Big Baybee
Member
Obama had the delegate lead though, right?
Sanders wins Wyoming Caucus; ties pledged delegates; math; rules :(
- Thread starter Zipzo
- Start date
- Status
E-Cat
Member
They're both symptomatic of the same problem, which is that one person's vote it not directly proportional to its part in all the votes. Curious--if you were to set up a new system now, why would you make it anything other than that? Tradition is no excuse.
StopMakingSense
Member
Only if you count the non-binding primaries of Michigan and Florida. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
soundscream
Member
You're leaving out the part of Obama having the delegate lead, which is kind of important.
Open primary without Independents accounted for properly in polling (along with a history of unreliable polling for the state) vs. an upcoming closed primary, where they won't even be a factor.
So you're saying the establishment chooses the candidate. How democratic.
excelsiorlef
Member
Obama won more delegates.... that's why they switched.
The one that may have just broken the record for the most civil disobedience arrests in DC yesterday.
neurosisxeno
Member
Which is normal, it happens worldwide to account for disproportionatly small or big states. It is the same as Finland, you also have constituencies. There are constituencies where a vote is worth a bit more than in others. You don't have a system either where votes get tallied over the entire country. It would be quite possible for a Finnish party to win on popular vote but lose in seats.
Posting the in-depth math behind why the count ended 7:7 is kind of missing the point.
I get that in actuality that they had been mathematically distributed properly, but this is not a mathematical argument. It's a conceptual one. Does it make sense for someone who wins the vote to not get most of the delegates? It's a basic, fundamental question that requires no math to debate.
Like they talked about in the video, is it a borked system?
Posting the equations for why it happened isn't really the focus, IMO.
I get that in actuality that they had been mathematically distributed properly, but this is not a mathematical argument. It's a conceptual one. Does it make sense for someone who wins the vote to not get most of the delegates? It's a basic, fundamental question that requires no math to debate.
Like they talked about in the video, is it a borked system?
Posting the equations for why it happened isn't really the focus, IMO.
This sounds pretty dumb.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
There are only 14 delegates at stake here. That's why. There is no other US state with less delegates.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Popular vote is a terrible metric when it comes to the nomination process. Caucuses are harder to take part in compared to primaries, and thus have way lower turnout. You can vote for a month before a primary in most states. You have to attend the caucus, which is just basically a scheduled meeting.
And this was Obama's election strategy: He crushed Hillary in caucuses to rack up huge delegate gains, while doing good enough in big primaries to deaden her delegates gains.
Obama lost California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. But barely. Those are 7 of the top 10 states in population in the union. And these are all primary states, not caucus states. EDIT: I forgot about the weird Florida/Michigan thing that year. Obama refused to campaign in Florida, and wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan because they tried to jump ahead.
Sorta. Texas was primary/caucus state that.. you know what, never mind.
E-Cat
Member
Not for things like presidential elections. The votes are not weighed based on which province they come from, nor are there any 'intermediary' voters. Also, you don't have to register for a specific party to vote for their candidate, which I never thought made sense anyway.
Also, the absurd (forced) amount of time it takes one to register or switch parties before a primary. It's funny how everything in our world happens within nanoseconds, except for when it comes to our own political will. Then it becomes needlessly slow, like we're all still using snail mail and filing cabinets.
StopMakingSense
Member
Just to reiterate what I already mentioned, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in the non-binding Michigan primary. For that alone he would probably win the popular vote.
soundscream
Member
I can't see this as anything more then occupy wall street 2.0 because there is no damn plan.
Calling something a revolution without having a detailed plan on how your going to accomplish anything just rings hollow.
What congressional seats is Sanders Campaign supporting to turn the #s in the house?
How can you say its a movement when he's losing to Hillary worse then she lost to Obama?
I mean most countries don't allow for voters to select their parties candidate. Voters in the US actually do, it's not some sham. 2008 started out with the party behind Clinton, voters choose Obama, super delegates switched to Obama.
Hand waving it away because of some insignificant caucus result is ridiculous.
If it is a broken system, it might be best to complain about this before you start the campaign, and before you hire the guy that helped build the system and that has defended it for years. The problem is: if you aren't part of the party until it can do something for you, it is difficult to get it to change so it suits you better. That is the problem Sanders is running into.
It basically means you could have a president without the support of parlement, just like the United States. And I assume that if a party votes on who should be its presidential candidate, it only lets those people vote who are members.
The_Endless
Member
So the primary process in the US allows for a measure of public opinion (about 80%, in fact) to influence the selection of the eventual presidential candidate.
There's merit to having the process public (or quasi-public, if you will), as it would allow the candidates to hone and sharpen their policies and stances through what are essentially publically-broadcasted internal debates. This should leave them better placed and better positioned amongst the general voting population when the general election rolls along and the other side starts the serious mudslinging.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
Okay, that sounds reasonable.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Oh yeah, completely forgot about Michigan and Florida that year, will edit.
Good. Anything to stop him from jacking my taxes
and lowering your health insurance so your better off overall.
neurosisxeno
Member
It's a General Election, does he really need to help down ticket races? Generals skew heavily towards Democrats anyway.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Have you looked at the House anytime lately?
I mean, what matters is who becomes the nominee. It's just sort of weird to get really hung up on the details of the process when the overall process is representative - the person with the most popular support is almost certain to be the nominee. There's room to talk about potential reforms (keeping in mind that the point is to represent Democrats and not everyone) but it's not urgent and it's plain silly to talk like this renders the process illegitimate.
Wow. Is this the new excuse to wave away the down ticket argument?
What is the political revolution supposed to be then, a block of cheese?
soundscream
Member
Yes because he would never be able to accomplish his lofty goals without movement in the house. The democrats are likely to pickup senate seats, but for him to do anything he promised they would need to take control of the house of representatives.
E-Cat
Member
The plebs' votes are second-tier, duh.
neurosisxeno
Member
Even in 2012 the Democrats gained 8 house seats. The loses in the House and Senate have nothing to do with General Elections, and everything to do with Democrats not showing up for Mid-Terms. 2010 and 2014 were massive losses in the House and Senate for Democrats--along with historically low turn-out.
No, it's just realistic. Democrats always suffer during off years, along with the fact that the incumbent party almost always experiences losses in Congress.
None of it will matter if he doesn't get the nomination, so focusing on helping a bunch of downticket races during the primaries is pretty pointless for his Campaign as well. Plus, as I said, even in 2012 the Democrats made Congressional gains. Generals favor Democrats.
User 463088
Banned
Whenever someone talks about Superdelegates switching, I'd like to point out that only around 30 supers actually switched in 2008. Near the end, a lot of the Superswho hadn't endorsed went ahead and endorsed Obama.
ClosingADoor
Member
The super delegates can still switch however they want.
They have the same amount of delegates, that is just how the math worked out as explained before.
balladofwindfishes
Member
They got the same amount of delegates, the media is twisting some numbers around and neglecting to mention some things to make a good story
Frankfurter
Member
Most countries using proportional representation electoral systems have pretty "fair" results, i.e. 25% votes for a party results in ~25% (actually usually slightly more because of national thresholds) of the seats in the parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propo...f_countries_using_proportional_representation
ConfusingJazz
Member
They didn't.
Because men and women under 45 are overwhelmingly voting for Bernie, and their kids are even more on board. Meanwhile, the seniors (a major voting block, and indoctrinated with Red Scare) can't help but die off.
soundscream
Member
He didn't. It ended up being 7-7 because of the size of the state and the way the vote gets split up proportionally. The Super delegates (who aren't bound by the vote) went for Hillary because she is leading (going to win the primary).
As to why super delegates exist, its a fire wall to protect the party from nominating a unwinnable candidate. Which in the grand scheme would hurt other races also on the ballot.
TheAutomator
Banned
This is messed up. The lead Bernie had just got vanished.
excelsiorlef
Member
Umm yes?
Who controls literally everything but the White House right now?
Also +2 and +8 are hardly the big changes Sanders needs so yes down ticket is important, also who do you think helped get those +2 and +8s... Obama and the DNC.
ClosingADoor
Member
That's evolution, not revolution. I don't see uprisings or protests going on. It's just people voting differently, which has happened before and will happen again.
soundscream
Member
You cant flip a congressional district in 3 months. You need planing of which there is none. At least Jack got some magic beans out of his deal, Sanders is offering nothing concrete.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
Yeah pretty much.
Not that this or anything remotely reasonable will phase the Berniebros reality distortion field one bit. #itsaconspiracy
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked