Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is it Nevada "voter suppression" or "voter fairness"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:39 PM
Original message
Is it Nevada "voter suppression" or "voter fairness"?
this argument can be framed both ways.

I don't think Senator Obama's campaign wants to be known in Nevada as the campaign that opposes the historical principle of "one man/one vote."

Why is one union given special arrangements to have at large precincts at its workplace, but that same privilege is denied other unions/workers?

So, one person's vote is now more valuable and more important than anothers, because they have a certain job or their union officially supports a certain candidate?

This debate can bite both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sunonmars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Also.......


When you have at large precincts in workplaces you get coercion on a grand scale as union bosses try to enforce the will of the union, i've seen it before.

So yes it works both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. if it was about fairness, the plan would've been protested WAY before several days ago
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 07:42 PM by cryingshame
after the Union had endorsed someone.

As Josh Marshall said, it's about the timing.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Niche Donating Member (687 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. P.S. A lot of NV Culinary Union workers I know are pissed about
Obama endorsement over Edwards or Clinton. And NO they are not "coerced" by the Union. The workers can vote for whomever they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Niche Donating Member (687 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. Casino workers (culinary union ) can't leave work. Most caucus activities are being
being held in local schools ON SATURDAY.


Um... Teachers are off Sat., Casino employees are not.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. THAT is the unvarnished truth. Thank you. EVERYONE PLEASE READ! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. But isn't that why it is over the LUNCH hr?? (granted some still will not be
able to attend a caucus--)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. Harry Reid manipulated NV into a caucus
Now we have to make the best of what they have and I say anything that allows more people to vote is a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. It wasn't an issue until right after Obama got the union endorsement
The timing of it all throws the plaintiffs' credibility into doubt.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. That and the Plaintiffs are the people that arranged for the sites in the first place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. It is was a fairness issue, I doubt Mrs. Clinton would have ducked the question on MTP. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. I am glad she did not respond with specifics (neither did Obama)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'm not sure why NV is using a caucus forum instead of voting
like most of the rest of the country, but a caucus by it's nature limits attendance. The same thing I'm sure happened in IA. Surely there are Iowans who have to work in the evenings and at night. Yes, I realize there is a much bigger population in NV, but I don't think it's any candidate's fault that everyone can't attend a caucus, nor do I think any of the candidates are trying to manipulate the voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. I see you've received the latest Clinton Talking Points bulletin
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 07:51 PM by JackORoses
If Hillary's cronies have there way on this, less people will be able to participate in the caucus.
How is that anything other than Voter Suppression?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
14. The debate now should be
in Nevada about the next caucus, not about this one.

This is not about one man, one vote. And Obama is the one who definitely has nothing to do with it. What a weird spin. This was set up months ago when he wasn't considered to have a chance in h*ll.

Do you think the workers now get two? Gee, it's set up in places where a lot of workers work on Saturday
I hear rumors many teachers get Saturday off.
What about the "historical principle" of secret ballots.
We didn't make this a caucus and we didn't make the rules.

But do you know who DID make the rules? According to the Reno Journal Gazette
Four of the five individuals named as plaintiffs in the suit were members of the party’s state central committee that unanimously approved rules in March. Minutes from the vote show all four were present and do not indicate that any objections were raised. The caucus rules were approved by the Democratic National Committee in August.


Spin that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sunonmars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
15. They really should just go with a full days voting primary


This caucus time thing and you must be there at a certain time is just stupid.

Give everyone an equal chance to vote throughout the day in a primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC