THE OUT-OF-CONTROL DELEGATE SYSTEM

In my last post we looked at the debate surrounding the Electoral College. Many thanks to Andre Louis for giving his side of the argument (even though he's wrong *snicker*) Now I want to move on to the part of our electoral process that is so corrupt, so distorted, that I feel it's nearly impossible for the people to get the candidate of their choice (unless it happens to be the parties choice)- the delegate system. If any of you have been following the disenfranchisement of voters in Michigan and this weekend in Florida, you know what I mean. I can not tell you how angry I am at both the Democrats and the Republicans for allowing this to happen. Punishing the voters of those states for the action of the party leaders is like punching my neighbor because my dog pissed on the floor. So, to help all of you get as angry as I am (isn't that nice of me?) I'm going to try to explain how utterly corrupt this system is.

The first thing we have to address is whether or not our Democrats and Republicans have the right to shove candidates down our throats. It is, after all, their candidate from their party. The argument among the party elites goes like this: It's my party and I have the right to put up whoever I want. True, but is it their right to put on a dog-and-pony show at the taxpayer's expense? Is it their right to mislead you into thinking that it is you, their party faithful, that have chosen their candidate when in reality it's the party leaders that have decided? I say NO. If they want to chose their shining star let them do it behind closed doors so we can see it for what it is. Their candidate, not necessarily ours, picked through nepotism and politics. Normally, this doesn't become much of a problem. People on both sides have accepted without much dissent what their party serves them up. But this year there has been an active campaign to stop two candidates from reaching the brass ring within their parties, Mitt Romney on the RNC side and Barack Obama on the DNC side, that the people seem to want. Mitt has the problem of being a Mormon, and frankly, the evangelistic controlled RNC is not too happy about the prospect of running someone who may not like having to bow to the true power structure of the RNC. Barack has a different problem, he's black. It's not like the DNC really has a problem with black people, (black people vote for Dems at about 90%), it's more that they're not sure that America will vote for him in numbers that will assure a win in November, and beating the RNC is always their first priority. Both Mitt and Barack also share one real problem with their party; they're fighting against the Anointed Favorites of their party. As I explained in "The McCain Factor", McCain stepped aside to allow G.W. to win. He did the loyalist thing and put his own ambitions in check. The reward for John was to be the nomination the next time around. And this is his time around. I don't even think I need to tell anyone that Hillary Clinton is the Anointed Favorite on the DNC side and that Barack is seriously screwing that up. Thankfully, (for Clinton and McCain) both sides have a process to eliminate any chance of us, the people, getting their pick, and that process is the delegate count.

The most important part of this corrupt system is the delegates, superdelegates, and uncommitted (or unpledged in the RNC) delegates themselves. All the delegates are actual people who go to the DNC or RNC conventions and then vote for the candidate that they represent, this is how the nominee is actually picked, not the vote that you cast. In order to be sure they play the game correctly, the delegates are picked by the party elites. They are usually people that have worked for one of the candidates by helping them get elected or members of DNC or RNC. These delegates are usually committed to that candidate and only move their vote if their candidate withdraws from the race. They can, however, be encouraged by that candidate (if he withdraws) to move to the parties choice. The real problem comes from the uncommitted (or unpledged) delegates and the superdelegates. (one of the reasons I advised people here in Michigan not to vote "uncommited" in protest of their candidate not being on the DNC ballot). Uncommitted delegates can be persuaded to vote for anyone that they wish. The danger here is in the fact that they won't be voting until the convention. Therefore, any candidate that is off the list (even though they were on the list at the time they were deemed "uncommitted") is not an option. Where they go is determined by the needs of the party who lobby hard for them to go to the Anointed Favorite. The Superdelegate, on the other hand, is usually one of the party elite, such as Congressmen, Senators, and high placed party representatives. For example, in my home state of Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm is a superdelegate as is Mark Brewer the head of Michigan DNC. The end lesson? Superdelegates nearly always go for the Anointed Favorite.

Now, let's go over the numbers. On the Democrat side it takes 2,025 delegate votes to win the nomination. Out of those, 796 are Superdelegates. That means that over a third of the delegates needed to elect the nominee comes from the DNC itself. Move all these delegates to one candidate (such as Hillary) and as you can see, it becomes very hard to upset the Favorite. So how is this panning out? A quick look at the delegate count reveals that Hillary has 184 superdelegates to Barack Obama's mere 90 delegates. See how the game is played? Minus the S.D.'s, Barack is actually leading Hillary 63 to 48, with the S.D's it becomes 232 for Hillary compared to153 for Barack. On the Republican side it takes 1,191 delegates to win. The RNC gets 3 delegates for each state (that they put where they please) plus any unpledged delegates. Unpledged delegates are allocated using a state by state system that Einstein couldn't understand. If you want to try, here it is. The RNC has nearly half the delegates in it's system so it takes fewer to control the outcome. Mitt gets too close, more are added to McCain.

The bottom line on all this is; You don't really get to pick your nominee even though they go through this Dog-and-Pony show designed to make you think you did. As if it's not bad enough that the media does their bidding, as if it's not bad enough that the choices are cut in back room deals, now we pay for elections that are only designed to give us false hope. Get rid of the Electoral College? First we need to demand that the RNC and DNC get rid of this ridiculous primary and caucus system, or at the very least call it what it is, a joke on the American voter. H.C.

DEFENDING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

My friend, Andre Louis from "Inside Andre's Head" recently posted a two-part video in support of abolishing the Electoral College. Since he already put out that side of the argument, I figured I would play Devil's Advocate and give the other side, in support of keeping the Electoral College. This is an age-old argument here in the States and to be honest, I wouldn't blame you for picking either side. That being said, let me give you my side of the debate and then you can decide for yourself. I would recommend watching Dre's video first since he is the one doing 'prosecution' of the E.C. (left alone, my side would win by default).

The first point I would like to make about the Electoral College is that this is a process created by our Founding Fathers. To me, that puts it in a special category. A lot of what was created by our Founding Fathers in making this country; the Constitution, the Bill of Rights for instance, is what we all identify with being 'The United States of America'. I don't really like "Slippery Slope" arguments, but I do believe that if we start re-writing the Constitution we put it in the hands of people that are (in my opinion) far more corrupt and self-serving than the people who wrote it the first time. I don't know what a Constitution written in our time would look like, but scares me to even consider it. Now, I know that we have a procedure for Amending the Constitution, but we're talking about eliminating an Article of the Constitution, not just adding an idea, and that should not be taken lightly. Changing the principle structure of the voting process can lead to more changes that may rob us of some of the election process in the future. Imagine this argument on the Senate floor; "Why can't we abolish the 1965 Voting Rights Act? We did away with the Electoral College and the Voting Rights Act wasn't even in the original Constitution." It's better, I think, to protect the whole process venomously.

My second defense is that I believe the Electoral College helps protect State's Rights. We are not just "America", we are "The United States of America". The reason is the same as it was when the country was formed, different regions have different cultures and different concerns and needs. The E.C. helps protect the original idea that each state votes for the President who best represents it's own concerns. Keep in mind that it was States Rights issues that principally caused the Civil War. Removing the E.C. would almost certainly leave some states feeling that they have somehow had their say in the election diminished. The popular vote concept ignores the fact that states have always had some degree of sovereignty. There is no way they won't, or even shouldn't, feel their power has been usurped by the Federal Government.

Another problem with popular vote that can't be overlooked is the fact that most of the population of the U.S. rests in it's big cities. While eliminating the E.C. would certainly empower Democrats and Minorities, who have far more representation in large cities, (the reason I believe they support abolishing it) it would come at the cost of removing influence from Western states in particular. The formula now is that Democrats represent the East Coast and the West Coast along with a few other high population areas and the Republicans represent the vast majority of the land mass of the U.S. that has scattered populations (Probably the main reason it was possible for Bush to win the Electoral vote and lose the popular vote). For the Republicans to be forced to compete on Democrat's soil in just a few major cities would certainly change the debate. It's hard to imagine that debate would change in any way favorable to rural people. Look at it this way; If the majority of Hispanic people lived in Utah, why would I care about any of their issues or waste any of my time and money there when my message can be spread better in big venues with huge crowds in large cities instead of small crowds in gymnasiums spread all over Utah? The E.C. makes it possible for inner city people to compete fairly with rural people. Rural states are left feeling that at least their issues were addressed and their vote counted, even if only in winning their state.

The 2000 Presidential Election is the main catalyst for the movement against the E.C.. The feeling among Democrats is that their man, Al Gore, would have won if it would have gone by popular vote alone. I can't blame them for feeling cheated, but the fact is; those were the rules at the time. It's very important to look at this issue objectively and not want to eliminate the E.C. based on bitterness or sour grapes. This would be the single biggest change to our voting structure ever, and I would think long and hard before I made a choice based on emotion rather than what is best for the whole country. H.C.

HILLARY'S GAMBIT

I am slightly conflicted on how I should approach this piece. On one hand I believe everyone should get the benefit of the doubt and that without proof of guilt, they should be presumed innocent. However, I also believe that very few things in politics are accidental. For that reason I'm going to try to demonstrate for you a timeline of events that seems to be calculated by Hillary Clinton to get sympathy/support from fellow women. I think this is a good example of how politicians try to mainipulate us by separating us and playing on our emotions towards each other. I need to stress here that while the circumstantial evidence is strong, I don't have any info that this was in fact her intent. Just to be fair to Hillary.

This story basically starts in Iowa right after the Caucus. The numbers started coming in and as we all know it didn't look good for Ms. Clinton. The fact that Barack Obama beat her she could shrug off, but what I'm sure disturbed her was the number of women who voted for Obama. This is something that Hillary can not afford to let happen, women are counted on by the Clinton strategists to propel her to victory in the primary and then on to the Presidency. Without strong support from women, I don't believe she can win. So, (and here's where I'm making an assumption) I believe that people within Hillary's Camp decided to make an appeal to women through staged events.

The first one was during a event in New Hampshire with 16 undecided voters. Hillary was sitting at a big table in Cafe Espresso in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with the voters, who just happened to be mostly women. One of the women asked Ms. Clinton, (you can watch the video here) "How do you, how do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?" After claiming that she didn't always look great, Hillary then became emotional after reflecting,"You know, I have so many opportunities from this country [I] just don't want to see us fall backwards." Now, for Hill, this works on two levels; first she doesn't have to worry about being accused of being "overly emotional" since that will only unify women behind her. Second; her statement about having "opportunities" and her fear of a "fall backwards" is well designed to remind women that she is standing stoic in the face of a male dominated world. She then went on to a populous theme claiming her mission is, "about our country , it's about our kids' futures, and it's really about all of us together." There wasn't a dry eye in the house.

The second example I have for you is a little stranger. During Hillary's tour of New Hampshire, a male protester stood up and apparently unfolded a large sign that read "Iron My Shirt". To make sure everyone understood his sign, he also yelled his well-thought out slogan. Ms. Clinton, calm and undaunted, despite the fact that a man standing 20 feet from her with a clear shot was unfolding a sign, responded with, “Oh, the remnants of sexism are alive and well,” Even the Secret Service seemed to be a little slow to react to someone who could have easily have unfolded anything inside his poster. If you look closely at this picture you can even see the folds. The only other answer is that the Secret Service had already looked at the sign and was therefore unafraid. This begs the question; Then why would he be right upfront? One has to assume that someone, some where, said that was all right. Hell, even the press can't get that close to Hillary. Ms Clinton then finished her show with, “As I think has just been abundantly demonstrated, I am also running to break through the highest and hardest glass ceiling.” The mostly female audience stood and cheered. Once again, a staged play for the female vote.

Now, I'm not faulting Hillary for trying desperate measures in desperate times, but let's call this what it is. I'm not even trying to say that she's the only one who would try such a thing (hardly, history is full of examples). But I am saying this; It seem to me that this is more than just a wonderful series of events that just so happened to work out in Hillary's favor. Given the timing, the numbers and the situation, it would take a leap of faith to believe this wasn't an orchestrated and frankly rather transparent attempt to win women back over by staging events. But, once again.....I don't have any real proof, so come to your own conclusion. H.C.

RON PAUL AND BARACK OBAMA WIN BIG IN IOWA!

Well, the results are in from the Iowa Caucus and as everyone is reporting; Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee both turned in a (sort of) surprise victory. I know, my banner says Ron Paul won big, but hang on a minute and I'll explain. It's not really that big a surprise, in my opinion, that Mike Huckabee won Iowa on the Republican side. Actually, it would have surprised me a lot more if someone like Giuliani had won. Iowa is a mostly white (95%) mostly Christian evangelistic (roughly 60%) state (it also has a very small Mormon population which you would assume hurt Mitt Romney), so you would expect that a Social Conservative Baptist Minister would fair well vs. sort-of-left-leaning Republicans. The two real surprises to me are that Ron Paul, the fiery House Representative from Texas finished ahead of Rudy Giuliani, the national poll leader, and that Barack Obama won a decisive victory in a very white state.

Let's examine Ron Paul's win first.

Ron Paul has been sneered at and even booed by his Republican counterparts, and yet, over the past 6 months, Dr. Paul has seen his support more than triple. He has had two very successful contribution drives on the Internet (called "Money Bombs") netting him $4.2 million and $6 million. In addition, national polls have his support now running at about 6% compared to the 2% to 1% just a few months ago (the most recent polls show him at about 4% but I believe it will be back at 6% or better after the repercussions of the Iowa results). Most of Ron Paul's support has been coming from Internet support groups, some formed completely on their own. That's great for Dr.Paul as it costs him nothing. Some supporters have even donated a blimp to help publicize Dr.Paul's message which cruises up and down the East Coast. It's these people that Ron Paul has managed to mobilize and turn out in Iowa. That in and of itself is a big win for Ron Paul since most people view the mostly young voters on the Internet as unreliable at best. I have to guess that finishing ahead of Giuliani is the icing on the cake for the Ron Paul camp. Sure, you can use the argument that Giuliani never even campaigned in Iowa, but no matter the reason, that win is going to further energize his effort, and that's another victory for Dr. Ron Paul.

My assessment;

Dr Paul has shown real resilience and a following that seems to be growing every day. Money and boots-on-the-ground is a major assest that shouldn't be underestimated. While I would put Ron Paul's chances of getting the Republican nomination as very slim (I believe they would rather blow the Convention up) his momentum and victories can't be ignored.

Now on to Barack's win.

I can not overstate how important this win is for Barack. To have any hope of defeating the Clinton Machine, Obama must have decisive wins in both Iowa and New Hampshire. I base this on the fact that the Super Tuesday (now called Super Duper Tuesday) states that are voting February 5 mostly lean toward Hillary and even includes her (sort of) home state of Arkansas. For Barack to turn any of those states around, he has to show Democrats that he has what it takes to put a Democrat in the White house. So far the prevailing wisdom has been that only Hillary can fight off the Republicans in the main election this fall. The Iowa win, if coupled with a New Hampshire win, could put some serious dents in the notion that Hillary is the only real choice. Even more important, and far less reported by the MSM (Main Stream Media), is that Barack won big in a state that only has a 2 1/2% black population. That means that a significant portion of white America is comfortable with the idea of having an African-American President (even over white candidates) if that man is Barack Obama. His appeal seems to spread across racial lines in a way that past African-American candidates could not. He even draws a significant portion of the female vote which is a death kneel for Hillary who hopes to draw most of her support from those same women.

My assessment;

Barack has been running a great campaign. He has demonstrated a knack for speaking in a way that resonates with a lot of people and with that as his strength, he actually has a decent chance of becoming the Democratic nominee and maybe even the first Black President of the United States of America. H.C.