Friday, March 28, 2008

When Voters get all day to Vote, Hillary Clinton wins every which way the votes are counted.

When Voters get all day to Vote, Hillary Clinton wins every which way the votes are counted.
Caucuses have been underscrutinized in this years democratic political process. It's pretty obvious that bullying and other tactics that favored the younger crowd went on in many if not all of the caucuses. The News Media's failure to investigate and expose this travesty of the voting process has just been one more hurdle Hillary Clinton has had to unfairly face.

The biggest problem with the caucuses is that they require voters to be at a certain place and time to have their voice possibly heard, assuming the voter isn't being harrassed or misinformed by someone "in charge". This voting method, called caucusing, (or caca cussing), is not used in November to elect our president, and therein lies my concern.

In the actual presidential election, a voter has all day to vote, a full 12 hour period if I am not mistaken. When I tabulate the delegate counts in all states that allowed their citizens a full day to vote, aka primaries instead of caucuses, Hillary Clinton has 1,325 delegates, Barrack Obama has 1,305.

This is not counting MICHIGAN or FLORIDA!

The lead in the electoral college vote among states that actually allow their constituents all day to vote is close to a hundred Electoral College votes in favor of Hillary Clinton, 219 to 128, and this again is without counting Florida, Michigan or Pennsylvania! This is a landslide of epic porportions that NOBODY in the media will address.

If Hillary Clinton makes this fact known, that she is clobbering Barrack Obama when a state's constituents actually get all day to vote, the media will once again accuse Hillary Clinton of trying to change how the votes are counted even though this is the exact method that will be used in November to elect our president! So how come the media can't do a better job of analyzing what really matters? How come the news media has done next to nothing reporting about the inequities that go along with caca cussing? Chris Matthews, care to address this?

I'm proud of americans that caucus and wear their political beliefs on their shoulders for everyone to see, and bump into. But at some point, what I really value MORE is the vote that happens in the privacy of the voting booth and in the comfort zone of a full days chance to exercise that vote. In that scenario, Hillary wins every which way the numbers are counted, and that's the exact same way the votes get counted in November, no caca cussing allowed.


ANDREW J. Di LiDDO, JR. said...

you're a moron. Caucuses keep republicans out! True Democrats caucus. Republicans in primaries are voting for Hillary to screw the Dems. Smarten up wise ass.

Alessandro Machi said...

In California, Republicans vote for Republican candidates, democrats vote for democratic candidates, no cross overs in the primaries.

Half of the republicans think Obama is a stronger candidate and half think that Hillary is a stronger candidate. The net effect is their crossover doesn't matter.

Don't be fooled by Rush's Operation KAOS. It is his way of trying to put the spotlight on himself in a time when he would otherwise be ignored.

Anonymous said...

I disagree about caucuses keeping Republicans out. The caucuses in Washington State were "scout's honor" There is a great chance (as in Texas) with signatures of people who did not exist or weren't even there. How do the Republicans manage to avoid all of these problem? Is this just a Democrat's issue? It seems that way.

Alessandro Machi said...

Mr Liddo, Are you aware that in the Great Plains States Barack Obama won by a 2-1 vote in many of the caucuses, but when South Dakota had a primary, Hillary Clinton easily won.

Montana had a primary as well, and with the help of the Republican cross over vote, defeated Hillary Clinton. I think you have been listening to Rush Limbaugh a little too earnestly.

Alessandro Machi said...

I should clarify that in Montana 8% of the population is Indian, but in the primary they represent 20% of the vote total, and they went for Barack. But come November, they probably will make up 8% of the voters, and not 20%.

The more important point however is that after further research I have found that Hillary Clinton was either leading or tied in most of the caucuses that Barack Obama ended up winning by a 2-1 margin.

This is an example of Fair Reflection not being upheld by the democratic party. When 31.5 million voters in the primaries (not counting Florida and Michigan) voted, Hillary Clinton won more pledged delegates than Barack Obama.

However, when 1.1 million caucus voters voted, Barack Obama won by a 2-1 margin. I think the 31.5 million voters represented a fairer reflection than the 1.1 million voters.