Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, said a mail-in caucus "is clearly the wrong path.

"We don't like it one bit," Hunter said. "It disenfranchises people who need to participate and there are many questions with regard to security."

Hunter said the Obama campaign will accept nothing but a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama, who removed his name from the January ballot here in protest of the early date.

Hmm... if that doesnt smell like disenfranchisement, then I do not know what does.

I can understand objections to a mail in vote, but 50/50? Come on. Is Obama's camp feeling the heat because a mail in will allow more people to vote than a caucus will?

more at tpm

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/03/report_obamas_michigan_c ampaig.php

Tags: Barack Obama, delegates, Hillary Clinton, Michigan (all tags)

Comments

17 Comments

Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

They just want to hold out until Hillary steps down and then they'll seat them.  they think.  Wrong. That's there plan and I hope Hillary doesn't give it to them.

by bradydundee 2008-03-12 06:13PM | 0 recs
Its been weeks since there was talk of Hillary

'stepping down'..

No, she's in for the long haul now..

She would never give up after what has happened... We all would not let her..

by architek 2008-03-12 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Its been weeks since there was talk of Hillary

After WHAT has happened?  After a better prepared candidate has beaten her ham-handed campaign?

I think some of you ... the less reasonable ones...are in for a suprise.  Al Gore will be coming home soon!

by a gunslinger 2008-03-12 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

Of COURSE they are and if it were reversed the same thing would be happening.

It's politics but in the end they will HAVE to re-vote or risk a serious loss of Democratic female voters.  Switching to I or (God forbid) R is NOT a difficult thing to do and I've done it for LESS than THIS.

Switched to Indie after Bush I (after the fools put up Dukakis) and switched back to vote for GORE. I didn't even VOTE for Bill C.  

BUT I am definitely a HILL supporter.  Mostly because I like her ideas better than his and her backers MUCH MUCH better than his.

It's a choice.
NOT all of us on the BLOGS are far left.  Although I've seen the numbers floated around and it's clear MOST of the blogasphere is indeed.

Extremes on either side are dangerous.  jmo.

by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-12 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

North or South Carolina??

by rrs11215 2008-03-12 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement
Obama knows from experience that he cannot win CLOSED democratic primary, unless it is his home state or state with huge black population, like MS, LA or AL. So he will use any available trick to avoid the real primary. He does not care about the will of the people - he cares about delegate count.
He is even trying to mock PA primary by asking GOPs and independends to pretend to be a Democrats for a few days and vote ... for him.
by engels 2008-03-12 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

Well, when you go to haggle with someone, you don't exactly want to start with a high bid. I write this off as posturing and nothing more.

by LandStander 2008-03-12 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

A mail in primary put together with extremely little notice (which is the difference between doing it in Florida and, say, Oregon's mail-in system) is a recipe for disaster and would more than likely benefit neither party, and hold up the results far longer than is necessary. There are other options that make more sense.

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

Such as?

by OrangeFur 2008-03-12 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

1) traditional caucus system (which works well enough that its used by numerous other states)

2) full primary vote (at this point the most expensive option, but the most accurate to determine  single vote proportional representation)

A mail-in system that hasn't had enough time to be properly set up in advance and tested for problems is asking for trouble for both campaigns. The results are likely to be a legal quagmire on both sides, resulting in hotly contested results no matter which way it falls. I would have to think as a voter in either of those states that if the money and time is going to be spent on a revote, that my state use the best available method.

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

Florida has never done a caucus, either, and even the states that have done them have had utter chaos for the most part. Caucuses are extremely undemocratic and have only a tiny fraction of the turnout of a primary. I read somewhere that all of the caucuses combined had less turnout than in the Florida primary.

A full-on primary, which I would support, is apparently too expensive to do. Right now it seems that it's revote-by-mail or nothing. Given that choice, what would you recommend?

by OrangeFur 2008-03-12 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

Caucuses are, however, used in a fair number of states already (not so mail-in voting), and are easy to set up and run compared to the advance work that has to be done to prevent fraud and problems with a mail-in vote.

Commentary about caucuses being chaotic are only looking at this year's level of involvement, and doesn't address the fact that by and large they still tend to end up providing results that can be relied upon. If you feel they favor one candidate or another has no bearing on the subject, and doesn't affect their overall validity. There's no bias involved in using a caucus unless you're so opposed to the fact that Clinton doesn't generally perform as well in them that you're reduced to splitting hairs about who is more likely to attend them and why, and if those groups are the same as those that get lumped in as demographically supporting one candidate or another.

So far we have:

- an option that everyone agrees is fair, but no one wants to pay for

  • an option that has been utilized for decades that may not have the exact proportional results as a general vote, but is traditionally performed as close enough for delegate allocation purposes
  • an option that attempts to function as the first option and be as cheap as the second, but by virtue of lack of time to organize and virtual inability to prevent fraud and disputed results, has a very strong chance to end up being worse than doing nothing at all; a waste of money, time, and effort for little to show for it but results that have a better than average chance of being generally suspect.

What I'd personally prefer in order of first to last goes something like:
 - make the state parties pay for a revote and the  party members in both states that got screwed over by overeager party members to make damn sure those people aren't in a position to do the same thing again.

- redo the votes as a caucus system for both efficiency and cost.

 - split the delegates down the middle 50/50 and seat them at the convention or leave them out of the situation entirely.

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

Apologies for the bad formatting that popped up in my last post.

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

Caucuses have historically been abysmally attended. This year is an exception only because the race has gone on for so long. Once even a small number of people started showing up, the system became overwhelmed. It took people hours to get their votes tallied. Voting should be as easy as possible. In a state that has never done them, this is about as disenfranchising as it gets. In Texas, we still don't know who won.

If you're going to say that we can use caucuses because other states have done it, well, Oregon uses mail-in voting. So Florida should be able to do it too, right?

Right now we need something that can be done efficiently and that maximizes voter participation. As far as I can tell, a mail-in primary is the only solution.

by OrangeFur 2008-03-12 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Wants Disenfranchisement

Oregon uses mail in voting, and its been in place for ten years. That's a large part of why it works so well there. Setting something like that up across the state within a matter of months is a far, far different story.

The main problem with the caucuses this year is that yes, historically turnout has been much lower, but each state has been continually underestimating the load coming their way when its their turn, even with the foreknowledge that attendance will be much, much higher. There's nothing wrong procedurally with the caucus system that planning for the numbers wouldn't fix.

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 08:47PM | 0 recs
This is starting to remind me...

...of that annoying poster you see in offices, "Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part."  

We had months to figure out what to do.  All of a sudden, the clock is running out and people want to rush to a solution.  Why wasn't there any urgency 2 months ago when something could actually be done?

by thezzyzx 2008-03-12 08:38PM | 0 recs
Obama's soviet-style politics

50-50 is a smack in the face.  It is worse than not seating any delegates at all.  Because at least if they refuse to seat any MI or FL delegates, they're being honest about disenfranchising those states.  50-50 is an attempt to whitewash disenfranchisement by calling it enfranchisement!  But "giving" MI and FL delegates that are arbitrarily split with no relation to the actual votes (or revotes) in those states is a soviet-style delusion.

by costanoan 2008-03-12 09:32PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads