I am not happy about the Nevada lawsuit

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I am not happy about the Nevada lawsuit because it is obviously political in nature. And anyone who thinks it wouldn't go the same way if the shoes were reversed because Obama is just a better person is being silly. If Obama wouldn't do this in the same position he's not fit to be our candidate. I certainly wish Gore had done some of this in 2000, rather than worrying about appearances. (And I wouldn't mind of Kerry had done some of this in 2004.)

Partisanship aside, I am not happy about a caucus set-up that specifically favors casino workers over all other workers in Nevada.

The current caucus system is probably illegal, and should never have been approved. The fact it was approved, in the midst of political machinations, has no bearing on any argument that pretends to be about what is right. One can reasonably ask, "why didn't they object before the Culinary Union endorsement?" But who is "they?" Are we talking about a campaign, or are we talking about voters?

I doubt this will sink in, but here goes: If your argument is about fairness, rather than which candidate benefits, then you cannot defend the current caucus structure. And arguments about which campaign should have thought of what when, or who is playing what politics where, have no bearing on the enfranchisement question. They are merely a critique of process.

Individual American citizens are franchised or disenfranchised, not candidates. If a voter says, "Why can't I vote at my workplace, but culinary union workers can vote in their workplace?" it is utterly irrelevant whether that voter plans to vote for one candidate or another. That voter is, in fact, getting screwed. You can say Hillary favored this unfair set-up when she thought it might favor her, which I'm sure is true, but that has nothing to do with enfranchisement.

Many Obama supporters here are arguing in favor of a patently unfair electoral process, and that's fine. But don't argue for a patently unfair process that Hillary once approved, but that now appears to favor Obama, as being fair! It's an amazing argument... the disenfranchisement of an individual voter is not a matter to be argued between candidates. The current system was crooked when Hillary favored it, and it is crooked now that Obama favors it. It's crookedness cannot be determined from a partisan perspective.

And if the court looks at the brief and says, "you know, this is really crooked, this should be set up to be fair to all voters, not to gerrymander union support" then is that determination a good thing or a bad thing, from the point of view of enfranchising actual citizens?

We have seen this before. Remember how Republicans argued that the "butterfly ballot" that favored Pat Buchanan over Gore in Florida2000 was designed by a Democrat? It's a lunatic argument, because to the voter who voted for Buchanan while trying to vote for Gore had a right to HER Vote... it's not that Gore was entitled to her vote, but that SHE was entitled to HER personal vote.

[gateley]

1. K&R. Thank you.

[Vinca]

2. So you're saying if Obama and Edwards aren't willing to act

like Republicans, they shouldn't be president? Maybe I need to rethink my opinion of Hillary. If she's so willing to sink into the muck to prevent voting by members of her own party, surely she can beat the Republicans.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. This delusion that candidates are supposed to play at half-speed in the primaries is new to me

Good candidates want to win. They encounter obstacles and grind through them.

To say "we don't want candidates to act like Republicans" is to say, "we want to lose." As you may have noticed over the years, in terms of electoral tactics, acting like Republicans has a real upside.

I want candidates who are willing to campaign like Republicans, but govern like Democrats.

Given the primary structure, beating Democrats is a necessary precondition of beating Republicans. And this is the least negative Democratic primary season in history. Ever. That's a flat fact.

[Vinca]

17. And winning means making it more difficult for people to vote?

That's a page from the Rovian playbook for sure. I thought Democrats were better than that.

[Bullet1987]

19. So disenfranchising voters is FINE with you because it proves

they want to WIN!! Wow...and this is supposed to be a liberal website. It's looking more and more like Freeptown-lite.

[ruggerson]

3. Of course this OP will be ignored because it's not childish screaming

but it is dead on target.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. The at-large caucuses are not just for culinary union workers

Anyone, union or not, who works within a 2 mile radius may caucus at one. Anyone who has ever encountered Saturday traffic on the Vegas strip can tell you that it would be nearly impossible for those shift workers to get to their caucusing place (many of them live way off the Strip) and back to work without needing to take half the day off. It may not have been the best solution, but they were at least attempting to address the unfairness of the caucus system where shift workers are concerned. This is a point that Hillary made in her speech after Iowa, so she of all people should support the at-large caucuses.

Sorry, but the lawsuit seems disingenuous to me at this stage of the game. I'm supposed to believe that all of a sudden teachers realized they were going to be unfairly disenfranchised by casino workers? Because so many teachers work on Saturday? Please. I don't care who's behind the suit this is bullshit.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. I know it benefits all workers on the strip, was just speaking in short-hand

And my first-blush opinion of the system isn't relevant... that's what adjudication is for.

My larger point is that the system being examined from a neutral voting-rights perspective by a court is not clearly a bad thing from the perspective of enfranchisement.

If it is baseless the court will say, "this is baseless" and that will be the end of it. But if the court says, "Hold on... there are legitimate voting rights issues here" then that's to the good, whichever candidate benefits.

I like the judiciary as a concept, and I am not aghast at the idea of judicial review of a voting process. The courts have done a better track record of protecting voting rights than political campaigns have, And I will not be bitching about how it turns out one way or another.

I trust the courts to do a better job of safeguarding the rights of individual voters than I trust the Clinton campaign or the Obama campaign to make such a judgment.

So we will see how it shakes out. My guess is the court will stay out of it, which is fine by me.

[Usrename]

21. I don't think the court can stay out of it.

At the very least the court should require that "at large precinct" caucus goers be subtracted from the rolls of their "home precinct." Otherwise, there will be a situation where their "home precinct" caucus gets to allocate a delegate for them, based on their voter registration, and the "at large precinct" caucus gets to allocate a delegate for them based on their attendance, in effect, they are counted twice.

It should be easy to do though, since the "at large precinct" caucus goers must show proof of where they reside when they attend the "at large precinct" caucus, which should make it possible to remove their numbers from those allocated for the "home precinct." I think I said that right.

In any event, everyone was happy with it until Hillary didn't get the endorsement from the culinary workers union.

[Barack_America]

5. But doesn't this just represent that workers in casinos...

...are always going to have a stronger voice because the industry they work for is dominant?

I see this as a combination of things:

1. Casino workers ARE more likely to be left out in a Saturday night caucus. (That much is just true.)
2. Their union stepped up to try to make sure their members could vote. (Okay, that's what a union is supposed to do)
3. They have enough power in the state to make this happen and the power to *tweak* it in their favor.

I agree with everything except for the *tweaking* that occurred. And I don't agree with candidates fighting to defeat something that they originally fought to enact. That's just hypocrisy and disgusting politics. When that affects people's votes, it's abhorrent.

It would be more dignified to accept that they had gambled and lost. It is Vegas, after all. Don't they know that the House always wins? lol

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. My point is that there is nothing sinister about judicial review

The court will decide whether there are serious voting rights issues involved, and that's a legitimate role for the courts.

This is being presented here as "disenfranchisement."

What if the court said, this set-up offends basic fairness, and ordered the party to have even more caucus sites so that even MORE people could vote?

That would not be disenfranchising... quite the opposite.

I am all for maximum participation. I am uncomfortable with selectivity.

But most of all, I am quite comfortable with a court taking a look at any voting procedure anywhere, any time, with an eye toward the individual rights of voters. This is being painted as a sinister stunt, but all that is happening here is somebody is saying to a court, is this set-up legitimate?

Some of the outrage flying around here is like be outraged if an NFL coach throws the red "challenge" flag, asking the referees to review the video of a play. It's not sinister to ask. The decision is up to the court, and I trust a court more than I trust Hillary and more than I trust Barack, because they are interested parties. (The court probably knows Nevada election law 10,000 times better than I do.)

Given all the shenanigans everyone plays in a primary season, I am fine with the idea of an impartial arbiter looking at something. (Courts are not perfectly impartial, but campaigns are infinitely partial.)

[Barack_America]

11. My argument for disenfranchisement is...

That this is coming very late in the game. It's entirely possible that those people most interested in voting SIGNED UP to work on Saturday night, knowing that they would caucus at work. These people will be screwed if they're no longer able to do so.

There was ample time to deal with this. Fighting it only after the chips didn't fall in your favor is dishonest and unfair to the workers.

If neither of the political campaigns were involved in this lawsuit, I would have much more respect for it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. I agree with what you say, but I am more inclined to favor whatever the court says over

whatever we say.

I hope and assume that any court will factor in precisely the things you're talking about.

I am not going to complain about any outcome. And I trust the courts to factor in the rights of citizens more than I trust partisans. This is about citizens, not candidates.

Since the Reid lad (presumed to be a Hillary partisan) is running the show in Nevada, I would think non-Hillary partisans would be eager for impartial review of the process.

[killbotfactory]

7. Why would anyone want to make it harder for people to vote?

If there is an issue with delegate counts, fix that, but don't try to suppress the vote.

[ruggerson]

10. kick

n/t

[chascarrillo]

13. ... the OP's behind.

"If Obama wouldn't do this in the same position he's not fit to be our candidate."

Pathetic.

[Dawgs]

14. Yes it is.

Of course, the OP has been against Obama for a very long time.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

15. i think the entire primary system

is terrible and disenfranchising, Nevada being but one example.

[cloudythescribbler]

16. Who's the "they" that should've objected? Some PARTIES to the suit PARTICIPATED in the decision!

One can reasonably ask, "why didn't they object before the Culinary Union endorsement?" But who is "they?" Are we talking about a campaign, or are we talking about voters?
quoting the OP

Answer: a number of those who are PLAINTIFFS in this suit, about a policy that was made public MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO with no complaints until the Culinary Workers' Union endorsed Obama recently, participated in the Party meeting that voted unanimously for the caucus plan. And the major organizations (like the Teachers' Union in the suit) ALL were well aware of the setup all along. Here's a link to a thread on the WaPo article documenting these points AND NOTE THE COMMENT WHERE THE SAME REPORT WAS ON ABC
(the latter point from WesDem's research, to be transparent about the credit).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4052397

see in particular not only the text of the WaPo (including especially but not limited to the bolded section) and comment #9

[Renew Deal]

18. Sorry, but you're wrong that it only benefits casino workers.

"and nonunion. Shutting down the sites, which allow anyone who works within 2 1/2 miles of one to caucus there, would undermine the legitimacy of the caucus, he said."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/13/culinary-leader-closing-sites-strip-would-strike-c/

[dkf]

20. Culinary workers have to work on Saturday.

I think special provisions should be made so they can participate.

If you want to argue about the way the votes are allocated so be it. But I don't understand why they wouldn't have tried to allocate it fairly in the first place. I don't want my candidate to benefit from unfairness.

It seems too late to figure something out now though. Maybe if they can figure out a better formula?