Support NeoGAF

[Cheebo]

I'm just saying if I'm denied my ability to vote in the primaries due to some clerical error, I'm not voting Democratic at all. From my own perspective, I don't see why I should be willing to risk losing my vote.

What would you call being a clerical error? If the party says you have to be a registered democrat and you don't register prior to election day that isn't a clerical error. Same with being registered and trying to go a party convention as a delegate.

 

[boiled goose]

And this should be seen as a problem, when it's pretty clear that both parties are nearly split in half, meaning that the "base" represents fewer and fewer of their own registered voters as time passes.

A few posts in this thread have already insinuated that those not aligned with either party should just somehow prop up an independent candidate, as if that's at all realistic or feasible with the current system we have.

I do think primaries should move towards. Semi open or open primaries. No more caucus.

Easy Early voting. Easy same day registration.

Only 29 and 26 percent of voters are registered as Democrats and Republicans respectively. Affiliation is dropping. Independents are increasing becoming more relevant.

It's in their best interest to consider their vote before the general.

 

[gutter_trash]

I'd agree with that, with the addition of making it easy for independents to register for the party close to the day of voting.

There should be a cooldown period on switching IMO

Pick a side, stick with it for a year.

This thing of people switching sides multiple times a year has to have a cooldown period

 

[noshten]

there is a simple solution to all of this:
1) replace all caucuses with primaries.
2) make them all closed to registered Dems only.

there, if independents want their own Presidential candidate, they can go make their own party.

Why would independents be barred from the Dem primary process? If there are two parties and you are independent you should be able to choose one party's primary and vote there. Unless the parties start financing the primaries themselves - they should not make it more difficult to vote for people who contributed to the primary process with their state taxes towards the process.
Semi-closed primaries, with certain deadlines if you are Republican/Democrat and want to switch your voter registration - ensuring that the primary process cannot be hijacked by the other party once they have their nominee. Independents on the other hand should be able to vote in whichever primary they prefer

 

[plagiarize]

And this should be seen as a problem, when it's pretty clear that both parties are nearly split in half, meaning that the "base" represents fewer and fewer of their own registered voters as time passes.

A few posts in this thread have already insinuated that those not aligned with either party should just somehow prop up an independent candidate, as if that's at all realistic or feasible with the current system we have.

I personally think the appropriate thing to do is to change everything to open primaries. It removes any complaints about registrations being changed, or not being changed in time. It is absolutely more democratic than caucuses, and less prone to this sort of bullshit.

You count the votes. You declare a winner. Huzzah.

I strongly believe that if every state held an open primary that Clinton would have about the same lead she does now, and that there wouldn't be nearly as many cries of fraud about it.

From literally day one of this primary season we've had Sander's supporters crying bullshit for tenuous reasons. They haven't been able to accept defeat from the first minute. Always latching onto anything even remotely suspicious (coin flips!!!!) as confirmation of their bias that clearly Sander's is better, so clearly Clinton can only win by cheating... because clearly she can't have more support.

Even though, you know...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/national-primary-polls/democratic/

 

[Orbis Tabula]

There should be a cooldown period on switching IMO

Pick a side, stick with it for a year.

This thing of people switching sides multiple times a year has to have a cooldown period

Yeah, I agree with the idea, at least in principal. I think that people should be able to register easily, but no so easily that the primary becomes de facto open, as I prefer them being closed.

 

[Omegasquash]

Name calling and comparisons to Gamergate do not facilitate good discussion. It just makes people defensive, and dig their heels in even more. For the record, I am a Clinton supporter.

I hope that the Sanders campaign openly condemns these threats and actions with a public statement, and vehemently discourages it from happening again. It's an idealistic campaign, so they shouldn't want the support of anyone who supports this type of behavior.

I hope that those who have made these threats are found and prosecuted.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Why would independents be barred from the Dem primary process? If there are two parties and you are independent you should be able to choose one party's primary and vote there. Unless the parties start financing the primaries themselves - they should not make it more difficult to vote for people who contributed to the primary process with their state taxes towards the process.
Semi-closed primaries, with certain deadlines if you are Republican/Democrat and want to switch your voter registration - ensuring that the primary process cannot be hijacked by the other party once they have their nominee. Independents on the other hand should be able to vote in whichever primary they prefer

Because they aren't members of that party? If you don't want to be a Republican or Democrat vote for the Green candidate or some other independent. Polls show that consistently independents vote for one party of the other in the general so if they want to be involved in the primary join that party.

 

[flkraven]

And of course /r/s4p thinks that the threats came from Hillary trolls to make them look bad. Everything's a conspiracy!

It's a shame that the forum that used to be the main hub for Sanders supporters became so fanatical and crazy. If you aren't on board with every evidenceless conspiracy theory, you get called a $hillary troll and driven out of there.

My sympathies to all the reasonable Sanders supporters out there. Heck, I even kind of like many aspects of the guy, but it's so hard to separate him from his vocal supporters...

Wow. They are even saying Rachel Maddow is a corrupt media personality and her reporting on this should be illegal. I think they've come full circle, and this is as bad or even worse than the conspiratorial zealots on the right.

 

[Omegasquash]

Wow. They are even saying Rachel Maddow is a corrupt media personality and her reporting on this should be illegal. I think they've come full circle, and this is as bad or even worse than the conspiratorial zealots on the right.

It's amazing what people will do and say when their world views, opinions, and desires are challenged.

 

[damisa]

Independents on the other hand should be able to vote in whichever primary they prefer

Then there's basically no point in even joining a party. If you want a say in how a party is organized then join that party, plain and simple.

 

[BajiBoxer]

What would you call being a clerical error? If the party says you have to be a registered democrat and you don't register prior to election day that isn't a clerical error. Same with being registered and trying to go a party convention as a delegate.

I've been a registered Democrat all my life. If I have to re-register every time I vote, that's basically the semi-closed system I described, lol.

 

[Suikoguy]

Yeah, I agree with the idea, at least in principal. I think that people should be able to register easily, but no so easily that the primary becomes de facto open, as I prefer them being closed.

You should be able to change registration up till one week before the first state primary.
You should be able to register for the first time up to a week before any state primary.
Once the primaries start you should not be able to change your registration until after the GE.

I think that would be a simple and fair system.

Needing to change parties back in October like in NY is not fair.

 

[boiled goose]

Name calling and comparisons to Gamergate do not facilitate good discussion. It just makes people defensive, and dig their heels in even more. For the record, I am a Clinton supporter.

I hope that the Sanders campaign openly condones these threats and actions with a public statement, and vehemently discourages it from happening again. It's an idealistic campaign, so they shouldn't want the support of anyone who supports this type of behavior.

I hope that those who have made these threats are found and prosecuted.

You mean condemns these threats

 

[plagiarize]

And look, these toxic group were always going to be amongst the last to give up hope, and they were always going to become a larger and larger group of his supporters as things continue and Sanders doesn't openly condemn them or drop out.

I don't think he needs to drop out, I should be clear, but he needs to make clear where he stands on this bullshit imho. He needs to do better than have someone on his staff saying they don't support such behavior.

 

[IJoel]

Not surprised at this at all. This is what happens when you run a baseless smear campaign against your opponent implying, every step of the way, that they are corrupt. This is why Bernie lost me a long time ago.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Because they aren't members of that party? If you don't want to be a Republican or Democrat vote for the Green candidate or some other independent. Polls show that consistently independents vote for one party of the other in the general so if they want to be involved in the primary join that party.

Then the Democrats whine about independents stealing votes they think should be rightfully their's (like Nader). It's a no win situation. It will be Democrats whining either way.

 

[Suikoguy]

You mean condemns these threats

Sorta?

"We do not condone violence or encourage violence or even threats of violence." He added that the campaign "had no role in encouraging the activity that the party is complaining about. We have a First Amendment and respect the rights of the people to make their voices heard."

No statement from Sanders yet either.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Wow. They are even saying Rachel Maddow is a corrupt media personality and her reporting on this should be illegal. I think they've come full circle, and this is as bad or even worse than the conspiratorial zealots on the right.

S4P are a couple thousands of the most crazy delusion of Bernie's supporters. They're the tiniest fraction of his supporters and don't really represent Bernie at all, any more. The reasonable people jumped ship a month ago.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

And of course /r/s4p thinks that the threats came from Hillary trolls to make them look bad. Everything's a conspiracy!

It's a shame that the forum that used to be the main hub for Sanders supporters became so fanatical and crazy. If you aren't on board with every evidenceless conspiracy theory, you get called a $hillary troll and driven out of there.

My sympathies to all the reasonable Sanders supporters out there. Heck, I even kind of like many aspects of the guy, but it's so hard to separate him from his vocal supporters...

Everyone who wasn't crazy left S4P

 

[boiled goose]

Not surprised at this at all. This is what happens when you run a baseless smear campaign against your opponent implying, every step of the way, that they are corrupt. This is why Bernie lost me a long time ago.

You can't make accusations of corruption when candidates rake in millions of dollars in donations and direct payments unless there is clear evidence for quid pro quo right?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You can't make accusations of corruption when candidates rake in millions of dollars in donations and direct payments unless there is clear evidence for quid pro quo right?

He was given two separate chances to point to specific evidence of Hillary's corruption and failed both times. He embarrassed himself.

 

[Darryl M R]

Bernie Sanders is the High Sparrow?

Disgusting behavior, I hope his campaign speaks up but this is only one example of them being "fired up."

 

[Omegasquash]

You mean condemns these threats

Merciful Christ, thank you for catching that. Edited because...wow.

Sorta?

"We do not condone violence or encourage violence or even threats of violence." He added that the campaign "had no role in encouraging the activity that the party is complaining about. We have a First Amendment and respect the rights of the people to make their voices heard."

No statement from Sanders yet either.

The First Amendment bit is actual campaign vomit. "We don't like what they're doing but we totes want the votes."

 

[Blader]

Sorta?

"We do not condone violence or encourage violence or even threats of violence." He added that the campaign "had no role in encouraging the activity that the party is complaining about. We have a First Amendment and respect the rights of the people to make their voices heard."

No statement from Sanders yet either.

Saying that they respect the rights of people to make their voices heard, when the people making their voices heard are calling the state party chair a bitch who deserves to be hanged, is probably not a good look.

You can't make accusations of corruption when candidates rake in millions of dollars in donations and direct payments unless there is clear evidence for quid pro quo right?

Evidence is usually the next step following accusations.

 

[n00bsauce87]

I really hate this answer. The parties are not part of the government, yet run the government. They have set it up where they are the only 2 parties that are viable. You shouldn't punish someone's rights just because they are independent. This is coming from a registered Democrat.

Maybe during a democratic primary, they want to only hear from registered democrats.

That's not punishing independents. They literally don't care about what they say. And that's okay because they aren't pushing independent candidates. It's a tough pill to swallow, but they don't owe anything to people who aren't registered to their party.

 

[Arkeband]

Honestly Bernard just needs to lose his senate seat at this point. Show future 'progressives' that you can't turn the Democratic party into chaos at your own ego's whims.

I don't think you understand how the U.S. government works.

 

[boiled goose]

He was given two separate chances to point to specific evidence of Hillary's corruption and failed both times. He embarrassed himself.

I think there are cases he could have pointed to or even given a better vague answer but that was not the point of my post.

So you think you can't substantiate accusations of the corrupting influence of money in politics unless we can point out clear cases of quid pro quo right?

 

[HylianTom]

You can't make accusations of corruption when candidates rake in millions of dollars in donations and direct payments unless there is clear evidence for quid pro quo right?

It would be nice to see one instance, right?

I mean, corruption is a pretty damn serious charge. If someone's going to make that charge, is it not reasonable to expect them to present the slightest shred of evidence?

This isn't difficult to understand, and nor should such an expectation be controversial. Not innuendo. Not "well, we can't trust someone when.."


If you're going to go with,"well, she took money, so she must be in the pockets of so-and-so," save your breath. Evidence.

 

[flkraven]

S4P are a couple thousands of the most crazy delusion of Bernie's supporters. They're the tiniest fraction of his supporters and don't really represent Bernie at all, any more. The reasonable people jumped ship a month ago.

Everyone who wasn't crazy left S4P

You aren't kidding. Just saw a highly-upvoted post saying that if people say "I'm a Bernie supporter, but..." they are paid shills and aren't worth listening to lol.

 

[Omegasquash]

Bernie Sanders is the High Sparrow?

Brutal.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I think there are cases he could have pointed to or even given a better vague answer but that was not the point of my post.

So you think you can't substantiate accusations of the corrupting influence of money in politics unless we can point out clear cases of quid pro quo right?

You're willing to take a politician's word at face value with no evidence at all.

 

[boiled goose]

It would be nice to see one instance, right?

I mean, corruption is a pretty damn serious charge. If someone's going to make that charge, is it not reasonable to expect them to present the slightest shred of evidence?

This isn't difficult to understand, and nor should such an expectation be controversial. Not innuendo. Not "well, we can't trust someone when.."

Receipts.

So we can't see politicians are influenced by money unless we can point out clear cases of quid pro quo Right?

 

[Arkeband]

It would be nice to see one instance, right?

I mean, corruption is a pretty damn serious charge. If someone's going to make that charge, is it not reasonable to expect them to present the slightest shred of evidence?

This isn't difficult to understand, and nor should such an expectation be controversial. Not innuendo. Not "well, we can't trust someone when.."

Receipts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/u...uptcy-reform-that-haunts-hillary-clinton.html

Hillary changes vote immediately following influx of cash from credit card industry.

Later asked if she regrets how she voted and she answers "Yes".

1+1=2

You act like money influencing politics is something that Hillary is somehow immune to. It's a problem with every single member of our government. Some of them have spoken out about how they're tied to phones, begging for money more than they're actually doing their job.

Did you know that Congress cannot be investigated for insider trading? Obama tried to get rid of this, but then they re-introduced legislation quietly and Obama passed it for them. Our government is fundamentally broken by moneyed interests.

 

[Koomaster]

What I don't get about Bernard's Independent supporters and maybe someone can explain this to me because I would really like to know. What I don't get is why they don't register as a democrat like Bernard did?

You don't see Bernard running as an Independent; no, he registered as a Democrat. This is about the only thing I can respect from him is he knows how to put in his quarter to start the game. Meanwhile his independent supporters are trying to put in nickles to a quarters only slot and wondering why they don't get to play.

Like how about following your candidate's example if you care so much to support him. Do things the right way and work with the system instead of trying to flip tables and scream that the rules need to be changed just to placate you.

 

[noshten]

Then there's basically no point in even joining a party. If you want a say in how a party is organized then join that party, plain and simple.

If a party is funding it's primary process with money from tax payers - they should make it extremely easy for all tax payers regardless of their party registration to take part in the process.

Because they aren't members of that party? If you don't want to be a Republican or Democrat vote for the Green candidate or some other independent. Polls show that consistently independents vote for one party of the other in the general so if they want to be involved in the primary join that party.

Perhaps if they had other realistic options for example if there was a realistic opportunity for them to move their agenda forward with 5% of the vote - you might have a point.
Right now there is only TWO realistic options for president and you don't gain anything as a third party not even a national audience due to the way debates, coverage and polls are structured.

 

[boiled goose]

You're willing to take a politician's word at face value with no evidence at all.

I have been personally involved in the fight against the corrupting influence of money in politics since before i even knew who bernie was. In fact he and I dont agree on the solution which is why im not a supporter.

Answer my question please.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I have been personally involved in the fight against the corrupting influence of money in politics since before i even knew who bernie was. In fact he and I dont agree on the solution which is why im not a supporter.

Answer my question please.

Corruption is an actual accusation of a crime being committed. With such an accusation, evidence needs to be provided.

There are ways he could point to Hillary's donations without resorting to making a criminal accusation.

 

[boiled goose]

Maybe during a democratic primary, they want to only hear from registered democrats.

That's not punishing independents. They literally don't care about what they say. And that's okay because they aren't pushing independent candidates. It's a tough pill to swallow, but they don't owe anything to people who aren't registered to their party.

I agree party can decide who it wants to hear from. I do think at this point in history ignoring independents could be a mistake come general elections. Independents are over 40 percent of voters.

 

[boiled goose]

Corruption is an actual accusation of a crime being committed. With such an accusation, evidence needs to be provided.

There are ways he could point to Hillary's donations without resorting to making a criminal accusation.

Now you are playing semantics.

In my opinion bribery has been legalized in the US. In that sense corruption has been legalized.

Still haven't answered my question. To point out the influence of money in politics do we need to be able to identify clear cases of quid pro quo?

 

[HylianTom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/u...uptcy-reform-that-haunts-hillary-clinton.html

Hillary changes vote immediately following influx of cash from credit card industry.

Later asked if she regrets how she voted and she answers "Yes".

1+1=2

If that's the best you can come up with, good job. More substantial than the innuendo that's usually dished around. But - and I'm using Bernie's own logic for when he's voted in certain ways on certain bills - that bill was a mixed bag.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Now you are playing semantics.

In my opinion bribery has been legalized in the US. In that sense corruption has been legalized.

Still haven't answered my question. To point out the influence of money in politics do we need to be able to identify clear cases of quid pro quo?

It helps.

 

[Omegasquash]

What I don't get about Bernard's Independent supporters and maybe someone can explain this to me because I would really like to know. What I don't get is why they don't register as a democrat like Bernard did?

Ignorance, entitlement, or just plain missing the deadline. Take your pick.

You don't see Bernard running as an Independent; no, he registered as a Democrat. This is about the only thing I can respect from him is he knows how to put in his quarter to start the game. Meanwhile his independent supporters are trying to put in nickles to a quarters only slot and wondering why they don't get to play.

Precise. I respect a few more things about him, but frankly unless he, himself, issues a statement about the violence, I won't have that respect for much longer.

Like how about following your candidate's example if you care so much to support him. Do things the right way and work with the system instead of trying to flip tables and scream that the rules need to be changed just to placate you.

Working within the system is a key reason why I'm a Hillary supporter. I feel like Sanders, with all his wonderful idea(l)s, is too much. He asks for a "political revolution" instead of change. Revolutions get people riled up. Revolutions burn things. Revolutions can hurt people and have dramatic consequences.

I want change for the better. Not a revolution.

 

[B-Dubs]

Now you are playing semantics.

In my opinion bribery has been legalized in the US. In that sense corruption has been legalized.

Still haven't answered my question. To point out the influence of money in politics do we need to be able to identify clear cases of quid pro quo?

If you're going to be accusing a specific person of corruption, then of course you need receipts.

 

[boiled goose]

It helps.

If you're going to be accusing a specific person of corruption, then of course you need receipts.

Ok so you all agree that we cannot identify the influence of money in politics unless we can point to clear cases of quid pro quo.

Have you read the arguments behind Citizens United?

 

[damisa]

So we can't see politicians are influenced by money unless we can point out clear cases of quid pro quo Right?

Making vague generalities requires less proof, there are many thousands of politicians, so it's likely some are influenced by money, but when you accuse a specific person, proof is needed. This is common sense.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Ok so you all agree that we cannot identify the influence of money in politics unless we can point to clear cases of quid pro quo.

Have you read the arguments behind Citizens United?

I knew exactly where this was going, since this is your usual song and dance.

Imma just go ahead and start calling Bernie a murderer. Who needs evidence, right? It's just totally obvious.

 

[B-Dubs]

Ok so you all agree that we cannot identify the influence of money in politics unless we can point to clear cases of quid pro quo.

Have you read the arguments behind Citizens United?

If you want to say the system is corrupt due to money in politics then go right ahead, but if you want to accuse a specific person of being corrupt due to money in politics you need receipts. This is common sense.

 

[TyrantII]

I really hate this answer. The parties are not part of the government, yet run the government. They have set it up where they are the only 2 parties that are viable. You shouldn't punish someone's rights just because they are independent. This is coming from a registered Democrat.

The partys have done no such thing. The founders and the system we have lend to a majority / minority dualistic system of government and that's what causes the formation of two camps.

There's also nothing stopping a left leaning coalition from working within the system and making the case to lead the party in one direction over another. Obama did it to beat Clinton. History is ripe with example of how that leads to change within the two party system.

The issue isn't the partys or the system.

The issue is a tiny, loud minority isn't getting its way fast enough, can't figure out how to form a broad coalition; so they're kicking and screaming and undermining their own efforts.

And soon they'll go back shutting down highways and sitting in squares and complaining that the system doesn't work; when instead of working to bring over hearts and minds they just gave up after 6 months of keyboard bashing and being dicks.

 

[boiled goose]

I knew exactly where this was going, since this is your usual song and dance.

Imma just go ahead and start calling Bernie a murderer. Who needs evidence, right? It's just totally obvious.

You knew where this was going and you couldn't outright answer my question because you know of your own hypocrisy. You make a special pleading logical fallacy case when it comes to your preferred candidate.

If you don't see the difference between your silly counter example and the problem of politicians getting financed (their campaigns and direct payments into their personal bank accounts) by special interests then I don't know what to tell you.

This discussion has strayed off topic and is clearly not going nowhere. Readers can read the exchange and make up their own minds on the issue. I have to work! If you want me to answer something important that I ignored or dodged PM me and I'll get to it later.