E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAfter back-to-back fiascos in Nevada and Iowa, the term "caucus" may be on its way to becoming a bad word in the GOP lexicon.
Those troubled contests cast a shadow over the volunteer-run presidential selection process as the GOP's caucus season begins Tuesday night in Colorado and Minnesota. In all, 10 states are scheduled to hold caucuses in February and March.
For now, national Republicans have shied away from calling for the end of caucuses in favor of straight-vote primaries. Critics say it is only a matter of time before the caucus troubles become too great to ignore.
"The average voter does not want to go to an event that is going to take one, two or three hours," said Republican state Assemblyman Pat Hickey of Reno. "In that regard, I think it doesn't work well, especially in states like Nevada."
Nevada Republicans finally released the results of their Saturday caucuses early Monday morning, after volunteers had stayed up for nearly 48 hours counting and recounting votes in a contest that saw only 33,000 votes cast, about 9 percent of the state's registered Republicans. Party leaders said they wanted to take their time to avoid another Iowa.
Related: Romney shifts focus to Santorum ahead of Tuesday caucuses
Last month, Iowa initially called its first-in-the-nation presidential race for Mitt Romney by eight votes, only to have allegations of impropriety surface. Two weeks later Iowa Republicans announced that — oops — Rick Santorum had actually won by 34 votes. The head of the Iowa GOP said he would resign.
Republican Party leaders in other states said they were confident that they could avoid the problems that defined the Nevada and Iowa contests, but they also acknowledged that a caucus system requires much more work than a primary, which is overseen by the government.
In Colorado, Republicans have been holding weekly training sessions to explain the complicated voting process to volunteers. In Minnesota, Republicans say they will release the results from each precinct as they are counted.
"We've done a lot of training for our caucus conveners," said Heather Rubash, spokeswoman for the Minnesota GOP, which held presidential caucuses in 2004 and 2008. "It hasn't been a problem in the past."
Caucuses are generally party-run nomination contests that require voters to show up at a certain time and listen as their neighbors discuss the candidates. Only once that's done do voters get to cast their ballots.
In most cases, there are no voter machines to tally up the results, no professional staff to ensure every vote is counted equally and no dashing into the local polling place to vote between errands.
All of that adds up to an error-prone system that can leave voters confused and disinterested in voting and, in some cases, on the alert for potential fraud.
"It's a lot of folks to train and a lot of information," said Chuck Poplstein, executive director of the Colorado GOP. "It's not an easy situation if you are just walking into it."
In Nevada, hints of caucus trouble were evident long before voters showed up Saturday. Party leaders changed the date twice and allowed the county parties to set their own rules, which meant there was no uniform voting method or start time across the state.
On Election Day, there were many voting locations where even the people in charge had never attended a caucus before. Some voters were turned away after showing up late thinking they could cast a ballot anytime throughout the day, as they might in a primary.
The real trouble began as party leaders started to release results late Saturday night. GOP leaders in Clark County, where more than half of all Republicans live and the home of Las Vegas, said they planned to stay up all night counting the ballots. The results were finally released just before 2 a.m. local time Monday.
"I might be the only person left in the Nevada Republican Party that still likes caucuses," acting GOP Chairman James Smack said during the vote count.
Romney won the contest, as he did in 2008. Newt Gingrich finished a distant second, followed closely by Ron Paul. Santorum came in last.
It was the second time Nevada's GOP caucuses crashed and burned. In 2008, only 44,000 voters showed up and state leaders vowed to do better. Instead, turnout dropped by more than 10,000 voters Saturday. There are 471,000 registered Republicans in Nevada.
Critics said the arcane caucus format might be to blame for the low turnout.
"The conversations I've heard for over a year is: 'Why are we still doing this caucus? Nobody likes it,'" said Cheryl Van Ocker, a GOP activist in rural northern Nevada. "They would like to have a primary."
So why would any state choose to hold a caucus instead of a traditional primary?
For one thing, caucuses generally don't cost taxpayers a cent, a big plus among tea party Republicans concerned about excessive government spending. While public dollars are used to cover the cost of primaries, caucuses are paid for by each local and state political party.
Proponents claim caucuses also create a sense of community, allowing neighbors to civilly debate politics and elect precinct captains who can go on to make important decisions within the state party.
"It connects and energizes people in a way that going into the voting booth doesn't," said Jill Derby, a former Nevada Democratic chairwoman who hosted the state's successful Democratic caucuses in 2008.
Still, Derby cautioned: "It takes tremendous organization. You have to do the work to train people."
On Saturday, Barbara Vallard, 75, signed into a caucus location in Las Vegas and then stood around, unsure of where she was supposed to go and how she could vote. Told she would have to wait until everyone had signed in before she could cast a ballot, she fretted that she was going to be late for an appointment.
But Vallard, a Romney supporter, said she wouldn't have it any other way.
"It's good to hear other people's beliefs," she said.
Leave a Comment:
Even the voters know they have no one to vote for,,,,,WHAT A FARCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yes we will, anyone but Obama.
Our whole political system is broken and needs to be fixed.
1. Both parties should hold nationwide primaries on a date certain in June. A clear winner can be "anointed" at the convention and any need for a run-off can also be addressed at the convention.
2. PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTIONS with clearly defined limits. No personal funds or private donations and no super pacs.
3. Dump the Electoral College. What a dinosaur. My state is a "winner take all" state which means if I don't happen to vote for the "winner" my vote isn't counted, period. The other guy gets all the electors. Why bother to go to the polls?
Don't even get me started on gerrymandering, and I'm looking at you Texas.
Obama/Biden 2012
Buck naked -With that name you will be taken seriously. Obama is a great president.
Great President? Ever heard of the NDAA with its indefinite detention for U.S. citizens at the whim of the President with no judicial recourse what-so-ever? Yeah, that's the powers of a dictator this administration insisted get put in the NDAA and the ACLU is fighting it. You probably haven't heard about it because this, "news," site didn't report on it. But google NDAA and ACLU and you will see, this President insisted on its inclusion in the bill and now has the legal powers of a dictator (he signed it into law December 31st, 2011), not a President. On top of that he signed the ACTA treaty on October 1st of last year, which is SOPA/PIPA on crack. If you didn't like those bills, you better pray the Senate doesn't ratify the treaty President Obama signed, or you risk being banned from Internet use for life at the whims of the entertainment industry and the government. Then there's things like Fast & Furious & Solyndra, but I'm sure you've heard all about those on this, "news," site right?
By all rights anything with a pulse will beat Obama, but it would be a shame if he's replaced with another supporter of the status quo, the corrupt 'Washington Establishment' ....Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum.
@T-1236278: The Senate approved this bill with 93 Senators in favor. In the House 283 members voted for this bill with 190 GOP Congressmen approving. Obama in a signing statement said he had reservation about the detention parts of this bill. More GOP for this than against.
gary, yup, both major political parties are completely corrupt, but that signing statement is just the President covering his butt. He's trying to have it both ways. Google Carl Levin NDAA and watch the video where Levin, a Democrat Senator, speaks on the Senate floor of how the Obama administration insisted on the powers of the Executive branch to detain U.S. citizens. The President threatened to veto the bill when the original version said it could not apply to U.S. citizens without judicial review. Absolute power...
Buck Naked Sr
Buck Naked Jr must be so proud....not!
O Lord, this is a special day when a conservative of any stripe lends credibility of any sort to the ACLU. By the way, "T" ~ if this "news site" offends you, why the hell do you hang around it, anyway? But of course. It is an inherent trait of conservative DNA to be miserable. Their quest for misery is unending, else they would no longer have the @!$%#ty outlook on life that so very much characterizes their lot.
It still will be up to the US Supreme Court to decide. That is why the ACLU is and has been so important in America. I am glad to see that you and other GOPers support the ACLU.
Love how you guys assume I'm a Republican because I don't drink the Obama kool-aid. I don't drink the conservative kool-aid either. I was against the Patriot Act when Bush signed it just as I was against it when Obama signed its renewal and expansion. The last 2 Presidents have shredded the Bill of Rights with things like the Patriot Act, NDAA, and the signing of ACTA. Liberals and Conservatives need to stop treating politics like a team sport. Neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans, defend the people's liberties any longer.
@Jim in Texas - I'm on this site commenting, because people need to know just how destructive and dangerous to our liberties the politicians in both parties are. You can keep your head in the sand, but a bit of research exposes just how much the last 2 administrations have shredded the Bill of Rights.
To T-1236278: It would appear that you are on this site commenting so as to spread your negativity. No one is listening to your rants because you just don't make sense, make claims you can't support, etc. It always amazes me when folks like you presume to know Obama's inner workings, his motivations, his desires. Now he wants to be a dictator? Spare me!
Whose kool-aid do you drink?
OBAMA in 2012!
What claims have I made that aren't supported? Are you saying President Obama didn't sign the NDAA into law December 31st, 2011? Are you saying Senator Carl Levin (D) didn't state on the Senate floor the administration insisted on indefinite detentions for U.S. citizens be in the bill? Are you saying the ACLU isn't challenging this unconstitutional breach of the social contract our politicians have with American citizens? Are you saying President Obama didn't sign the ACTA treaty on October 1st, 2011?
You realize, every single one of those things is a fact, which a simple google search will substantiate.
So who ya gonna vote for, T?
What's your solution? Do you have one? Or are you just one of those who likes to tell everyone else what they're doing wrong but don't do anything yourself?
Rats from a sinking ship. In 2000 they were neocons. Last election it was the Tea Party. What's the next incarnation of "new" republicans going to call themselves? This is what happens when you have a party whose only reason for existence is a bunch of greedy individuals trying to outclaw and fight each other to the top, dog-eat-dog, survivalist mentality that doesnt care about their neighbor (contrary to their Christian beliefs), and only cares about what government can do for them, not what they can do for their government and country.
No, T, your claim is that he wants, intends, to be a dictator and signed those bills for that purpose. If you did not intend to make that claim, then withdraw it.
BTW, google searches don't mean anything unless the site(s), author(s) can and do support their statements. Lots of idiotic stuff on the internet.
@RealAmericansFirst
I don't vote in Presidential elections, as I'm not on the Electoral College and the popular vote means zilch in selecting the President of the U.S. I do vote in all Senate and Congressional seats I can vote for, but I actually look at the politicians stance on the issues, not what party they're a member of.
My solution is for Americans to wake up and stop treating politics like a team sport. Get involved in local and state politics. Get involved in the Primary selection process. Discuss ideas with other people and point out the dangerous policies the sitting politicians are supporting. I do all these things personally, and would not suggest anybody else do them if I didn't.
Oh, that's rich, T. "I don't vote" - I just like to b*&Tch about the policies of the guy everybody else took the time to elect.
I have a couple of grumpy old relatives like you - all they do is sit in the recliner and criticize everybody who walks by. Worthless.
@Nina
The powers of indefinite detention of citizens through the use of the military, with no judicial review what-so-ever, nor charges of any crime, completely at the whim of the Commander-in-Chief IS dictatorial powers. By definition, they're dictatorial. There is no check or balance in that type of fiat. Therefore...
As to your comments about google, I only suggest it because I can't post direct links on this site, to our government's websites which list the NDAA bill & all it says, the pictures of the President signing it on December 31st, the ACLU's own website where they discuss it and they're challenging of it, our government's own website on the signing of the ACTA treaty on October 1st, & what's in that treaty. If I could give you the links to those specific government & ACLU pages, I would. Best I can do though is to recommend you google them. At least know what your preferred politicians are doing so you can make informed decisions and know what's true and what's not. Otherwise, you're simply operating through wishful thinking.
@RealAmericansFirst
I recommend you actually read what I wrote beyond the first comma. If you think the popular vote selects the President, well, I'll just refer you to Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution where it explains the Electorate.
Of course I don't believe the popular vote elects the President - or we'd have had Al Gore in 2000.
However, it is your responsibility as a citizen to participate in picking the President through the system we have, even if it needs updating. Your vote still elects the delegates from your state.
And I don't hear ANY proactive ideas from you, T - how would you fix the problems that the President we elected is struggling with? Just saying "he's doing it wrong" is cowardly and destructive.
@RealAmericansFirst
The Electoral College votes for President are the only votes that matter. There is no legal requirement the members of the College must vote as the popular vote goes. Therefore, the selection of the President is completely at the Electorates call.
How would I fix the problems of the President the Electoral College of 2008 selected? Well, I have no say in who the next President will be, but the prospects are grim any way you slice it. I can't support Mittens any more than I can support Obama. They're both liberty killing politicians who will gleefully take all the power the People will give them. And there's not much power left with the People now. I can say, I write to my Senators & Congressmen often, suggesting they restore liberty to the U.S. citizenry, but those pleas fall on deaf ears. So I do what I do, which is, again, to highlight the misuse of power our government is facilitating. If the People responded to these very severe threats to our Liberties as they did to SOPA/PIPA, we'd have the attention of the politicians and could demand actual change from the course the last 2 administrations have been on.
I don't really understand the concept - if on caucus day you haven't made up your mind but need to listen to what others think, then you haven't been paying attention, even peripherally. I mean, even though they are all republican, I can't imagine how you might be torn between Romney and, say, Santorum.
It's convenient that they lost mostly votes for Ron Paul in both Iowa and Nevada. The GOP will stop at nothing to keep RP from getting the nomination. I love how they recounted the votes from Nevade in the back room of a casino. Give me liberty or give me death!
Interesting that Republicans have difficulty getting the results correct and timely with their own Republican elections. Interesting that Republicans don't require voter ID and other "suppression measures" for their own Republican elections (yet have had smaller turn out so far with exception of South Carolina). Interesting that when it comes to real voter fraud, it is always Republicans doing the fraud (e.g., Charlie White, California Republican Party, 2000 election screw ups in Florida, Ohio, etc.), or religious organizations in violation of IRS code.
What is needed are more parties, with the Teabaggers, Ron Paul Libertarians, etc. running separate from the RNC, but their numbers are already shrinking even as a collective under one tent. Look at your crappy platform conservatives, that's the basis of your problems, then go from there with eliminating bigotry, anti-intellectualism, etc. and you might have a chance at being a viable Party in the future.
Starving the Beast ensures only the wealthy and elite can afford to run and then live on those wages while they control the works of their own agendas and benefactors. When they talk about Starving that Beast, you seem to forget that it’s “We the People” who is that “Beast” that they want to starve!
Don't bother T, they are like a cult. You already heard what they want.... For you and your uncomfortable truths to just "go way".
Sad really, Liberals of today.
Remember "Question Authority"?
I liked those liberals.
There's always Ron Paul, ya know? Nobody's forcing you to vote for Mitt the Ripper, Slimy Newt, or Rick "Santorum" Santorum.
@Alil Common Sense
Have to try. The responses though are part of what I'm talking about. That people treat politics like a team sport. Notice how many accused me of being conservative or a Republican, just for being critical of the sitting President. They prove my point, and hopefully some self-reflection will help them realize the 2 major parties don't have the People's best interests in mind. We need to stand for our liberties as we're quickly losing them.
True Patriot,
I did show my ID at my precinct for the Iowa Caucus. It wasn't hard. Our precinct meeting took about an hour, and went pretty smoothly. We had two young guys who had never run a caucus meeting before in charge, or it probably could've been quicker.
I decided the evening before who I would cast my vote for, going with my preferable candidate over "who can win the nomination". Because that's what a caucus is for. Then at the end of the month, I spent a day from 8:30 am to 4 am on the county Platform Committee. Alot of those folks weren't real familiar with Robert's Rules of Order either.
in 1980 I participated in Minnesota's caucuses and County Convention and that's really where you can have a voice. All politics is local.
We have had some issues at the State level - OMG - the party must falling apart! And I think some prep training is really the thing to do. But I would resist going to standardized, lock step, give all authority to the PARTY and the State.
oooh anti- intellectualism. Personally, I 'm a bigot against elitist intellectual snobs who think that only those with an advanced degree have any intelligence.
What ID, a voter registration card, what was required -- A photo ID, a government-issued ID, what?
Ooooh, and the "elite" media too I suppose? Anti-intellectualism refers primarily to creationism versus evolution, climate change, and other science. It has nothing to do with having a degree. In fact, most degrees don't require learning empirical methodology, or even research methodology--which should be a basic requirement at the high school level. That way folks might understand what a credible source is, how to determine validity of claims made, etc.
The most glaring bigotry on the Right are the "Birthers" with claims that the president is not legally holding office because he's supposedly a Kenyan -- and a Muslim to boot like that has anything to do with holding the office of president. Conspiracy theories like this have become so rampant among conservatives it makes one long for the days of only having to deal with the John Birch Society.
And now conservatives don't even have someone like William F. Buckley to counter the ignorance. They have Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity. Or worse, they get their information from chain Emails of unknown origin gone viral -- Talk about OMG!
Your right T.
People seem to have lost the ability to look at politicians objectively.
I point out these things and am also labeled a a right wing whacko by many here.
For instance, in response to truepatriot, and his claims of the "birthers" being racist, I could point out that it has nothing to do with race.
Obama has NEVER been forced to produce his documents BY ANY COURT EVER. And he is spending millions to keep his documents sealed.
I respectfully suggest that any OBJECTIVE person would be curious about this.
We had a congressional hearing for McCain, a man who fought and risked his life to defend our nation. An actual war hero.
Why should Obama get a pass?
We all had fun making fun of Bush getting a C in US Govt, but Obama's records are all sealed.
Why should he get a pass?
He cut foodstamps by 29 Billion to give the money to the states, to "save or create jobs"
Why don't any of the "liberals" care?
He cut medicare by 500 Billion as part of his healthcare act while increasing the number of people who qualify.
Why don't the "liberals" call him out on these things?
It's like a cult. Obama could kill a puppy in front of them and eat it, and they would all swear he just cured world hunger.
Personally, it is not about who the GOP bring up as their candidate. It is about their counting, their inabillty to produce accuracy to their voting system.
AND THEY WANT TO BE IN CHARGE OF VOTER FRAUD WHILE THEY COMMIT VOTER SUPPRESION AND VOTE COUNT DAMPERING. Sure the electronic machine works!!!
abitgreen - Do you have a high school diploma? Why in the world would any one have a grudge against higher education - unless and I say, unless you never strived or attained one?
Reverse snobbery - I want everyone to be as uneducated as I!
Alil Common Sense — Actually your hero George Bush blew up frogs as a kid for sport and you voted for him And George Allen hung his sister over Niagra Falls by her ankles and you voted for him - plus putting a dead donkeys head in a Black persons mailbox
Don't talk nonsense - we don't eat puppies - nor do we strap dogs - sick dogs to the top of our cars
Last I looked only Republicans do that
Why not make it fair? Whatever number your state joined the union, that is the number in line you are for races.
@ truepatriot, If you've kept up with the news, Republicans are obviously getting their news from "The Onion". Which is even more laughable at their stupidity that when they spout their source as being "FoxNews, Fair and Balanced".
ya'll must not watch Seinfeld much
Barbara Adams Jackson -
You are ASSUMING.
I won't break down the word for you, as I am almost certain you have seen the word broken down before by others, lol.
Bush is NOT my hero, by far.
I did not vote for either Bush or Allen.
But sure, let's put everybody into categories that fit with our own personal mindset.
Because it's UNCOMFORTABLE to think that people who are liberal, just like you, might have a different opinion, RIGHT?
The Caucus system may not be broken.
More than likely the problem is the lack of an electable candidate. This group of clowns could not get elected as dog catchers. So don't blame the system , blame the party for not running an electable candidate.
bob
I blame the system. '"The average voter does not want to go to an event that is going to take one, two or three hours," said Republican state Assemblyman Pat Hickey of Reno."'
It isn't a matter of WANT. Who has the time? This system may have worked splendidly in the - what - 1700s? It is not working now. Those of us who still have jobs and families are busy, busy, busy. What do you do with your kids? Take them with you? Yay! Tons of fun. Heck, no. I vote before I go to work. Polls open at 6am. That's when I go. That's the only time I have. Caucus. Seriously?
In Iowa they couldn't seem to get the vote count right or at least find all the ballots. The caucus system is just another way to allow small groups of party power brokers to choose candidates.
I think it's funny that the Dems in Nevada have had no problem at all setting up & running caucuses -- only problem being that in 2008 a bunch of pre-Tea-Partiers showed up, signed in, and wasted hours arguing to dump every plank the platform committee had spent weeks working on. No one knew who they were or what their agenda was, so no one was prepared to do battle. Still, getting together with neighbors, talking, reaching a compromise for your precinct, offering and voting on planks -- what the heck is wrong with that process? I think maybe "shades of gray" Dems are just more drawn to discussion and working stuff out together. Seems like most folks in the GOP just want to be told where to go and who to vote for. True, the GOP screwed the local caucus up -- at least three people I personally know arrived a little late & were turned away. Hell of a way to run a horse race.
When he ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002--not "ancient history"--Mitt actively sought the endorsement of the state Planned Parenthood, attended Planned Parenthood fundraisers, and answered the PP candidate survey that he would support state-funded abortions for the poor. He also supported increased gun control measures, promised the gay community that he would be a stronger supporter than Teddy, and promised Universal Government-run Healthcare that would require participation of every citizen.
Just wondering if Mitt made the same promises in Nevada? Funny that its only issues that Bagger voters care about that Mitt has "evolved" on. I thought Baggers didn't believe in evolution.
Having lived next door to Utah for a good portion of my life it has become obvious that the Mormon Church would love nothing more than to have one of their own in the White House and considering the fact that they control an entire state, forcing all who live there to live under Mormon law, I find this to be an unacceptable future for our nation. The push for new recruits is ALWAYS the main focus of ANY cult, "once a missionary alway a missionary" .
Deprogrammer, go beat your hate drum some place else.
You people who keep bringing up the "Mormon Issue" as just as bad as the ones who keep bringing up the "Birth Certificate Issue" with Obama.
The birth certificate was a non-issue because it was a lie, Mitt Romney belonging to a cult is a fact!!
I have no more of a problem with a cult member mormon being president than I do with a cult member evangelical like bachman, or a cult member Catholic like santorum. I don't want ANY cult following wingnut who believes in fairy tales to be in charge of my life. I have made it just fine these last 50 years without the help of an imaginary friend (god), I sure as hell dont want the leader of the free world to one he confides in daily like Bush did, we all saw were that got the country.
northlite - Willard is a fake - his big concern while Governor of Mass for homosexuals while giving 3$ Million to organizations to cure this vile desease - same as Bachman's husband "To Pray Away the Gay"
This man will do anything and say anything to get what he wants and he wants to be President - why? Because his daddy couldn't - same as little George
The article said 9% of votes participated. I'm sorry but Dem or Republican, we must do better than that. Nine percent is why we have the problems we have. More people must show an interest, be it a primary or a school board election.
Gary I totally agree, I think we need to get away from the caucus and have primary elections whether they be open or closed I don't have an opinion. The problem as I see it is how to get people to show up. We have an appalling voter participation rate. With the proliferation of "voter ID" laws I can only see that getting worse.
I vote school board elections, and on the municipal and county levels as well. People don't realize but it is local government that can get in the way of your liberties far more than the Feds or the state.
The situation is actually worse than that. Participation was 9% of registered Republicans. The Nevada caucus participation was a little less than 2% of eligible voters.
So far, none of the Republican candidates have been supported by more than 1 out of every 10 eligible voters. New Hampshire had the best participation, so far. 1 out of every 4 eligible voters participated in the primary and Romney (the winner) received support of 1 out of every 10 eligible New Hampshire voters.
For all the media hype - the Republican primaries have been a tempest in a teapot ...
This is why I feel we should have 3 National primaries. One for the East, one for the West, and a third for the Middle of the country. Space them out about 6 weeks apart and let the people of the entire country decide who gets the nomination, rather than the voters of a couple of small states.
I am against public money being used just so a group can decide who to pick to run for President.
If more people cared, Ron Paul would probably win by a landslide, at least for the Republican nomination.
50% of 9% for a total of 4.5% of republican voters. What a resounding victory for Romney!
Statistics would say that even if 100,000, 1/2 a million, or 1 million people showed up, the results would still be the same, at least for Romney. Gingrich and Paul were both within each other's margin of error (Error built in to assuming 9% as representative of the whole population, not error as in incorrect counting), so they might have switched places. The delegate proportion would have panned out much the same, though.
You also have to look at demographics. If EVERYONE showed up, age/group distribution might be very different. Political junkies are often older people.
These repubes dont stand a chance against Obama. Obama easy in Nov.
Prozac ...Stat!
Better save it for the Tea Party, jolly.
Funny how in the only county that had a live, on camera vote count, Ron Paul gets 70% of the vote. Everywhere else, when the votes are counted behind closed doors, it's around 18%.
Yeah... right.
My bad... meant to say 58%, not 70% for Ron Paul. Mea Culpa.
Don't you know the federal goberment needs more power to deal with people who don't like their actions. This power will certainly come into play when the bond bubble bursts and the people get pissed when they can't get their money from the bank or the dollars can't buy anything. The reality movie is called Depression. Coming to a town near you. Opening day within the next 20 months.
RGP,
Oooohhh! We're scared....reallly scared!!!!
NOT.
I remember the GOP the night Bill Clinton was elected - predicting the next Depression within a year.
And when Bush was elected, they were telling us how great it was going to be for everyone.
Pardon us if we don't listen this time.
Most poor working class people have been living in a depressed society for at least the last 10 years. Thats why most spend every dime they get on lottery and drugs and alcohol to escape and when they vote, if they do vote, don't know what the heck their doping. , or doing. The rich on the other hand have a Real Agenda to exercise in, Money.
The status quo, the corrupted Washington Establishment which includes men like Obama, Romney, and Gingrich, believe the entire reason for governments existence is self-preservation and the preservation of the financial Elite that set the context and policy of the State and central bank.
The Elite benefitting from the 'status quo' depend on the active participation and complicity of millions of Citizens.
There is little to no difference in 'who' either side of our traditional 'two-party system' represents... not the Citizens. The people need representation, not more professional brokers.
It is really to bad the media is owned and operated by lib dems and union thugs! Because of that the media is full of sht!!!
John D.,
You're on the wrong website. Try FOX...owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch, ultra-conservative right-wing-in-the-tank GOP'er. He's a fine fellow, who doesn't think it's wrong to hack the cell phones of celebrities, royalty or just your average Joe. Your kinda guy!
That's a whole lotta stupid in a short time, boy. FAIL on all counts.
Next?
Hooray liberals! Liberals R Us! But do tell, can you identify the lib dems and union thugs that own and operate the "full-of-sht" media? Please? Pretty please?
John - I know FOX repeats that lie a lot to keep you from noticing how much of the media Rupert Murdoch really does own. So here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_corp
I've been around politics a long time, and I've learned something:
If you want to know what a Republican is up to, listen to what he's accusing others of doing.
John, if you don't like it here move to Newt's moon colony. I am sure your vote will count there. I haven't seen any liberal media anywhere. I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh, the truth is liberal. That should account for about 10 percent of all media.
The real problems with the Nevada Caucuses began in Clark County with the special evening voter precincts. In violation of the Constitution, it amounted to a religious test to vote.
Then there were discrepancies between what was witnessed as vote totals (at least one carried live on CNN) and the ultimate announced tallies.
And of course, the disqualification of 7000 ballots. (One must wonder what could have led to their disqualification? X in the box not dark enough? Voter went 'outside' the line? Circled a name versus checked the box?). In these cases the suspicion that wealthy Gingrich supporters managed to shave votes away from Paul tallies is not groundless. It was a Gingich supporter who got the specially scheduled caucuses allowed in the first place. Then it must be admitted that the manner in which "recounts" was conducted were secretive and on that basis alone questionable.
That 7000 could have changed a lot of things, especially if they all went to one person. But we'll never know, since they'll be forced to accept them if they told us.
1. If republicans cannot be trusted to accurately count caucus votes, why should they be trusted to govern? (Example; the republican Secretary of State in Indiana was just convicted of Fraud for lying about his residency. The Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring election laws are followed.)
2. I don't plan on voting for either a democrat or republican in the next election, why should I be taxed to pay for their primary election. Choosing a nominee is the responsibilty of each party, not the job of the government. It is amazing how republicans will preach that the private sector does a better job than the government until they have a problem, then they can't have too much government involvement.
The Libertarian Party will choose it's candidate for President at a privately funded convention. It wont cost the tax payers a dime.
Gary Johnson for President.
I'd rather have Ron Paul, but I see where you're coming from.
You both have the right to vote for who you want. But right now this really is a two party system and all your doing is throwing a monkey wrench in the already gerry rigged system. Therefore Americans suffer more and more and becomes even more divided. The republicans, grover and his goonies love you though. WAKE UP AMERICA!
terryknight: you say I'm throwing a monkey wrench in an already rigged system therefore more Americans suffer? Do you really think third parties are to blame for the mess we are in at the hands of the two parties system? You are the one who needs to wake up. Competition from third parties is as healthy in politics as it is in economics.
Gary Johnon 2012
Won't get any votes either!!
Maybe so, but at least it won't cost you anything.
Simon, how much is free nothing worth?
Free nothing is better than expensive nothing. Primaries cost taxpayers money. The major parties spend millions of dollars on campaigns. They should spend their own money on selecting candidates.
The Caucus system is not broken. We do not need the MSM to "fix" another problem for us.
It allows local citizens the chance to talk to each other without the brainwashing influence of the MSM.
It allows for the education of people who, for whatever reason, have not taken the time to investigate the candidate and the issues which bind all of us.
It allows the local citizens who really care to help guide local votes.
I can think of lots of reasons why the national parties and the national MSM does not want locals in control of elections, and none of them are good reasons.
I saw one comment where they wanted to get rid of the electoral college, because his State had a winner-take-all ballot and he figures his vote would not count. Well what does he think the November election is all about? That too is a winner-take-all election.
The caucus system is even more antiquated and useless than the electoral college. It was implemented because there was no other way of transmitting information about who voted for whom other than having it carried by people (delegates) to the next meeting.
Sort of like still using the telegraph because "we've always done it that way".
So your better answer is hanging chads or Diebold voting machines, I suppose?
The electoral college is decentralized government at its best. Nothing antiquated about it. We give in to "national" elections, and we might as well flush this nation down the drain.
I'm in favor of going the other direction. Since we have not had the sense to elect a reasonable President in the last 20 years, perhaps the States need to start doing 2 things"
1) Your State should run its own Senatorial Candidate against the 2 national parties. After all, the States appappointednators until 1913, ad we did just fine with no overpowering Federal government from 1789 to 1913
2) Your State should appoint the Presidential electors for the electoral college. Then we can blame them if the President is more like Washington and Jefferson, and less like Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Romney-Gingrich.
Why bother to go through all of these formalities and just have the billionaires that are funding the PACS tell us who they want to run the country. It would be much easier and save time.
And then 99% of the wealth will be in the hands of the 1%. There'd be absolutely no middle class.
Sounds to me like it already is? Or ant.
Um, I think that's the way it's going this year. With the middle-man of the advertising consultants and networks that air the ads making millions and millions. Think what could be done with that money if it went into each local community instead of wasting away our brains on a zillion 30-second ads in each locality. But in the end, the big money will win. Always has. This is why President Obama had to cave & take PAC money. With the radical right-wing billionaires promising to chuck HALF A BILLION dollars into this race, no way that Obama's base each sending $25.00 donations was going to counter that. I repeat: what a waste of money. Think how many jobs that kind of money would fund if it was going into actual investment in our local infrastructures. Ugh!
Complicated caucus rules my backside. I can explain the low voter turn out very easily. The Republicans didn't bother to run anyone interesting and it was a forgone conclusion that Romney was going to win Nevada. So why waste time showing up?
The way they are talking February is Romney's month to lose. He's sitting pretty good through the whole month and won't face any real competition until March and states that aren't as pro-Romney.
The party that keeps giving us the comedy show. Pass the popcorn, weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Pass the popcorn again, weeeeeeeeeeeeee. When will the GOP/baggers wake up and get a viable person to run against Obama? If they did, they would win the election. The way it is right now, they are handing Obama his second term. Pass the popcorn, weeeeeeeeeeeee.
the caucus system has long been made obsolete by the digital age where information, ideas and enthusiasm spread much more quickly and to far greater numbers.
The caucus system is more important than ever today. It allows us to slow down and really think long and hard about who we want lead us. It allows us to listen to our neighbors and get a sense of how they feel, instead of hearing how they feel from some MSM poll that is probably manipulated.
@TheChristianSolution-- Where do your neighbors get their facts from?
Eliminate the caucus'. They are a pointless waste of money and are meaningless. Iowa was the worst, what with loosing precincts, and just plain not being able to count.
Eliminate the causus and you eliminate local rule, handing more power over to unelected MSM.
How quick you forget hanging chads and rigged Diebold machines!
This is the group that wants to govern, restrict votes to the wealthy and manage our economy and they can't even carry out a caucus. I can only imagine the voter fraud they have planned in November. Maybe they can appoint the convicted state election supervisor in Indian, he seems to know how to cheat and get caught.
I don't see how anyone can be declared a "sweep" by winning with only 48% of the voters voting for him. To me that means that 52% didn't want him.
America is such a corrupt nation.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc
Caucuses provide big money big leverage in politics.
Money spent influencing caucus voters can lock in the party establishment's choice early in the primary season, before the other aspirants can raise enough money and earn enough widespread approval to continue to the convention.
Many caucus voters are establishment party types from the onset. They may not represent the preference of the broader electorate.
The downside of the big money leverage in caucuses is that the establishment's early locked-in candidate may be a sure loser in the general election.
As an independent I find these comments entertaining. The one thing that always holds true is that the left side is more insulting than the right and the left has the same posters that must have all day with nothing to do. Don't get me wrong the extreme right are not much better but they do tend to be softer on the insult scale. The thing that worries me the most is that society as a whole on both sides of the fence has become polarized, self absorbed and greedy. If you look back at history; we are following a historic trend that has repeated over and over. The more we divide ourselves the weaker we become. Please for the sake of my children find some middle ground. There is good and bad in both sides, let’s promote the good and stop all of this hatred. Anyone that posts insults is really part of the problem and offers no redeeming value to improving the situation we are in. Those that blame one side or the other have lost sight of the fact that “we” are all part of the problem and “us” vs “them” will not fix the problem.
Just look at the Poverty rate and this is what you get. It will get worse if you don't bridge the gap between the poor and the rich. All people want is a little dignity and respect. Anyway possible. Then theres grover and his goonies, you get the picture. WAKE UP AMERICA!