Support NeoGAF

[BUNTING1243]

it's really silly that he wants to make this whole thing more open and democratic but is still cool with caucuses because he wouldn't have won close to as many votes without him.

i'm progressive af but fuck this hypocritical noise.

 

[Stumpokapow]

It shocks me that people are willing to bend over backwards to defend the idea of superdelegates.

Try and actually imagine a world where party insiders actually overturn the vote of the people where the people are like "yeah okay we're cool with that". If the superdelegates actually overturned the majority of pledged delegates it would be chaos.

Get your heads out of the mechanics of this individual race, please.

I think superdelegates are best understood in context of how they emerged.

Before 1968, the party was under no obligation to obey the results of primaries at all. RFK is shot. LBJ does drops out. Eugene McCarthy wins the Democratic nomination almost entirely on an anti-war platform. The party thinks, pretty correctly, that they're going to lose badly with McCarthy. The party ignores the primaries and nominates Humphrey. There are literal riots, leading to the arrest of hundreds and police violence against anti-war protestors. The party was deeply divided and never got behind Humphrey. Humphrey lost.

The party says "okay, how the fuck do we avoid this from happening" and hire George McGovern and Don Fraser to reform the party. Internally, they faced a lot of push-back from power-brokers who did not want to hand over the reins to the people. So superdelegates are one of the many structural compromises that were adopted to get everyone to agree to it. Since then there's been a pretty steady erosion of the proportion of superdelegates and a loosening of the other restrictions on popular power that McG-F established. Most of the changes of McG-F are very good things we would widely support today.

I'm broadly in favour of getting rid of privileged party actors, including superdelegates. One challenge that I think the party needs to address if they totally scrap superdelegates is what they will do if the public picks a manifestly bad candidate. Imagine a cartoon character candidate, like, say the primary picked Oprah or whatever. The party currently has to decide how much control to give the presidential candidate over party leadership and platform; how much money to give to downticket races versus upticket races; how to handle joint fundraising; how to structure the convention; etc. Currently, the party having a direct voice in the primary allows them to exert pressure and navigate these issues. Without any direct voice, I think we run the risk of having a post-primary pre-convention split between the party and the nominee--the Republican party is currently mostly getting behind Trump, but I mean something similar to this where the party isn't really sure how to interact with a nominee that doesn't fit in the party but was selected but the primary electorate.

So a question to reflect on is that given that you're the Republican Party, would you rather resist the primary results or embrace them wholeheartedly... and then if a similar situation happened in the Democratic Party, how would we want the Democratic Party to respond?

I'm not saying the Democrats shouldn't scrap superdelegates, but I'm just saying that if they do, there will be some interesting followup discussions that they have to have.

 

[Slayven]

Or if he wasn't such a purist and not so stubborn he couldve joined the Democrats and pushed for reform.

A third party is not going to happen in modern politics and he should realize that a long time ago.

I know, but he acts like the DNC is such a burden and they been beating him from jump. HIS people hacked the DNC, then HE sued the DNC

 

[minor effort]

Although I've been disappointed by Bernie over the last couple months, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that he's making these "demands" to demonstrate that he's fighting until the end for the sake of making his inevitable endorsement of Hillary Clinton a less bitter pill for his supporters to swallow.

 

[danm999]

So, something that's set to happen anyway, something that's up to the states not the national party, and something so vague it's pretty much pablum.

Oh and no mention of caucus, the far and away biggest load of bullshit in US primaries.

Yep that's a Bernie list of demands alright.

 

[Grover Cleveland]

Everything says people can only be franchised if they conform to a party they do not believe in.

What's to say that people who are "outsiders" now couldn't join the party and shape it's platform?

If enough left-leaning independents joined the Democratic Party, wouldn't that force the Establishment to then placate them?

One only has to look at what has happened to the GOP in the House of Representatives. The Tea Partiers are registered Republicans, yet they fall outside of the Establishment. They still hijacked the party through sheer numbers and their ability to employ a reliable voting bloc.

Third parties can exist and can be viable in this country. The problem is every single left-leaning faction that proposes a bloc outside of the Democrats rely so heavily on trying to make a dent in Presidential elections, when that's simply not how parties are built. Since no one wants to do the ground work of local and regional coalition building with a grassroots, bottoms-up approach, they instead have to operate within the traditional two-party framework. That's how the Tea Party has come to power, Sanders and his faction has yet to learn that lesson.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Third parties can exist and can be viable in this country. The problem is every single left-leaning faction that proposes a bloc outside of the Democrats rely so heavily on trying to make a dent in Presidential elections, when that's simply not how parties are built. Since no one wants to do the ground work of local and regional coalition building with a grassroots, bottoms-up approach, they instead have to operate within the traditional two-party framework. That's how the Tea Party has come to power, Sanders and his faction has yet to learn that lesson.

i don't man that seems like a lot of work

easier to just wag a finger and blame everyone else

 

[Stumpokapow]

Although I've been disappointed by Bernie over the last couple months, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that he's making these "demands" to demonstrate that he's fighting until the end for the sake of making his inevitable endorsement of Hillary Clinton a less bitter pill for his supporters to swallow.

I think it's a mix of sincerity and yes, looking for a face-saving out. Exit negotiations are often a part of primaries hanging up their skates.

 

[googleplex]

I don't particularly care about political teams, so I am not sure it matters. I also may fear Democracy less than you.



What if we fix stupid things before they affect us?

The Super Delegates ARE the fix for something stupid that happened to us.

 

[bachikarn]

What's wrong with the current DNC chair?

 

[Amir0x]

What a pathetic piece of shit. What about no caucuses, Bernie? OH WAIT IT'S OK TO BE UNDEMOCRATIC WHEN IT BENEFITS YOU.

I hope his sheer hypocrisy has become more obvious to even his most ardent supporters. lol yeah right

 

[Cesare Borgia]

I'd support #1 and #3 but they aren't gonna happen. DWS is a Clinton ally, and getting rid of super delegates now would insinuate Hillary's win was due to them.

 

[royalan]

What's wrong with the current DNC chair?

Something something didn't schedule enough debates something something fraud something something in the pocket for $hillary something something had the nerve to punish Bernie for hacking Hillary's campaign data something something

Granted, DWS hasn't been the best chair. But the scarlet letter Bernie and his ilk are trying to brand her with is completely unwarranted and petty.

 

[XAL]

What's wrong with the current DNC chair?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What's+wrong+with+the+current+DNC+chair?

 

[kirblar]

hanging up their skates.

Well, if we didn't know you were Canadian before.

 

[jay]

The Super Delegates ARE the fix for something stupid that happened to us.

The problem of a political party being democratic?

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

I love how Bernie thinks he's the only real progressive in the party. Purity shithead asshole!

the hate, jesus

 

[Stumpokapow]

What's wrong with the current DNC chair?

Bernie doesn't like her because she is a very strong Hillary supporter who was involved in Hillary's 2008 campaign, and central to his conspiracy that the party is being unfair to him and rigging things for Hillary is the idea that the party's leader, who he believes should be impartial is actively involved in the race.

There are other critiques of her leadership--just as you could critique Tim Kaine before her (which I would, because I think he squandered Howard Dean's 50 state investment and DWS continues to) but Bernie's beef with her isn't about her leadership broadly, it's about the primary campaign and his sense that she is not fair to him.

 

[LegendofJoe]

He'll get number 4 and maybe number one, the other two are no goes.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I'm not finding any good reason to do so. Well, #4, but that isn't saying anything. The country moves forward when it has a broad consensus to do so, and he knows that.

 

[starchild excalibur]

I like Sanders and voted for Sanders, but this reeks of "I don't like the way things are because they stood in the way of me winning this" nonsense.

 

[Somnid]

What's to say that people who are "outsiders" now couldn't join the party and shape it's platform?

If enough left-leaning independents joined the Democratic Party, wouldn't that force the Establishment to then placate them?

One only has to look at what has happened to the GOP in the House of Representatives. The Tea Partiers are registered Republicans, yet they fall outside of the Establishment. They still hijacked the party through sheer numbers and their ability to employ a reliable voting bloc.

Third parties can exist and can be viable in this country. The problem is every single left-leaning faction that proposes a bloc outside of the Democrats rely so heavily on trying to make a dent in Presidential elections, when that's simply not how parties are built. Since no one wants to do the ground work of local and regional coalition building with a grassroots, bottoms-up approach, they instead have to operate within the traditional two-party framework. That's how the Tea Party has come to power, Sanders and his faction has yet to learn that lesson.

Several of these demands aide in that. They allow outsiders to have slightly more sway which is good if you want to foster diversity and bad if you want to want to make an elite club.

Secondly adding that if you jump through many hoops and lightning strikes that you might someday maybe have enough power to make a real difference illustrates a rather crappy political system.

This is just appealing to the system as it is, and ignoring the fact it could be made much better.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Caucuses are undemocratic in that they impose a cost that rewards high-passion supporters (or supporters who feel their passion is worth paying the price of suffering through the caucus). Now, general election voting also does this--people who don't bother voting are not 100% indifferent, they're just indifferent to the extent that the cost outweighs the value to them. You could reform them by making them less costly (by making caucus day a holiday).

Closed primaries are undemocratic in that they impose a cost for independence from the party, regardless of how invested you are in the outcome.

So while the two are both undemocratic in an absolute sense, but the people they punish differentially differ. So it's not "hypocritical" to focus on criticizing one or the other, it's just a case of different priorities (and you could easily argue wrong or stupid priorities)

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Several of these demands aide in that. They allow outsiders to have slightly more sway which is good if you want to foster diversity and bad if you want to want to make an elite club.

Secondly adding that if you jump through many hoops and lightning strikes that you might someday maybe have enough power to make a real difference illustrates a rather crappy political system.

This is just appealing to the system as it is, and ignoring the fact it could be made much better.

I still don't understand how it's supposed to be reasonable to make drastic changes quickly by winning the Presidency. That's not how the country works. Start locally.

 

[KingK]

I love how before Bernie was even in the race, people here and in poliGAF always hated on DWS and now that Sanders wants her gone too, she's fine and he can go fuck himself and eat those crackers in the corner.

I think that, in lieu of a parliamentary system with multiple parties, we really should have open primaries for both parties in all states. Get rid of caucuses too. I'd like to see super delegates go as well, but that's not as big a deal since they generally follow the popular vote leader anyway.

Although I care more about shifting the party to the left than these procedural reforms.

 

[royalan]

Caucuses are undemocratic in that they impose a cost that rewards high-passion supporters (or supporters who feel their passion is worth paying the price of suffering through the caucus). Now, general election voting also does this--people who don't bother voting are not 100% indifferent, they're just indifferent to the extent that the cost outweighs the value to them. You could reform them by making them less costly (by making caucus day a holiday).

Closed primaries are undemocratic in that they impose a cost for independence from the party, regardless of how invested you are in the outcome.

So while the two are both undemocratic in an absolute sense, but the people they punish differentially differ. So it's not "hypocritical" to focus on criticizing one or the other, it's just a case of different priorities (and you could easily argue wrong or stupid priorities)

Eh...

Both caucuses and closed primaries impose a cost, true. But it would be weird to try and claim those costs are equal, and the proof is in the turnout or, in the case of caucuses, the utter lack of turnout.

I don't think very many people would argue that having to check a box to be represented by a particular party is at all as much of a penalty as having to wait for hours in line at very particular times (depending on the state), then herded into a room and forced to argue to get your candidate a larger percentage of people in the room (again, depending on the state, but the fact that caucus rules vary so wildly state to state is another problem within a problem).

Caucuses by far the most undemocratic process.

 

[Cyrillus]

Something something didn't schedule enough debates something something fraud something something in the pocket for $hillary something something had the nerve to punish Bernie for hacking Hillary's campaign data something something

Granted, DWS hasn't been the best chair. But the scarlet letter Bernie and his ilk are trying to brand her with is completely unwarranted and petty.

How about her support of the payday lending industry, and her co-sponsoring a bill meant to delay the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's payday lending rules and adopt her state of Florida's much more lax payday lending laws?

It might be a good idea to slow down on the kool-aid.

 

[kirblar]

I love how before Bernie was even in the race, people here and in poliGAF always hated on DWS and now that Sanders wants her gone too, she's fine and he can go fuck himself and eat those crackers in the corner.

I think that, in lieu of a parliamentary system with multiple parties, we really should have open primaries for both parties in all states. Get rid of caucuses too. I'd like to see super delegates go as well, but that's not as big a deal since they generally follow the popular vote leader anyway.

Although I care more about shifting the party to the left than these procedural reforms.

It's not that people are suddenly fans of her, it's that she's gone in 6 months anyway and not worth the time/effort to do so. It's also because this is an absurdly petty personal vendetta on his part to the point where he's endorsed her crazy primary opponent.

 

[BlastProcessing]

What about caucuses, Bernie?

I'm sure he just forgot the caucuses. Probably just an unfortunate oversight...

How about her support of the payday lending industry, and her co-sponsoring a bill meant to delay the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's payday lending rules and adopt her state of Florida's much more lax payday lending laws?

It might be a good idea to slow down on the kool-aid.

It was Flavor Aid. At the event that you are glibly referencing, where over 900 people died, they drank poisoned Flavor Aid.

 

[gutter_trash]

I am okay with giving him one concession as long as he goes on the road and campaigns for stricter gun control for 4 weeks

Sanders the Progressive inherently bent over to Gun enthusiasts in the last 3 decades.

If he wants a concession from Hillary, then Sander must go and campaign for stricter gun control.

I want him to face those Vermont farmers and tell them ''we need stricter gun safety legislation... ''

 

[royalan]

How about her support of the payday lending industry, and her co-sponsoring a bill meant to delay the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's payday lending rules and adopt her state of Florida's much more lax payday lending laws?

It might be a good idea to slow down on the kool-aid.

What does any of that have to do with her being DNC chair?

You might want to double check this before claiming I'm sipping any flavor of kool-aid.

 

[Somnid]

I still don't understand how it's supposed to be reasonable to make drastic changes quickly by winning the Presidency. That's not how the country works. Start locally.

Because that's how people understand it. Why does it matter if Trump is president if congress is gridlocked? There are a few highly specific areas like foreign policy and appointments but most of it doesn't matter. People are still flipping their shit like it's the apocalypse. But ultimately these systems are not designed with understandability in mind even though that is a naturally empowering property.

 

[Suikoguy]

Because that's how people understand it. Why does it matter if Trump is president if congress is gridlocked? There are a few highly specific areas like foreign policy and appointments but most of it doesn't matter. People are still flipping their shit like it's the apocalypse. But ultimately these systems are not designed with understandability in mind even though that is a naturally empowering property.

I think most of the "Shit Flipping" is due to his Foreign "Policy".

 

[FyreWulff]

It shocks me that people are willing to bend over backwards to defend the idea of superdelegates.

Try and actually imagine a world where party insiders actually overturn the vote of the people where the people are like "yeah okay we're cool with that". If the superdelegates actually overturned the majority of pledged delegates it would be chaos.

Get your heads out of the mechanics of this one individual race, please.

They have never overturned the will of the people.

The point of superdelegates is "in case of fire, break glass". They will never do it unless they have a Trump.

For those using Trump as an example of why supers are needed, can you elaborate as to why, as the candidate with a plurality of votes, should have been stopped from getting the nomination and how he should have been stopped after winning?

If the Republicans had super ds and the proportional voting that should go with them, Trump would only have a plurality with all the other votes collectively being more than the ones he got. He was able to gobble up tons of delegates by barely winning winner-take-all states.

If the Republicans had superdelegates, they'd be able to say "yeah, you have a simple majority, but there's more people that don't want you than want you, so we'll make it so we achieve a true majority with not-you , bye"

 

[UnemployedVillain]

It shocks me that people are willing to bend over backwards to defend the idea of superdelegates.

Try and actually imagine a world where party insiders actually overturn the vote of the people where the people are like "yeah okay we're cool with that". If the superdelegates actually overturned the majority of pledged delegates it would be chaos.

Get your heads out of the mechanics of this one individual race, please.

The fact that we have to "imagine" this world, because it hasn't happened, says a lot

 

[cDNA]

The only thing I could agree is limiting the Superdelegate power, it should only be used in case of draw between the candidates. If the party want to disqualify a candidate after the primaries there should another type of procedure not depending on the super-delegates.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

He's not in a position to make demands.

Especially not in an election year, and especially not with the DNC next month.

 

[User 463088]

I didn't read all of the replies, but there is also another function of SuperDelegates.

Courting Supers requires that you have support within the party. You have to build support and coalitions. Because the President is not an island, s/he cannot just pass an agenda through sheer force of will. This person is running to lead the party. Getting support of, you know, the elected officials who make up the party isn't that shocking of an idea. (And, yes, I know they're not all elected officials, but these are still typically the movers and shakers in the party.)

A President who has zero support among Congresspeople and Senators is completely useless if they can't get their agenda passed. And the opposite is true too. Maybe the Presidential candidate is wrong on something and the position of his/her colleagues is better in line with constituents and political reality.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The only thing I could agree is limiting the Superdelegate power, it should only be used in case of draw between the candidates. If the party want to disqualify a candidate after the primaries there should another type of procedure not depending on the super-delegates.

The way that superdelegates have overturned the results of the primary elections exactly zero times? It's a solution looking for a problem. People are acting like the superdelegates are constantly overturning the will of the people and it's simply never happened. And with the potential of a candidate like Trump coming along, I'd argue it's better to have superdelegates and not need them than need them and not have them. Replacing them with another procedure is not going to stop anyone crying foul about the existence of a (if you'll forgive the term) "Trump card" that could be used to overturn the results, even if it's never used. It's just another mindless platitude that ignores the reality that Sanders was resoundingly defeated according to every available metric; superdelegates don't factor into that in the slightest.

 

[Dyson Industries]

5) Each Southern black votes will count as 3/5 of a vote.
6) Each Reddit upvotes counts as double the votes.

Incredible. Thank you.

It shocks me that people are willing to bend over backwards to defend the idea of superdelegates.

Try and actually imagine a world where party insiders actually overturn the vote of the people where the people are like "yeah okay we're cool with that". If the superdelegates actually overturned the majority of pledged delegates it would be chaos.

Get your heads out of the mechanics of this one individual race, please.

Why don't you cite some examples? You can't? Oh.

 

[FStubbs]

Bernie doesn't like her because she is a very strong Hillary supporter who was involved in Hillary's 2008 campaign, and central to his conspiracy that the party is being unfair to him and rigging things for Hillary is the idea that the party's leader, who he believes should be impartial is actively involved in the race.

There are other critiques of her leadership--just as you could critique Tim Kaine before her (which I would, because I think he squandered Howard Dean's 50 state investment and DWS continues to) but Bernie's beef with her isn't about her leadership broadly, it's about the primary campaign and his sense that she is not fair to him.

The problem with Bernie's Hillary/DNC conspiracy is that a majority of registered Democrats are apparently in on the conspiracy with Hillary.

 

[Toxi]

Can someone explain to me why closed primaries are a bad thing?

We're not talking about the process for electing candidates into office, we're talking about the process for a party to choose its representative. Limiting voters to members of said party seems sensible. The last thing we need are fair-weather voters deciding the direction of the party.

 

[kirblar]

Can someone explain to my why closed primaries are a bad thing?

We're not talking about the process for electing candidates into office, we're talking about the process for a party to choose its representative. Limiting voters to members of said party seems sensible. The last thing we need are fair-weather voters deciding the direction of the party.

If you're a fair-weather voter, you view them as a bad thing.

 

[digdug2k]

Can someone explain to my why closed primaries are a bad thing?

We're not talking about the process for electing candidates into office, we're talking about the process for a party to choose its representative. Limiting voters to members of said party seems sensible.

Its not cool to be in a party (that makes you establishment), but also, its not cool not to vote.

 

[GameAddict411]

I love how he completely ignores caucuses. They are the most undemocratic thing about the primaries elections. He won a few states because of them, that's why. It just shows that he is a selfish idiot with one dimensional goals.

 

[soul creator]

Can someone explain to me why closed primaries are a bad thing?

We're not talking about the process for electing candidates into office, we're talking about the process for a party to choose its representative. Limiting voters to members of said party seems sensible. The last thing we need are fair-weather voters deciding the direction of the party.

I think people would be fine with that if there were actually more parties and people that could run for offices on a more level playing field.

So most people's view is either: keep party politics the same, but allow more parties to be viable (via ranked-choice voting, or some other kind of election reform), or if we are going to live under a duopoly, then make those parties as open and public as possible.

Right now it's kind of the worst of both worlds

 

[_woLf]

LOL @ him not even addressing caucuses.

Holy shit this guy cannot be for real.

 

[KingK]

Can someone explain to my why closed primaries are a bad thing?

We're not talking about the process for electing candidates into office, we're talking about the process for a party to choose its representative. Limiting voters to members of said party seems sensible.

Because we have a two party system, but in reality those two parties are made up of various factions that in another system (such as a preferential ballot parliamentary system) would be several independent parties. Instead of voting for the parties most closely assigned with you, and then having them form coalitions, the parties form their coalitions in primaries first. By having open primaries, it allows more people to pick between the traditionally less powerful factions and play a more active role in deciding the makeup of the two coalitions they'll have to choose from in November.

If you're a fair-weather voter, you view them as a bad thing.

Its not cool to be in a party (that makes you establishment), but also, its not cool not to vote.

Knock this condescending shit off. I've never missed an election, I'm a registered democrat, and I've voted straight Dem ticket every time. I don't like closed primaries.

 

[AngmarsKing701]

Old man yells at clouds, also demands everyone get off his lawn. News at 11.