Showing posts with label delaware primary news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label delaware primary news. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Delaware primary results and voter disenfranchisement

I saw in the paper and by online coverage that Obama and McCain won Delaware. What was funnier was the letter to the editor in today's paper complaining about the fact that independents in Delaware (as well as 18 other states) can't vote in primaries or caucuses. It then cites, without reference, to some statistic that nationwide independents make up about 40% of the voting electorate. It goes on to complain about how the voting rights of the independents are adversely affected by this exclusionary process.

Well, I feel disenfranchised because I wasn't asked to participate in an exit poll (in fact, it appears no Republican was), so my influence on this national electoral-o-sphere was not counted and this is ludicrous. Who can I sue to fix this travesty? This has to be unconstitutional in some way. I have one additional comment, but I'll save it for the end.

Relevant to the point, and probably of more interest to various internet searches curious about the breakdown of the vote in Delaware, the State News broke down the vote slightly differently than CNN, and so for those political junkies worried about the role of the First State in this process, fear not:

For the Dems (according to this morning's paper):
Obama = 50,953 53%
Clinton = 40,587 42%
Biden (who explicitly asked people not to vote for him) = 2,858 3%
John Edwards 1,234 1%
Dennis Kucinich 190 <1%
Christopher Dodd 170 <1%

For the Republicans:
McCain 22,511 45%
Romney 16,280 33%
Huckabee 7,673 15%
Ron Paul 2,122 4%
Giuilanai 1,249 2%
Tom Tancredo 175 <1%

I had to look up Tom Tancredo to learn that he was out of the race before it even started, so I find that he got votes almost as funny as the fact that Biden did.

In either case, the final tally, according to CNN, was 51,124 (53%) to 40,751 (43%), which gives Obama a 9:6 edge on delegates.

One final thought on this (interesting) letter to the editor. I have half a mind to put pen to paper and write a response to it, and I may, but for now, I'll simply say that they are incorrect. You can vote in the general election, so your argument fails. Period. Even assuming that the primary process is a "stage" in the election, and it is not, how does your inability to vote for a potential affiliated candidate possibly disenfranchise your vote when you have consciously decided not to affiliate yourself with a party? Answer: It doesn't. If anything, your vote screws up the result. Alternative answer: If you don't like it, declare a party.

This whole process makes me wonder how many people are under the erroneous impression that you must vote straight ticket based on your party? If the answer is more than ten percent, I see that as a sad commentary on the political system.