(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Good afternoon.
I have a question.
How many of you know about this:

http://youtu.be/pngwcQQW5bA

http://youtu.be/NPD-w-wDPVw

(for the video impaired: Rachel Maddow on the election results from Maine. there are vast irregularities in the results. Some counties have 0 total votes, yet Maine repubs are calling it for Romney. Romney's margin of victory was under 200 votes. People on the ground in the counties that have 0 total votes say that at least some townships went to Ron Paul. Is Romney trying to steal the Maine caucus? Are the Maine republicans trying to steal it for Romney? [hey, he could be innocent] Are the repubs just super-fucking-slow in their counting of the votes? What's happening here?

but the videos are good, better than me in detail and specifics and citations. but there's the short-hand)

So, how many y'all know about it? Why doesn't (EDIT:voter) election-fraud hit the media like a sex-scandal? We all know Tiger Woods is a nympho. But nobody knows how the 2012 GOP primary is being stolen.

Also also:

http://youtu.be/9x28_I9oIVg

(for the video impaired: Ron Paul is counting on getting the delegates from states who's primary numbers supported non-Paul candidates more than Paul to vote for Paul at the RNC, since the delegates can vote for any person--regardless of the states caucus results. thus a state who caucused 50% for Romney [hypothetically] does not actually get 50% of the delegates, necessarily. The delegates can vote for Paul 100%, if the particular delegates chose to do that. This is legal. This is part of the Paul presidential bid.)

Ok. So Paul is stealing the election from Romney who is stealing the election from Paul.

Mother frakker, my brain hurts.

Can't we just elect Huey Freeman already?

Comments

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> but to treat a primary like we treat a general election is an error - a primary/caucus
> is a privilege granted to the population by the parties, it's not a right of
> citizenship that you have to have the ability to choose the candidate that runs
> under a specific banner.

But I become unsettled about this state of affairs when I consider the political stranglehold that the two major parties have over the process.

The distillation of public choice down to just two options can only be legitimate if the previous distillations were also more or less legitimate. In other words, I can acquiesce to the horrible truncation of the possible range of "the people's choice" in the general election, if I can be convinced that such pruning as occurred prior was itself, also reflective of "the people's choice."

Having a process that seems to want to appear as depending on the people's voice, but which ultimately need have no connection to the people's voice, is just a way to obtain unearned legitimacy for a candidate. If the parties just want to sit in a 'smoke filled back room' and choose their candidate, let them do so without any pretense.