The Nevada caucus reminds me of the 2000 election.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Coarse-graining is silly. The person who gets the most votes should win.

If we have 10 states, each divided up into 10 constituencies, and I have 6 voters to your 4 in 51 of the constituencies, and none in any of the others, then my 306 voters will outvote your 694, despite being outnumbered more than 2 to 1.

2000 should have gone to Gore.

Nevada should have gone to Clinton. (Or, to be precise, the rules should have been set up beforehand so that in this situation Nevada would have gone to Clinton - given that she agreed to compete under these rules, she should be bound by them. She's the clear moral victor, though).

And, while I'm at it, voting in the Senate should be weighted by size of state, Congressmen should be allocated to states in strict proportion to population, and the President should be elected by popular vote.

[dkf]

1. Yes, the whole damned system is messed up.

Its ridiculous.

[goldcanyonaz]

2. Clinton is the Gore of 2000 in Nevada.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Partially agreed, although it's grossly unfair to compare Obama to Bush.

NT

[Proud2BAmurkin]

9. mm

[Kucinich4America]

4. There's no valid comparison here.

Fact is that Chimpy never even had a valid claim on the electoral votes in Florida. The electors were chosen based on the false certification by Cruella Harris on the night of the election. This number was NEVER valid, but the Felonious Five Bush Crime Family appointees on the Supreme Court never allowed a complete recount, meaning no valid number was ever certified.

That's not the case here. The delegates are counted according to the rules in Nevada. Those rules were in place long before Hillary or Obama set foot in this state.

I'm not a fan of the electoral college, and 2000 has a lot to do with that. But it has NOTHING to do with the Nevada caucus.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. The similarity is that the popular vote didn't match the result.

If 2000 had been decided by popular vote, Palm beach wouldn't have mattered.

The person who gets the most votes should win. In both 2000 and Nevada, they didn't.

I agree that the fact that in 2000 Gore would probably have won even under the electoral college rules if the votes had been counted properly whereas in this case there's no evidence that the rules haven't been followed, is a disimilarity.

[Barack_America]

5. As loath as I am to recall the 2000 election, I have to agree with you...

Just do me a favor and never equate Obama to W! ;)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. See my post #3

So far as I know, Obama's campaign manager wasn't running the Nevada caucusing.

[mkultra]

7. maybe

maybe the teachers union should sue the NV dems for a rule change.


as far as the senate goes, the house is set up that way so it will blow to and fro with the whims of the people while the senate is there to insure that large states don't push little ones around.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Large states should be able to push little ones around.

That's called "Democracy".

10 people's votes should count for more than 5, irregardless of where they live.

[musicblind]

11. are you being sarcastic or serious?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Absolutely serious.

The principle of Democracy is "one man, one vote", not "one area of land, one vote" or "one constituency, one vote".

In matters affecting the populace of two states, one larger than the other, the votes of the inhabitants of the larger state should count for exactly as much each as the votes of the inhabitants of the smaller states.

A group of people should not be able to increase their influence simply by splitting into two states instead of one.