[新聞] Obama Wins Global Primary

作者swallow73 (swallow73)

看板IA

標題[新聞] Obama Wins Global Primary

時間Fri Feb 22 00:41:48 2008

歐巴馬又多贏了半張黨代表票。我那位教美國文學的白人教授每次講到黑人被壓迫的處境便十分激動，這老兄八成也投了歐巴馬。 Candidate Votes Percentage Delegates Barack Obama 14,937 65.6% 2.5 Hillary Clinton 7,439 32.7% 2 Joe Biden 15 0.1% 0 Chris Dodd 0 0% 0 John Edwards 154 0.7% 0 Mike Gravel 0 0% 0 Dennis Kucinich 137 0.6% 0 Bill Richardson 20 0.1% 0 Total 22,755 100% 4.5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_Abroad_primary%2C_2008 (取自維基百科) 標題:Obama Wins Global Primary 新聞來源:The Associated Press http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18257516 (需有正確連結) WASHINGTON February 21, 2008, 10:10 am ET · Barack Obama won the Democrats Abroad global primary in results announced Thursday, giving him 11 straight victories in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. The Illinois senator won the primary in which Democrats living in other countries voted by Internet, mail and in person, according to results released by the Democrats Abroad, an organization sanctioned by the national party. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has not won a nominating contest since Super Tuesday, more than two weeks ago. More than 20,000 U.S. citizens living abroad voted in the primary, which ran from Feb. 5 to Feb. 12. Obama won about 65 percent of the vote, according to the results released Thursday. Voters living in 164 countries cast votes online, while expatriates voted in person in more than 30 countries, at hotels in Australia and Costa Rica, at a pub in Ireland and at a Starbucks in Thailand. The results took about a week to tabulate as local committees around the globe gathered ballots. "This really gives Americans an opportunity to participate," said Christine Schon Marques, the international chair of Democrats Abroad. There is no comparable primary among Republicans, though the GOP has several contests this weekend in U.S. territories, including party caucuses in Puerto Rico Sunday. The Democrats Abroad controls seven pledged delegates at the party's national convention this summer. However, the group's system of dividing the delegates is unique, and could create an anomaly in which Obama and Clinton end up with fractions of delegates. The party will send 14 pledged delegates to the convention, each with a half vote. The primary was used to determine nine people, or the equivalent of 4.5 delegates. Obama won 2.5 and Clinton won two, according to Schon Marques. The Democrats Abroad will hold a global convention in Vancouver, Canada, in April to select the other five people who will attend the convention. They will represent the remaining 2.5 votes. The system creates the possibility that Obama and Clinton could each end up with an extra half vote at the convention, Schon Marques said. Democratic parties in U.S. territories use similar systems, in which they send twice the number of delegates, giving them each a half vote. But their systems are designed to ensure that that candidates do not end up with fractions of delegates. Heading into the Democrats Abroad primary, Obama led with 1,351 delegates, and Clinton had 1,262. -- Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration. －Los Angels Times -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 122.127.67.95

推 debugs:65:32換成 delegate 只有 2.5:2 美國初選規則真的很怪 02/22 00:50

→ swallow73:這個應該不是按照整體比例去分配的,可能有切細到以洲為 02/22 00:52

→ swallow73:單位做細分. 02/22 00:53

→ swallow73:總之民主黨的規則是在黨代表票是偶數張的選區支持度高 02/22 00:56

→ swallow73:的候選人吃虧.如果一個眾議院選區分到4張票，支持度高的 02/22 00:56

→ swallow73:要拿番張得有75%的得票,反之對手只要拿超過25%就能平分 02/22 00:57

※ 編輯: swallow73 來自: 122.127.67.95 (02/22 00:58)

→ swallow73: 三張抱歉 02/22 00:58

→ swallow73:若運氣好優勢區是奇數張票,比方說5張,只要50.1%就能贏 02/22 00:58

→ swallow73:對手一張票. 02/22 00:59

→ swallow73:逃過平手的命運 02/22 01:00

→ swallow73:民主黨的制度是意圖保障在贏者全拿制沒空間的少數聲音 02/22 01:01

→ swallow73:企圖讓整個制度更民主.不過這種比例制會造成兩強纏鬥時 02/22 01:01

→ swallow73:很難有人拿到絕對多數,最後得靠超級黨代表定勝負 02/22 01:02

→ swallow73:企圖保障民主的制度反而讓超級黨代表的份量變更重,這是 02/22 01:03

→ swallow73:很諷刺的 02/22 01:03

推 McCain:共和黨的贏者全拿制比較容易減少僵局 02/22 01:25

推 RIFF:該被檢討的不是"更民主的比例制"　而是超級代表制　吧？ 02/22 02:25

→ swallow73:沒錯,不過比例制中偶數黨代表票選區的問題也應該處理 02/22 02:32

→ swallow73:如果說贏者全拿制是過度的獎賞領先者,現制偶數選區效應 02/22 02:32

→ swallow73:就是在懲罰領先者了 02/22 02:33

推 oplz:我倒覺得超級黨代表這制度不錯如果選到最後還是沒人能拿到 02/22 02:37

→ oplz:足夠的票數就讓較有經驗的人來決定比較保險 02/22 02:38

推 RIFF:"多數統治"尚且稱不上夠民主　更何況"少數人來決定" 02/22 02:46

→ RIFF:我們到底要不要更民主?　當然找一個完善的制度是很難的 02/22 02:47

推 RIFF:60天前誰會想到:OB的影響力如此的大? "少數人"彼時都支持HC 02/22 02:50

→ RIFF:少數人是不是能做出正確的決定　很難說 02/22 02:52

→ RIFF:但是少數人卻很可能做出 "違背多數人期待"的決定 02/22 02:53

推 oplz:如果弄到要超級黨代表來決定這個多數大概也沒多出來多少 02/22 06:31

→ oplz:多一票也是多.. 只是裂痕大概更大超級黨代表不失為解決辦法 02/22 06:34

推 oplz:八年前比較複雜, 四年前小布希也是多數人選出來的, 也沒有多 02/22 06:39

→ oplz:正確...比起普選我是比較相信超級黨代表的判斷 02/22 06:40

→ oplz:不管他們最後讓誰出來選 02/22 06:41

推 zzaa:那算是BO十一連勝了 02/22 07:42

→ swallow73:o大這個主張不是沒道理,不過這論調就類似於英國著明保 02/22 09:27

→ swallow73:守派Edmond Burke在1789年當選國會議員時的致詞演說:" 02/22 09:28

→ swallow73:感謝你們選我當議員,不過我不會鳥你們地方嘈雜的聲音, 02/22 09:29

→ swallow73:我只相信我獨立清醒的判斷."如果號稱比保守的共和黨更 02/22 09:30

→ swallow73:自由,更進步的民主黨也相信老保守派Burke這一套那就諷刺 02/22 09:30

→ swallow73:了點. 02/22 09:31

→ swallow73:更何況超級黨代表的比重占20%，要不讓超級黨代表介入 02/22 09:33

→ swallow73:便需要62.5%的多數,這種多數不論就哪個角度來看 02/22 09:35

→ swallow73:門檻也實在高了點. 02/22 09:37

→ swallow73:法國總統選舉不需要第二輪投票的門檻也不過50%而已 02/22 09:39

→ swallow73:反倒是共和黨相對來講比較不信大老裁決這一套,馬肯今天 02/22 09:40

→ swallow73:不少州的得票都不過才40%左右就拿下多數的黨代表票,不 02/22 09:41

→ swallow73:必擔心大老有異見而聯合把它做掉;反而共和黨只要得到 02/22 09:42

→ swallow73:"相對多數"選民的擁護大老便予以尊重；若民主黨在這點 02/22 09:43

→ swallow73:比保守政黨還保守的多，那就難免讓人質疑他們口是心非了 02/22 09:43

推 going90:每天看你說明真是受益良多 02/22 09:48

→ nplnt:燕子大真的很有研究 02/22 11:34

→ swallow73:抱歉,這論點來自前些天忘了在哪裡看到的分析,我做得只是 02/22 12:01

→ swallow73:簡單的編譯工作而已,沒在這裡討論過兩天大概自己也忘了 02/22 12:02

推 oplz:我不覺得兩者間有甚麼類似的地方啊.... mass 這個詞彙一開始 02/22 12:47

→ oplz:就是負面的意思, 當然現在改變了些... 菁英們的判斷還是會讓 02/22 12:49

→ oplz:我比較安心.. 02/22 12:50

→ oplz:如果這門檻真的算高就不會現在才第一次發生了 02/22 12:51

推 nplnt:一般群眾可能會被搞民粹而煽動但菁英們也有可能因為利益交 02/22 12:53

→ nplnt:換而有私心應該是各有優缺點吧 02/22 12:55

→ hawardhsz:以上兩種都會發生不過都是BO受益.... 02/22 13:24

推 fjjkk:樓上不一定吧至少現在表態支持希妹的超級黨代表較多 02/22 14:02

推 hawardhsz:這是現在之後搞不好就改口說要以廣大民意為依歸他們還 02/22 14:09

→ hawardhsz:是要考慮自己的政治利益的我看HC要反敗為勝除非有奇蹟! 02/22 14:10

→ swallow73:我查了1988年的舊資料,當時最後的提名人Dukakis也離 02/22 14:24

→ swallow73:2081的過半門檻有相當的距離,所以這並不是第一次發生 02/22 14:26

→ swallow73:要是超級黨代表集體跟其他候選人倒向Jakson牧師,最後 02/22 14:26

→ swallow73:就是Jackson牧師出來選的.那年有相當程度也可說是超級 02/22 14:27

→ swallow73:黨代表決定勝負.當年Dukakis的普選票只有大概四成左右 02/22 14:27

→ swallow73:今年不論是BO或HC,普選票拿到50%卻被超級黨代表擋在門外 02/22 14:28

→ swallow73:無法出來參選不是很奇怪的事嗎? 02/22 14:29

推 RIFF:假設usa沒有超級黨代表制或許另一個BO.50年前就入主白宮了 02/22 14:36

→ RIFF:超級代表制　很可能是深化民主的障礙 02/22 14:39

→ swallow73:呃,抱歉,超級黨代表制是80年代的發明,若是50年的話 02/22 14:40

→ swallow73:當時大部份的州都沒有初選,基本上是靠大老喜好決定人選 02/22 14:41

→ swallow73:民主黨的初選民主化是Robert Kennedy跟Eugene 02/22 14:41

→ swallow73:McCarthy兩人支持者的努力推動才產生的 02/22 14:43

→ swallow73:請問R大指的另一位BO是哪位? 02/22 14:44

推 RIFF:orz.　請教當年何以普選與超級黨代表制並立?　讓民意被制衡 02/22 14:43

→ RIFF:BO=八拉課.歐八碼我所謂另一個bo 意指另一個黑人 02/22 14:45

→ RIFF:感覺設立一個制度來制衡民意--很奇怪　不似民主國家作法 02/22 14:46

→ swallow73:被1972年的提名人嚇到了,該年的提名人很寶,曾對一個年 02/22 14:46

→ swallow73:輕人說"聽著,你這妓女生的兒子,為什麼你不來親我的屁股" 02/22 14:48

→ swallow73:之後被人問到是否真有此事,他老兄也不否認,還說這句話 02/22 14:49

→ swallow73:是我在整場選戰說過最棒的話." 02/22 14:50

→ swallow73:請問R大的意思是50年代有類似BO的候選人嗎? 02/22 14:50

推 ncyc:這跟當初設置參議院的目的應該是一樣的，讓激情冷卻一點 02/22 14:53

推 RIFF:ya 我認為本次大選初期barrack在黨內遭遇的這些挫折 02/22 14:51

→ RIFF:這些挫折與阻礙　當年也一定摧毀了一個像BO一樣經歷的人 02/22 14:53

→ RIFF:那些挫折與阻礙　阻擋了一個"民眾會更為期待的領袖"的產生 02/22 14:55

→ RIFF:取而代之的是　一個更擅長於黨內關係與菁英運作的領袖 02/22 14:55

→ swallow73:不過很遺撼的,目前正受到挫折跟阻礙的好像是HC 02/22 14:56

→ RIFF:我認為　這反映了一個問題　"是菁英的政治"或 "是群眾的政治" 02/22 14:57

→ RIFF:HC很擅長於黨內操作　他現在想爭取民眾已經太晚了　可惜 02/22 14:58

→ RIFF:HC在群眾基礎上一直受BO侵蝕這應該是HC初期沒有經營好群眾 02/22 15:00

→ swallow73:不過HC群眾基礎還是有的,目前她拿到937萬票已是黨內初選 02/22 15:01

→ swallow73:史上罕見的高支持度了 02/22 15:02

推 RIFF:我也認為她是有群眾基礎的　只是目前明顯處於脆弱的守勢 02/22 15:03