Sanders wins Wyoming Caucus; ties pledged delegates; math; rules :(
- Thread starter Zipzo
- Start date
- Status
Nah, they have a rules meeting I think. The rules probably change a bit between elections.
User 463088
Banned
Simple solution is to make sure no state is worth an even number of delegates.
(This will probably happen again in Rhode Island on the 26th too).
(This will probably happen again in Rhode Island on the 26th too).
The irony is that no one complained when near losses resulted in Bernie picking up more delegates than he should if we were rounding.
Nor is anyone complaining he's got more delegates proportionally than he has votes.
The system's only broken when it's not working for you, I guess.
Simon Belmont
Banned
This is an aside, but formal logical statements are very closely related to math.
So Hillary should get more delegates then as she has more votes total. Bernie then loses from your argument.
I'd be fine with scrapping all that bullshit even if it meant my guy lost. It's antithetical to democracy. But at the same time, we should have debates on days that people won't obviously be distracted by majorly important TV happenings. And have more of them.
TheAutomator
Banned
Yes. I don't understand why people arguing against this system have to be Bernie supporters.
Read my last posts. I'm not against Bernie losing delegates.
If a political party is asking the public to vote to nominate a candidate, then corrupting that result with a few elite predetermined votes that count for more alienates voters and does a disservice to your party. Either have the whole process be determined by delegates, who are the only people who vote (I believe this is what happens in Canada), or make it 100% a vote determined by the public. Mixing votes of various strength makes everyone angry.
Fact of the matter is, the Democratic primary systen works. The nominee is always the person that wins the popular vote. And if by some trick of mathematics there's a way to come out on top while losing the popular vote, that's one of the various reasons the superdelegates are in place.
Oh is OWS Occupt Wall Street? I mean that was a good conversation starter (and I think that conversation is still being had) but it did kind of peter out after a strong start. You could argue that Sanders is helping continue that conversation but the complete lack of nuance he is doing it with and some holes in his exact campaign proposals on the subject are not helping matters. BLM continues to have literally nothing to do with Sanders so I have no idea why you are bringing it up in this context. It was them that forced Sanders to actually try to talking in terms of intersectionality and acknowledge racial problems as separate from economic problems and he still is behind the game from that perspective. For minimum wage, pretty much the entire Democratic party is behind that and has nothing to do with Sanders, its just how much is the question because, surprise, its actually kind of a complicated issue. $15 in one part of the country doesn't mean the same thing in another part. Finally, Anti-Fracking still WAY preceded Sanders on the national stage so even if he advocates the position, often without any nuance, that's still not something attributable to him. But keep posting that I don't know anything or that I've fallen victim to some funky narrative
DeviantBoi
Member
The rules are there to protect the Democratic ticket from being hijacked, just like the Republicans are/were being hijacked by Trump.
Bernie might be running as a Democrat, but Clinton is the only candidate that has been part of the Democratic Party for their entire political career.
Bernie might be running as a Democrat, but Clinton is the only candidate that has been part of the Democratic Party for their entire political career.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Bernie Bros vs Ron Paul Revolutionaries, who wins?
GregLombardi
Member
I'm so confused.
Isn't this exactly exactly the same as saying Clinton has a 700 delegate lead? The number includes superdelegates and isn't the one that should be reported.
If a person reported the real number they both won 7 delegates in Wyoming, which while not ideal given his % win, is less sensationalist.
What the hell people.
Isn't this exactly exactly the same as saying Clinton has a 700 delegate lead? The number includes superdelegates and isn't the one that should be reported.
If a person reported the real number they both won 7 delegates in Wyoming, which while not ideal given his % win, is less sensationalist.
What the hell people.
The source of this issue is that there's not one poll for fourteen delegates here, there's three. There's one poll for eight delegates, one poll for four delegates, one poll for two delegates. In Wyoming, it happens that all three votes are contested using the same vote, and in each of those Bernie did not get a sufficiently statistically significant enough win to gain an extra delegate.
For what you're asking for, you have to answer the very important question of which poll do you take that extra delegate for Bernie from? That's not insignificant, there are actual people attached to all this.
Amusingly, the issue stems largely from, well, democracy - every state has its delegates assigned using the same rulebook, and tiny single-disctrict states end up looking a bit odd as a result. It's a discrepancy at the low level that exists in part to keep representation feeling more consistent at the high level - in a more populous state there would be more likelihood of this making a multiple-delegate difference - and that's deemed a necessary sacrifice because well, it's one delegate.
Abstrusity
Member
Personally, I find it amusing that Sanders keeps winning at second caucuses even when Clinton won on the first one. Hillary caucus voters not showing up, or switching to the Bern(likely the former than latter).
eBay Huckster
Member
Yeah, every time I've been asked about this so far I've basically told the person asking that they should be madder at the media outlet in question for reporting superdelegate votes before June like they mean a damn thing.
(Then I teach them that Wyoming is a tiny state so results like the 7-7 tie are inevitable when the wins aren't massive.)
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
What's annoying and tending to spread FUD is when people are selectively choosing when and when not to include superdelegates when using the general term "delegates". As in:
"It's totally fair, Bernie and Hillary both won 7 delegates", while also saying a few hours earlier, "Bernie is behind by 700 delegates, he should just give it up already".
The errors in perception that it causes isn't really fair, to be honest.
(Yeah yeah strawman and all, but I do hear it a lot).
"It's totally fair, Bernie and Hillary both won 7 delegates", while also saying a few hours earlier, "Bernie is behind by 700 delegates, he should just give it up already".
The errors in perception that it causes isn't really fair, to be honest.
(Yeah yeah strawman and all, but I do hear it a lot).
plagiarize
Banned
Rigged implies that when they set these rules, they were doing it to protect a candidate like Clinton against a candidate like Sanders.
Which is patently absurd. These are the rules. They apply blindly to whoever wins. They were set many election cycles ago. The current system has benefitted Sanders, who has a higher percentage of the delegates so far than he has of the votes so far.
You campaign based on what the rules are, not what you want them to be.
Sanders needed to win by much more than he did to be on target to turn things around. If you think that Clinton is going to win by two delegates or less... you aren't really following the race.
Which is patently absurd. These are the rules. They apply blindly to whoever wins. They were set many election cycles ago. The current system has benefitted Sanders, who has a higher percentage of the delegates so far than he has of the votes so far.
You campaign based on what the rules are, not what you want them to be.
Sanders needed to win by much more than he did to be on target to turn things around. If you think that Clinton is going to win by two delegates or less... you aren't really following the race.
GravityMan
Member
The system is working as designed. This year is just highlighting some of the system's flaws. The parties are private entities. In most election years, "protest"/insurgent candidates are usually quickly eliminated (due to the way the system works) and drop out very early...thus by March/April, the candidate(s) still left standing are those the Party is OK with. This year is special though, with Sanders (and Trump and to a lesser extent Cruz on the GOP side) getting so many votes.
The nomination process was never intended to be democratic in the first place.
On the other hand, if we switched to a strict state-by-state popular vote process to select nominees, that has risks too. Especially in a country where a significant number of people are uninformed, uneducated, ignorant, gullible or outright dumb...and where many people decide who to support for illogical, irrelevant or terrible reasons. A foil against that may not be a bad thing, depending on implementation.
I do wish though that caucus states would get rid of caucuses and go to primaries. Caucuses suck and are prone to all sorts of shady stuff (e.g, Nevada).
The nomination process was never intended to be democratic in the first place.
On the other hand, if we switched to a strict state-by-state popular vote process to select nominees, that has risks too. Especially in a country where a significant number of people are uninformed, uneducated, ignorant, gullible or outright dumb...and where many people decide who to support for illogical, irrelevant or terrible reasons. A foil against that may not be a bad thing, depending on implementation.
I do wish though that caucus states would get rid of caucuses and go to primaries. Caucuses suck and are prone to all sorts of shady stuff (e.g, Nevada).
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
Sanders is benefiting from the "rigged" way delegates are distributed. The people are overwhelmingly voting for Hillary over him.
It would make no sense to make the supers proportional and would defeat their entire purpose.
Where?
When I hear margins discussed on this board, it's always the margin of pledged delegates.
What did he mean by this?
Member
This is your wakeup call.
The US is a republic. Sorry.
The US is a republic. Sorry.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
It's rigged in the sense that the system is set up to heavily favor the party leaders choice. It's made to give the illusion that primary voters matter. It's set up to work like this.
Tell that to 2008
plagiarize
Banned
When was the last time the DNC candidate wasn't the one who won the most votes in the Primaries?
Obama.
How do those sour grapes taste?
Also, the person that wins the popular vote always wins. I thought you were smarter than this nonsense.
User 463088
Banned
It's rigged in the sense that the person for which more people have voted is winning in every conceivable metric.
Primary voters do matter. Hillary has 2.5 million more votes than Sanders. If he overtakes her, the super delegates will swap to him.
Even Bill Clinton has said that!
But it's actually 2 year cycles for voting. If people really cared they could vote in people to change it every 2 years. They don't care until their guy loses though.
Because there only seems to be any noise made about it when it's to Bernie's disadvantage.
TheAutomator
Banned
I would take one delegate from the first poll. Problem solved.
plagiarize
Banned
Pretty much. Demographically it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that your average Sanders supporter is less experienced with how elections work, give the age and education breakdowns. Seeing all this freaking out about super delegates and what have you would make you think they're a brand new thing.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
Trump was saying the same thing recently about Cruz, it might have been Colorado
Oh please, if you're so good at taking the political pulse of OT, you'd have noticed the half-dozen-plus threads locked last week of Hillary supporters taking turns making shitposts and then heading back to their community thread to go "made it to X number of posts before the lock, more than I expected". It's a farce.
People are bored so they make leading, inaccurate threads and then people argue the premise down until it becomes surly, and it's typically not the Bernie crowd by what I've seen.
StopMakingSense
Member
The Colorado GOP situation is a completely different thing altogether, and a complete shitshow.
So you should round Bernie's share of the vote up to 62.5%? That's adding more "rounding numbers bullshit". I wonder what the delegate you're stripping of the role as a result would think of that?
Wins can be statistically insignificant. It's quite likely in small states. It's not a disaster.
(The correct answer, I'd say, is to tie an odd number of delegates to that poll. But that's not something you can justify after the event)
Only really matters in Nevada, pretty much everywhere else the final delegate splits are locked in by the initial caucus, and the subsequent rounds are only to decide who ends up actually going to the national conference to deliver the vote.
Tesseract
Banned
Trump is much closer to Douglas MacArthur than Hitler.
StopMakingSense
Member
Well, there's an odd CD and an odd PLEO count, so it should break one way or another.
gutter_trash
Banned
So when Caucuses rules benefit Sanders in some states, they are happy with it.
But when caucus rules in the least populous state with the fewest delegates end up splitting 50 50 over peanuts = they cry
But when caucus rules in the least populous state with the fewest delegates end up splitting 50 50 over peanuts = they cry
TheAutomator
Banned
You misunderstand. I'm saying I would attribute one delegate to Sanders so it becomes 8 to 6.
You only notice what you want to notice. i bet you wouldn't even count this thread as leading or inaccurate against Hillary for example.
Yes, which is effectively rounding his vote up to 62.5%.
Dash_Riprock
Member
And this surprises you?
UnemployedVillain
Member
The only way that would make sense is if you rounded up his win percentage...so that is in effect what you're saying
Not this type of caucus voting. It's like the electoral college, everyone agrees it's undemocratic bullshit but outside of election years we don't talk about it. The person who champions it during an odd-numbered year will be my political hero. It's not even clear how often things need to happen for people to care, see: daylight savings time.
TheAutomator
Banned
Your math is off; %62.5 of 14 is 8.75. %56 of 14 is 7.84.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked