Bill and the counting game (NV caucus lawsuit)

[ursi]

Source: Las Vegas Sun

January 16, 2008 · 6:44 PM

President Bill Clinton today stepped up his attack on at-large caucus sites on the Las Vegas Strip, telling reporters in Oakland that people who caucus at those locations would have votes “worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct.”

Is that right? Yes, mathematically, it is possible. In fact, the imbalance could be worse.

But it is also mathematically possible – and more likely - - that a caucus-goer in regular precincts off the Strip would have their support count for more than those on the Strip.

The calculations are highly complicated and they all depend on turnout Saturday.

Read more: http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/16/bill-and-counting-game/http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/16/bill-and-counting-game/

---

I already believed the Clintons were behind the lawsuit to stop the casino workers (low income, women, and other minorities by the thousands) from voting after it was filed two days after the Culinary Union endorsed Obama last week.

Now we know. Bill really, really, really wants to get back into the White House.


And this lawsuit is making me embarrassed for my state. I am worried about Saturday. Oh, well, the case goes to court tomorrow! Then Clinton and Obama will know what proceeds after that. And so will the rest of us!

[Bonobo]

1. .

[ursi]

3. scary photo but great Zappa quote!

[caligirl]

2. He was drilling the news guy like he was a defense lawyer for Libby.

[lapfog_1]

4. The 10 to 1 or 5 to 1 argument is simply BOGUS beyond belief

It's from the lawyers FLAWED (and I mean FLAWED) apples to oranges comparison in their motion to obtain a TRO.

Here:
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2008/01/plainti...

end of page 3, top of page 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
extraordinary scenario, likely to occur on January 19:

John and Jane Voter, each registered Party voters living in the same home in the Clark County Precinct 1001, are shift workers as a casino located on the Las Vegas Strip. John is scheduled to work at his place of employment on January 19, 2008, with his work schedule including the time of the caucus. He make the necessary arrangements to attend his assigned At-Large caucus. Two hundred-sixty other eligible shift workers also attend this At-Large caucus. The At-Large caucus participants choose 52 delegates to the Clark County Convention. John's voice in the At-Large caucus could be assigned a value of 0.19%.

Jane, by seeming good fortune, is not scheduled to work on the day of the caucus, so she is able to attend her home precinct caucus. Because Precinct 1001 has 261 registered delegates, she and the other participants at this precinct caucus choose 5 delegates to the Clark County Convention. Jane's influence in her home caucus could be assigned a value of 0.019%

Thus, pursuant to the Plan, this couple, both of whom live in the same house and work for the same employer, would have their caucus votes treated in vastly different manners. Jane's voice would be ONE-TENTH the value of her husband's, for no other reason than that her employer did not schedule her to work during the time of the caucus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, let's take this apart one thing at a time. First off, there is an incorrect word choice in this example. Precinct 1001 (the example home Precinct) does not have 261 registered DELEGATES, it has 261 registered VOTERS... it's a small thing, but motions should be correct. According to the Plan rules, 261 registered voters in a Clark County Precinct would get delegates at a ratio of 50 - 1, that is, 50 registered democratic voters to 1 delegate. So 261 / 50 = 5.2 or 5 as the example states. And her voice is the stated 0.019%. Here is where the apples to oranges comes in. The example of John voting in the At-Large Precinct at the casino states that 260 eligible voters SHOWED UP to select delegates. The example never states how many SHOWED UP to vote in Precinct 1001 where Jane voted. The Plan states that an At-Large Precinct needs 4000 or more workers to qualify, so the fair comparison is number of workers or 4000+ / 50 equals number of delegates. Not the 260 that the example states "showed up" to caucus. After all, perhaps out of the 261 registered voters in Precinct 1001, lets say only 40 showed up to caucus. Jane would then have a weight given to her vote of 2.5%, a much HIGHER representation than John's.

You see why the plaintiff's lawyers had 260 showing up at the At-Large V. the 261 registered voters in Precinct 1001... because both of the groups have the SAME REPRESENTATION of 50 to 1 of registered voters... but they want to distort it by claiming that ALL VOTERS in the example precinct 1001 showed up but only got 5 delegates, whereas 260 showed up (out of 4000 potential voters) at the At-Large caucus and got 52 delegates. A convenient way to come up with the 10 to 1 ratio in the claims. But it's totally bogus.

Edit to add

Ohh, I just thought of something ELSE...

Jane's vote in her home precinct actually will count MORE (very slightly) than John's vote.
Follow me here... John and Jane both vote in precincts that award 50 to 1 delegates to eligible voters as has been demonstrated. However, John can't be in two places at one time, and in the example, John is a registered voter in the HOME PRECINCT (where Jane is voting), which means that the number of delegates awarded to that precinct is higher than it should be... because John (and all union members that are using the At-Large and who live in Precinct 1001) is not there to vote... so those who DO show up to vote in Precinct 1001 get the benefit of having MORE delegates to represent them.

To see this mathematically, use the same example the the lawyers wrote, only this time put in numbers that show EVERYONE caucusing (all 261 registered voters MINUS John and other working union members) and all 4000 At-Large eligible caucus voters. Jane actually gets a slightly LARGER voice than John (he is stuck at 50 to 1) because the number of delegates in her home caucus will include John and his co-workers (at the same 50 to 1 ratio).

[ursi]

14. Actually, it is not. That rule is used all over Nevada at rural county precincts

and the state party figured that was a fair way to handle each casino site, like a rural precinct because each site of employee did not equal the population of metropolitan cities of Las Vegas or even Reno/Sparks.

[Maribelle]

5. I truly believe that the DNC has made three huge mistakes: Florida Michigan and Nevada

I grow madder each day over this.

Especially in Nevada, they could have nipped the problems there in the bud; they should have made the processing of delegates consistent throughout the entire state, and not leave the issues dangling and different at the casinos. And how on earth can they not let our votes count in Florida and Michigan.

I wish all Democrats throughout the land would all roar at once.

[Demeter]

6. It's the DLC, NOT the DNC, That Is Making the Errors

The DLC, essentially Hillary's shock troops, are attempting to overthrow the DNC system in a desperate campaign to secure the White House for HillandBill. Because they cannot win it outright in a fair primary and election, HillandBill are resorting to every "gotcha", lie, and dirty trick in the GOP playbook, plus some they are inventing on the fly.


This is a classic case of the end not justifying the means. We need to elect, in a free, fair and open election, officials who support and maintain free, fair elections. We really don't need lawyer's tricks and undue influence and the arbitrary choices of an unelected elite.

The DLC is to the Democratic Party what Newt Gingrich was to the GOP--Brownshirts who drive real Democrats out of the party for a fascist takeover.

[Diane R]

8. Your post should be a thread of it's own. Bill Clinton's behavior towards the reporter was scary.

[lapfog_1]

7. As far as Florida and Michigan go...

I think the DNC made the right call (for this election cycle). If they let those two states move up the primaries, then the flood gates might have opened and every state would want the same privilege. And that would have led to a national primary. Which is only good for well established, well funded, name candidates. Primaries are supposed to be mom and pop retail politics, small town meetings, door to door canvassing for voters. A chance for the voters to meet each candidate in person, or at least attend a small venue speech where you might get a chance to ask YOUR question. Otherwise, it's all TV and interviews with pundits and stuff.

I like the idea of retail politics.

But to do it, you have to spread the primaries out over a period of time. I think they are already too compressed. Did you see how our top 3 looked in New Hampshire right after Iowa? They were tired and stressed. If you start cramming a bunch of states together, well, you simply aren't going to get an effective campaign from anyone.

Anyway, the DNC made a ruling. Florida and Michigan choose to ignore it. So sad too bad.

As for Nevada. The DNC didn't do squat except approve a plan already adopted by the Nevada Democratic party. And the idea of the casino At-Large caucus sites was to allow 40,000 or more casino workers to vote on a Saturday (given that Saturday is the busiest days for casinos). The thought was "hey, most workers are off on Saturday, so let's hold it then!" but then someone said "what about the 40,000 union workers at casinos, won't having it on Saturday disenfranchise those people?" And the answer is "yeah, it would". So the At-Large plan was adopted. And agreed to by the 4 of the six people now named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit...as well as the teachers union. If they didn't like it, why wait until now to voice their displeasure?

But in any event, Nevada in not the responsibility of the DNC.

[Tunkamerica]

9. Link is dead for me n/t

[lapfog_1]

10. Link pasted twice...

click on the OPs link, when that fails, as it will, delete everything before the second http.

Or, click on this:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/16/bill-and-counting-game/

[Tunkamerica]

11. Thanks n/t

[bklyncowgirl]

12. Bottom line--this was not an issue until the union endorsed Obama.

Now it is an assault on all other voters rights. OK whatever.

[DRoseDARs]

13. Stick it where you stuck that cigar, Billy...

I'm not voting for Hillary OR Obama in our caucus this Saturday in Reno (Kucinich is my first choice, Edwards is my second), but what a bunch of BS. The rules have been in place for months. The rules have been agreed upon for months. The rules have been followed for months. And just NOW, a week before the Nevada caucus, the rules are a problem? Fuck you, Bill.