In article
<20ee36e9-2ed1-4454-9459-7b5c5260d71f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
jerry <GeraldCNewton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 11, 2:29 pm, jerry <GeraldCNew...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Guess what, the Alaska Democratic Party does not have a primary
> > election. Alaska has a caucus election and only, yes only, 406 people
> > attended statewide and Obama won 75 percent of the vote and got 9
> > delegates while Clinton got 4. I was waiting for the election and
> > thought, hell; I would go out and vote. What a friggin crock of ****
> > the Democratic Party is. 406 people determined how many delegates
> > would be seated from Alaska. So who do you think went to the
> > caucuses? I am really curious, because hard working people are too
> > tired or too busy to go to a gaddamn caucus. I bet I know who went,
> > and who had the time, and who elected Obama. This has happened all
> > over the USA in many other States and that is why Obama is winning, he
> > won with the caucuses. In Texas, Clinton won the popular vote but
> > lost big time in the caucuses. Texas has both types of elections.
> > I am voting for McCain and I would hope anyone fed up with the
> > Democratic Party and its bull**** would also vote for McCain out of
> > spite. What really gets me, is for many years I was too busy working
> > and not paying attention to the election process. Now after finding
> > out how crooked it is, I wonder how this country survives and calls
> > itself a democracy. We sure as hell are not a a democracy, a republic
> > or anything close.
> >
> > Ref:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#AK
>
> Apparently, the CNN site only lists delegates that vote. The
> wikipedia site lists the actual attendees at the Democratic caucuses
> as 8,880. That is still only 1.5 percent of the 600,000 people in
> Alaska and is not a fair representation. The fact is many Alaskans
> cannot attend these caucuses for various reasons, being older is one
> of them especially when the caucuses are held in the winter on
> February 5, like they were. The fact is the Democratic caucus in
> Alaska was a sham and is not what a democracy is supposed to be all
> about. Obama winning this caucus is a sham, Obama is a sham. The
> whole Democratic caucus idea is a method to allow the young,
> unemployed, clerical types, government employees, and African
> Americans to control the primary process. Older voters and blue
> collar workers are discriminated against.
> Ref:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Democratic_caucuses,_2008
Alaska has Republican caucuses too. I agree caucuses are not as
"democratic" as primaries. As a result they are more influenced by
party insiders and political junkies than primary elections. That has
an upside and a downside for the process of selecting candidates. The
downside is that it favors a candidate with a more effective on the
ground organization. The upside is the same.
|
