EclectaComment

Posted on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 5:24 AM by Eclectablog

Kucinich 83%
Gravel 65%

I have a very similar one posted on my site.

Hmm

Posted on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 5:40 AM by TrevaLVF

That's very interesting. Uh-huh. Interesting indeed.

EclectaComment

Posted on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 7:16 AM by Eclectablog

Considering the clusterfuck that has arisen with the Democratic primary in Michigan (with only Hillary Clinton of the top three candidates on the ballot and no ability to "write-in" a candidate's name), I'll be voting for DK in the primary.

<i>Untitled Comment</i>

Posted on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM by treasa

I took the same but different one at Eclectablog's the other day and came up with the same results, but at least I felt like I understood better what I was answering, with this test.

Gravel
Kucinich
Richardson

Yeah yeah ... lol

Posted on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM by womanoffeathers

Kucinich
Obama

Now ... which of these two will more likely make it...

That depends

Posted on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 2:34 AM by TrevaLVF

It depends on how much respect and love Americans have for the democratic process and our right to be provided with accurate and thorough campaign and election coverage.
It also depends, not on your vote when you cast your ballot, but on the caucus after the polls close, which depends on delegates and people that select delegates.

I hear more people say, "Well, my ideal candidate is Dennis Kucinich," and others that say, "Yeah. He sounds like a perfect candidate in my book," but then they fall into that media-induced trap of repeating, "But he's not electable."

If you really think he is the ideal candidate, then when the polls close, get your tail over to the caucus convention as either a delegate (which you'd better contact the Dem party first to become one quickly...Now!) or to select a delegate.

And keep your eye for any hanky panky.

That will give you a chance to stump for Dennis. You can take banners and wear t-shirts to the Caucus and promote Kucinich. You can request the floor for time to tell the others why you believe that Dennis has the track-record, the know-how and the dedication to best serve us, not special, corporate interests.

Or you can let other people tell you to vote for a celebrity candidate (The corporate media creates celebrity candidate) on the media's A List, because the media tells the people who is electable.

What is wrong with us if we think, "He's the best option, but is he, or he is not electable. So, I have to blow my vote on somebody that has secret financial dealings, serves elite lobbyists and tosses us a crumb to pacify us so we'll quit whining long enough to counter criticism of that one by saying, "Well, he did this right..."

Come on! People are smarter than that. Shake the media's influence out of your head. If not, remember the words of Buddy Hacket in "Enemy of State" when he talked about advantages guerilla warriors had to powerful, organized and political forces.

Fear of doing the right thing contributes to our mounting problems. Fear of breaking a pattern that really isn't working for us very well.

This is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave. Our freedom is being stripped from us. We have a shortage of bravery in this country. That breaks my heart.

Gravel, Treasa?

Posted on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 2:37 AM by TrevaLVF

Gravel is another ignored candidate. His democratic rights, like the rights of Dennis and some others, as well as, our rights, are also trampled.

Ogre Jehosephatt's Comment

Posted on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 8:55 AM by OgreJehosephatt

I think I'd like to see a system where there would be rounds of voting.

Rounding Votes

Posted on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM by TrevaLVF

I think, somebody a long time ago described something like that at the old GNN forum. They said it would best enable the people elect the truly most popular candidate, than to narrow it down to the two-party ruled train wreck here where our actual poll votes don't count, but what happens at each caucus does a little to win delegates for the nomination process. Where we then cast ballots that may, or may not be faulty, rigged, or tampered with. Then, if these reasons somehow and miraculously can be put to rest with no residual questions, or issues, it's still up to the electoral college to declare whether, or not our votes counted anyway when it gets down to the presidential candidates and which one presumably won.

Explain to me the rounds of voting, please. It's been so long that I don't recall it clearly.

Ogre Jehosephatt's Comment

Posted on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 10:29 AM by OgreJehosephatt

Oh.. It's an idea that came to me, and it's not thoroughly thought out. If other people thought it, they probably have a clearer picture.

I suppose you could do it several ways, but the simplest way would be to eliminate the person with the least votes each round, until you're left with one guy.

A part of me would like to see a system where no one would be elected until a candidate had 70% of the votes. I'm not sure about how far reaching the implications for this would be, and how impractical it would make things, but it seems nice.

EclectaComment

Posted on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM by Eclectablog

Instant run-off voting is the most obviously sensible solution to all of this.

Untitled Comment

Posted on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM by TrevaLVF

We'd have to take into consideration the fact that we have fifty states full of citizens that are involved in the national elections. Then, it's broken down to districts, then precincts. That's not even counting the state and local stuff that also breaks it down to each county level, or parish for Louisiana.

Political parties here further complicate things. The Democratic and Republican parties have maintained control over our democratic process for nearly as long as the US has been a nation. They resist alternative party candidates from gaining seats in national public offices and they'd probably laugh themselves silly at the mere suggestion of a non-partisan candidate trying to get a foot in the door.

EclectaComment

Posted on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 12:59 PM by Eclectablog

Still so, instant run-off voting would take care of that. Handily. Which is, of course, why it will never be used since those who decide how we vote are the very people who benefit most from the status quo >:(

Untitled Comment

Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 7:47 AM by TrevaLVF

It would have to be worked on for problem-prevention measures to protect our democratic rights. It does seem promising. Far better than what exists now.

But that's another thing we won't get in our favor at this rate. What with most US citizens not caring, the majority being a 3-waysplit between those in denial, the poorly informed (ad-paper readers and TV mock-news program watchers, people that don't have time), and the rest not giving a damn to even be somewhat, or poorly informed, our problems will worsen.

Cool ... longest response ... hehe

Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 6:47 PM by womanoffeathers

Ok ... with that aside ...

I will be doing my part for him ... but I'll let you do the talking.

When I watched the Iowa Caucus (Dems on C-Span 1 - GOP on C-Span 2 ... flipping back and forth) the Dems had everyone (all ages and walks of life) in a large hall (I think a school cafeteria)... had those for each candidate go to different sections representing their candidate and visual/oral counts were done ... Those that didn't have enough decided where they wanted to go ... if 2 smaller groups joined together (and decide which candidate they were to represent) and it was enough ... good. If not ... they had to find another group. All of this was done in the open in front of all and the cameras ... laughing, conversing and seem to be having a very good time

The GOPS wrote their choices on a piece of paper and sticking them in boxes. many people left after that and a smaller group of grumpy-faced older folks crowded into a room (looked like a classroom minus desks with rows of chairs) ... spendt their time saying a prayer, hearing some girl sing God Bless America, then hearing a rep from each candidate blab about why theirs is better than the other.

After all this ... most of the people left and some stayed behind to count the ballots from the various boxes. Whoever didn't make the first cut ... were just thrown out. There wasn't a need for the second cut. I won't go into the ones that were thrown on the floor during the counting (thought they were being slick)

Yeah ... such a difference ...

I love C-Span

New Hampshire, Michigan, Networks

Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 9:25 PM by TrevaLVF

I noticed since 2000 that the corporate plutocrats that dominate seats held by Democrats in Washington D.C. and the party's plutocratic leaders have not really put up a good fight to protect our voting rights. In fact, they may as well have told Michigan and Florida voters to go fuck themselves by banning their delegates (happy, jolly people that show up to engage in the Caucus, as you described) from the Democratic National Convention. In other words, they said, "Florida and Michigan Voters don't deserve to even have delegates to nominate the Dem party flag bearer."

Texas Democratic Party leaders banned Dennis from the party's primary ballots. Why? Because Dennis Kucinich scratched out that fascist partisan pledge to support the Democratic nominee, even if that nominee is a lying sack of idiotic shit that cashes in on selling us out for personal profit and to reimburse Big Business and Big Industry supporters, while tossing pacifiers to the crowd of partisan Democrats that eagerly suckle away and declare, "See. They're in there fighting for us. Look what they did for us."

Count 1 to maybe 5 little favors to their voting supporters (if they're lucky to get that much). Discount the half-assed, wimpy attempts to give the impression that all the smoke they blow and mirrors they use are signs that they are fighting, but either losing, or winning shards of what they claimed they would accomplish.

People at the Kucinich and the Ron Paul communities are examining evidence that the New Hampshire vote was rigged.

I'm feeling the way I felt years ago when I decided then to give up on the entire Democratic Party. Even the majority of Democratic voters with real issues that this party's leaders don't care about (except when they're spinning the bull on the campaign trail) are part of the problem. They won't look beyond their delusional perceptions of this party's celebrity candidates on state and national levels. Somebody manufactures the bogus image that these people believe is genuine. If they really care about themselves, their families, our troops, our country, and humanity throughout the world, then they need to wake up and stop letting the media and those plutocrats confuse them into repeatedly and traditionally voting against themselves. First, they need to stop the instant defense that is so like the reaction we get from partisan Republicans (especially the Bushwhacked) and look into what we're trying to show them.