posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:34 PM
Does this seems like a democratic process to anybody:
* Clinton won Texas by over 100,000 votes, but Obama won the delegate count, 99 to 94. Clinton also won the Nevada popular vote, but Obama won 14
delegates to Clinton's 11.
* Clinton won Pennsylvania and Ohio by a total of over 400,000 votes and picked up a net gain of 19 delegates. Obama won far less populated states of
Iowa and Nebraska and picked up 19 delegates.
* Obama won Washington D.C with just over a TOTAL over 100,000 votes cast and picked up 7 delegates. Clinton won Arizona with over 400,000 votes case
and picked up only 6 delegates.
* And of course, Obama gained 55 delegates in his home state of Illinois. Clinton picked up a total of 52 delegates by winning Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Oklahoma, New Jersey, and Tennessee.
Can anybody in their right minds justify Iowa and Nebraska carrying as much weight as Ohio and Pennsylvania?
Or just over 100,000 people in Washington D.C. carrying more weight than over 400,000 people who voted in Arizona?
Should winning Illinois really count more than winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and New Jersey?
Or worst of all, that there could be more than 100,000 more people vote for Clinton in Texas, and yet Texas allocate more delegates to Obama?
If Obama is the nominee, it will be a gross miscarriage of the intent of our Democracy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Hillary, McCain, or Obama. I'm a fan of democracy, and this ain't it.