The Lamonster
Member
It's more like they don't agree with it because they don't understand why it exists and the history behind it.
Sanders wins Wyoming Caucus; ties pledged delegates; math; rules :(
- Thread starter Zipzo
- Start date
- Status
It's more like they don't agree with it because they don't understand why it exists and the history behind it.
How so? Was it edited significantly or something? People are upset that a whole state voted for one candidate but super delegates effectively erase the will of the people of that state. Am I missing something? That's a serious question, am I?
I dunno, I feel like you're reaching now. You're making assumptions as to why people don't like it, when there's pretty clear, non-convoluted reasons to not like it. Even if you don't agree.
To me it sounds like you and some other people, because you know the trivia of why it exists, are taking on a holier-than-thou attitude about it.
Just because it was implemented for a reason, doesn't mean it's the best solution.
So the entire "Finnish man yells at republic" subthread is pretty great, but I wanted to pull this out specifically because it really exemplifies the issue here.
The President of Finland is not a head of government.
If America were electing a figurehead with mostly reserve and ceremonial powers only, I'm sure we would do it differently as well.
The corresponding office to President of the US in Finland is Prime Minister, a figure who is chosen purely internally in the Finnish Parliament, whose election itself is subject to all kinds of districting, politicking, special pleading (check out Aland!) and the normal desiderata of democratic government.
It's almost like democracy is complicated and that's why different states implement it somewhat differently while still accomplishing basically the same goals!
darkstar0155
Member
I live in the Akron area, just south of Cleveland, and man im half tempted to go up there just to laugh at the shit show that is about to go down.
shoplifter
Member
I'm not claiming there *aren't* other issues that are being voted on in many localities. This doesn't change that taxpayers are still paying for the multiple ballots that need to be created to facilitate the various primary races for each party. Do you think that there's no additional cost to the taxpayer to include those on the ballot? That the state keeps track of party membership and passes that information to the parties?
At least here in Ohio we have open primaries so the *taxpayer* can choose which primary to participate in, unlike many states where independent taxpayers aren't allowed to participate at all in elections that *they are paying for.*
Box of Kittens
Banned
I'm sure much of this has been covered but I may as well give my thoughts.
The rounding rules for awarding delegates in Wyoming were put in place before the election. It's not like they looked at the results and then chose to round in a way that's favorable to Clinton.
Including superdelegates in this total is highly misleading since they aren't awarded as part of the caucus and they aren't bound to any candidate. The superdelegates have never failed to back the candidate who won the most pledged delegates. They will essentially ratify the results of the primary process, and that will still be true if Sanders somehow makes a huge comeback.
Comparing any of this to actual voter disenfranchisement is pure hyperbole. If delegates are to awarded proportionally there needs to be some way to deal with remainders, which will sometimes lead to candidates receiving the same number of delegates despite one candidate receiving more votes. For example, Clinton won Illinois yet the pledged delegates there are split evenly, 78-78. This is in no way comparable to draconian ID requirements, followed by closing places to obtain IDs and/or restricting their hours severely in minority neighborhoods, shutting down polling places in urban areas, etc. For Joe Scarborough, a Republican, to make the comparison is absolutely ridiculous. Republican primary rules are a strange hodgepodge of proportional, winner-take-all, and hybrid systems that were specifically tweaked to favor establishment candidates. Now that these rules might backfire on them, they're openly discussing stealing the nomination from the winner at the convention. And he's complaining about rounding rules.
Calling the results of the Democratic primary process undemocratic or a farce is also pure hyperbole. Clinton has a large lead in pledged delegates precisely because she has a large lead in votes. It is the job of Bernie Sanders and his campaign to convince people to vote for him. So far he has not done a good enough job of that to be on track for the nomination. That's on him, not any supposed rigging of the system. No one is entitled to the nomination, they must earn the support of the voters. If he can turn it around and get the support he needs in the remaining contests, then he will have earned the nomination. It's as simple as that.
The rounding rules for awarding delegates in Wyoming were put in place before the election. It's not like they looked at the results and then chose to round in a way that's favorable to Clinton.
Including superdelegates in this total is highly misleading since they aren't awarded as part of the caucus and they aren't bound to any candidate. The superdelegates have never failed to back the candidate who won the most pledged delegates. They will essentially ratify the results of the primary process, and that will still be true if Sanders somehow makes a huge comeback.
Comparing any of this to actual voter disenfranchisement is pure hyperbole. If delegates are to awarded proportionally there needs to be some way to deal with remainders, which will sometimes lead to candidates receiving the same number of delegates despite one candidate receiving more votes. For example, Clinton won Illinois yet the pledged delegates there are split evenly, 78-78. This is in no way comparable to draconian ID requirements, followed by closing places to obtain IDs and/or restricting their hours severely in minority neighborhoods, shutting down polling places in urban areas, etc. For Joe Scarborough, a Republican, to make the comparison is absolutely ridiculous. Republican primary rules are a strange hodgepodge of proportional, winner-take-all, and hybrid systems that were specifically tweaked to favor establishment candidates. Now that these rules might backfire on them, they're openly discussing stealing the nomination from the winner at the convention. And he's complaining about rounding rules.
Calling the results of the Democratic primary process undemocratic or a farce is also pure hyperbole. Clinton has a large lead in pledged delegates precisely because she has a large lead in votes. It is the job of Bernie Sanders and his campaign to convince people to vote for him. So far he has not done a good enough job of that to be on track for the nomination. That's on him, not any supposed rigging of the system. No one is entitled to the nomination, they must earn the support of the voters. If he can turn it around and get the support he needs in the remaining contests, then he will have earned the nomination. It's as simple as that.
The issue I'd take up with that method is the bizarro-Wyoming I suggested earlier in the thread; if instead it had two congressional districts that totalled eight delegates, if my maths is correct (and I might well be wrong on this!), under the system you describe that Wyoming would get a different result to the current Wyoming - even if both CDs had the same vote proportions as one another.
Just the act of adding a CD, with no difference to the vote breakdown, causes a change in the result, with no other change.
I'm not sure that's strictly optimal either.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Hey, would you prefer if Supers never changed their mind and instead just voted 100% with Hillary? Is that what you're asking? That once a Super pledges their vote, it's set in stone. Because then Bernie has lost. Right now. Today.
It's ridiculous to criticize super delegates for changing their votes. That's what they do! If she doesn't want to vote for Bernie, she's under absolutely no obligation at all to do so.
Imagine Bernie trying to get a coalition of parties to support him in a parlimentary system.
Good point, maybe it's a good idea to apply this thinking to superdelegates so they can't flip.
Talk about shitty purity tests going wrong for you!
TheAutomator
Banned
No. Under my proposed system, Candidate X gets 98 delegates while Candidate Y gets 2. We just add up all the delegate allocation decimals from each district into one number.
...Scatter...
Banned
Ummmm. You're now on a list. Probably rightfully so.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Yeah, that sounds about right. Can't wait for Bernie to wrap it up so we can move on with the election.
That's the "misunderstanding" part. Superdelegates don't erase the will of anyone; they aren't set in stone. If Sanders is ahead in pledged delegates by the time of the convention, they will support him. If Hillary is ahead, they will support her.
Ah, no.
Bernie is the best at working with other congressmen, I mean look at how much Amendment he was able to sneak into laws!
The Lamonster
Member
That's a good point, and maybe one's opinion of the system is strongly correlated with whether they think Sanders is electable in the GE.
Check my math on this - If you adjust the delegates needed for democrats to win to remove superdelegates, the total needed for either candidate to win would be 1668 (right? 70% of the total?). Hilary will likely have more than that with New York and California added, certainly with New England added, so why the controversy over superdelegates?
It's like.... When we put the math up for the past few weeks on delegate counts and Bernie voters didn't like it, the first thing they would say is to stop including supers that inflate the numbers because it created an unfair image of how far behind he really is.
Now today it's magically okay to include Supers in the OP in order to skew perception? I'm so glad this merry go round is nearing its end.
Because it's starting to finally sink in that 'my guy' is losing. That's why.
Now today it's magically okay to include Supers in the OP in order to skew perception? I'm so glad this merry go round is nearing its end.
Because it's starting to finally sink in that 'my guy' is losing. That's why.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Awwww, man. Desiderata? Now that is a cool word.
Because the mathematical reality of Bernie's chances of securing the nomination are starting to set in, and it's setting some people off.
Or in Morning Joe's case, irresponsible reporting.
Box of Kittens
Banned
But why should superdelegates vote for the candidate who wins their state? It's such an arbitrary measure of the will of the people. Historically the superdelegates have always gone for the person who won the most pledged delegates, in effect ratifying the results of the primary process. To me that seems an awful lot like respecting the will of the people.
I do wish the media would stop reporting superdelegates as part of a candidate's delegate totals, since their endorsements are not binding.
After NY and CA, Clinton will have 70% of pledged delegates?
Its ok guys don't get worked up about super delegates - as I've said previously they will change their mind if Bernie wins NY.
exmachina64
Banned
Compromise is inherent to all forms of democratic government. Should we create some form of authoritarian government where the right people are in charge and won't compromise? Maybe go back to a monarchy with a person who gets it?
Killing_Joke
Member
The media is doing some masterful trolling. It's rigged yet Hilary has the most pledged delegates and the popular vote. ITT people are crying over 1-2 delegates. lol
It's just funny they call it a rigged system, yet Bernie and his supporters going hard for that super delegate vote to steal a win. Hilarious.
It's just funny they call it a rigged system, yet Bernie and his supporters going hard for that super delegate vote to steal a win. Hilarious.
Fenderputty
Banned
Absolute divine monarchy is the only way!
Surely God wouldn't choose the wrong people to lead your country.
No, if I recall correctly, superdelegates make up 30% of the total. So I adjusted the the total delegates needed to win the primary down by 30%. Hilary will have that number secured after NY an CA (or might need the New England states too, depending).
Box of Kittens
Banned
To be fair, I don't think Sanders or his campaign really believes that they can win over the superdelegates needed to win the nomination if they don't win the pledged delegates. The supposed superdelegate strategy is really a non-strategy. It's about keeping up the appearance of a campaign that can win the nomination. His supporters who try and lobby the superdelegates are wasting their time.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Caucuses are more undemocratic than super delegates but since sanders benefits from those they don't seem to be the problem.
I'm glad there are super delegates.
Otherwise you get what the republicans are going to have where they reassign earned delegates however they want
I'm glad there are super delegates.
Otherwise you get what the republicans are going to have where they reassign earned delegates however they want
Regardless, my other question is how is this a race and not a total blowout?
That kind of gap isn't even close, I mean when you have a 2side election where the gap is 53/46/1(null/void/magin/whatever) it's considered a clear endorsement of a candidate and a clear rejection of the other.
This race ain't close at all.
StopMakingSense
Member
Yeah, imagine the furor if the Dems had the same mishmash of systems as the GOP. Hell, they didnt have a Primary or Caucus in Colorado this year, and Cruz snatched all of the delegates.
Reality has a Clinton bias.
The irony of this race is that the largest delegate deficit that has been overcome in the Democratic Primary is around 70 delgates, and that person was Bill Clinton.
Hillary has over triple that margin ATM. And Bill stayed and won in the race because he had the AA vote, Bernie doesn't.
Supers can switch any time. Their vote total is not locked in, and while I disagree with them, they've never gone against the pledged delegate leader to deny them a convention win.
Talking about them as an example of Wyoming voter suppression is silly when the fact that 5000 people voted in these caucuses that over represent their delegate count.
You aren't taking MOMENTUM into account.
That would be a bad idea and only help well established candidates. A lesser known candidate wouldn't have the time or money to effectively campaign in all or most of the states at the same time.
Saucycarpdog
Member
#BernItAllDown
Ah, ok, toss out my stuff above
Macho Madness
Member
The fact that you're listening to what JOE SCARBOROUGH has to say about (anything really) the Democratic party is fucking hilarious. That guy is the biggest joke this side of Pat Buchanan.
Do your own research and you'll find how wrong you are and that you were tricked by a shitty morning opinion show.
Superdelegates don't mean jack nothing shit as for why Bernie is losing. The fact that these shows are even including them in their count and then shouting over anyone who can explain it should tell you everything you need to know.
Do your own research and you'll find how wrong you are and that you were tricked by a shitty morning opinion show.
Superdelegates don't mean jack nothing shit as for why Bernie is losing. The fact that these shows are even including them in their count and then shouting over anyone who can explain it should tell you everything you need to know.
Angelus Errare
Banned
If Superdelegates can't change their mind and their vote is final once cast...that would fuck Bernie. Surely you're aware of that no?
potatohead
Member
The US system has always been fucked.
People are just realizing it more now because they don't actually want to vote for the establishment candidates.
The most important thing to do in US politics is implement proportional representation and to strike down the Citizens United decision.
Btw Superdelegates aren't committed to candidates though. They can change their minds at any point.
So despite Hillary "winning" so far, much of her lead is based on super delegates that are not guaranteed to vote for her, but are currently supporting her.
People are just realizing it more now because they don't actually want to vote for the establishment candidates.
The most important thing to do in US politics is implement proportional representation and to strike down the Citizens United decision.
Btw Superdelegates aren't committed to candidates though. They can change their minds at any point.
So despite Hillary "winning" so far, much of her lead is based on super delegates that are not guaranteed to vote for her, but are currently supporting her.
That's his or her point... He's point out how absurd it is to hold supers to any statements of support they made in the past. It would screw any popular insurgents.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Ah my mistake then, it's getting hard to read people in this thread.
Macho Madness
Member
You're being delusional.
Why the fuck are people even pitching a fit about this now? Just give Bernie all 14 delegates, it doesn't make a fucking difference at all. And she's winning by 200+ delegates without SDs and by millions in popular vote, so what is there to argue?
All this whining about the system and this and that just because you're LOSING. The fucking entitlement and selfishness is unbearable. People just can't process that not everyone is in love with Bernie and see him as this messiah that can easily deliver a progressive paradise once elected.
Fucking maddening that most of these people pay little to no attention and then complain about everything with zero understanding about why things are the way they are.
I remember Sanders supporters dismissing the Southern states Hillary won because they're not likely to vote Dem in November and now they're going hard in the paint for fucking struggle delegates in fucking Wyoming!? LMAO
All this whining about the system and this and that just because you're LOSING. The fucking entitlement and selfishness is unbearable. People just can't process that not everyone is in love with Bernie and see him as this messiah that can easily deliver a progressive paradise once elected.
Fucking maddening that most of these people pay little to no attention and then complain about everything with zero understanding about why things are the way they are.
I remember Sanders supporters dismissing the Southern states Hillary won because they're not likely to vote Dem in November and now they're going hard in the paint for fucking struggle delegates in fucking Wyoming!? LMAO
You don't think that announcing their intention to pledge a certain way before anyone even voted has a significant effect?
Macho Madness
Member
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Either way that part is on the media since it's not like there's an official list somewhere showing who pledges what way. It's not official until the convention so arguing about it is stupid.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked