1,500 people denied right to vote in Washington

[Paulie]

POLITICS: Local GOP apologizes for turning 1,500 away from caucuses in Kennewick - Breaking News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

Kennewick About 1,500 people were turned away from pooled Benton County caucuses in Kennewick by event organizers after rooms at the Three Rivers Convention Center reached capacity this morning.

Some potential caucus voters said they arrived at 9 a.m. to find the large hallways at the convention center packed to the rafters and were told no more people could enter the caucus rooms.

Read more here: POLITICS: Local GOP apologizes for turning 1,500 away from caucuses in Kennewick - Breaking News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

They pooled an entire county of caucus voters into ONE LOCATION and then disenfranchised them over a matter of not enough space.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm a Paul supporter, but this is beyond Ron Paul. These candidates have been spending their time and money campaigning in these states for over a year, and the GOP doesn't even care that they're disenfranchising voters in several states and literally taking away their right to vote for one of these candidates. How do you pool an entire county into one location and then turn voters away because there's not enough space? Benton is one of the bigger counties in Washington.

What the fuck is happening to this country?

 

[GuyPinestra]

That's almost HALF of the voters in the county, and it was a strong county for Ron Paul in 2008.

Why am I not surprised??

 

[Leweman]

How is that legal? To say go home, no more ballots?

 

[Article 15]

The GOP loves itself some disenfranchisement.

 

[Paulie]

How is that legal? To say go home, no more ballots?

I don't know. I don't understand how you can run an election based on assumptions of how many people you expect. The only assumption to be made is that EVERYONE will vote.

 

[Trajan]

The GOP loves itself some disenfranchisement.

yea, you're right, they just should have saved them the gas and flattened their tires in the driveway.

 

[Paulie]

The GOP loves itself some disenfranchisement.

I remember you saying a while back when they were talking about counting ballots at secret locations "why are they even having these primaries?".

I'm wondering the same thing. Just announce Romney as the nominee and stop wasting everyone's time and money.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm not sure but where does it say were guaranteed the right to participate in a "caucus"?

 

[Greenbeard]

There's something odd about supporters of the candidate with the least votes in the primaries, whose entire strategy for victory rests on surreptitiously loading the ranks of uncommitted delegates with his followers/fellow ideologues or gaining enough leverage to demand the nomination in a smoke-filled back room at a brokered convention, asking "why are they even having these primaries?"

 

[HUGGY]

How is that legal? To say go home, no more ballots?

It was a caucus. No room is the only possible excuse. I would be curious who chose the location.

 

[Full-Auto]

I'm not sure but where does it say were guaranteed the right to participate in a "caucus"?

A fair point given what democrats did to two states to anoint Obama.

 

[Paulie]

I'm not sure but where does it say were guaranteed the right to participate in a "caucus"?

There's no distinction to be made when it comes to voting. Voting is voting, and we're guaranteed that right in this country.

 

[Defiant1]

How is that legal? To say go home, no more ballots?

I don't know. I don't understand how you can run an election based on assumptions of how many people you expect. The only assumption to be made is that EVERYONE will vote.

It wasn't an election it was a caucus.

Maybe the Paul supporters should have laid off the weed the night before so they would get up early enough to get to the caucus first.

 

[Paulie]

There's something odd about supporters of the candidate with the least votes in the primaries, whose entire strategy for victory rests on surreptitiously loading the ranks of uncommitted delegates with his followers/fellow ideologues or gaining enough leverage to demand the nomination in a smoke-filled back room at a brokered convention, asking "why are they even having these primaries?"

You miss the point. It's not about Ron Paul. It's about voting rights. Those 1,500 could have voted for anyone. I don't really care who they would have voted for, I simply have a problem with them being denied that right.

Why spend so much time and money setting all this up, campaigning for over a year and trying to reach out to every possible voter, if they're not even going to allow every voter to have their say?

 

[hortysir]

Racists!!!`

 

[Paulie]

How is that legal? To say go home, no more ballots?

I don't know. I don't understand how you can run an election based on assumptions of how many people you expect. The only assumption to be made is that EVERYONE will vote.

It wasn't an election it was a caucus.

Maybe the Paul supporters should have laid off the weed the night before so they would get up early enough to get to the caucus first.

Wrong. Besides the beauty contest, there is a delegate slate election which is a binding electoral event. Denying 1,500 people the right to cast a beauty contest vote also denies them the right to select a delegate slate.

Again, this is not about Paul.

 

[mudwhistle]

Excuse me, but it seems that some of you don't know the difference between a caucus and a primary election.

 

[Article 15]

I'm not sure but where does it say were guaranteed the right to participate in a "caucus"?

A fair point given what democrats did to two states to anoint Obama.

I'm getting a kick out of your assertion that it was done with the intent to "annoint" Obama considering that it was decided that Florida and Michigan's delegates wouldn't count before the primaries even began, that this occurred while Hillary was still considered the "inevitable" nominee and Obama was barely a blip on the radar, and that Hillary benefited the most from the DNC going back on their original decision to void all of the delegates.

Oh, and Hillary broke her pledge not to campaign in those states as well.

Srsly, lol, dude.

 

[Paulie]

Excuse me, but it seems that some of you don't know the difference between a caucus and a primary election.

Do you understand that at a caucus, a slate of delegates is elected in each precinct to move on to the county convention? Do you understand that it's a binding electoral event? The differences between a caucus and a primary mean nothing in this case.

 

[GuyPinestra]

There's something odd about supporters of the candidate with the least votes in the primaries, whose entire strategy for victory rests on surreptitiously loading the ranks of uncommitted delegates with his followers/fellow ideologues or gaining enough leverage to demand the nomination in a smoke-filled back room at a brokered convention, asking "why are they even having these primaries?"

I believe that distinction belongs to Newt Gingrich, dumbass...