Typical dems... cloak and daggers...

[Cancel 2016.2]

Found it:



So much for your doom and gloom recession talk.

right.... a slight rally in the dollar means the recessionary pressures are all better???? LMAO.

Nice try. Stick to surfing.

 

[cawacko]

No, he will not go on IA.

Note, I did not say that they should be forced to release the actual numbers. I said they SHOULD. They should be embarrassed for using such a deceptive practice with their consituents. One in which fraud could easily take place, potentially denying the Iowa voters their true choice. I would have thought the Dems on this board would have been upset at such a practice. I think we all know how they would have reacted had the roles been reversed and it was the Reps acting in secrecy.

I don't know if Desh and BAC are on the board but as you stated originally it would be interesting to hear their opinion.

The Dems did nothing illegal but I would think if I'm voting in the Democratic Primary I would want to see the actual results.

And you did not get skewered on this thread. It was rather humorous to have citizen's true colors come out in defense of his party. As a reader of the thread it was quite entertaining.

 

[Beefy]

I don't know if Desh and BAC are on the board but as you stated originally it would be interesting to hear their opinion.

The Dems did nothing illegal but I would think if I'm voting in the Democratic Primary I would want to see the actual results.

And you did not get skewered on this thread. It was rather humorous to have citizen's true colors come out in defense of his party. As a reader of the thread it was quite entertaining.

Yeah, it'll probably be quite the conundrum for Desh as she holds the Democrats as angelic, benevolent and flawless, yet voting issues are paramount to her. She just might implode.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah, it'll probably be quite the conundrum for Desh as she holds the Democrats as angelic, benevolent and flawless, yet voting issues are paramount to her. She just might implode.

my guess is that she will publically (on this board anyway) state just what cawacko did... that the Dems did nothing illegal.

Once she logs off, my guess is she calls any and all of her Dem connections and lets them have it. Because I do believe she will be pissed about this, whether she is willing to show it on here or not remains to be seen.

 

[Beefy]

my guess is that she will publically (on this board anyway) state just what cawacko did... that the Dems did nothing illegal.

Once she logs off, my guess is she calls any and all of her Dem connections and lets them have it. Because I do believe she will be pissed about this, whether she is willing to show it on here or not remains to be seen.

Either way, it should piss her off. This is back room politics, fatcats with cigars making their selections off the grid.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Either way, it should piss her off. This is back room politics, fatcats with cigars making their selections off the grid.

Exactly. Not to say that it is definitely happening, but the fact that it could with no oversight by the public should greatly annoy her and BAC.

 

[Beefy]

Exactly. Not to say that it is definitely happening, but the fact that it could with no oversight by the public should greatly annoy her and BAC.

The fact that there is deliberatley no oversight tells me that this is exactly what's happening. If it were not, there would be transparency.

It smells as if the big wheels in the party wish to protect themselves from what the ignorant proles do in case they pick a perceived weak candidate.

Politics as usual.

 

[Cypress]

my guess is that she will publically (on this board anyway) state just what cawacko did... that the Dems did nothing illegal.

Once she logs off, my guess is she calls any and all of her Dem connections and lets them have it. Because I do believe she will be pissed about this, whether she is willing to show it on here or not remains to be seen.

Since your one of the few people to still defend the Iraq war, you have a lot of nerve demanding that Desh, BAC, or anyone admit to mistakes or malfeseance by political parties.

that said, I already stated exactly what beefy did. That the Dem party has a legal right to run their caucuses any way they want, but I always prefer to err on the side of transparency in both public and private entities.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The fact that there is deliberatley no oversight tells me that this is exactly what's happening. If it were not, there would be transparency.

It smells as if the big wheels in the party wish to protect themselves from what the ignorant proles do in case they pick a perceived weak candidate.

Politics as usual.

Agreed, it stinks and you are likely right in your reasoning for why they do it. What I find interesting is that in all the years of the "corruption in elections" discussions, not once was this mentioned. Had the Times not done an article on it, I still wouldn't know that this type of crap occurs in the US.

 

[uscitizen]

idiot.

 

[uscitizen]

Well I can agree with that. And it is surprising that uscitizen, on of the top 5 rank and file Democrats on this board, would endorse such a practice.

Read back Beefy, I did not endorse such a practice, just said it is the demopcratic party's business.

Ohh you guys bend things around so much.

 

[blackascoal]

Why so much secrecy? Who really decides the candidate for Iowa? Why is this process tolerated by Iowans?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18cranberg.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

While not shocked that the Dems would handle an election in this manner, I am shocked that individuals like Desh and BAC have not cried foul. I say this because I know both are passionate about obtaining fair elections (or as close as we can come to fair). Yet, I had to read this from the Times. Was anyone else aware of the difference between parties in Iowa? Because this was news to me.

In my opinion this is not a public policy issue and has nothing to do with fair elections. The process that politcial parties go through in picking their own candidates is their business and protected by the First Amendment.

The Democratic Party and the DLC picked John Kerry who had to mortgage his house just to stay in the race. They picked him to keep Howard Dean from becoming the candidate.

But like as a member of any club, if you don't like the rules, don't join.

This is not public policy.

By the way .. the Democratic Party is pathetic .. which is why I don't belong to it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In my opinion this is not a public policy issue and has nothing to do with fair elections. The process that politcial parties go through in picking their own candidates is their business and protected by the First Amendment.

The Democratic Party and the DLC picked John Kerry who had to mortgage his house just to stay in the race. They picked him to keep Howard Dean from becoming the candidate.

But like as a member of any club, if you don't like the rules, don't join.

This is not public policy.

By the way .. the Democratic Party is pathetic .. which is why I don't belong to it.

So the democratic caucus goers should not be entitled to see verification of the results of their efforts? Are they not entitled to have their true voice heard in who they want to represent their party?

I expected more from you on this.

 

[uscitizen]

So the democratic caucus goers should not be entitled to see verification of the results of their efforts? Are they not entitled to have their true voice heard in who they want to represent their party?

I expected more from you on this.

Can't you get it ? That is up to the democratic party, not you.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Can't you get it ? That is up to the democratic party, not you.

Can't you get it? I understand it is up to the Democratic party. What I cannot understand is why so many Dems and other liberals seem to not care about the lack of transparency. That people like you are ok with this enough to defend it. That you have absolutely no clue that this does indeed effect all of us, even though it is indeed up to the DNC. The fact that it is up to the DNC does not change the fact that it is bullshit.

 

[blackascoal]

So the democratic caucus goers should not be entitled to see verification of the results of their efforts? Are they not entitled to have their true voice heard in who they want to represent their party?

I expected more from you on this.

First, if you think this is limited to democrats you're wrong. Nor is it even limited to Democrats or republicans.

The Greens have quirky rules about how their candidates are selected.

The Libertarians just re-wrote their selection policy to allow them to select a candidate from a different party without any party-wide democratic process.

Republicans have their own internal macinations that ensure that who the party leaders want as the candidate is who will be the candidate. Do you think republicans will allow Ron Paul to represent their party .. regardless of what voters want? Republicans are closing all their primaries as fast as they can.

Do I think democrats are entitled to have their voice heard?

I sure do .. but that's up to democrats, whom I'm not one of, to force that issue. I think the same of any voter aligned with a political party .. but that's party politics, not public policy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

First, if you think this is limited to democrats you're wrong. Nor is it even limited to Democrats or republicans.

The Greens have quirky rules about how their candidates are selected.

The Libertarians just re-wrote their selection policy to allow them to select a candidate from a different party without any party-wide democratic process.

Republicans have their own internal macinations that ensure that who the party leaders want as the candidate is who will be the candidate. Do you think republicans will allow Ron Paul to represent their party .. regardless of what voters want? RFepublicans are closing all their primaries as fast as they can.

Do I think democrats are entitled to have their voice heard?

I sure do .. but that's up to democrats, whom I'm not one of, to force that issue. I think the same of any voter aligned with a political party .. but that's party politics, not public policy.

If there are other states where other parties are doing the same shit, that is sad. Every primary election/caucus should be representative of the people entitled to vote. The results should be completely transparent. I was unaware that some states allow this crap to go on.

If you have examples of other states, regardless of party, where this complete lack of transparency occurs, I would be interested in learning more about it.

Salazar will be receiving an email from me with regards to this issue. He is at least one dem that I know will show more concern.

 

[blackascoal]

Can't you get it? I understand it is up to the Democratic party. What I cannot understand is why so many Dems and other liberals seem to not care about the lack of transparency. That people like you are ok with this enough to defend it. That you have absolutely no clue that this does indeed effect all of us, even though it is indeed up to the DNC. The fact that it is up to the DNC does not change the fact that it is bullshit.

The Democratic Party is a private organization. It exists to elect candidates that represent it's purpose, goals, and ideals. The same is true of the Republican Party.

I understand your desire to make the case that democrats alter elections, but this ain't that case.

I ask again, do you think the Republican Party would allow Ron Paul to be the candidate?

Political parties are PRIVATE organizations and they can change the rules whenever they please. It is up to the constituents of that private organization to force transparency that even the US courts cannot do.

 

[blackascoal]

If there are other states where other parties are doing the same shit, that is sad. Every primary election/caucus should be representative of the people entitled to vote. The results should be completely transparent. I was unaware that some states allow this crap to go on.

If you have examples of other states, regardless of party, where this complete lack of transparency occurs, I would be interested in learning more about it.

Salazar will be receiving an email from me with regards to this issue. He is at least one dem that I know will show more concern.

I could not agree with you more, but this is the nature of politics in America and it always has been.

This is from Bev Harris, a champion in the fight against electronic voting and for transparency throughoit politics.

Coming Jan. 3, 2008: The famous Iowa caucuses. Traditionally considered a critical sign of candidate viability, results in Iowa can make or break candidate funding and public image. What problems can affect caucuses?

Following an Iowa Republican Party straw poll in August, citizens expressed anguish that the votes were counted on Diebold/Premier optical scan voting machines. Another Republican straw poll, in Pinellas County Florida, was afflicted with participants reporting touch-screen voting machines flipping votes from one candidate to another.

In a San Mateo County, Calif. Democratic Party straw poll, votes were counted in public but then accumulated out of public view on a laptop, a procedural flaw that organizers say will be corrected. (It doesn't matter if the initial counting is done in public, if results are summed up in private without releasing the details.)

In Iowa, neither party has been releasing the precinct results that provide the underlying verification for the totals they announce -- a procedure so top-heavy it should come with a laugh track. Black Box Voting and many Iowa citizens have been expressing concern, and urging the release of the data for the 1,900 precincts to back up the announced total.

While it's true that each precinct vote result assigns delegates according to the vote, and those delegates go to a county convention to cast votes (though this is nonbinding), in fact the delegate votes never match the original caucus results, because the county convention is held months after the caucus, and in 2008 will take place after Super Duper Tuesday. Many candidates drop out by the time the convention rolls around, and votes are readjusted.

Caucuses are not subject to freedom of information through public records, because technically the parties are private corporations and do not have to release their documents. Therefore, the caucuses have some built-in impediments to transparency.

Black Box Voting has been raising questions and seeking answers. We've been mailing letters to our Iowa constituents, blogging, and distributing questions and concerns through the voting rights circuitry.

Here's what we've learned so far, revealing some good news and citizen action still needed to prod one of the parties into publicly accounting for its results.

Because caucus procedures for each party differ, will report on them separately.

NO VOTING MACHINES

It's official:

Democratic Party procedures - Haven't and won't use any voting machines in the caucuses.

Republican Party procedures - They used voting machines in the Republican straw poll in August, but will not use the machines in the January caucus.

PUBLIC COUNTING PROCEDURES?

Both parties say they will count the votes in public at the precincts.

Dem procedures: Stand in a clump, count the warm bodies. Public count. Dem procedures are publicly posted on sec. state web site.

Rep Procedures: Write name on piece of paper, hand count it. Rep procedures are not posted yet.

I spoke with Chad Olsen, one of the people with the Iowa Republican Party handling the caucuses. According to Olsen, the procedure will be for each participant to write the name on a piece of paper. Those pieces of paper will be collected and will be counted by the precinct caucus officials in front of representatives for the candidates and an observer or observers.

Devil is in the details on that, chain of custody can go bonkers. It did in the Texas Republican straw poll recently. Still, that's better than voting machines. Done right, it's a public count. Would like to get the procedures, in writing.

RELEASE OF UNDERLYING PRECINCT DATA WHEN ANNOUNCING WINNER?

Dem Party procedures: I have a definite confirm, in writing, from the spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party that they will release the precinct results. They have never done this before. What they will be doing in 2008 carves out new procedures for improved transparency and citizen oversight. Dem Party spokesman Chris Allen said to watch for a press release, hopefully early next week.

Republican Party procedures: Not yet, opened the door, provided a road map to getting precinct results released promptly on state web site. At this time, however, there are no plans to do so.

Regarding releasing the underlying precinct figures when they announce the winner, Olsen said it might be available by the counties but maybe not right away, maybe a day later.

Iowa has 99 counties, with widely varying ability to handle this on their web sites. I encouraged him to post the results all in one place, and promptly, on the state party web site.

He said the media hasn't had this as a top priority. I explained that the terrain in 2008 is very different than in the caucus period in 2004. There are many different election integrity groups and many citizen oversight groups now, and the needs of citizens doing oversight are not quite the same as those of the media.

I asked him if they had made a decision NOT to post the results. (They never have before). He said they haven't made a decision NOT to. So I asked him if they would consider posting them, even if just as a spreadsheet or simple pdf list of results. He said no one has really asked for it. I said, if people ask for it, might you do it?

He said, if enough people ask for it they might do it.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD

When people participate in a caucus, they should be able to see the votes counted in public, and then should be able to promptly go visit a web site to see that the result they observed is the same as the precinct number contained in the total.

For the first time, Democratic Party caucus participants will be able to check that the state total uses their accurate precinct details. Maybe -- if enough people ask for it -- Republican Party caucus participants will be able to have the same transparency.

Methinks enough people should be marshalled to ask for it.

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/71028.html

It is up to the constituents to demand it

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The Democratic Party is a private organization. It exists to elect candidates that represent it's purpose, goals, and ideals. The same is true of the Republican Party.

I understand your desire to make the case that democrats alter elections, but this ain't that case.

I ask again, do you think the Republican Party would allow Ron Paul to be the candidate?

Political parties are PRIVATE organizations and they can change the rules whenever they please. It is up to the constituents of that private organization to force transparency that even the US courts cannot do.

No shit.... thanks captain obvious.... we have been over that numerous times on this thread.... YES, the dems are a private organization. Yes, they are doing nothing illegal.

However, how can you say with a straight face that it does not alter elections. The whole purpose of primary elections/caucuses is for the people of the respective parties to choose their candidates. If the DNC leaders want to simply pick their candidate, then fine. But don't go through the charade that it is the peoples choice and then act as if everything is just fine when they hide the results of the peoples choice. That is not democracy.

As for the HOW part of changing it. Yes, I understand that it has to be changed from within the Dem party. But given the responses from the dems on this board, I am guessing they are ok with being lemmings.