Just a quick plug,
One of my favorite election websites is:
http://www.electoral-vote.com
The writer of this website tracks various elections, with excellent, impartial commentary and numerous poll results from around the country.
I read this site almost every day.
Enjoy!
Monday, February 04, 2008
Super Duper Tuesday Is Upon Us
Look out! Here comes Super Tuesday. Err... or Super-Duper Tuesday, since this is the first time that we have had so many states participating in this de-facto national primary election day.
If you live in a Super Tuesday state, godfunit, go vote!!!
We in Hawaii have to wait a couple more weeks.
If you want to help "rock-the-vote" but don't live in a Super Tuesday state, you can help your favorite candidate from afar. I for one am an Obama supporter and they have taken online electioneering to the extreme. For example, check out this web resource on the Obama website:
http://my.barackobama.com/feb5calls
This website allows you to phone bank battleground primary states from your home, no matter where you live.
No matter who you support, take a little action to support your candidate. Don't do nothing because you can't do everything. Do SOMETHING. Here are a few simple things you can do to help make a difference:
By not voting, you are allowing others to decide for you who will represent you. I volunteered to work the polls in a couple elections in California years ago. The majority of voters who actually came out to vote were over 50, many were so elderly that they did not have the upper body strength to punch the hole in the punch-card ballots. Others were so senile they punched every hold on the ballot, thus invalidating their own vote.
If you are able (both physically AND mentally) please... FOR THE LOVE OF GOD... VOTE!!! Don't let Mr. and Mrs. Magoo decide who will lead this country in the difficult times we live in. If you don't like what is going on in the country, you have the power to make a difference. Remember your vote DOES count. Use it!
If you live in a Super Tuesday state, godfunit, go vote!!!
We in Hawaii have to wait a couple more weeks.
If you want to help "rock-the-vote" but don't live in a Super Tuesday state, you can help your favorite candidate from afar. I for one am an Obama supporter and they have taken online electioneering to the extreme. For example, check out this web resource on the Obama website:
http://my.barackobama.com
This website allows you to phone bank battleground primary states from your home, no matter where you live.
No matter who you support, take a little action to support your candidate. Don't do nothing because you can't do everything. Do SOMETHING. Here are a few simple things you can do to help make a difference:
- Drive a friend to the polls or caucus with you who may not have gone otherwise. By taking one inactive voter the polls, you have essentially doubled the vote
- Offer to phone bank such as the link to Obama's website above. Just a few phone calls with a convincing and encouraging word can help bring out more people to vote
- Talk to your friends and family
- Donate some money to your favorite candidate, as little as $25 goes a long way when you consider that it is combined with thousands of other small contributors like you
By not voting, you are allowing others to decide for you who will represent you. I volunteered to work the polls in a couple elections in California years ago. The majority of voters who actually came out to vote were over 50, many were so elderly that they did not have the upper body strength to punch the hole in the punch-card ballots. Others were so senile they punched every hold on the ballot, thus invalidating their own vote.
If you are able (both physically AND mentally) please... FOR THE LOVE OF GOD... VOTE!!! Don't let Mr. and Mrs. Magoo decide who will lead this country in the difficult times we live in. If you don't like what is going on in the country, you have the power to make a difference. Remember your vote DOES count. Use it!
Sunday, January 20, 2008
It's The Delegates That Count!
We just had the Nevada primary and while news reports show that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the fact remains that in a primary election what matters is how many delegates each candidate won.
Believe it or not, Barack Obama won Nevada with 13 delegates won over Clinton's 12. And it is ultimately important how many delegates are going to vote for your candidacy at the national convention that really matter.
How can someone win more delegates if they lost the popular vote? First off, every state is different in how they allow primary elections to be run. For example, with the primaries held in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan (which had all it's delegates revoked due to violating a party rule), and Nevada, delegates are allocated either in proportion of the vote (if you win 60% of the vote you get roughly 60% of the state's delegates) or delegates are won on a district or county basis as is the case in Nevada (win popular vote in a county with 5 delegates, you win all 5 delegates). Some states are winner take all such as Florida, making it a real battleground.
According to MSNBC.com, Barack Obama won much of the northern half of Nevada (Reno) while Clinton had won much of the southern half (Las Vegas). Northern Nevada is sparsely populated. Apparently, Obama won more counties that had a disproportionate amount of delegates per residents assigned to them than Clinton. This is not much different the the problem that we have with the electoral college. Less populous status have a disproportionate number of electoral college votes (like Wyoming) than more populous states (like California).
To get the real scoop on who is winning the election I rely on delegate counts provided by MSNBC.com
As of now the delegate count is:
Barack Obama 38
Hillary Clinton 36
John Edwards 18
Believe it or not, Barack Obama won Nevada with 13 delegates won over Clinton's 12. And it is ultimately important how many delegates are going to vote for your candidacy at the national convention that really matter.
How can someone win more delegates if they lost the popular vote? First off, every state is different in how they allow primary elections to be run. For example, with the primaries held in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan (which had all it's delegates revoked due to violating a party rule), and Nevada, delegates are allocated either in proportion of the vote (if you win 60% of the vote you get roughly 60% of the state's delegates) or delegates are won on a district or county basis as is the case in Nevada (win popular vote in a county with 5 delegates, you win all 5 delegates). Some states are winner take all such as Florida, making it a real battleground.
According to MSNBC.com, Barack Obama won much of the northern half of Nevada (Reno) while Clinton had won much of the southern half (Las Vegas). Northern Nevada is sparsely populated. Apparently, Obama won more counties that had a disproportionate amount of delegates per residents assigned to them than Clinton. This is not much different the the problem that we have with the electoral college. Less populous status have a disproportionate number of electoral college votes (like Wyoming) than more populous states (like California).
To get the real scoop on who is winning the election I rely on delegate counts provided by MSNBC.com
As of now the delegate count is:
Barack Obama 38
Hillary Clinton 36
John Edwards 18
Friday, January 18, 2008
Origins of the Primary Election System
Have you ever asked the question "Why do we choose our presidential candidates through primary elections?" Every four years, presidential contenders spend exorbitant sums of money to essentially get elected before the get elected. This may not be good for the country since the candidates need to raise funds to compete on a national scale against their opponents, funds which may come with many strings attached from special interest groups, unless you are a rich son of a bitch who can pay your own way (think Ross Perot, or Mitt Romney).
Do you think it's a good system? Do you think it is a bad system? You probably don't really care enough to even ask the question and have probably already clicked away from this blog to look for embarrassing videos of Britney Spear on YouTube. I know what I'm up against when I spend my time writing an obscure blog about topics only a political scientist might care to read about but if you can put aside your desire to now the latest about that blonde-haired train-wreck for just a moment you may find that the more you know about the primary system the better you may understand what the hell is going on in America for for the next few weeks.
In most countries, presidents are simply ceremonial figures who represent the unified power of the government. They are more like highly regarding civil servants who are expected to sign all legislation that comes out of the country's legislature, take part in national ceremonies, and be "guarantors" of the country's constitution. They are not expected to be "political" or call for certain legislation on this or that topic.
This presidential model is most common in many European countries where the country's monarchy was abolished. In other words, think of Queen Elizabeth II of England who is essentially a figurehead, leads ceremonies, represents the "Crown" (what we would simply call the "government") but doesn't involve herself in political matters. Most presidents in Europe take on a similar role as Queen Elizabeth II and so who the country picks to be president of their country is not an extremely important matter. Typically, the prime minister/premier/chancellor (the American equivalent being the Speak of the House) is the de facto leader of the country who sets the political tone for the country.
But unlike European Presidents, the American President is not a figurehead. The POTUS (President of the United States) takes on a great deal of political power. Since the U.S. Constitution separates power between three branches of government, the Executive Branch does have certain political duties to keep the legislature in check with the power to veto legislation. This makes it impossible for the Speaker of the House to take on the kind of power that Europe's Prime Ministers can yield simply because they have to consider the political desires of the President.
Okay... so where does this leave us? We have a country with a very powerful president when compared to many other states in the world. So we have a primary election because the people want to have a say in who gets selected for election, right? Sort of.
The primary system is a relatively new concept in American politics. The primary election only came about during in the early 1900s during the Progressive movement. Prior to that, the leaders of the political parties simply choose who they thought were the stronger candidates and left the general public out of the decision. Compared to the primary election system we have today, it was a much cheaper way of selecting viable candidates for the presidential election.
But one of the major criticisms of this old method was that in those days cronyism ran amok. These were the days where Congressional committee hearings were held privately, where friends and family were often appointed to high positions in the government over people where were actually more capable. Likewise, who the party leadership chose to lead the party in an election had little to do with the what the people wanted and more to do with who you knew and who owed you a favor.
Along came the the Progressives who opened up committee meeting with so-called Sunshine Laws, passed legislation to end graft and cronyism by creating a Civil Service that would take the most capable workers to lead government positions due to merit and not due to who one knew. Likewise, they pressed for a new system whereby the parties would select their presidential candidates at a nominating convention consisting of delegates representing their home state parties.
How those delegates were chosen have a history all their own. The parties choose their delegates based upon party rules. Unfortunately, for many years those party rules forbade African-Americans were basically from holding any position of responsibility with either party. It was during the middle of the 20th century when each state started to open up their primary in one of two ways:
1. They changed party rules to allow anyone who is legally allowed to vote to be able to caucus in the various delegate precints.
2. They opened up the election of delegates to a popular vote
So here we are today, with a primary system that has evolved from a system that was kept behind closed doors and checkers with discriminatory rules, to a system that is open to anyone interested.
Do you think it's a good system? Do you think it is a bad system? You probably don't really care enough to even ask the question and have probably already clicked away from this blog to look for embarrassing videos of Britney Spear on YouTube. I know what I'm up against when I spend my time writing an obscure blog about topics only a political scientist might care to read about but if you can put aside your desire to now the latest about that blonde-haired train-wreck for just a moment you may find that the more you know about the primary system the better you may understand what the hell is going on in America for for the next few weeks.
In most countries, presidents are simply ceremonial figures who represent the unified power of the government. They are more like highly regarding civil servants who are expected to sign all legislation that comes out of the country's legislature, take part in national ceremonies, and be "guarantors" of the country's constitution. They are not expected to be "political" or call for certain legislation on this or that topic.
This presidential model is most common in many European countries where the country's monarchy was abolished. In other words, think of Queen Elizabeth II of England who is essentially a figurehead, leads ceremonies, represents the "Crown" (what we would simply call the "government") but doesn't involve herself in political matters. Most presidents in Europe take on a similar role as Queen Elizabeth II and so who the country picks to be president of their country is not an extremely important matter. Typically, the prime minister/premier/chancellor (the American equivalent being the Speak of the House) is the de facto leader of the country who sets the political tone for the country.
But unlike European Presidents, the American President is not a figurehead. The POTUS (President of the United States) takes on a great deal of political power. Since the U.S. Constitution separates power between three branches of government, the Executive Branch does have certain political duties to keep the legislature in check with the power to veto legislation. This makes it impossible for the Speaker of the House to take on the kind of power that Europe's Prime Ministers can yield simply because they have to consider the political desires of the President.
Okay... so where does this leave us? We have a country with a very powerful president when compared to many other states in the world. So we have a primary election because the people want to have a say in who gets selected for election, right? Sort of.
The primary system is a relatively new concept in American politics. The primary election only came about during in the early 1900s during the Progressive movement. Prior to that, the leaders of the political parties simply choose who they thought were the stronger candidates and left the general public out of the decision. Compared to the primary election system we have today, it was a much cheaper way of selecting viable candidates for the presidential election.
But one of the major criticisms of this old method was that in those days cronyism ran amok. These were the days where Congressional committee hearings were held privately, where friends and family were often appointed to high positions in the government over people where were actually more capable. Likewise, who the party leadership chose to lead the party in an election had little to do with the what the people wanted and more to do with who you knew and who owed you a favor.
Along came the the Progressives who opened up committee meeting with so-called Sunshine Laws, passed legislation to end graft and cronyism by creating a Civil Service that would take the most capable workers to lead government positions due to merit and not due to who one knew. Likewise, they pressed for a new system whereby the parties would select their presidential candidates at a nominating convention consisting of delegates representing their home state parties.
How those delegates were chosen have a history all their own. The parties choose their delegates based upon party rules. Unfortunately, for many years those party rules forbade African-Americans were basically from holding any position of responsibility with either party. It was during the middle of the 20th century when each state started to open up their primary in one of two ways:
1. They changed party rules to allow anyone who is legally allowed to vote to be able to caucus in the various delegate precints.
2. They opened up the election of delegates to a popular vote
So here we are today, with a primary system that has evolved from a system that was kept behind closed doors and checkers with discriminatory rules, to a system that is open to anyone interested.
Coming up next... Nevada
Aloha,
Before I begin this article I want to clearly identify myself as a supporter of Barack Obama. I don't just support him as a candidate, I literally support his campaign financially. I truly feel that Barack Obama represents my feelings, my hopes, and of course, my politics despite the fact that I am a white man. I see a lot of myself in Barack and believe that he understands the experience of many in America who have had to struggle financially and socially in an environment where being a little different can difficult for one's options in life.
That said, if Barack Obama does not win the nomination I will support whoever the Democratic candidate is.
Back to my post...
Tomorrow is the Nevada primary and latest opinion polls show Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama, with John Edwards in third place. Here are the numbers from a Zogby poll on January 17th, 2008 (care of www.electoral-vote.com):
Clinton 42%
Obama 37%
Edwards 12%
Nevada is a caucus state just like Iowa and this may in fact bode well for Obama despite Zogby's polling numbers. Obama won Iowa primarily due an overwhelming number of first-time caucus-goers supporting his candidacy. Curiously, many of the caucuses in Las Vegas will be held at a number of Strip casinos, some for the first time ever, allowing casino workers to caucus conveniently where they work. With the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 (representing nearly 60,000 workers on the Las Vegas Strip) Barack Obama stands a good chance of at least winning Las Vegas and perhaps the entire state of Nevada. Of course a union endorsement does not necessarily guarantee all the workers of said union will vote his way but it certainly does help draw further attention to his campaign.
Before I begin this article I want to clearly identify myself as a supporter of Barack Obama. I don't just support him as a candidate, I literally support his campaign financially. I truly feel that Barack Obama represents my feelings, my hopes, and of course, my politics despite the fact that I am a white man. I see a lot of myself in Barack and believe that he understands the experience of many in America who have had to struggle financially and socially in an environment where being a little different can difficult for one's options in life.
That said, if Barack Obama does not win the nomination I will support whoever the Democratic candidate is.
Back to my post...
Tomorrow is the Nevada primary and latest opinion polls show Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama, with John Edwards in third place. Here are the numbers from a Zogby poll on January 17th, 2008 (care of www.electoral-vote.com):
Clinton 42%
Obama 37%
Edwards 12%
Nevada is a caucus state just like Iowa and this may in fact bode well for Obama despite Zogby's polling numbers. Obama won Iowa primarily due an overwhelming number of first-time caucus-goers supporting his candidacy. Curiously, many of the caucuses in Las Vegas will be held at a number of Strip casinos, some for the first time ever, allowing casino workers to caucus conveniently where they work. With the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 (representing nearly 60,000 workers on the Las Vegas Strip) Barack Obama stands a good chance of at least winning Las Vegas and perhaps the entire state of Nevada. Of course a union endorsement does not necessarily guarantee all the workers of said union will vote his way but it certainly does help draw further attention to his campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)