PDA

View Full Version : Results of today's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting


Achilles
05-31-2008, 07:25 PM
Florida: All delegates will be seated with one-half vote each. Hillary picks up 19 delegates (I'm assuming that Obama picks up about 14 and Edwards 7, but I wasn't watching when that vote passed so...).

Michigan: All delegates will be seated with one-half vote each. Hillary gets 69 delegates (for 34.5 "whole" delegate votes). Obama gets 59 delegates (for 29.5 "whole" delegate votes).

Overall, Hillary nets 10 pledged delegates, so now she's only about 140 behind Obama. With only 86 pledged delegate still up for grabs, there is no possible way that Hillary can catch up via this route.

EDIT:
New delegate count needed to win: 2,117 (was 2,025).
Total delegates remaining: 291
Obama needs 64 to secure the nomination (22% of remaining delegates).
Hillary needs 240.5 to secure the nomination (83% of remaining delegates).

I'm thinking this could be over by Wednesday at noon if the superdelegates decided that they really wanted to.

Litofsky
05-31-2008, 07:42 PM
Interesting. The way I see it is: Obama is the winner, but Hillary will try to prolong her Campaign until the Democratic Convention, where she will try to argue other point (i.e., "I am more 'electable'").

Anyways, it's good that the Democrats finally figured out a way to settle Michigan and Florida's delegates. Of course, both Hillary and Obama agreed that they wouldn't count...

Perhaps we should be debating, rather, which person will be selected for Vice-President?

Achilles
05-31-2008, 08:12 PM
Of course, both Hillary and Obama agreed that they wouldn't count... All the more reason to thank Hillary for changing her story and stirring up a hornet's nest. :)

Perhaps we should be debating, rather, which person will be selected for Vice-President?Vice President Profile (http://www.theleftanchor.com/vice_president_profile/index.html)

JCarter426
06-01-2008, 12:17 AM
Ah, that's a fair compromise. Only half of the people who took their time to vote actually matter. Good to know. :rolleyes:

Litofsky
06-01-2008, 12:26 AM
All the more reason to thank Hillary for changing her story and stirring up a hornet's nest. :)

Vice President Profile (http://www.theleftanchor.com/vice_president_profile/index.html)

Quite. I looked at the Profile, and was, on first impression, scared by the man. The picture might not have meant to make him seem that way, but he still seems... peculiar. And, as we all know, looks are everything in today's world.

At JCarter: If you've a problem over that, I'd love to hear a debate about the Florida Recount in 2000. :p

Rev7
06-01-2008, 12:28 AM
^
Yup.

JCarter426
06-01-2008, 12:29 AM
At JCarter: If you've a problem over that, I'd love to hear a debate about the Florida Recount in 2000. :p
Oh, don't get me started. I'm upset over Florida and Michigan and I don't even care whether Hillary or Obama gets the nomination (unlike '00). :p

EnderWiggin
06-01-2008, 12:35 AM
Hillary needs 240.5 to secure the nomination (83% of remaining delegates).

Ouch. I bet she's not too happy with those numbers.

_EW_

Achilles
06-01-2008, 12:44 AM
Ah, that's a fair compromise. Only half of the people who took their time to vote actually matter. Good to know. :rolleyes:A lot of problems with that argument, but I'll only take up the most obvious of them:

Is it fair to all the states that followed the rules that these two should have been able to break them without consequence (a consequence outlined in the party rules for all to see)?

Quite. I looked at the Profile, and was, on first impression, scared by the man. They actually profiled 13 potential running mates (hint: try scrolling down. When you see the button that reads "Next" click that too :D)

Ouch. I bet she's not too happy with those numbers.It's not like they changed a whole lot. She needed 90% before Pennsylvania.

JCarter426
06-01-2008, 12:55 AM
A lot of problems with that argument, but I'll only take up the most obvious of them:

Is it fair to all the states that followed the rules that these two should have been able to break them without consequence (a consequence outlined in the party rules for all to see)?
No, it isn't. But it's a bit ridiculous for the parties to have those rules in the first place. In fact, it's a 14th amendment violation (but that lost its meaning eight years ago).

Achilles
06-01-2008, 01:05 AM
No, it isn't. But it's a bit ridiculous for the parties to have those rules in the first place.I agree that it's ridiculous that they have to have them, but have to have them they do. I'm happy they have them though because it means that it doesn't look like they're just making stuff up when something like this happens. Also, it allows each state to make grown-up decisions with all the information available. Those states knew that they could be sacrificing half their delegates by doing what they did, yet they did it anyway. Not much room for protest in my opinion.

In fact, it's a 14th amendment violation (but that lost its meaning eight years ago).Please show me where the 14th amendment references political party primaries.

JCarter426
06-01-2008, 01:21 AM
I agree that it's ridiculous that they have to have them, but have to have them they do. I'm happy they have them though because it means that it doesn't look like they're just making stuff up when something like this happens. Also, it allows each state to make grown-up decisions with all the information available. Those states knew that they could be sacrificing half their delegates by doing what they did, yet they did it anyway. Not much room for protest in my opinion.
That's fair. However, shouldn't the states be punished, rather than their people?

Please show me where the 14th amendment references political party primaries.
Eh...I guess it depends if you're a loose constructionist or a strict constructionist. ;)

EDIT: Actually, taking the above into account, the states in this case did deprive their people of the right to vote. So it's a 14th amendment violation whether you're strict or loose. ;) Now, that doesn't mean that the parties are at fault directly (strict), but I'd say they are at fault for putting the states in such a position (loose).

Achilles
06-01-2008, 02:24 AM
That's fair. However, shouldn't the states be punished, rather than their people? What would that look like? Some sort of fine? Wouldn't that be paid by the taxpayer?

The whole situation could have been avoided had the voting commissions simply stuck to the rules, so it's difficult for me to have too much sympathy.

Eh...I guess it depends if you're a loose constructionist or a strict constructionist. ;) Feel free to support your argument with which ever interpretation you'd like. The fact will remain though that no citizen has been denied their right to vote for the office of the President (since that election has not taken place yet).

EDIT: Actually, taking the above into account, the states in this case did deprive their people of the right to vote. No they did not. Primary elections were still held. Those that wanted to vote did. No one has been denied their vote. Please try again. :)

So it's a 14th amendment violation whether you're strict or loose. ;) Now, that doesn't mean that the parties are at fault directly (strict), but I'd say they are at fault for putting the states in such a position (loose).Huh? The only ones that "put the states in such a position" were the states themselves. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

JCarter426
06-01-2008, 02:43 AM
What would that look like? Some sort of fine? Wouldn't that be paid by the taxpayer?
Exactly. The states can't be punished; only its people can, even though they aren't at fault. If a law cannot be executed fairly, methinks something is wrong with the law.

The whole situation could have been avoided had the voting commissions simply stuck to the rules, so it's difficult for me to have too much sympathy.

It also could have been avoided if the parties didn't have any control over which votes get counted. ;) Yes, they should have stuck to the rules; not arguing against that.

Feel free to support your argument with which ever interpretation you'd like. The fact will remain though that no citizen has been denied their right to vote for the office of the President (since that election has not taken place yet).
Eh...not the November elections, no. But the 14th extends to other elections. No, it doesn't mention primaries by name, since there weren't any primaries of that kind until the 20th century, just as the ammendment specifically applies only to male citizens over the age of 21; outdated, but not irrelevant.

No they did not. Primary elections were still held. Those that wanted to vote did. No one has been denied their vote. Please try again. :)
If you vote, but your vote isn't counted, how have you voted?

Huh? The only ones that "put the states in such a position" were the states themselves. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
It was the states' fault, yes. But in my opinion the parties are just as responsible. The parties have placed states with early primaries on a higher level than those later on. Michigan and Florida were only reacting to an unfair situation. They reacted unfairly, yes, but the situation still remains unfair.

Achilles
06-01-2008, 03:33 AM
Exactly. The states can't be punished; only its people can, even though they aren't at fault. If a law cannot be executed fairly, methinks something is wrong with the law.What are you proposing then? The people elected these officials. These people showed up to vote knowing (or at the very least having been told) that their primary votes weren't going to count. In many cases the people supported the decison (according to what reports I've been able to find anyway).

Again, it's not as though some constitutional right has been violated here, so I'm really not understanding what all the protest is about. If I know the consequense of breaking a rule then break the rule anyway, I don't see how I'm deserving of anyone sympathy (mitigating circumstances notwithstanding).

It also could have been avoided if the parties didn't have any control over which votes get counted. ;) Yes, they should have stuck to the rules; not arguing against that. Huh? You really are going way out on a limb to argue for absolving the people of Florida of any responsibility here. Why?

Eh...not the November elections, no. But the 14th extends to other elections. It does, however I didn't think it necessary to list all the other Federal offices which aren't applicable either.

No, it doesn't mention primaries by name, since there weren't any primaries of that kind until the 20th century, just as the ammendment specifically applies only to male citizens over the age of 21; outdated, but not irrelevant.It might also have something to do with the fact that the Framers hoped to avoid political parties in the first place, therefore explaining why they might not have made any reference to them whatsoever.

Also, the voting age requirement was addressed in the 26th amendment, which came after the 14th amendment which is why it's still listed as 21 years of age there.

If you vote, but your vote isn't counted, how have you voted? They completed a ballot and submitted it. That's voting.

I can't speak for either of these elections specifically, however I know that the ballot that I recieve frequently has multiple elections and ballot measures listed. Their primary vote might not count but any local or state level issues on the ballot would still be applicable.

It was the states' fault, yes. But in my opinion the parties are just as responsible.You seem to be assuming that the DNC sat idly by and allowed these states do this. That's not the case (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-florida20may20,0,5268295.story?coll=la-home-center).

The parties have placed states with early primaries on a higher level than those later on. What are you talking about? Greater national prominence in the media? Yeah, but so what? That's worth risking your delegates for? Come on man.

Michigan and Florida were only reacting to an unfair situation. They reacted unfairly, yes, but the situation still remains unfair. As my parents used to tell me, "life is unfair". If Michigan and Florida felt that the rules were inequitable (different matter all together), then they had a recourse for that. Instead they decided to break the rules (again, knowing the consequences of doing so).

JCarter426
06-01-2008, 04:04 AM
A constitutional right has been violated. These people have voted. Their votes were not counted. The very meaning of their right to vote has been taken away. That's what the 14th amendment is about--preventing any group (not just the state) from taking away a citizen's rights.

Whether the parties or the states are completely at fault directly doesn't really matter. Both played a part, and both should (but clearly will not) take responsibility. The parties have created a system that allows them control over which votes matter more, and allows them to punish anyone who goes against that system, even though they have absolutely no right to do so. Fact is, political parties have more power than they should, if they are able--indirectly--to deprive voters of their votes; problem is, nothing in the constitution says which powers they should and shouldn't have.

The states acted unfairly in response, and are fully to blame for this, that is true. If they could be punished, I'd be the first to go after them. But in this case, the only way to punish the states is to punish the states' people, whose only crime was voting. Yes, taking away half the votes will make states think twice before trying something like this ever again. But it'll also make people think twice before voting ever again, especially those who already have doubts of whether their vote is counted. In this case, their votes clearly, without a doubt, were not counted. They were not counted in '00 either, but that situation wasn't nearly as clear-cut as this one. These people voted, and those votes were not counted.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Achilles
06-01-2008, 04:28 AM
A constitutional right has been violated. No. It hasn't. You've yet to produce a single argument that supports your assertion. Until you have, repeating this point is not going to make it true.

These people have voted. Their votes were not counted. The very meaning of their right to vote has been taken away. That's what the 14th amendment is about--preventing any group (not just the state) from taking away a citizen's rights. Your example is not applicable for reasons that I've already provided.

Whether the parties or the states are completely at fault directly doesn't really matter. Both played a part, and both should (but clearly will not) take responsibility. Sorry, but how does the DNC "take responsibility" for the action of Florida and Michigan voters?

The parties have created a system that allows them control over which votes matter more, and allows them to punish anyone who goes against that system, even though they have absolutely no right to do so. First, you've yet to establish how some votes "matter more".

Second, they have every right to do so. They are the governing body of the party. You really do sound as though you don't want there to be any rules at all (or at the very least only rules that you like and/or agree with).

Fact is, political parties have more power than they should, if they are able--indirectly--to deprive voters of their votes; problem is, nothing in the constitution says which powers they should and shouldn't have. Right because political parties exist outside of the Constitution. :)

The states acted unfairly in response, and are fully to blame for this, that is true. Didn't you just say that both the states and the parties are to blame? Since you are changing your position here, I have to ask which one of these things you actually believe is true. Thanks in advance for clarifying.

If they could be punished, I'd be the first to go after them. They can and they have...in full accordance with the established rules that they were warned that they would be violating as they violated them.

But in this case, the only way to punish the states is to punish the states' people, whose only crime was voting. You got me there, Patrick Henry. :xp:

Yes, taking away half the votes will make states think twice before trying something like this ever again.Good. Problem solved then.

But it'll also make people think twice before voting ever again, especially those who already have doubts of whether their vote is counted. :lol:
Well, that might be true. But it might also be true that people in all 50 states (including the people in FL and MI that agreed with the DNC and were pissed off at their voting commission officials) are pleased to see that the rules were enforced. I suspect that it gives them greater confidence in their party, knowing that rules aren't going to be created or ignored on a whim.

In this case, their votes clearly, without a doubt, were not counted. Sure they were. And those votes (at least in the case of Florida) were used to determine who got what percentage of delegates (which will be seated, in full, at the convention and permitted to cast 1/2 vote each). In other words, reality does not support your assertion.

They were not counted in '00 either, but that situation wasn't nearly as clear-cut as this one. Completely different scenario, my friend :D

These people voted, and those votes were not counted.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.Indeed :)

JCarter426
06-01-2008, 04:52 AM
No. It hasn't. You've yet to produce a single argument that supports your assertion. Until you have, repeating this point is not going to make it true.
Eh...I suppose it's a difference of opinion. I see the 14th amendment as extending to primary elections (the fact that it doesn't explicitly state this is as irrelevant as the fact that it doesn't protect the votes of women; times change, rules change). Thus, depriving voters of their vote (which both the states and the party did in this instance, unintentionally or not), is a violation of that amendment.

Sorry, but how does the DNC "take responsibility" for the action of Florida and Michigan voters?
Well, they could remove the restrictions on when each state's primary is.

First, you've yet to establish how some votes "matter more".
Eh...maybe they don't; in fact, they probably don't. But clearly the Powers that Be in Michigan and Florida think they do, as they have risked their people's votes on the off chance that those votes might "matter" more. And their punishment is for those votes to matter less. Dante would be proud. :p

Second, they have every right to do so. They are the governing body of the party. You really do sound as though you don't want there to be any rules at all (or at the very least only rules that you like and/or agree with).
Oh, I assure you, I don't think there shouldn't be rules. ;) I just don't think the parties should be able to write the rules.

Right because political parties exist outside of the Constitution. :)
...and that is why they're able to do so. They exist outside of the Constitution, because the framers of the Constitution (and its amendments) intentionally left them out, not willing to deal with the issues until they arose. So I propose a new amendment is in order (though I doubt it would ever pass :p). But not saying that a group doesn't have certain powers is not the same thing as saying they do. In fact, the 9th and 10th amendments tell us that all powers not delegated to the national government go to either the states or the people. Since the parties are above both the states and the people (this situation couldn't prove that point any better), I don't see how they fall under either category.

Didn't you just say that both the states and the parties are to blame? Since you are changing your position here, I have to ask which one of these things you actually believe is true. Thanks in advance for clarifying.
Not sure I follow...yes, I believe both are equally responsible--the parties for making the rules they shouldn't be able to make, and the states for violating those rules at the cost of the people's votes. The states are 100% responsible directly, but the parties are responsible indirectly (in my opinion, of course) because their rules are flawed, and because they shouldn't even be writing the rules in the first place.

They can and they have...in full accordance with the established rules that they were warned that they would be violating as they violated them.
True, but at the cost of punishing the voters as well. If the only way to punish the states is to punish the voters, I'd rather the states remain unpunished.

And I've just thought of an alternate solution: have every primary take place on one day. No arguing over who gets to go first or whose votes "matter more"--problem solved.

You got me there, Patrick Henry. :xp:
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! :D

I suspect that it gives them greater confidence in their party, knowing that rules aren't going to be created or ignored on a whim.
Perhaps.

Sure they were.
Well, half of them were. Maybe I'm getting hung up on the principle of the thing. Oh, and there's also the matter of whether Michigan or Florida will have a vote if and when it comes to convention...which they won't. And since barring a resignation from Senator Clinton, it will go to convention. So in essence, none of those votes will be counted.

Completely different scenario, my friend :D
Yes, yes it was. I don't mean to compare the two; I'm just saying that we have what looks to be the start of a pattern here.

Indeed :)
Very well then. :)

Achilles
06-01-2008, 05:30 AM
Eh...I suppose it's a difference of opinion. I see the 14th amendment as extending to primary elections (the fact that it doesn't explicitly state this is as irrelevant as the fact that it doesn't protect the votes of women; times change, rules change). Thus, depriving voters of their vote (which both the states and the party did in this instance, unintentionally or not), is a violation of that amendment. And if you could muster a really good argument for this, I might be right there with ya. However right now all I have is "well, that's my opinion".

Well, they could remove the restrictions on when each state's primary is. They could, but why would they? To appease people that want to break the rules? That's a poor reason for doing anything, IMO.

Not to mention the fact that this goes against all the work they've put into working toward a true "national primary".

Eh...maybe they don't; in fact, they probably don't. But clearly the Powers that Be in Michigan and Florida think they do, as they have risked their people's votes on the off chance that those votes might "matter" more. And their punishment is for those votes to matter less. Dante would be proud. :p To be honest, I don't pretend to know what their motivations were. We know they were warned. We know they they did it anyway. At some point you have to judge people on their actions and not their motivations. My 2 cents.

Oh, I assure you, I don't think there shouldn't be rules. ;) I just don't think the parties should be able to write the rules. Someone would be writing them right? Why does it matter whether it's the DNC or some other group?

You might as well say that you want to replace Congress with a group of representatives from each state and that you want one part of the group to be comprised of two people from each state and the other to be determined by population. Oh wait...:xp:

...and that is why they're able to do so. They exist outside of the Constitution, because the framers of the Constitution (and its amendments) intentionally left them out, not willing to deal with the issues until they arose. No, not willing to deal with the issue because they didn't want political parties. I already pointed that out, sir.

So I propose a new amendment is in order (though I doubt it would ever pass :p). But not saying that a group doesn't have certain powers is not the same thing as saying they do. In fact, the 9th and 10th amendments tell us that all powers not delegated to the national government go to either the states or the people. Since the parties are above both the states and the people (this situation couldn't prove that point any better), I don't see how they fall under either category. Wow. Okay. :eyeraise:

So how do you explain the NFL, the NBA, MLB, NHL, labor unions, Boy Scouts of America, or your local bowling league.

These are other examples of self-organizing groups that operate under rules and bylaws established by committees outside of the constitution. Wouldn't that fit under "the people" umbrella? Sure seems like it to me.

Not sure I follow...yes, I believe both are equally responsible--the parties for making the rules they shouldn't be able to make, and the states for violating those rules at the cost of the people's votes. The states are 100% responsible directly, but the parties are responsible indirectly (in my opinion, of course) because their rules are flawed, and because they shouldn't even be writing the rules in the first place. First, it's your opinion that they shouldn't be able to establish rules. Please quit asserting that it is fact.

Second, please defend your assertion that the rules are "flawed".

Third, if you're are going to continue insisting that the DNC should not be able to establish rules for the DNC, please defend that assertion as well.

Otherwise it just sounds like you're making stuff up.

True, but at the cost of punishing the voters as well. If the only way to punish the states is to punish the voters, I'd rather the states remain unpunished.Again, you're making the argument that there should be no consequence for breaking the rules. Not sure I want to live in your anarchy, friend.

And I've just thought of an alternate solution: have every primary take place on one day. No arguing over who gets to go first or whose votes "matter more"--problem solved. :lol: after you already conceded that you couldn't show how these votes "matter more". That's awesome.

Perhaps they should. But what if the states want to vote later? The rules say that you can't vote before this date or after that date? I think it's reasonable to allow each state to pick a date of their choosing within that range. Again, they are trying to persuade everyone to move toward a single date, but if they don't want to force them, then that make sense to me.

Well, half of them were.All the delegates get to go. They only get half a vote, but they will all be there. I hope that helps.

Maybe I'm getting hung up on the principle of the thing. Oh, and there's also the matter of whether Michigan or Florida will have a vote if and when it comes to convention...which they won't. And since barring a resignation from Senator Clinton, it will go to convention. So in essence, none of those votes will be counted. How do you figure?

Yes, yes it was. I don't mean to compare the two; I'm just saying that we have what looks to be the start of a pattern here. We could ask the French for a refund on the Louisiana Purchase? Problem solved right? ;)

Very well then. :)Take care.

JCarter426
06-01-2008, 06:18 AM
Just a few things...


They could, but why would they? To appease people that want to break the rules? That's a poor reason for doing anything, IMO.

Not to mention the fact that this goes against all the work they've put into working toward a true "national primary".
True. Not saying that they should do that, just that if they had, we wouldn't be in this situation. This would be one reason why I see the DNC's rules as flawed.

Someone would be writing them right? Why does it matter whether it's the DNC or some other group?
Because no one has authority over the DNC. They don't actually answer to anyone but themselves. The ones that do represent voters don't actually have to (at the risk of not being reelected, yes...but incumbents of the Senate and House are 95% likely to be reelected even so). And the rest aren't even in office. It can't be classified as purely of the people, purely of the state, or purely of the nation, because its members are all of the above. And thus, it can play by its own rules.

So how do you explain the NFL, the NBA, MLB, NHL, labor unions, Boy Scouts of America, or your local bowling league.

These are other examples of self-organizing groups that operate under rules and bylaws established by committees outside of the constitution. Wouldn't that fit under "the people" umbrella? Sure seems like it to me.
If all members of the DNC were private citizens, yes, they would fall under "the people" umbrella. But not all are.

Furthermore, for the most part, members of a union have no physical political power other than their one vote. And unions can only endorse a candidate; the DNC gets to choose a candidate.

All the delegates get to go. They only get half a vote, but they will all be there. I hope that helps.
Yeah, I know. Say it any way you wish, but I'll still get hung up on the principle that my vote and your vote and just about everyone else's vote is worth twice as much as the vote of someone who lives in Michigan or Florida. If all men are created equal, how is one person's vote worth more than another's?

Again, you're making the argument that there should be no consequence for breaking the rules. Not sure I want to live in your anarchy, friend.
Just going by the axiom "it's better to let ten guilty men go free rather than convict an innocent one". ;)

How do you figure?
Eh...I'm probably not making any sense. :p

Take care.
You too. :)

Achilles
06-01-2008, 06:51 AM
True. Not saying that they should do that, just that if they had, we wouldn't be in this situation. This would be one reason why I see the DNC's rules as flawed. And if Lincoln hadn't gone to the Ford's Theatre, he might have lived a little bit longer. It's really easy to sit back with 20/20 hindsight and try to armchair how a bunch of thing could have been. The obvious thing you are ignoring (for reasons that I don't understand) is that if Florida and Michigan had followed the rules, we wouldn't be in this situation either. This would be one reason why I see their actions as flawed :)

Because no one has authority over the DNC. Everyone has a master. The DNC is accountable to the Democratic party just as a company's board is accountable to their stockholders. I'm sure you're going to want to use this to argue that their accountability to the people of Florida and Michigan should have overridden their accountability to the voters in the other 48 states, but I would implore you to give up that logically deficient train of thought before it leaves the station.

They don't actually answer to anyone but themselves. Not true as I point out above, but thank you for sharing the version of how things work in your imagination.

The ones that do represent voters don't actually have to (at the risk of not being reelected, yes...but incumbents of the Senate and House are 95% likely to be reelected even so). I'm not sure what you just said here. Could you please clarify?

And the rest aren't even in office. It can't be classified as purely of the people, purely of the state, or purely of the nation, because its members are all of the above. And thus, it can play by its own rules. No more so than the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, Boy Scouts of America, and your local bowling league play by their own rules.

If all members of the DNC were private citizens, yes, they would fall under "the people" umbrella. But not all are.As opposed to public citizens??? :confused:

Do I really need to list off the presidents and/or board chairmen for each of the professional sports organizations earlier and ask if they are "private citizens" or "public citizens" or can you see where I'm going to go with this?

Furthermore, for the most part, members of a union have no physical political power other than their one vote. And unions can only endorse a candidate; the DNC gets to choose a candidate. I think you're taking my example out of context.

Yeah, I know. Say it any way you wish, but I'll still get hung up on the principle that my vote and your vote and just about everyone else's vote is worth twice as much as the vote of someone who lives in Michigan or Florida. If all men are created equal, how is one person's vote worth more than another's? You're erroneously associating individual votes in an election with a pledged delegate's vote at the convention.

It's a proportional system. Your state may have more delegates than my state (or vice versa) which means that your state could send more delegates to the convention than my state (or vice versa). That doesn't make your vote "count more" than mine (or mine more than yours). It simply means that my state has fewer delegates (or vice versa).

Florida and Michigan are still sending delegates to the convention which will be distributed on a proportional basis agreed upon by the Rules and Bylaws committee in accordance with the established rules of the DNC that both states flagrantly disregarded.

So unless you're arguing that all the states should have the same number of delegates, your argument really doesn't hold any water. At all.

Just going by the axiom "it's better to let ten guilty men go free rather than convict an innocent one". ;)Are we going to do dueling truisms now or can we try to move back toward a real dialog about the issues?

Eh...I'm probably not making any sense. :p I am in full support of this statement :D

Talk to you later.

JCarter426
06-01-2008, 07:08 AM
I'm not sure what you just said here. Could you please clarify?
Eh...you're not going to buy my explanation. :p

No more so than the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, Boy Scouts of America, and your local bowling league play by their own rules.
Yes, but they don't have the powers that the DNC has.

As opposed to public citizens??? :confused:

Do I really need to list off the presidents and/or board chairmen for each of the professional sports organizations earlier and ask if they are "private citizens" or "public citizens" or can you see where I'm going to go with this?
I think you misunderstand...I meant to say that if the all members of the DNC weren't elected officials, then yes, they would fall under "the people" umbrella. But many are elected officials, and thus they don't.

The problem I see is that the DNC has members from all three groups, and while it has the benefits of being part of all three groups, it doesn't have to follow the rules of those groups, because the Constitution doesn't recognize the DNC's existence.[/QUOTE]

Achilles
06-01-2008, 11:59 AM
Yes, but they don't have the powers that the DNC has.Says you. Let's a talk about it next time a multi-million dollar player salary is negotiated. Or the next time player strikes force the delay of the season. Et cetera.

I think you misunderstand...I meant to say that if the all members of the DNC weren't elected officials, then yes, they would fall under "the people" umbrella. But many are elected officials, and thus they don't. How does that matter? You seem to be saying that once someone holds an elected position, they cannot participate in any other self-organized group.

The problem I see is that the DNC has members from all three groups, and while it has the benefits of being part of all three groups, it doesn't have to follow the rules of those groups, because the Constitution doesn't recognize the DNC's existence.What "groups" are you referring to here? I'm afraid it's not clear.

Also, there are lots of organizations that the Constitution doesn't "recognize". What is your point?

JCarter426
06-01-2008, 05:53 PM
Says you. Let's a talk about it next time a multi-million dollar player salary is negotiated. Or the next time player strikes force the delay of the season. Et cetera.
All right, that's fair...but more later. ;)

How does that matter? You seem to be saying that once someone holds an elected position, they cannot participate in any other self-organized group.
I'm not saying they can't participate at all, just that an organization whose majority holds an elected position should be treated differently.

What "groups" are you referring to here? I'm afraid it's not clear.
The people, the state, and the nation. The DNC has members from all three.

Also, there are lots of organizations that the Constitution doesn't "recognize". What is your point?
None of those other organizations have the power to change the Constitution.

Achilles
06-01-2008, 08:13 PM
I'm not saying they can't participate at all, just that an organization whose majority holds an elected position should be treated differently. Why?

The people, the state, and the nation. The DNC has members from all three. I'd just like to point out that everyone in the U.S. is also in all three of these "groups". So I'm not sure what your point is.

None of those other organizations have the power to change the Constitution.As I have already pointed out, repeating this isn't going to make it true.