Nevada caucus... In a nutshell, Nevada Democratic caucus' occur on Jan 19th at 11:30. Voters are assigned a designated location in which they must make their caucus "vote", and that designation is based on where you live. You cannot "vote" at any other caucus other than the one assigned to you based on your residence. Because many people cannot be at their designated caucus location at exactly 11:30am on that day due to issues such as not being able to leave work, this system in itself promotes disenfranchisement of some voters. In Oct 2007 the Democratic party of Nevada made special provisions to accomodate one - and only one - select group of workers. The hotel/casino workers in Las Vegas. Most of these workers are members of a specific union. The party set up 9 special "at-large" precincts in 9 hotels/casinos on the strip. These precincts were created specifically and strictly for the hotel/casino workers and no one else can vote at them. They were created at sites where there are more than 4,000 workers who "cannot otherwise take off work to go to their home precinct." The workers who work at these caucus locations do not live there...their designated precincts are elsewhere. The rule that you cannot vote at a caucus location other than that assigned to you based on where you live, is being waived specifically for these workers. BUT it's not waived for anyone else. For example, teachers who cannot leave their classroom at 11:30 to vote, also cannot vote at the caucus location held at their school...unless it also happens to be the caucus location for where they live. Although the Dem party made provisions for hotel/casino workers who can't leave work to be able to vote at work even though it's not their designated voting location...the same was not done for teachers, or IT workers, or any other workers in Nevada. Only hotel/casino workers. Office workers, bus drivers...anyone else who cannot make it to their allocated caucus location at 11:30, just won't get to vote. But the hotel workers can because special provisions are being made to make sure they are able to vote. That in itself has got to be a violation of voter's rights law and Nevada election code. You can't make special provisions and change the rules for some voters to make it easier for them to vote...but not do the same for everyone else. That's just appallling. But that's not all that's wrong with this picture. There are 7,224 delegates alloted to Clark county (Las Vegas) by the Dem party. Per Nevada law, each county is designated a certain number of delegates based on the number of registered voters in each precinct. If there are more than 4,000 registered voters, that precinct gets 1 delegate for every 50 registered voters. Clark county has more than 4,000...so the precincts in Clark County get 1 delegate for every 50 registered voters. But here's the problem. The Dem party is treating each of the 9 hotel/casino workers caucus locations (which all conveniently have over 4,000 "workers/voters") as a separate county when determining the number of delegates given to each site, even though the delegates that come out of those 9 sites will participate in the same Clark County convention as all the other Clark County precincts. Under normal circumstances, Clark county would have 7,224 delegates to attend the Clark County convention, based on the number of registered voters in Clark County. These delegates are spread proportionally throughout the precincts, again, based on the number of registered voters in each precinct. The addition of the 9 special interest "at-large" locations, and their being treated as a separate county each, means that there is the potential of 720 additional delegates going to the Clark County convention...all of whom will represent these hotel/casino workers only. In other words, because these 9 caucus locations are in Clark County, but are being treated as though each was a separate county when determining delegates, the 9 special interest locations and their potential 720 delegates... will dilute the votes of other Clark county voters at the Clark County convention. A teacher's union, and some residents of Clark County, have filed a lawsuit against this. I hope they prevail. This is outrageous. I thought Democrats were supposed to be against voter disenfranchisement?!?!
This is so WRONG..... Why not be able to vote online? I trust my online efforts to manage my measly bank accounts, pay bills, buy stuff....why not vote? And it's especially repugnant for any party to do this.
Nevada has a caucus system, not an election, to select delegates to the national convention. A caucus is a meeting. The meeting is scheduled for January 19th, a Saturday. Most teachers and office workers do not work on Saturdays. I assume that's why a Saturday was chosen, so that the greatest number of voters will be able to participate. Rather than complain about the hotel and casino workers being able to vote on a day when they cannot get off work, my complaint would be that the same is not done for everybody who cannot make it to their regular designated location for their caucus. There are a lot of other people, besides those in the hospitality industry, who have to work on Saturdays. Health care workers, emergency services providers, many retail workers. It should not be impossible for both parties to make arrangements for them to caucus near where they work. As far as I know, this is the first time such special arrangements have been made for any group. In my opinion, it's a step in the right direction, but should be extended to all voters who are similarly situated. I wonder what the Republican party is doing to accommodate voters who have to work and can't make it to their caucuses?
No, KD...I DO complain when special interest groups are given special treatment to ensure their ability to vote when that special treatment isn't extended to everyone. This isn't a pilot program for a specific area...it was given to only a select group of union voters. You can't get any more blatant than that. I guess the the understanding that this is wrong on so many levels, is what separates us Republicans from Democrats. Oh yeah...favoring only a certain group of special interest voters to the detriment of all other voters is always a step in the right direction. As is the fact that there are no reported plans to do so for any other group of voters in the future. :roll: Tell me. If National Heathcare was instituted, but only for those making more than $200,000 a year, and without any mention of plans for it to be instituted for anyone else....would you consider that a step in the right direction? Well they sure as hell aren't showing special preference and giving special treatment to interest group voters like the dems are. And the Republican caucus is at 9:00am...at least that's a fairly reasonable time when more can get there...as opposed to 11:00am which is after many work shifts start.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/12/133648/896 "The teachers union says many of their members will be unable to vote because at caucus time they are required to assist with caucuses being held at the schools they work at, even if they live in different precincts, which will prevent them from voting at their own caucuses"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/12/AR2008011202834_pf.html Things were deliberately set up so that more than 10% of the STATEWIDE total of votes will come from members of one specific union. And we all know what happens when a union member goes against the collective union vote. Geesh...it's like Jimmy Hoffa days all over again. Ah...how "Unionist". Not only do we have voter disenfranchisement and deliberate dilution of other voter's caucus choices...we have good ole union intimidation to guarantee things will go a certain way. How quaint. Let me get this straight. The Democratic party set up rules so that only casinos that have been organized by your union, the most powerful labor group in Las Vegas, were selected as caucus sites....yet you claim that the "entire Democratic power structure" is for Hillary?!?!? What is wrong with these people? If the Dems did this out of concern for hotel and casino workers, they would have set it up for ALL hotel and casino workers to have this preference. It's not even set up that way. It's set up so that only hotel and casino workers that belong to one specific union get this voting accomodation and preference. This is corrupt, and I can't believe we are seeing it happen here in 2008. Even more so, I can't believe that it's so blatant! If this were the general election, and the union were to be endorsing the Republican candidate, (not that that would ever happen in real life)...Democrats all over the nation would be jumping up and down and screaming about voter's rights and disenfranchisement, etc. That is just outrageous. Anyone here who knows me, knows that I have no love of the Clintons...but I also believe with everything I stand for that this is blatantly illegal and deliberately disenfranchises voters. I never again want to hear from a Democrats mouth, how requiring photo IDs, or long lines, or Republicans owning stock in Diebold are "voter suppression". They've made their bed now, and must forever lie in it.
Democrats evil? In this case, yes...absolutely. Evil and corrupt. Jealous that your party is the party of corruption KD?
I've always thought voting should have a 24 hour window so everyone would have a chance to participate.
I agree with you there. I also think it should start and end at the same time all across the country, so the news media can't contaminate the results in western states by announcing early returns in eastern states. In this case, we are talking about caucuses to select a party's nominee, so that doesn't really apply to this situation. For a caucus, everybody in each precinct has to be in the same room at the same time. The way it works is, voters gather at their designated location. There are places within that location for supporters of each candidate to congregate. They have an initial count, and any candidate who does not have at least 15% of the vote is considered not viable. Voters can then choose to shift their support to a different candidate, or stay with their original choice even if he or she is not viable; then they have a final count. Uncommitted is also a choice. In Iowa in 1976, Jimmy Who? came in second to uncommitted, after which he became known as Jimmy Carter.
And, all businesses possible should close for voting, to include schools. Let high schoolers work the polls and those who can vote then can get to the right place. Shame on both Parties for allowing this. Let me do a search on what the Republicans are and are not doing and I will get to ya' Mag. Teasing, somewhat. Grace
