bonnie Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party The Register's editorial2:44 p.m. CST February 4, 2016 Buy Photo Voters sign in before the Democratic presidential caucus at Simpson Barn in Johnston Monday, February 1, 2016. Brenna Norman/For The Register Buy Photo Fullscreen Next Slide Once again the world is laughing at Iowa. Late-night comedians and social media mavens are having afield day with jokes about missing caucusgoers andcoin flips. That’s fine. We can take ribbing over our quirky process. But what we can’t stomach is even the whiff of impropriety or error. What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy. The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt. First of all, the results were too close not to do a complete audit of results. Two-tenths of 1 percent separated Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. A caucus should not be confused with an election, but it’s worth noting that much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states. DES MOINES REGISTER Iowa's nightmare revisited: Was correct winner called? Second, too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems. Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos. The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct, and is already finding inconsistencies, said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. The campaign seeks the math sheets or other paperwork that precinct chairs filled out and were supposed to return to the state party. They want to compare those documents to the results entered into a Microsoft app and sent to the party. “Let’s compare notes. Let’s see if they match,” Batrice said Wednesday. Dr. Andy McGuire, chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party, dug in her heels and said no. She said the three campaigns had representatives in a room in the hours after the caucuses and went over the discrepancies. McGuire knows what’s at stake. Her actions only confirm the suspicions, wild as they might be, of Sanders supporters. Their candidate, after all, is opposed by the party establishment — and wasn’t even a Democrat a few months ago. So her path forward is clear: Work with all the campaigns to audit results. Break silly party tradition and release the raw vote totals. Provide a list of each precinct coin flip and its outcome, as well as other information sought by the Register. Be transparent. And then call for a blue ribbon commission to study how to improve the caucuses, as the Republican Party of Iowa did after its own fiasco in 2012. Monday’s mess showed that it’s time for the Democrats to change, too. The caucuses have become something they were never intended to be. It’s as if RAGBRAI tried to morph into the Tour de France. It wasn’t built for the speed or the significance. The current process grew out of efforts to find a more democratic way to choose delegates to conventions, after the grassroots saw how Democratic powerbrokers controlled the nominating process in 1968. But the caucuses have become as antiquated and opaque as the smoke-filled rooms of yore.Democrats should ask themselves: What do we want the Iowa caucus to be? How can we preserve its uniqueness while bringing more order? Does it become more like a straw poll or primary? How do we strike the balance between tradition and transparency? We have time to consider these questions. First, however, we need answers to what happened Monday night. The future of the first-in-the-nation caucuses demands it. Edited February 13, 2016 by Stan fixed some of the formatting.. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Members phkrause Posted February 5, 2016 Members Posted February 5, 2016 Nothing new! Both parties smell, stink, etc. Politics, its amazing people take sides as if one is better than the other!! Quote phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted February 5, 2016 Members Posted February 5, 2016 I thought it was bizarre that a "coin toss" was the way to decide whether Hillary or Bernie won the Democratic caucus... Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
bonnie Posted February 5, 2016 Author Posted February 5, 2016 2 hours ago, phkrause said: Nothing new! Both parties smell, stink, etc. Politics, its amazing people take sides as if one is better than the other!! Nope,nothing new. All liberals obsess over rude,obnoxious Trump. Rude and obnoxious is far worse than corruption. When it is a corrupt democrat it is "well they all do it" Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Members phkrause Posted February 6, 2016 Members Posted February 6, 2016 21 hours ago, bonnie said: All liberals obsess over rude,obnoxious Trump. Can you name one, please??? Oh that's right, the demo candidates, really haven't had much to say about Trump!! But the repub candidates have had a lot to say about there party "rude, obnoxious" running mate!! Quote phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
bonnie Posted February 6, 2016 Author Posted February 6, 2016 Just for starters reread the "complimentary" comments of Hilary Clinton,Bernie Sanders called him a facists I believe. How many went nuts went he siad he believed we should slow down and get a game plan for the sheer numbers entering this country. Salon has been particularly vocal and ,good old Chris Matthews blamed Trump because Matthews said something on air that was not acceptable..Apologized profusely while saying it was Trumps fault. Every liberal on facebook that pops up on mine is incensed about Trump. He is not a very likable guy but neither are many that liberals have enthusiastically supported over the years. If they truly were concerned over ethics,morality and integrity they would not have supported a predatory tomcat as in Ted Kennedy or in the White House or the wife that lied,blaming everyone else for her husbands behavior. I agree that the republicans have done the same,personally I think they are scared of him. He has hit a couple of issues that strike close to home for many,most republican candidates won't. Give them time, I don't think Ted Cruz is a favorite of the republican power brokers either and the same wrath will be thrown his way by both parties. There is no way anyone can pretend to be concerned over the integrity of Donald Trump and support Hilary Clinton. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
joeb Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 This article isn't even close to being the worst of the stench coming from the Democratic primaries. Sanders won Iowa in a squeaker and trounced Hillary in New Hampshire, but, Sanders now has 42 convention delegates and Hillary has 392. Talk about voter nullification..... It's blatant and ongoing. In Democratic primaries they have what are called Super Delegates, and those delegates can vote for whoever they want to, the voter be dammed. Thus, since most of the Super Delegates belong to the Clinton machine they are throwing their support to Hillary although in name they are "representing" the voters.... The way things are going Hillary will win the Democratic nomination with far less than half the vote, and Sanders will lose with a majority of the vote. Yeah, the Democrats really care about the will of the people.... Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville
Moderators Bravus Posted February 12, 2016 Moderators Posted February 12, 2016 Point 1: Superdelegates are an internal Democratic Party matter and the reason Bernie has so few is that he only recently joined that party. It might not seem reasonable, but they are effectively the reward of faithfully serving a particular party for a long time. Nothing crony about it: just earned. (side note: I make this point out of fairness, not out of favour for Hillary - I have all sorts of issues with her as the nominee) Point 2: a coin toss *did not* decide the result in Iowa. Six coin tosses decided the results in small sections of ridings/electorates/seats where the vote was otherwise tied, but the results of those coin tosses *did not* determine the overall result. The truth matters. phkrause, GayatfootofCross, Jeannieb43 and 1 other 4 Quote Truth is important
joeb Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 On 2/12/2016 at 3:15 PM, David 'Bravus' Geelan said: Point 1: Superdelegates are an internal Democratic Party matter and the reason Bernie has so few is that he only recently joined that party. It might not seem reasonable, but they are effectively the reward of faithfully serving a particular party for a long time. Nothing crony about it: just earned. (side note: I make this point out of fairness, not out of favour for Hillary - I have all sorts of issues with her as the nominee) Point 2: a coin toss *did not* decide the result in Iowa. Six coin tosses decided the results in small sections of ridings/electorates/seats where the vote was otherwise tied, but the results of those coin tosses *did not* determine the overall result. The truth matters. Yes, truth definitely matters. And the truth is the Democratic party, in the matter of Super Delegates blatantly practices voter nullification. You can put any spin you want on it, but when the party says, Yeah, we see how you, the people, voted, but we decided that this other person "deserves" the office just because they have been around the party longer than the person you, the people, voted for, they are blatantly practicing voter nullification..... It is flat out rejecting the will of the voter for the will of the party's leadership. I'm not surprised that you find this acceptable behavior by the political elite though. You Aussies may find this perfectly acceptable behavior by politicians, but in the US we are said to be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", and voter nullification stands in direct opposition to this principle upon which our nation was founded. Our country was never designed to be a tyrrany, and this practice is tyrannical in both its concept and practice for it completely ignores the vote of the common man. Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville
Moderators Bravus Posted February 16, 2016 Moderators Posted February 16, 2016 Those are the rules of the game. Don't like them, work and vote to change them. But you can't decide to play the game and then whine about the rules mid-game. Quote Truth is important
joeb Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 16 hours ago, David 'Bravus' Geelan said: 16 hours ago, David 'Bravus' Geelan said: Those are the rules of the game. Don't like them, work and vote to change them. But you can't decide to play the game and then whine about the rules mid-game. Some times your logic really escapes me. The first action to take when a person wants to fight something they see as wrong is begin by publicly pointing out just how wrong it is. That is exactly what I've done here. How do you see it? In your mind the pointing out of both illegality and immorality as the beginning point of getting rid of the wrong is "whining". Really? I find that hopelessly simplistic and lacking in any depth of thought at all. I guess it's just your dislike of me, personally, that leads you to such a grievous error. Let's apply your line of logic to historic socialist behavior. The first thing socialists have done historically is to begin by "whining" about the things they don't like. Oops. Wow. What contempt for your own political ideology.... Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville
Moderators Bravus Posted February 17, 2016 Moderators Posted February 17, 2016 Nope. Nothing personal about it. I do apologize for my carelessness in using the second person - 'you'. I did not mean 'you, joeb', I meant 'you, Bernie Bros and Republicans who are complaining about the rules of the Democratic party from the outside'. Those people can't change the rules from the outside: if they want to effectively change the rules of the Democratic party they need to become members and vote for change. For what it's worth, I find the whole US system bizarre: if the superdelegates nullify the will of the people, how does the Electoral College not? Why not go straight to a direct vote of the nation for President? The reason why not? Because it would guarantee a permanent Democratic presidency, because the most populous areas in the country lean left. The Electoral College is a means of ensuring the representation of all the states, not just New York and California. Similarly, while I agree that the caucuses and primaries should be operated cleanly, there are internal party processes that have developed with similar intentions for representation. They are likely not perfect, but they are arguably more effective than a raw vote. Tell you what, joeb: if you apply exactly the same standards to both major parties, I am happy to agree with you that election processes are human processes, and therefore always flawed and able to be improved. It so happens that the Republican party has not so far had a state with a close race, so there has been less scrutiny, but I would be willing to bet that the kinds of small irregularities seen with the Democrats in Iowa were also seen with the Republicans. If I can finish with one thing, though, it's that I have absolutely no personal animosity toward any poster here. I try to respond to the text of the post - indeed, I seldom notice who posted the words, and that never influences how I respond. (side note: I was going to go with the Australian word 'whinging', which has a shade different meaning than 'whining', so it could be something was lost in translation - apologies if so.) phkrause 1 Quote Truth is important
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted February 17, 2016 Members Posted February 17, 2016 "Rather than to override the will of the electorate, superdelegates were created in some sense to enforce it [the will of the people] in elections whose results were skewed by odd delegate allocations or weak multi-way fields that would allow a fringe candidate to win a plurality. Both of these conditions prevailed in 1972.." If super delegates decide to ratify the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, then super delegates are upholding both the rules of the DNC and the principle of democracy. On the other hand, voting of super delegates to thwart the popular will uphold the rules of the party, but not the values. Voting to ratify the popular will upholds both the rules and the values. [paraphrased] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/15/457181/- Bravus and phkrause 2 Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
joeb Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Bravus, OK. I understand your point now. I did read it as the personal "you". But if I was Bernie Sanders I would be pretty mad myself because super delegates are being used to rig the outcome of the primaries. (I disagree every political position Bernie takes, but must acknowledge he is sincere. He's been the same guy for decades and truly believes what he says. I respect that. However, being sincerely wrong will not change the amount of harm he would the US if he were voted in. I'm just alway for fair play at all times.) I will point out a mistake you made in your second post. I am not a Republican. I am a registered independent. I'm not in favor of voter nullification in way, shape, or form. I have not seen anything like the voter nullification going on in the Democrat party right now from either side before. Oh, I know the Democrats scream about Republican's wanting to nullify the black vote but that is nothing but political theater. They claim that requiring ID is to discriminate against blacks. Baloney. To allow people to vote without any proof of identity is to practice voter nullification through fraudulent voters for every fraudulent vote nulliifies a real vote. Voter fraud hurts everyone and makes every legit voter's vote worth less than it would have if there had been no voter fraud. Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville
joeb Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 21 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said: "Rather than to override the will of the electorate, superdelegates were created in some sense to enforce it [the will of the people] in elections whose results were skewed by odd delegate allocations or weak multi-way fields that would allow a fringe candidate to win a plurality. Both of these conditions prevailed in 1972.." If super delegates decide to ratify the popular will of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers, then super delegates are upholding both the rules of the DNC and the principle of democracy. On the other hand, voting of super delegates to thwart the popular will uphold the rules of the party, but not the values. Voting to ratify the popular will upholds both the rules and the values. [paraphrased] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/15/457181/- Of course super delegates who vote with the will of the voters are ratifying the will of the voters, but that is NOT what is going on right now. Hillary has maybe 40%-45% of the rank-and-file vote and holds approximately 90% of the delegates. The stench is terrible. 21 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said: Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.