Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Some state's opt for primaries open to all, some opt for primaries open to all voters registered in a party and all unenrolled voters, some opt for closed primaries. The closed primary states often let you register for a party at the polls. Generally, each state party can decide whether to participate in the primaries established by the legislature or can opt out and select their nominees and their delegates other ways.

Most state parties allocate their Presidential delegates a number of ways; they can use both a primary and a caucus if they choose - the rules are very flexible. And most parties seem to want the insiders picking some delegates.

Apparently the South Carolina primary is proportional representation for the delegates that show up at the convention. Colbert is hoping that he has enough votes for one lone delegate to show up and cast a ballot for him in the Democratic convention. I don't think the party is too pleased about this.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is that what it says? 'Splain, please.

It being EFCA? Or It being Slave? If its EFCA, I think the idea is that the law would take away a secret ballot election and replace ith with card check for purposes of union representation.

But you knew that.

I thought that Slave's point was that any attempt by Democrats to try and attack Republicans in regard to secret ballot elections rings hollow when their supporters are pushing to do away with secret ballot elections in the union context.

However I probably shouldn't be speaking for Slave or his point.

aV

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Most Republicans, like myself

HA! HA! HA!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is that what it says? 'Splain, please.

Apparently, Slave believes that union certification and selecting elected officials are one and the same. It's not the craziest idea he's had.

But if the Rs are so gung-ho on the issue when it applies to unions, why do they play a different jig in Virginia? Why, Slave, Why?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Apparently the South Carolina primary is proportional representation for the delegates that show up at the convention. Colbert is hoping that he has enough votes for one lone delegate to show up and cast a ballot for him in the Democratic convention. I don't think the party is too pleased about this.

That's the thing about playing insider ball.

When someone else gets the ball, the insider gets very sad and throws a tantrum.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by andViolins
It being EFCA? Or It being Slave? If its EFCA, I think the idea is that the law would take away a secret ballot election and replace ith with card check for purposes of union representation.

But you knew that.

Yes. I wasn't seeing the relevance.

I thought that Slave's point was that any attempt by Democrats to try and attack Republicans in regard to secret ballot elections rings hollow when their supporters are pushing to do away with secret ballot elections in the union context.

Thanks for trying, but I'm still not getting the parallel.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes. I wasn't seeing the relevance.



Thanks for trying, but I'm still not getting the parallel.

i'm counting this. win 400. thank you all.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Santa's bringing me a FC Shakhtar Donetsk win.

Santa can suck it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

More of a Yog-Sogoth man, myself.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ben Bradlee:

• Are you surprised the Washington Post [editorial page] has supported this fucking war for so long?
  
  Oh, we always do. We like wars. How long do you think we supported Vietnam?

interview via here

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by andViolins
It being EFCA? Or It being Slave? If its EFCA, I think the idea is that the law would take away a secret ballot election and replace ith with card check for purposes of union representation.

But you knew that.

I thought that Slave's point was that any attempt by Democrats to try and attack Republicans in regard to secret ballot elections rings hollow when their supporters are pushing to do away with secret ballot elections in the union context.

However I probably shouldn't be speaking for Slave or his point.

aV

How do the Republicans feel about shareholder reform -- is a corporate vote analogous to casting a ballot in a public, state-conducted election, too?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Bob
How do the Republicans feel about shareholder reform -- is a corporate vote analogous to casting a ballot in a public, state-conducted election, too?

Apropos of which, I meant to point to this:

• On Sept. 29 -- a date that will live in the Double Standard Hall of Fame -- the NLRB issued two rulings, the first (Dana Corp./Metaldyne) dealing with "card check." This is the process by which an employer can recognize a union when a majority of employees sign cards or petitions affiliating themselves with that union, bypassing the board election process, which an anti-union employer can drag out for years. The board ruled that once a union was certified through card check, the employer must post a notice telling employees that if 30 percent of them sign a petition saying they don't want a union, the 50 percent-plus-one of them that do are overruled and a board election must be held. The Bush appointees argued that card-check isn't a good measure of worker sentiment, since those employees who sign cards and petitions may be susceptible to "group pressure."
  
  On the same day, however, in a case (Wurtland Nursing) involving an employer's withdrawal of recognition from the union in its workplace, the board ruled that if a majority of workers signed cards or petitions asking for a vote to remove the union, the employer could decertify the union then and there without even holding that vote. Signed petitions from workers, in other words, are suspect when the workers want a union and proof positive when they don't.

Harold Meyerson

Don't hold your breath waiting for conservatives to complain about Wurtland Nursing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apropos of which, I meant to point to this:

• On Sept. 29 -- a date that will live in the Double Standard Hall of Fame -- the NLRB issued two rulings, the first (Dana Corp./Metaldyne) dealing with "card check." This is the process by which an employer can recognize a union when a majority of employees sign cards or petitions affiliating themselves with that union, bypassing the board election process, which an anti-union employer can drag out for years. The board ruled that once a union was certified through card check, the employer must post a notice telling employees that if 30 percent of them sign a petition saying they don't want a union, the 50 percent-plus-one of them that do are overruled and a board election must be held. The Bush appointees argued that card-check isn't a good measure of worker sentiment, since those employees who sign cards and petitions may be susceptible to "group pressure."
  
  On the same day, however, in a case (Wurtland Nursing) involving an employer's withdrawal of recognition from the union in its workplace, the board ruled that if a majority of workers signed cards or petitions asking for a vote to remove the union, the employer could decertify the union then and there without even holding that vote. Signed petitions from workers, in other words, are suspect when the workers want a union and proof positive when they don't.

Harold Meyerson

Don't hold your breath waiting for conservatives to complain about Wurtland Nursing.

couple quick questions. Aren't there panels at the NLRB, and don't they differ, and if so wouldn't anyone who has ever worked a day in the law know that the article you posted simply showed ignorance of the law? different panels in the same court often get to somewhat differing opinions, you know that, don't you? everyone else here does.

Plus, it soulds like there are pretty distinct issues being discussed in the two cases. Maybe violins will respond substantively, but maybe not.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Plus, it soulds like there are pretty distinct issues being discussed in the two cases.

Right. Kinda like the distinction between a union election and a state's primary election. Except not quite as much.