We live in Florida and unfortunately my wife is a Democrat. We do not talk politics in our house. But in January she did not vote in the Florida primary as she was told that her vote would not count. She said had she voted it would have been for John Edwards. Hillary won in Florida but how many did not vote thinking their vote would not count. Now the Hilldabeast and her crew want the Florida delagates. Personally I think she is the lesser of the 2 evils but all candidates should have equal opportunities to win or lose.
The DNC has lost thier mind
- Thread starter greg334
- Start date
I think the real issue is that the DNC wants taxpayers to pay half the cost. It looks to me a Dem state and National Party screw-up...the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay.
No matter what happens, ultimately the taxpayer is going to pay. The only way around that is to use the tally from the election they held. There's no reason they shouldn't use those results. They're just as valid as any new ones will be since there's no way to duplicate them exactly.
I say lets toss out the vote from Mi & Fl!!
The Dems knew what they were doing when they moved up the voting date, and no do-overs as well.
Someone pointed out that if Hill get the pres. then it would have 24yrs of 2 familys running the big show....now that should be enough to scare anyone!
And personally I think the Reb and Dem choices that are left are crap.
The Dems knew what they were doing when they moved up the voting date, and no do-overs as well.
Someone pointed out that if Hill get the pres. then it would have 24yrs of 2 familys running the big show....now that should be enough to scare anyone!
And personally I think the Reb and Dem choices that are left are crap.
As per Gregs post.....
I'd say the Dems are SOL...they blew it. Since primary voting isn't a constitutional right.
If they want to re-do the voting it should be at the Dems expense. Not the taxpayers.
Hey wait...maybe they could waste more money and try a referendum vote on whether a redo should be done???
Can't these MI and Fl. Dems go to the National Convention and vote?
I'd say the Dems are SOL...they blew it. Since primary voting isn't a constitutional right.
If they want to re-do the voting it should be at the Dems expense. Not the taxpayers.
Hey wait...maybe they could waste more money and try a referendum vote on whether a redo should be done???
Can't these MI and Fl. Dems go to the National Convention and vote?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Ok,
Rich, Leo, OVM.....
I keep hearing these same terms and sayings;
Your vote don't count
you are disenfranchised
this is your voice, vote
BUT
can someone explain to me if I am wrong.....
These 'elections' really don't mean a thing when it comes down to actual rights and voting.
These elections are to pick a candidate for a party, not a office holder.
In reality there is no right to vote, there is no disenfranchised voter and in real terms, your vote does not count anyway.
Remember that this process only came to the national scene in 1968, but was used in some states since 1912 and since that election, we have had serious problems with the process.
In reality the process that is used to pick the candidate can and often negates the votes that take place because these are non-binding votes in a non-binding election - make sense.
With the democratic party, there are three ways that this goes - 1 is the votes are counted and the apportioned to the delegates who are counted as such on the floor of the convention, 2 - there is super delegates that are thrown into the mix of voted delegates and this by and large off sets any gain for who the party deems undesirable (meaning in this case Hillary), or 3 - that the party will take up who will be the candidate for the election by back room brokering the entire process, which in fact negates all the votes.
So what I don't get is why we even are so worried about the primaries because in fact when you look at each of th party rules, the votes can be cast aside and everyone is at that point wasting their time.
Now the issue of seating the delegates or having another election should come out of the parties funds 100% not a dime out of tax payers pockets. Even the voting machines and volunteers who are used in elections should not be allowed to participate, they are part of the states at large - for all parties.
Rich, Leo, OVM.....
I keep hearing these same terms and sayings;
Your vote don't count
you are disenfranchised
this is your voice, vote
BUT
can someone explain to me if I am wrong.....
These 'elections' really don't mean a thing when it comes down to actual rights and voting.
These elections are to pick a candidate for a party, not a office holder.
In reality there is no right to vote, there is no disenfranchised voter and in real terms, your vote does not count anyway.
Remember that this process only came to the national scene in 1968, but was used in some states since 1912 and since that election, we have had serious problems with the process.
In reality the process that is used to pick the candidate can and often negates the votes that take place because these are non-binding votes in a non-binding election - make sense.
With the democratic party, there are three ways that this goes - 1 is the votes are counted and the apportioned to the delegates who are counted as such on the floor of the convention, 2 - there is super delegates that are thrown into the mix of voted delegates and this by and large off sets any gain for who the party deems undesirable (meaning in this case Hillary), or 3 - that the party will take up who will be the candidate for the election by back room brokering the entire process, which in fact negates all the votes.
So what I don't get is why we even are so worried about the primaries because in fact when you look at each of th party rules, the votes can be cast aside and everyone is at that point wasting their time.
Now the issue of seating the delegates or having another election should come out of the parties funds 100% not a dime out of tax payers pockets. Even the voting machines and volunteers who are used in elections should not be allowed to participate, they are part of the states at large - for all parties.
Yes, we are a republic, but it is not inaccurate to refer to it as a democracy. Calling the United States a democracy does not cheapen our form of government in any way. The term "democracy" has two distinct meanings, each very different, but each equally valid, equally applicable.
One type of Democracy is a type of popular government, the other is a form of popular government, with "popular" meaning by the populace, by the people, in both cases.
In the type of popular government, Democracy is simply used to mean a government where there are genuinely free elections by the people, and where the individual or the minority actually counts for something. When people say we live in a Democracy, it is in this use of the term they are speaking. It is not wrong to do so, nor does it cheapen the specific form of government we use.
Democracy as a form of popular government is very specific, meaning pure majority rule. Such form of Democracy is majority-unlimited, with no safeguards to protect the rights of the individual or the minority. This is Absolute Democracy, rule by Omnipotent Majority, and cannot be overcome by the minority.
The form of government used in the United States that of a Republic. It is a democratically elected (free elections), majority-limited, Representative Republic written under constitution devised to control the majority absolutely, to safeguard the unalienable rights of the minority and of the individual.
It is not inaccurate to call a freely elected Representative Republic a democracy, and that's how most people use the term unless they are discussing the specific form of Democracy.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Turtle,
You may be right in the definitions of what a democracy is but the problem is in that we actually have a third wheel in which our vote and our representation is cut short, that is the courts.
I heard what you said before, sat in to a lot of discussion in college about what is what but because I am looking at representation as a key to either a republic or a democracy, representation should be held higher than all the courts except one but it is not. When we freely elect our representatives and they pass laws on our behalf, then outside of a constitutional test at the top level, shouldn't those laws be enforced but not negated by a lower court, like the 9th district federal court?
Or am I too twisted in my way of thinking?
You may be right in the definitions of what a democracy is but the problem is in that we actually have a third wheel in which our vote and our representation is cut short, that is the courts.
I heard what you said before, sat in to a lot of discussion in college about what is what but because I am looking at representation as a key to either a republic or a democracy, representation should be held higher than all the courts except one but it is not. When we freely elect our representatives and they pass laws on our behalf, then outside of a constitutional test at the top level, shouldn't those laws be enforced but not negated by a lower court, like the 9th district federal court?
Or am I too twisted in my way of thinking?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Interesting discussion .....
In a country which aspires to fair and equal justice for all, there must be a mechanism for those not in the majority to seek it. Otherwise you simply have a "tyranny of the majority" - think of that - unless each and every citizen were secure in at least some certain basic rights, what kind of country would we have ?
One where your rights could be taken away simply by being unpopular ..... or misunderstood .... or not being the "right" race, color, or religion, as an example. Or arbitrarily, for any reason whatsoever - or no reason at all.
As a practical matter, if the Supremes were the only court to hear cases (constitutional or otherwise) then there would be much justice denied (or at least delayed - which is functionally the same as denied) - simply because in a society of 300 million individuals there is no way they could keep up with the case load that comes as a consequence of having a population that large. So the remainder of the Federal Judiciary serves as a filter - ruling on matters initially, before they can be taken to the Supremes, in order to spread the workload and to ensure that the opportunity to seek redress for wrongs (real or imagined) is at least available.
Having suffered under the yolk of tyranny of a monarch, the Founders set out to ensure that tyranny in any form would not find it's way into our government - whether it be from a monarch - or the three separate branches - or from the majority.
In other words, in their minds, the individual reigned supreme.
Sadly, our laws have become so complex (and the courts so focused on arcane rules and procedure, rather than getting an honest, just result) that our court system has become one where it's next to impossible for the common man to appear and represent himself. It was not always this way.
When a society allows it's elected representatives to create a system of laws that are so complex that the average individuals that compose the society can no longer reasonably know what the laws are (at least without hiring an "expert", ie. a lawyer), you are but one step away from creating a society of criminals.
Have you ever heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ? While this concept is necessary in theory in order to ensure that members of the society don't duck compliance by claiming ignorance (from having failed to take responsibility to know the laws) - wisdom would dictate that one might want to at least make the laws knowable by the common man.
The Founding Fathers considered an independent Federal Judiciary key to ensuring fairness and justice for all citizens - and to check and balance the power of the other branches. The basic rights of the citizens as enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights - even so little as the rights of a single individual citizen - are senior to any right of the majority to legislate them away. Or at least they ought to be - that was the general idea back at the beginning.
If you are not happy with the Federal Court System or how it's functioning - the solution is to get Congress to do something about it - since they were the creators of it, have power over it (.... at least to a degree) and they are your representatives.
)
Representation is a key .... at least one of them ..... but .....
In a country which aspires to fair and equal justice for all, there must be a mechanism for those not in the majority to seek it. Otherwise you simply have a "tyranny of the majority" - think of that - unless each and every citizen were secure in at least some certain basic rights, what kind of country would we have ?
One where your rights could be taken away simply by being unpopular ..... or misunderstood .... or not being the "right" race, color, or religion, as an example. Or arbitrarily, for any reason whatsoever - or no reason at all.
As a practical matter, if the Supremes were the only court to hear cases (constitutional or otherwise) then there would be much justice denied (or at least delayed - which is functionally the same as denied) - simply because in a society of 300 million individuals there is no way they could keep up with the case load that comes as a consequence of having a population that large. So the remainder of the Federal Judiciary serves as a filter - ruling on matters initially, before they can be taken to the Supremes, in order to spread the workload and to ensure that the opportunity to seek redress for wrongs (real or imagined) is at least available.
Having suffered under the yolk of tyranny of a monarch, the Founders set out to ensure that tyranny in any form would not find it's way into our government - whether it be from a monarch - or the three separate branches - or from the majority.
In other words, in their minds, the individual reigned supreme.
Sadly, our laws have become so complex (and the courts so focused on arcane rules and procedure, rather than getting an honest, just result) that our court system has become one where it's next to impossible for the common man to appear and represent himself. It was not always this way.
When a society allows it's elected representatives to create a system of laws that are so complex that the average individuals that compose the society can no longer reasonably know what the laws are (at least without hiring an "expert", ie. a lawyer), you are but one step away from creating a society of criminals.
Have you ever heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ? While this concept is necessary in theory in order to ensure that members of the society don't duck compliance by claiming ignorance (from having failed to take responsibility to know the laws) - wisdom would dictate that one might want to at least make the laws knowable by the common man.
Nope - because the Founders, in their wisdom, gave Congress the power (and the responsibility) to create the Federal Court System and their jurisdictions, save for the Supreme Court, which is specifically enumerated (created) in the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers considered an independent Federal Judiciary key to ensuring fairness and justice for all citizens - and to check and balance the power of the other branches. The basic rights of the citizens as enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights - even so little as the rights of a single individual citizen - are senior to any right of the majority to legislate them away. Or at least they ought to be - that was the general idea back at the beginning.
If you are not happy with the Federal Court System or how it's functioning - the solution is to get Congress to do something about it - since they were the creators of it, have power over it (.... at least to a degree) and they are your representatives.
Yes - how dare you malign those fine individuals sitting out there on the 9th District's bench ! (.... think it just might be something in that west coast water, maybe ?
)