But we're not working with 14. We're working with 8. You explicitly stated earlier in the thread that you felt we should take Sanders' bonus delegate from the poll that decided the destination of eight delegates, so that is what we are doing.
Sanders wins Wyoming Caucus; ties pledged delegates; math; rules :(
- Thread starter Zipzo
- Start date
- Status
But we're not working with 14. We're working with 8. You explicitly stated earlier in the thread that you felt we should take Sanders' bonus delegate from the poll that decided the destination of eight delegates, so that is what we are doing.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I hate caucuses and the idea of undemocratic institutions outweighing peoples' votes, so I'm not crazy about this particular result. However, Bernie Sanders has ~45% of the pledged delegates despite only having ~43% of the popular vote. So he's actually been the net beneficiary of the slightly undemocratic way delegates have been allocated.
Of course, if you count superdelegates, his delegate take drops to about 38%, which sucks. But I guess I've bought into the notion that the delegates would switch if Bernie actually started winning, just like they did last time.
Of course, if you count superdelegates, his delegate take drops to about 38%, which sucks. But I guess I've bought into the notion that the delegates would switch if Bernie actually started winning, just like they did last time.
TheAutomator
Banned
There is still two more polls. I'm looking at it in general.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
In vote count, she's 30% ahead but in pledged delegate count, only 24%.
It's not fair.
Caucuses require hours of time to vote, which is undemocratic, to working folk. If Georgia had a caucus, I wouldn't vote half the time. Somehow, Bernie does better in states with caucuses.
But, yeah.
gutter_trash
Banned
Not at all.
I got a final message for Bernie peeps:
Remember 2008, if it were rigged like you say: Obama would not have won the nomination then
Exactly. Rounding and math doesn't have a bias. It benefits and hurts both candidates equally and randomly.
Super delegates could be argued to subvert the will of the people (though I'd argue that they're less undemocratic than the electoral college or caucuses), but it's all just hot air and excuses until Sanders gets a majority of pledged delegates. If he did that and they didn't switch, then people could start crying foul.
And what justifies doing that? It's not handled 'in general' in other states, why should Wyoming get special treatment?
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Black people always get the benefits.
Wait, is this a thread where we claim an election is rigged for a woman?
Yeah, I'm gonna delete my subscription.
User 463088
Banned
Arguing about the Democratic nature of a caucus is a bit odd, considering they're about as undemocratic as you could possibly imagine. The winner of a caucus does not always have the most popular vote. The winner of a caucus, or the percentage by which they win, does not always equate to their actual level of support.
Take Texas in 2008. Hillary won the primary, but then lost the caucus to President Obama. Or, in 2008 when Washington had a caucus and a primary. While Hillary lost both, she lost the primary by a far smaller margin.
Caucuses are the worst, but unless the state will spring for a primary, then you're pretty much stuck with them.
Take Texas in 2008. Hillary won the primary, but then lost the caucus to President Obama. Or, in 2008 when Washington had a caucus and a primary. While Hillary lost both, she lost the primary by a far smaller margin.
Caucuses are the worst, but unless the state will spring for a primary, then you're pretty much stuck with them.
TheAutomator
Banned
I'm arguing that it should be the same for all states. Instead of rounding up the numbers, they should just add them all up. Much more accurate that way.
Again, 62.5% is only for one poll.
Congratulations, you've just diminished the voting power of tons of smaller districts.
TheAutomator
Banned
What? They still have voting power. I'm not sure if we have a misunderstanding here, but If you're going to continue this strawman argument then I won't even bother responding.
The end result would be much more proportional to the number of delegations. Surely that is better for voters?
Talk about disingenuous. I'm actually surprised there is a huge thread on this when this issue was already hashed out in the most recent primary thread when it happened.
But I guess math and logic are parts of the establishment now and so there has to be videos and articles arguing about their place in our voting system.
But I guess math and logic are parts of the establishment now and so there has to be videos and articles arguing about their place in our voting system.
shoplifter
Member
Is this finally the primary cycle that makes people realize that taxpayers shouldn't be funding party primaries? Granted caucuses are usually a little different, but the fact that states have spent ridiculous amounts of money on ballots/software/etc to facilitate them makes me quite angry when you realize that the result will likely be determined not based on the actual results of the primaries (esp for the GOP)
The system the democratic party have set up gives distinct polls for separate congressional districts to ensure each of them gets a separate say. Munging all such polls into one reduces the influence of the less-populous districts. Or if you prefer, in caucus states, overinflates the influence of districts that may be made up of a community who find it inherently easier to participate in a caucus.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Esit: Nevermind. Guess my numbers are old.
Hillary has 1,308 pledged delegates and Bernie has 1,096.
538 has it 1096 to Hilary's 1308
He's still down over 200, dude is just a zombie campaign at this point nibbling away at some states.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Aren't you familiar with the modern day news machine. You take a story, add some sensationalism, needlessly amp up the drama to justify repeating it 24 hours then spit out something that only somewhat accurately reflects the truth in some cases
Veritigo_X
Member
I'm going to assume that everyone upset about this is equally upset about the fact that Bernie won more delegates than Clinton in Nevada, a state where she won the popular vote? It seems like both sides are willing to work with this undemocratic process.
TheAutomator
Banned
How would it reduce the influence?
The end result would be much more proportional to the number of delegations. Surely that is better for voters?
Or are we going to care about the result of one poll more than the end result?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Not all the time, the word is thrown around pretty loosely sometimes, especially on other parts of the internet and occasionally what I hear in conversations among people who aren't more familiar with the process and are recalling infographics they saw in the internet that one time.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Math is rigging the system
Will this be the year were the will of the people put math in it's place?
Popular vote is mob rule, absolute popular vote is not a good way to decide a democratic republic.
Will this be the year were the will of the people put math in it's place?
YOU DON'T ROUND
The party is putting their support behind someone who has been a lifelong dem, has done amazing work for the downtickets and has the ability to not fold under huge pressure.
So clearly the guy who complains that a 7-6 split on a 12% win is right and everyone else are fucking idiots.
The party is putting their support behind someone who has been a lifelong dem, has done amazing work for the downtickets and has the ability to not fold under huge pressure.
So clearly the guy who complains that a 7-6 split on a 12% win is right and everyone else are fucking idiots.
Popular vote is mob rule, absolute popular vote is not a good way to decide a democratic republic.
Officerrob
Banned
I guess what happened in Nevada is cool with Sanders supporters though, right?
UnemployedVillain
Member
How was this rigged, please explain with a breakdown of how Bernie should have gotten more delegates.
You do realize 4 of those are super delegates who have only made non-binding pledges that can and have, in the past, changed, right?
This thread is what happens when people simply believe the media narrative and don't actually know the details, because they contradixt thr headlines. It's actually been eye opening. If reasonably smart and logical people like GAF generally is can be duped by a hyperbolic headline, it's no wonder we have less educated people believing crazy shit because of conservative talk radio and Fox News
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
It is so hard to take Bernie supporters seriously anymore when they cry wolf about every little thing. What happened in Wyoming is a 100% non-issue except for them spreading BS by combining Pledged and Super delegates. Pledged are locked and can't be changed and Supers can change all the way up to the convention.
There are so many things they can focus on to gain ground and instead you see this BS. Literally just throwing everything and anything hoping something sticks. I can't wait to see what they say once New York results come in.
There are so many things they can focus on to gain ground and instead you see this BS. Literally just throwing everything and anything hoping something sticks. I can't wait to see what they say once New York results come in.
shoplifter
Member
Agree, even as a Sanders supporter this is a non-issue aside from the way it was reported. I still have a huge problem with state taxpayers funding 'private' party primaries. If they want to set their own rules, they should pay for the entire fucking thing themselves.
And how is that fair to people who voted for Hillary in that zone? You're literally taking away their vote to make it fair for Bernie.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
i am getting sick and fucking tired of bernie supporters showing a complete ineptitude at basic math and blaming everything except actually bernie himself for losing.
i see it on facebook, reddit, instagram, twitter, and even here. i can't get away from bernie supporters blaming delegates, superdelegates, voters for not knowing what's best for themselves, different states getting a different number of votes, the two party system, or even blaming the fact that political parties exist at all. it's like the closer sanders gets to losing the nom, the more mathematics are ignored and the blame distribution leaks further and further away from the candidate himself.
i guess hillary having more votes should also, somehow, magically, mean sanders should be winning, too. it's everything else's fault under the sun except saint sanders if hillary wins
i see it on facebook, reddit, instagram, twitter, and even here. i can't get away from bernie supporters blaming delegates, superdelegates, voters for not knowing what's best for themselves, different states getting a different number of votes, the two party system, or even blaming the fact that political parties exist at all. it's like the closer sanders gets to losing the nom, the more mathematics are ignored and the blame distribution leaks further and further away from the candidate himself.
i guess hillary having more votes should also, somehow, magically, mean sanders should be winning, too. it's everything else's fault under the sun except saint sanders if hillary wins
legacyzero
Banned
Fucking super delegate system is the worst.
*Sees Bernies's momentum
"Nah, we good. We'll stick with Hillary, thanks."
RIIIIIIIIGGED. Thankfully he's had a few super delegates change or pledge. I hope he SMASHES her in NY. Because they say the balace will begin to shift. Or, we'll see the system for what it is. Establishment favoritism where special interests win.
And yeah, there's some impossible Hillary supporters, too. Sorry you feel that way.
Also, the discussiom is about the shit super delegate system.
*Sees Bernies's momentum
"Nah, we good. We'll stick with Hillary, thanks."
RIIIIIIIIGGED. Thankfully he's had a few super delegates change or pledge. I hope he SMASHES her in NY. Because they say the balace will begin to shift. Or, we'll see the system for what it is. Establishment favoritism where special interests win.
#NotAllSupporters
And yeah, there's some impossible Hillary supporters, too. Sorry you feel that way.
Also, the discussiom is about the shit super delegate system.
Tesseract
Banned
nobody is ignoring the math. old people who can't use the internet have cnn and such to tell them what's going on, get the heck outta here.
joking, of course.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
or the candidate who gets the most votes getting the nomination.
the super delegates are there prevent a left version of trump (or someone worse / out of control), so that at the end of the day, the democrats do influence who the nominee is. but you're absolutely ignorant if you don't think they would give it to sanders if he got more delegates than hillary. he's losing, plain and simple. you can blame it on other voters, the system, what bernie had for dinner, jupiter aligned with mars, it doesn't matter. she's getting more votes
Morning Joe never stops being Morning Joe.
In this thread we learn that Bernie's supporters don't understand what Democratic primaries are for or how they work. There's no conspiracy here! Bernie knew the rules going in, and if anything he's been helped by tiny open caucuses that boosted his delegate counts beyond what his national standings would dictate anyway.
This shit right here disgusts me. Your plan here will literally kill people - it must be nice to be privileged enough to not have to care.
And Bernie should be happy about that, since every time he does get coverage he manages to fuck it up and show just how unprepared he is (having no clue how to implement the policy proposal that serves as the backbone of your campaign? Seriously?) Besides, Bernie has had more representative coverage on the Sunday morning news shows than any other candidate (Trump included), and he gets plenty of coverage elsewhere - just not enough for his supporters, who practically demand 24/7 coverage for things to be considered 'fair'.
This shit right here disgusts me. Your plan here will literally kill people - it must be nice to be privileged enough to not have to care.
And Bernie should be happy about that, since every time he does get coverage he manages to fuck it up and show just how unprepared he is (having no clue how to implement the policy proposal that serves as the backbone of your campaign? Seriously?) Besides, Bernie has had more representative coverage on the Sunday morning news shows than any other candidate (Trump included), and he gets plenty of coverage elsewhere - just not enough for his supporters, who practically demand 24/7 coverage for things to be considered 'fair'.
TheBritishBear
Banned
Can we all agree that caucases are fucking stupid and should be ended? It's horribly time consuming and goes against the popular vote... And I want Bernie Sanders to get the nomination.
It's a downright stupid system.
It's a downright stupid system.
What are you talking about? What momentum? Hillary has 2.5 million more votes than Bernie and she's leading in pledged delegates.
Bernie has won a lot of caucuses that he was expected to win. He's not expected to win big states like New York or California. If he does, then you'll see a shift. But supers are not going to switch back and forth between Hillary and Bernie after every other primary or caucus depending on whoever has the wind at their back at a given moment, they'd look like idiots. They don't need to cement their support for either candidate until the convention, so "momentum" is meaningless. What matters is who's ahead by then. If it's Bernie, the supers will change to him, as they did to Obama eight years ago.
It's amusing to see this line of reasoning considering the size of states that Bernie has won and most being cacuses; that promote intensity of support, not wide breadth.
What's not amusing is seeing Democrats detach themselves from data driven reality and cling to the MSM horserace and skewered polls bubble.
It's getting louder as reality swells like a wave over the heads of the people in the bubble echo chamber.
Don't be the drowned.
BotoxAgent
Member
There's no momentum, Hillary is ahead in popular votes and delegates.
How About No
Member
It seems completely alien to me on paper, but I've read plenty of accounts from the people who participate in caucuses who think it's actually more democratic than a primary because it involves open discuss and for people to more actively engage with a candidate and their platform than what is required for participating in a primary. So, I don't know.
The irony is that posts like that come from people who wouldn't take any action anyway.
Agreed. I also want a national primary day to stop the stupid horse race nonsense. Although I don't think the dog and pony show will be going anywhere.
ultratruman
Banned
You can't have a two party system if the two parties behave like private clubs.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked