(no subject)
20/2/12 12:31![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsGood 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?
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:
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?
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 18:08 (UTC)This isn't voter fraud, it is election fraud. It is vitally important to know the difference because the solutions are polar opposites.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 18:12 (UTC)I will edit post to fix, post haste.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 18:49 (UTC)I do think the Maine GOP is withholding some results because it would give Paul a victory, 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. So this isn't news to me, but I've been paying close attention - it's not really a mainstream story because it's more sausage-making than anything else.
As for the delegate situation, you're misstating it somewhat. Any pledged delegates must vote for who they are pledged for in the first vote. So, for example, if a state is 7 for Romney and 6 for Paul, but all 11 delegates are Paul supporters, they must vote for who they're pledged to first. The Paul strategy, and it's a little underhanded but still quite impressive, is to hope that the first vote does not result in a victor. If a second vote occurs, all the delegates are then free to vote as they wish. It can't happen right away, but it can happen. And this is why precinct captains and town committees are so important in your localities - it's the best way to influence your party on the local level, and the best way to get the most involvement.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 19:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 19:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 19:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 19:38 (UTC)BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LOBSTER VOTE??
Date: 20/2/12 19:45 (UTC)Someone ate the Ron Paul voter base and Romney is picking his teeth!
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 19:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 19:56 (UTC)http://www.breitbart.com/
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 20:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 21:15 (UTC)We've been talking about the necessity of a majoritary (i.e. for-a-person) vote here, but I don't think any party really means it. Nobody would want to let go of their meal, would they?
Meritocratic technocracy will never become a reality here.
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 21:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:34 (UTC)They seem to think you're a domestic terrorist, because you are
-I'm retired
Why don't you go ahead and tell them that while they're water-boarding you.
-Is this a trick?
No, a trick is a **** out spending money on these bitches
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:38 (UTC)Is it the case in some states that delegates may vote however they wish? That is, is there any state where if 51% of the caucus voters went for candidate X, that there is no law requiring any of the delegates to vote for candidate X?
OR, is it the case that in all states with a caucus, 20% of the delegate vote goes to X if X gets 20% of the caucus votes?
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:55 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
seems that most caucus have mainly unbound delegates, with a few states being totally bound
But if, as it seems, all of Iowa's delegates are unbound, then Paul could get all 28, even though he came in third? That sounds like what the Paul campaign person said in the interview....
(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 22:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 23:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/2/12 23:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/2/12 00:06 (UTC)Your second part is more true, for the most part politicians here are expected to toe the party line. We're having a by-election here in Toronto soon to fill Jack Layton's seat (:o() and an anti-abortionist ran to be the Liberal candidate. He was not selected and the Interim Liberal party leader made a statement that the Liberal Party is pro-choice (this position is not at all controversial here given we have no abortion laws.) However, MPs can and do cross party lines to vote. Most notably when same-sex marriage was voted on several Liberal MPs crossed the floor to vote with the Conservative Party.
(no subject)
Date: 21/2/12 01:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/2/12 02:40 (UTC)> 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.
(no subject)
Date: 21/2/12 15:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/2/12 15:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/2/12 15:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/2/12 02:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/2/12 06:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/2/12 07:45 (UTC)Jon Kyl is not Bernie Sanders (okay, he's an Independent not D, but caucuses with D)
(no subject)
Date: 22/2/12 08:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/2/12 15:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/2/12 16:26 (UTC)..wait...wait....
(no subject)
Date: 22/2/12 18:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/3/12 00:58 (UTC)