Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Let Every Vote Count? For DPVA, Not So Much

By Greg L | 16 June 2008 | DPVA | 11 Comments

Well, the “count every vote” mantra of Democrats doesn’t seem to be working out for them so well, given what appears to be some rather unusual behavior at this weekends DPVA Convention as reported by Washington Post’s Virginia Politics Blog.  Vote results getting announced before the vote counting is completed?  Maybe we ought to be charitable to our friends on the other side of the political spectrum and recognize that trying to manage the election of twelve national delegates out of one hundred and fifty candidates when strict racial and gender quotas were in place.  The inclusion of identity politics in the delegate eligibility requirements certainly made this selection more difficult.  That hardly explains the DPVA announcing results before the ballots were counted, however.  This looks a whole lot like the establishment keeping out those upstarts who might threaten their position.

From Tim Craig:

About 7:30 p.m. Saturday, as workers were removing the stage in the convention hall, Yates said a party official emerged from the area where the votes were being counted and said, “We aren’t finished counting, but we are confident the slate won.”

“How can they declare the slate had won, even before the votes were counted?” asked Yates, a concern echoed by several others on Sunday and Monday. “It was just so chaotic towards the end.”

Stoney said the preliminary vote totals were announced before all the votes were counted because it was clear the slate had prevailed.

“We count slate votes first,” Stoney said. “There is no use to keep counting when it is clear the slate won.”

Stoney noted that Kaine and the Obama campaign put together a slate to make sure Virginia’s delegation conformed to Democratic National Committee regulations on race and gender.

I can certainly understand why some Democrats feel that they’re now done with DPVA.  I’ve seen some goofy things happen at conventions, but this is ridiculous.  As long as Dickie Cranwell is running the show at DPVA, I suppose these things are almost inevitable.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

11 Comments

  1. Anonymous said on 17 Jun 2008 at 8:49 am:
    Flag comment

    WMAL had an interesting news item on this morning for discussion. It seems that Timmy Kaine is pushing to allow convicted felons to have had their right to vote restored. He is hoping to get this passed by the November election. Is he looking at “Virginia for Obamarama?”

  2. Advocator said on 17 Jun 2008 at 9:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Pervertocrats.

  3. manassascityresident said on 17 Jun 2008 at 9:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Demoncrats

  4. Turn PW Blue said on 17 Jun 2008 at 10:05 am:
    Flag comment

    First, your title and tone in the post imply that the winners were declared before a single vote was counted. That’s not at all the case. The votes were counted, starting with the votes for the Obama-Kaine slate.

    They were able to declare that the slate had won because enough votes had been counted by that point to make it clear that no other challenger could prevail, much in the way the media will declare a victor with less than 100% of the votes being counted.

    Or, it’s the way we now assume John McCain and Barrack Obama will be the nominees of their respective parties. They aren’t *officially* the nominees until their party conventions are held, but it’s pretty safe to say they will prevail there.

    Once again, your relevancy to a topic misses the mark. This is much ado about nothing. I think another quote from the Bard is appropriate:

    “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (MacBeth, Act 5, Scene 5)

  5. Anonymous said on 17 Jun 2008 at 11:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Dumbocrats

  6. Ron said on 17 Jun 2008 at 1:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    TPWB:

    Here’s a better Shakespearean paraphrase for you:

    “A spin! A Spin! My White House for a spin!”

    Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  7. An Independent said on 17 Jun 2008 at 1:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    “much in the way the media will declare a victor with less than 100% of the votes being counted.”

    One big difference–the media doesn’t settle elections and all votes are counted by the boards of election.

  8. Matt said on 17 Jun 2008 at 2:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    What is wrong with restoring rights to non-violent felons who have paid their debt to society? Only 2 states currently don’t have automatic restoration, and currently, Virginia does this thru an appeal process to the Governor. This is not a new development.

    As for the topic of this thread again Greg is making a mountain out of a molehill. There is nothing wrong with calling a winner once the 50%+1 threshold has been reached; especially when all the remaining votes were counted for a final result.

    I guess news has been slow recently…..

  9. charles said on 17 Jun 2008 at 11:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Matt, your construction presumes that losing your voting rights is NOT part of paying your debt to society.

    Simple fact is that voting is a privilege, and reserving that privilege for people who manage to NOT severely break the law is a reasonable position.

    Can’t disagree about the topic of this thread.

  10. Turn PW Blue said on 18 Jun 2008 at 6:55 am:
    Flag comment

    First, we are talking about an internal party vote, not an election for public office. The rules governing the process are set and established by the party. That said, at no point in time was there ever a question that all the votes would be counted. They were all counted, An Independent.

    Second, all of the votes WERE counted. But as Matt stated above, the winner was called when it was clear that counting the remaining votes was more a formality than anything that would change the results of the election. Note that the article (by a Washington Post writer than Greg has assailed in the past for shoddy reporting, I might add) states that Levar Stoney emerged from the counting room as the hall was being cleaned up and made the statements about who won. This was NOT a formal announcement, but a far more informal update to those who happened to have stayed behind (much more akin to the media declaring a victor). In fact, in the days after the convention, there was some confusion over who had been selected as delegates precisely because a formal announcement didn’t happen immediately.

  11. Matt said on 18 Jun 2008 at 6:58 am:
    Flag comment

    Charles; I certainly don’t disagree that anyone who commits a felony deserves to have their voting rights withdrawn, however, once their sentence has been completed those rights should be restored so they may integrate into society again as fully as possible.

    Why should we pick and choose what rights are restored and which are not for someone who has completed their sentence? If the sentence included a permanent revocation of voting rights I wouldn’t argue this point but I don’t think that has ever been done.

    Should we also revoke their right to own property, hold a job, get married, etc? Isn’t the goal to try and minimize criminal recurrence and isn’t trying to integrate these folks back into society fully a worthy goal that would be harmed by not restoring rights once a sentence is completed?

Comments are closed.


Views: 1258