# The (un)democratic nomination **URL:** \ **Category:** International Politics\ **Tags:** presidential-election-2008\ **Created:** [April 7, 2008, 5:50am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019 "2008-04-07T05:50:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![teggs](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@teggs](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/teggs)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 5:50am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/1 "2008-04-07T05:50:15Z")
As a non-American, this is the first time that I have really paid any attention to the nomination process. And I was wondering … what’s with these “superdelegates”? Democracy is built (amongst other things) on the idea that everyone is equal and everyone’s vote countsfor the same. So then why risk overturning the nomination a popularly elected candidate at the whim of 800 normal (i.e. not-so-super) people? Doesn’t make sense to me… could someone please explain if there is any logic in this? P.s. If Hillary is elected by the vote of the superdelegates, a lot of people are going to be pissed! ---
**Author:** ![Chewycorns](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@Chewycorns](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Chewycorns)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 6:05am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/2 "2008-04-07T06:05:26Z")
If the Democrats had a winner takes all nomination process like the Republicans, Hillary would already be the nominee. > [@Salon](#): > > The continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has become a frenzy of debates and proclamations about democracy. Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama’s narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party’s rank and file. If, while heeding the party’s rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama’s supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart. > > These arguments might be compelling if Obama’s leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama’s advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot. > > Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the “winner takes all” democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama’s 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she’d pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She’d have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You need 2,024 to be the Democratic nominee. Game over. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton “stealing” the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention. > > But Clinton does not now have 1,743 delegates. According to CNN estimates, Clinton has about 1,242 pledged delegates to Obama’s 1,413. Most of that total is based on the peculiar way that delegates are apportioned in 2008. Some of it is because Obama’s backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush’s camp used in Florida in 2000. > > Crucially, Team Obama doesn’t want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let’s note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.) Under the existing system, Obama’s current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far – a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point – and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,024 needed to win. Add those states’ votes to the totals, and take a sober look at Clinton’s popular-vote victories in virtually all other large states, and the electoral dynamic changes. She begins to look like the almost certain nominee. > > The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee. Two democratic options are available to clean up the mess: Either relent by including the existing Michigan and Florida results or hold new primaries there. > > Yet in this, as has happened more than once this primary season, the Obama camp’s reaction has not been to clean up the mess the party has created, but to benefit from it. Given the original primary outcomes in Michigan and Florida, Obama has rejected the idea of certifying the results. Although Obama’s supporters conducted a stealth “uncommitted” campaign in Michigan after he voluntarily removed his name from the state ballot, and even though, contrary to DNC directives, his campaign advertised in Florida, Clinton still won both states decisively. This leaves open the option of holding new primaries in both states. National and state party officials have announced that such revotes could be conducted. > > Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state. In Michigan, Obama’s supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be “fraud proof.” (Obama himself, it’s important to note, proposed a bill in 2007 to allow for mail-in voting in federal elections.) > > Instead, Obama’s campaign has tendered the startling proposal that he arbitrarily be allotted half of the votes already cast in Michigan and Florida. Of course, a large number of these votes – more than a quarter of a million in Florida alone – were not cast for Obama. He simply proposes that the party add these votes to his total, as though they were rightfully his. Saying that votes already cast for other candidates should go to him is a bold power grab, worthy of the Chicago machine organizations that claimed the votes of the recently deceased, their names gleaned from the voting rolls. By any definition of democracy, those votes do not belong to Obama; nor do they belong to Hillary Clinton, nor to Howard Dean. They belong to the voters. Obama can no more lay claim to them legitimately than his supporters can declare he has won the nomination before the remaining primaries take place. > > Now consider the delegate count and its connection to the popular vote. In Nevada, Clinton also won a popular majority, despite pressure from union officials on the rank and file attending the caucuses to vote for Obama. Yet Obama claims, on the primary electoral map posted on his official Web site, that he actually won Nevada – presumably because rules that gave greater weight to rural than urban votes mean he won a marginal edge in the Byzantine allotment of the state’s delegates. Why, in deference to the clear-cut Nevada popular majority, doesn’t Obama cede the majority of the state’s delegates to Clinton? Because, according to the rules, he’s entitled to those delegates. But why are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant? Might it be because the rules, and not the popular vote, now benefit Obama? And what about Texas, another state where Clinton won the popular vote but has not been awarded the majority of pledged delegates? Once again, for Obama, the rules are suddenly all-important – because the rules, and not the popular majority, now favor him. > > Obama’s totals thus far have come in great part from state caucuses nearly as much as from actual primaries. (Eleven out of the 30 states and other entities he has won held caucuses, not primaries. Washington held both, as did Texas, where Obama won the caucuses and lost the popular vote.) Of the two systems, caucuses are by far the less democratic – which may be why there will be exactly zero caucuses in this fall’s general election. By excluding voters who cannot attend during the limited times available, the caucuses skew participation toward affluent activists and students, and against working people, mothers and caregivers, and the military. Clinton’s victories, by contrast, have come overwhelmingly in states with primaries, not caucuses. Obama is certainly entitled to the delegates he won in the caucuses. But he can hardly, on that account, claim that he is clearly the popular favorite. > > In 2004, Democrats lost most of the states where Obama’s delegates come from now. The Democrats are likely to lose most of those states again in 2008, no matter how much his supporters speak of winning crossover votes. (Idaho and Wyoming, for example, where Obama won caucuses, are not going to vote for either Clinton or Obama come fall.) Of the remaining states that Obama has won, only one is a large state with a considerable number of electoral votes – his home state of Illinois. Clinton has won the popular vote in all of the other large states – and has done so in primaries, not caucus decisions. The arithmetic here is simple: Because of the flawed system, the delegates from the states that Obama has won, many of which vote strongly Republican, represent far fewer Democratic voters than those from the states Clinton won. > > Finally, there is the disquieting question of acknowledging what kind of democracy will determine who wins the presidency in 2008. Strong arguments could be made that, in a thoroughgoing democracy, voters choose presidents with a direct, plebiscitary system. The candidate who commands a majority (or, perhaps, a plurality) of the popular vote nationally wins the election. But, interesting as they might be as an academic exercise, such musings are irrelevant to the politics of 2008. We have a winner-take-all system, but it operates on a state-by-state basis (except in Maine and Nebraska, where it’s winner-take-all by congressional district). Like it or not, we will choose the president under the indirect and fractured democracy of the Electoral College. > > Obama has tried to reinforce his democratic bona fides by asserting his superior electability, and by claiming that Clinton’s supporters are more likely to back him in November than vice versa. The polls, however, show otherwise. And even more important, the polling data on the electoral vote totals show an outcome very different from the one suggested by Obama. The latest state-by-state figures (as of late March) updated from SurveyUSA, indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania – and McCain would beat Obama. > > In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren’t really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is – not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics. [salon.com/opinion/feature/20 … ndex1.html](http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/index1.html) ---
**Author:** ![teggs](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@teggs](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/teggs)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 6:16am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/3 "2008-04-07T06:16:28Z")
[quote=“Chewycorns”]If the Democrats had a winner takes all nomination process like the Republicans, Hillary would already be the nominee. [/quote] Conversely if the Republicans didn’t have the winner-takes-all system, Mitt Romney would have had almost the same number of seats as Mc Cain when he dropped out (they would have both been in the 400s) and would probably have been in the race a lot longer… ---
**Author:** ![Tigerman](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/ee59a6/32.png) [@Tigerman](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Tigerman)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 6:20am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/4 "2008-04-07T06:20:27Z")
> [@teggs](#): > > Democracy is built (amongst other things) on the idea that everyone is equal and everyone’s vote countsfor the same. Only a pure democracy is one person one vote. [quote=“teggs”]So then why risk overturning the nomination a popularly elected candidate at the whim of 800 normal (i.e. not-so-super) people? Doesn’t make sense to me… could someone please explain if there is any logic in this?[/quote] The Dems always thing a certain class of people know what is best for the rest of us. Thus, they have a class of delegates who they feel are more knowledgable of and more invested in the process, and thus the Dems give those folks additional voting power. > [@teggs](#): > > P.s. If Hillary is elected by the vote of the superdelegates, a lot of people are going to be pissed! Not the Republicans. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![teggs](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@teggs](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/teggs)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 6:23am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/5 "2008-04-07T06:23:51Z")
> [@Tigerman](#): > > Not the Republicans. Exactly! From what I’ve heard from a (dem) mate of mine, a lot of Obama supporters would rather vote for Mc Cain than Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![politbureau](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/58956e/32.png) [@politbureau](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/politbureau)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 7:46am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/6 "2008-04-07T07:46:46Z")
The genius of American democracy is we pretend to vote, they pretend to represent us, and we all pretend it’s a democracy. Every once in a while the fact that it’s really a circle jerk breaks through the facade and we all just look the other way until it passes. ---
**Author:** ![TainanCowboy](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/tainancowboy/32/16118_2.png) [@TainanCowboy](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/TainanCowboy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 8:34am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/7 "2008-04-07T08:34:47Z")
And we allow everyone to have their say. No matter what they want to say or how silly it might seem to others. (except that “Fire!” in a crowded theater thing) Oh…and by the way…The USA is a ‘Representative Republic’…not a democracy. ---
**Author:** ![politbureau](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/58956e/32.png) [@politbureau](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/politbureau)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 8:52am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/8 "2008-04-07T08:52:29Z")
Right, but nobody is quite sure what “representative republic” means. That’s why Americans have to be constantly reminded that our nation “isn’t exactly a democracy” when we start carrying on about being a democracy. A good rule of thumb is that “representative republic” is a euphemism for circle jerk on a national scale. ---
**Author:** ![Jaboney](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/jaboney/32/46120_2.png) [@Jaboney](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Jaboney)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 9:03am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/9 "2008-04-07T09:03:27Z")
> [@Tigerman](#): > > The Dems always thing a certain class of people know what is best for the rest of us. Thus, they have a class of delegates who they feel are more knowledgable of and more invested in the process, and thus the Dems give those folks additional voting power. By definition, that’s a rich joke coming from a republican. ---
**Author:** ![MikeN](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/76d3ee/32.png) [@MikeN](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/MikeN)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 9:38am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/10 "2008-04-07T09:38:53Z")
First of all, the Republicans do not have a winner-take-all system, they have a mixed system. Out of the 2380 delegates in total, only about a third come from states/territories with winner-take-all provisions. According to my quick (and probably slightly off) math, 1610 delegates are selected from jurisdictions with proportional representation. The problem for Romney was that the winner-take-all states were front-loaded, i.e. even if he had a majority in the proportional states and a majority over all, the WTA states would still have locked it up for McCain. Take a look at the Wiki entry on Republican Presidential primaries, and check out the selection methods for each state. Just like the Dems, it’s a mish-mash of primaries, caucases, mixed-type, beauty contests, WTA, PR, open , closed, weighted voting… [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican … ted\_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 - ---
**Author:** ![politbureau](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/58956e/32.png) [@politbureau](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/politbureau)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 10:13am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/11 "2008-04-07T10:13:40Z")
“Presidential primaries” are best thought of as six month long games of Three Card Monte in which the populace is made to believe it has actually selected the two Americans most qualified to be leader of the free world – rather than what they really are – two preselected hacks whose true purpose is to serve as malleable frontmen for insider special interests. ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_McCoy](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/dr_mccoy/32/175310_2.png) [@Dr\_McCoy](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Dr_McCoy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 10:17am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/12 "2008-04-07T10:17:25Z")
It was touching when everyone showed their ink-stained fingers. Or was that somewhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Chris](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/958977/32.png) [@Chris](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Chris)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 10:29am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/13 "2008-04-07T10:29:03Z")
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]And we allow everyone to have their say. No matter what they want to say or how silly it might seem to others. (except that “Fire!” in a crowded theater thing) Oh…and by the way…The USA is a ‘Representative Republic’…not a democracy.[/quote] It is a democracy, since a representative republic is a form of democracy. What the US isn’t is a pure democracy. If the US weren’t a democracy, why would we be advocating the spread of democracy in the world? ---
**Author:** ![TainanCowboy](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/tainancowboy/32/16118_2.png) [@TainanCowboy](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/TainanCowboy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 10:36am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/14 "2008-04-07T10:36:27Z")
[quote=“spook”]Right, but nobody is quite sure what “representative republic” means. That’s why Americans have to be constantly reminded that our nation “isn’t exactly a democracy” when we start carrying on about being a democracy. A good rule of thumb is that “representative republic” is a euphemism for circle jerk on a national scale.[/quote]Spook - Perhaps you were pivot-man when the definition was being discussed. Your ‘circle-jerk’ allusion would be more correctly applied to ‘democracy’ which can accurately be described as a tyranny of the masses. [REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC](http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/REPRESENTATIVE+REPUBLIC) [Republic Rules - The U.S.A. is a great representative republic.](http://www.republicrules.com/) Benjamin Franklin (1706–90) QUOTATION: "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it.” ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention. McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain. [bartleby.com/73/1593.html](http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html) Its what was taught to me. ---
**Author:** ![politbureau](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/58956e/32.png) [@politbureau](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/politbureau)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 10:41am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/15 "2008-04-07T10:41:00Z")
Maybe we can all at least disagree to be unconfused as to what our country’s system of government really is. This much I can guarantee though; if Obama goes down it will be precisely because he’s the least hackneyed of the three “choices.” ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Jack](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/charlie_jack/32/246096_2.png) [@Charlie\_Jack](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Charlie_Jack)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 4:09pm UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/16 "2008-04-08T16:09:32Z")
For a very long time I’ve had a vague understanding that the predominance of presidential primaries in the nomination process was a fairly recent thing. I think my understanding came mostly from the glimpses I got at age fourteen of the TV coverage of the Democratic National Convention of 1968, and from occasionally seeing something in the papers in later years, until around 1976, about changes taking place in the Democratic Party’s nominating process. Just now Wikipedia added a little specificity to my thinking. Here’s what it says, among other things, about the history of U.S. presidential primaries (I added the bracketed words in the quote): > [@](#): > > In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary in which the delegates to the National Convention were required to support the winner of the primary at the convention. By 1912, twelve states either selected delegates in primaries, used a preferential primary, or both. By 1920 there were 20 states with primaries, but some went back and from 1936 to 1968, 13 or 14 states used them. [citing [Alan Ware, The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and Transformation in the North](http://www.amazon.com/American-Direct-Primary-Institutionalization-Transformation/dp/0521814928)] The phrase I recall hearing numerous times in childhood and young adulthood was “smoke-filled room.” That is, in the old days not many people seemed to mind very much if a few representatives of various interests nominated the candidate in secret discussions. So compared to what went on a few decades ago, today’s nomination process seems democratic. In the movie The Verdict, one of the characters says that the legal system doesn’t really give people justice; it merely gives them a shot at justice. Similarly, I would say that the electoral system (including the primary system) doesn’t give us self-government, but it gives us a shot at self-government. But it’s difficult to keep up with everything, people are busy, they get discouraged, so they at least partially opt out, so to speak, and let others handle it. I think William Butler Yeats describes this attitude pretty well: [quote]A statesman is an easy man, He tells his lies by rote; A journalist makes up his lies And takes you by the throat; So stay at home and drink your beer And let the neighbours vote. . . .[/quote]–[“The Old Stone Cross”](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/y/yeats/william_butler/y4c/complete.html#part118) But the problem isn’t limited to voting. I think that in order for a democratic system to be fully effective, a lot more people would have to participate than usually do, and the participation would have to be a lot more thorough and vigorous than it usually is. But people (myself included) don’t want to be inconvenienced by it. As Pogo said, [“We have met the enemy, and he is us.”](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Pogo_-_Earth_Day_1971_poster.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![MikeN](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/76d3ee/32.png) [@MikeN](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/MikeN)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 5:12pm UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/17 "2008-04-08T17:12:26Z")
The Dems superdelegates policy was installed after the McGovern nomination to ensure that the party elders would act as a firebreak against any wild-eyed insurgency from the unwashed. The moving of the South Carolina primary to come directly after Iowa and New Hampshire was motivated by the the same feeling among the Republicans, southern GOPers being assumed to be more easily…um…guided (herded was actually the word I was thinking of). TC, love to hear your definition of the difference between a democracy and a “representative republic”, other than poor people and women can’t vote, and blacks count for 3/5ths of a voter without being allowed to do 3/5ths of the voting. ---
**Author:** ![tash](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tash](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/tash)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 6:46pm UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-un-democratic-nomination/44019/18 "2008-04-08T18:46:20Z")
This is highly enjoyable. You guys are always such fun. Carry on. 😃