GOP Not Only Party Refusing Dissent at Convention

Convention vote expected to be unanimous for Obama

So from this article, one can gather that the DNC may be a bit smarter in going about their squashing of dissenting nominations, but they are still every bit as guilty of crushing intraparty opposition as the Republicans were accused of being. If there was any question of state level parties granting rightfully earned delegates to Obama challengers, then they went through the court system to block the challengers. Note the articles claim of "amateur" Candidates amazingly failing to follow the proper procedures for filing, yet the article also refers to "perennial" candidates. I would be interested in seeing exactly what procedural errors were made, and perhaps more importantly, when those procedures were enacted and whether that have quietly changed in the past couple of months.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

Though several perennial and long-shot candidates (including a convinced felon) won enough votes against Obama to qualify for delegates, none of them filed the proper paperwork to earn delegates at the Democratic convention.

Doesn't seem like the DNC will need to change the rules while the convention is going on in order to have Obama as the nominee though.

More like failure of due process by other candidates instead of refusing dissent.

ETA:

The Oklahoma Democratic Party has ruled that Randall Terry, the anti-abortion leader who captured 18 percent of the vote in the state’s Democratic primary on March 6, is not entitled to a delegate to the National Democratic Convention.

Wallace Collins, chairman of the state party, said that Mr. Terry failed to produce required paperwork and missed a March 15 deadline to identify a delegate. “Nobody in the state of Oklahoma said ‘I pledge to be a delegate for Randall Terry,’ ” said Mr. Collins, who sent Mr. Terry a certified letter on Friday.

In Mr Terry's case it seems it was also proceedural.

Source



~Tenth

Though several perennial and long-shot candidates (including a convinced felon) won enough votes against Obama to qualify for delegates, none of them filed the proper paperwork to earn delegates at the Democratic convention.

You can't really compare this to what the RNC did to the Ron Paul delegates. These candidates failed to follow existing rules. The Ron Paul delegates had the rules changed at the last minute.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


reply to post by Kaploink


Definitely. As I said, they certainly went about this in a far smarter manner than the RNC did. Honestly, if it wasn't for Wolfe, I'd have passed this story completely by.

Note THIS
This article seems to indicate that the state party has stacked the deck to absolutely prevent any dissent. By getting into unrealistic fractionals of minority delegate representation which are virtually impossible to mathematically attain outside of possessing the majority of the state's delegates. I understand they are painting these as national goals, but it really looks like they are trying to force equal compliance out of any local candidates if they are opposing the party preferred candidate.

It doesn't look like this was a Wolfe procedural error, but rather a State party procedural roadblock. More disturbing still, it is a roadblock which the courts apparently have no desire to tear down.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


the illusion of choice has been broken,
there is no difference between they way the two parties are run,
they are run at the party level, and the rest is a stage show.
i suspect that with this much pressure from the bottom up to the parties,
the dems will behave in the same manner as the GOP and tighten the reins of control.

i think OWS had the right idea, not top down party control,
bottom up people control of the issues.

both parties are captured at the party level,
i expect to see a farce from both sides, neither actually addressing the concerns of the population.

xploder