems pretty simple to me:
Mandate that political elections by any party within the state are to be held on the same day, then declare what day that will be, and then declare that day as a state holiday.
On the national level, make the federal election day a national holiday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
To your second comment, the questions is, why not? Isn't that kind of like, exactly confirming what you were protesting against?
1. Because that is how Jefferson, et al., wanted it to be; and
2. Although I'm not "protesting" anything at the moment, I don't believe that there is any dissonance between my two posts. I'm simply saying that if you want to effect change, you should be expected to show up and put in the work to accomplish the desired change, but--historically speaking--not everyone was allowed to show up.
The superdelegate system seems less "democratic" but would have prevented someone like Trump from even making it out of the gate. The Republican system is more "grass roots" but allows someone who didn't even earn the majority of the votes to drive the bus.
Republics are more trouble than they're worth
EDIT: At today's rally Trump touts Doug Schoen's (Fox's pet Democrat?) withdrawal of support for Clinton. As Trump reads from his post, supporter yells, "Hang Her!"
In a way that's what we want. The Alberta PC Leadership nomination is this way or else it would be elitist. Is ranking candidates 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th place on a ballot any better?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Which is a good reason to make each election day (for primaries, caucuses, or the general, for all elections, whether local, state, or federal) a state/federal holiday so that everyone gets the day off to participate in the voting process.
That all said, and more specifically to your comment, the US election system was never intended to be open to everyone.
Plenty of people still work on federal holidays--nurses, retail/hospitality workers, EMTs, etc. The world doesn't stop moving for federal holidays.
Voting should be made as inclusive as possible, and caucuses are about the polar opposite of inclusive.
