The RBC Violation of DNC "Sunshine" Rules

[wlotus]

The Confluence
Posted on June 6, 2008 by plukasiak
The “Magic Number” is still 2025, or 2209. But its not 2118.

That’s because, in violation of the DNC charter, a secret meeting was held, and secret votes were taken — violations of specific Charter “sunshine rules” provisions. A deal was struck among Obama supporters on the committee to completely ignore what is known as the “fair reflection” rule (see note below), and to treat the constituency groups that had provided Hillary Clinton with considerable margins in two states (Hispanic/Latino voters, older voters, women, Jewish voters in Florida, older voters, working class voters, rural voters, and women in Michigan) as “half voters”.

Read the rest...

---

I mailed my updated voter's registration form, today. I'm glad I am now an unaffiliated voter. I am horrified by what my former party has done.

I like the Invitation to Democrats in Exile, too. What a riot...and so true!

Comments

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

So they flagrantly violated the party's rules in order to coronate Obama early, huh?

Well, that tears it. I'm writing in Clinton.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

That's what it looks like, to me. I read through it a few times to make sure I was seeing what I thought I was seeing.

Before you write in Clinton--and it may not come down to that, as who knows what will be decided at the convention weeks from now--make sure you read your state's election law. I read through the sections of New York State's election law pertaining to write-in votes, and discovered two important things:

1. Any person who wants to be allowed as a write in candidate must file the appropriate paperwork with the state's board of elections before the filing deadline.

2. Any write-in votes for someone who has not filed that paperwork will be canvassed as void.

If Senator Clinton isn't nominated, and if she does not file paperwork to be a write-in candidate in NY, I will probably vote Green. I can't see myself voting for McCain, even though I am paying far closer attention to his platform and will consider it. I might not consider it for long, but I'll consider it. :-)

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Minnesota just requires you to put a sticker with the candidate's name on the ballot. I'm sure there won't be a problem getting those at the polling places.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

I wish New York made it that easy!

(frozen)

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

The penalties applied to MI and FL were established in 2007. None of the candidates protested them, and all (with the exception of Mike Gravel in Florida) agreed they would not campaign in Florida or in Michigan. Biden, Obama and Edwards removed their names from the Michigan ballot. No one removed their name from the Florida ballot because it is against Florida election law to do so.

It does bear asking why, if these rules and penalties were so problematic, did none of the candidates protest them when they were applied 6 months before the primaries began?

The 1/2 vote is NOT being applied to any particular demographic group, as implied by the paragraph you are quoting, but to ALL votes. It's not as if, for example, Jewish voters receive 1/2 a vote and Black voters receive a whole vote. Hence in Florida, Clinton receives 52.5 (as opposed to 105) delegates, Obama receives 33.5 (rather than 67) and Edwards received 5.5 (instead of 11).

[verucas-chaos.livejournal.com]

Wow....not much to say about this except I shudder to think what it is going to be like for the future of this country in the way of voting. Ever since the dangling chad voting seems like a joke.

(frozen)

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

It does bear asking why, if these rules and penalties were so problematic, did none of the candidates protest them when they were applied 6 months before the primaries began?

There are two possiblities.

1. No one thought the race would be as tight as it turned out to be.

2. They did protest, but out of loyalty to the party agreed to keep it quiet so as not to air the Democratic party's dirty laundry, and we simply were not informed.

I suspect the first is true, but the second would not surprise me in the least.

(frozen) And by the way...

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

And there can be no question that it was the intent of Barack Obama to provide different treatment to different voters. In Michigan, Obama had his representative demand that the delegates in Michigan be provided with full voting power, (while completely ignoring their votes, and demanding a 50-50 split) while demanding that Floridians – a state with large number of Jewish voters, Latino/Hispanic voters, and older voters –were to be given only half-representation. Obama’s position was so internally inconsistent that it can only be seen as an effort to disenfranchise those constituencies that have consistently supported Hillary Clinton, and provided her with a considerable margin in Florida among both delegates and the popular vote.

From later in the article. The proof is in the pudding.

(frozen)

[dagfari.livejournal.com]

As far as what I've heard - it wasn't the voters that were counted as "half voters".

It was specifically the delegates of Michigan and Florida - because:

1. Those states violated the rules on when their primaries could be held

2. on the actual ballots given in those states, the options were "hillary clinton" and "no candidate".

Also; it could be just me but I think to vote for a candidate that represents the opposite of your political views simply because your favoured candidate didn't get nominated is simply petty.

:/

(frozen)

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

While I don't intend to vote for someone who is opposite my political views, I understand why some people are doing it. Some of the folks who are doing it believe that would position Senator Clinton to run a successful campaign against McCain in 2012, where running against an incumbent Obama in 2012 would damage her standing in the party, so she wouldn't be likely to do it. There are others who are doing it, because it's a case of voting for the devil they know versus the devil they don't know (because he hasn't been around long enough to know who the heck he is). Still others respect McCain's bipartisanship and recognize he is more likely to go by his conscience, not merely be a party puppet.

If you would read what people are saying in the various blogs, they are making it plain this is bigger than Clinton vs. Obama. This is about not allowing the Democratic party to hijack the democratic process and get away with it the same way the Republican party has done. None of that is petty at all. Petty is dismissing people's valid concerns about the process as emotionalism.

(frozen) Furthermore...

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

Whether it was delegates who were halved or voters who were halved, the process was still handled wrong. When you take delegates from one candidate and give them to another, that is stealing.

[nimbrethil.livejournal.com]

You hit the nail on the head in your comment about this being less about Obama and Clinton than the Democratic party itself.

The Dems used to be a party I could genuinely believe in, but one thing that must be said for the Rethuglicans is that they are organized and united in ways that the Democrats haven't been in quite a while. Worse, the DNC seems to have decided that the way to regain power is to resort to the tactics employed by Bush's cronies over the past eight years, and that is not acceptable.

Obama's pompous statement about being President in 2016 pushed all my buttons. Someone else had made a comment earlier suggesting that he sold his soul to someone to have believed that he, inexperienced as he is, had a shot at the Presidency, and given the way he bulldozed his way through the primaries, it's...well, it's too discomfiting to ignore, I feel. He's either the most arrogant person on Earth or he has some reason to believe his being elected President for two terms is guaranteed. And if the latter is true, then it's just another example of the sham that the electoral process has become. I'm not giving my support to a person or organization who wants to circumvent the democratic process we are theoretically built on.