• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT6| Delete your accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zornack

Member
Suikoguy said:
I still don't get why independents should be a special class of voters.
What incentive is there to register for either party in such a scenario?

Just register independent, be the special snowflake, and fuck around in either primary if you feel like it.
Click to expand...

I prefer semi closed because people don't approach voting day in a rational and organized manner. Forcing people to register with the party by some arbitrary date puts added restrictions on voting and forcing independents to register with the party on voting day adds an unneeded strain to the local party and organizers.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
TheLostBigBoss said:
Yes?

Even the no caucuses is a huge stretch, why would small states do primaries when it's so much cheaper to keep doing what they are doing when their direct representation of the primary is so small?

Online voting is a pipe dream atm

Zero chance we remove delegates, that would destroy any type of representation smaller states have in the matter.

Also I don't understand strictly proportional and popular vote, those two contradict each other if you're talking about proportional delegates.
Click to expand...

Nebraska Caucuses

Hillary 43
Bernie 57

Nebraska Primary
Hillary 53
Bernie 47

Washington Caucuses
Bernie 73
Hillary 27

Washington Primary
Hillary 52
Bernie 47
 
P

Plumbob

Member
I prefer a Red Rover system where the Republicans get to pick the Democratic candidate and vice versa.

Just make every election an unmitigated shitstorm.
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
TheLostBigBoss said:
Yes?

Even the no caucuses is a huge stretch, why would small states do primaries when it's so much cheaper to keep doing what they are doing when their direct representation of the primary is so small?

Online voting is a pipe dream atm

Zero chance we remove delegates, that would destroy any type of representation smaller states have in the matter.

Also I don't understand strictly proportional and popular vote, those two contradict each other if you're talking about proportional delegates.
Click to expand...
Iowa still has like 2 delegates though. It's only important because of the calendar.
 
P

Plumbob

Member
To make sure no one state has a systemic bias over the others, each Monday night we should randomly select two states to hold their caucuses the following morning. If you weren't registered two weeks ahead of when your state's caucus ends up happening, too bad.
 
T

TheLostBigBoss

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Nebraska Caucuses

Hillary 43
Bernie 57

Nebraska Primary
Hillary 53
Bernie 47

Washington Caucuses
Bernie 73
Hillary 27

Washington Primary
Hillary 52
Bernie 47
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that caucuses are good, they fucking suck.

I'm just saying based on a lot of the smaller, heartland states that are very rural in population, what would be the incentive for them to switch over?

If I had my wishlist, it would be

1) States with X population must use the primary system with option to mail in
2) reduce the percent of super delegates in the overall amount of delegates
3) 2 months max deadline to allow someone to register for the party to vote if states use a closed primary, no six month shit like in NY
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
TheLostBigBoss said:
Even the no caucuses is a huge stretch, why would small states do primaries when it's so much cheaper to keep doing what they are doing when their direct representation of the primary is so small?
Click to expand...
Democracy is worth spending money on. Many caucus states also have both a primary and a caucus, so they're clearly just wasting money at that point. If you can't hire 3 old ladies to count mail-ins and run ballots through VoteTron2000 then you are not spending enough money on democracy.

TheLostBigBoss said:
Online voting is a pipe dream atm
Click to expand...
Then Estonia must have a lot of pipes.

TheLostBigBoss said:
Zero chance we remove delegates, that would destroy any type of representation smaller states have in the matter.
Click to expand...
I think I did the math some time ago, and most states have a number of delegates roughly proportional to the number of Democratic voters that live there. We have delegates not for representation of small states but because The Honorable Winston Smith is traveling three days by horse and buggy eating nothing but jerkey and roasted coffee beans to inform The Honorable Adam Winthrop that he represents the county of Hugifsuhfukh, and that by the power vested in him by god and the people who selected him (in that order), he nominates Bernard Sanders for the position of President.

TheLostBigBoss said:
Also I don't understand strictly proportional and popular vote, those two contradict each other if you're talking about proportional delegates.
Click to expand...
Actually, by definition, a proportion preserves the relative sizes of two numbers. So the most proportionate system ever is to just... count the votes.
TheLostBigBoss said:
3) 2 months max deadline to allow someone to register for the party to vote if states use a closed primary, no six month shit like in NY
Click to expand...
No, the deadline to *switch parties* was 6 months. The deadline to register to vote at all was quite close to the election.
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
Crocodile said:
Wish he had done the same for earlier incident though (especially Nevada) :(
Click to expand...

ENOUGH on endlessly regurgiting this diarrhea on supposed "violence" perpetrated by Bernie delegates at the Nevada convention! As the NPR's ombudsman stated (also, Snopes fact checking), there is no evidence of violence, and, for example, the original source (Jon Ralston), later admitted he hadn't actually witnessed any chair throwing:

NPR ombudsman said:
[O]ther outlets, including The Associated Press, also reported that chairs were thrown ... in the extensive video posted on social media in the aftermath of the convention I've so far found none of a chair being thrown. One video shows a chair being lifted in the air.

I asked Beth Donovan, NPR's senior Washington editor, to respond to the concerns. She wrote, "Several members of our staff watched live video that showed a man brandishing a chair. Nevada analyst Jon Ralston, who was in the room and over time has been a very reliable source, reported that a chair was thrown. We okayed using and sourcing his reporting." But, she added, "When Ralston's reporting came under question, we adjusted our language," by not repeating the word "thrown." Instead, Keith's report this morning referred to "physical skirmishes." (It also quoted Nevada Sen. Harry Reid as referring to "violence," which he did, indeed, do.)

Donovan went on, "So, was there violence? There was pushing, shoving, and screaming, a chair was brandished and a great deal of hostile and obscene language used. Several editors and reporters saw and heard the video live and later. People on the ground described it as violence. It doesn't seem a stretch to me."

Donovan and I disagree on this; "violence," which NPR more often uses to describe events in war zones, seems too strong a term to me based on the evidence I have seen so far. And the politics team's own decision to avoid the word "thrown" renders this online-only introduction to Keith's piece misleading, unless other eyewitnesses come forward to clarify the events[.]
Click to expand...

Counterpunch is even more forthright in their assessment:

Counterpunch said:
Jon Ralston, the dean of political reporting in Nevada, has spread nothing less than a pack of lies about what went down at the state’s Democratic convention. No chairs were thrown at the convention.

Ralston reported live from the convention for most of the day, but decided to leave before tensions boiled over. Nevertheless, it was taken as a simple fact that he had observed Sanders supporters throwing chairs when “Roberta’s Rules” were enforced with finality at the end of the proceedings.

As it turned out, Ralston finally admitted that he hadn’t seen this himself but was relying especially on local reporter Andrew Davey. Davey first said he had still frames showing the chair throwing which he would publish. He has not produced the stills in question, but did retweet a still image of a chair held high that was initially posted on Reddit.

In spite of the fact that the whole thing was filmed live from multiple angles, no one has any images or video of even a single chair, let alone chairs plural, being thrown.

Rachel Maddow ran a deceptive clip on MSNBC saying chairs were thrown while reportedly showing [I witnessed this] footage of chairs thrown at a wrestling production [disgraceful!]. People on social media then insisted that networks had shown actual footage of chairs thrown at the convention. Maddow retreated only a bit by having Ralston on to say that even though he had not seen the chairs thrown, other eyewitnesses have told him the video is wrong. CNN had Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on to denounce Bernie Bros throwing chairs at the stage.

Hours and hours after the woman who took and posted the original video showing the raised chair has offered to talk to any media that will listen, none have. Sanders supporters have now promised to donate $100 to Clinton’s campaign or vote for her in California if anyone can produce video evidence of the phantom chair throwing.
Click to expand...

With the mountains of bullsht proganda being disseminated by Hillary, her surrogates, including the establishment media (CNN, MSNBC, WP, etc, etc), I think it's safe to say, at this late stage in the primary race, they didn't and don't feel they could beat Bernie without thoroughly immersing themselves in gutter politics...

And yet, based on the tightening polls in California, and with several days of campaigning still remaining, Bernie is poised to win the most populous state in our nation :).
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
I just wished Bernie dropped out so that we can finally start talking about the real issues, like Hillary Clinton's emails and Benghazi.
 
E

Emarv

Member
For small rural states, would mail-in primaries be more expensive or cheaper? I feel like that would be a solid idea. idk
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Daniel B·;205622332 said:
semantic nonsense
Click to expand...
I don't think people thought it actually was violent. Nobody thought that people got hurt or threatened to get hurt. The word "violent" is clearly inappropriate and hyperbolic but I think everyone acknowledges that it was chaotic, aggressive, unruly, and perhaps even immature.
 
T

TheLostBigBoss

Banned
Kristoffer said:
Democracy is worth spending money on. Many caucus states also have both a primary and a caucus, so they're clearly just wasting money at that point. If you can't hire 3 old ladies to count mail-ins and run ballots through VoteTron2000 then you are not spending enough money on democracy.

Then Estonia must have a lot of pipes.

I think I did the math some time ago, and most states have a number of delegates roughly proportional to the number of Democratic voters that live there. We have delegates not for representation of small states but because The Honorable Winston Smith is traveling three days by horse and buggy eating nothing but jerkey and roasted coffee beans to inform The Honorable Adam Winthrop that he represents the county of Hugifsuhfukh, and that by the power vested in him by god and the people who selected him (in that order), he nominates Bernard Sanders for the position of President.

Actually, by definition, a proportion preserves the relative sizes of two numbers. So the most proportionate system ever is to just... count the votes.
Click to expand...

1) Again, I'm talking about realistic type of expectations for changing the primary. Yes, I would like to see all states go to a primary system, but I don't think that's a realistic option.

2) Estonia has been sharply criticized by security experts for the fact that the entire system is amazingly unsecured I would have similar worries if it's used. Mail in voting is nearly just as good and provides early voting without the insane hassle of e-voting.

3) The term proportional is usually used in context that it's not a winner take all system, that's why I was confused on what he was talking about

4) Good point on the delegate system

5) Right, to swap parties, meaning independent -> Democrat. However, so many people are independent because of the unwillingness to have a party label, which is resonable considering there is literally only one viable liberal party in the country. Having a deadline before the first debate even took place is silly, six months was too long. I agree that people within the party should be the ones to decide the path of the party, but I also think that there should be reasonable deadlines to allow clearly liberal people who usually always vote Dem to at least become Democrats if they so wish to.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
I prefer some superdelegates since you should try to win over your own party as well as the voters. Otherwise, you get Carter who wasn't backed by a lot of Democrats. And 15% is a good threshold for them to sit at too. It means that the voters, for the most part, pick the winner, but you can't seal the deal unless you prove that you aren't just a one-and-done populist with no plans to enact the platform.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Daniel B·;205622332 said:
With the mountains of bullsht proganda being disseminated by Hillary, her surrogates, including the establishment media (CNN, MSNBC, WP, etc, etc), I think it's safe to say, at this late stage in the primary race, they didn't and don't feel they could beat Bernie without thoroughly immersing themselves in gutter politics...

And yet, based on the tightening polls in California, and with several days of campaigning still remaining, Bernie is poised to win the most populous state in our nation :).
Click to expand...
The irony.

Reality does not bend to your emotional whims.
 
E

Emarv

Member
NPR Podcast was talking about how there was over 100 bills last year on changing election formats but hardly any odd because states fight hard. The DNC would essentially have to strong arm state leaders but even that isn't guaranteed. I'm honestly curious what they could actually get accomplished specifically for the states.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
VI is like four hours away.

kirblar said:
The irony.

Reality does not bend to your emotional whims.
Click to expand...

What would he have to say to get you not to respond? That chemtrails are causing people to vote for Hillary as they go into the voting booth when they meant to vote for Bernie, which leads to temporary amnesia about how they voted, which is why exit polling is so off? Or would that still warrant a Daniel B quote?
 
T

theprodigy

Member
Zornack said:
I prefer semi closed because people don't approach voting day in a rational and organized manner. Forcing people to register with the party by some arbitrary date puts added restrictions on voting and forcing independents to register with the party on voting day adds an unneeded strain to the local party and organizers.
Click to expand...
There's always the option for closed primaries with same day registration, that way you have to register for a party but you also can't get locked out by deadlines.
 
T

thefro

Member
Daniel B·;205622332 said:
ENOUGH on endlessly regurgiting this diarrhea on supposed "violence" perpetrated by Bernie delegates at the Nevada convention! As the NPR's ombudsman stated (also, Snopes fact checking), there is no evidence of violence, and, for example, the original source (Jon Ralston), later admitted he hadn't actually witnessed any chair throwing:
Click to expand...

Clearly this GIF shows Bernie supporters throwing chairs at the convention

PSBNOU.gif
 
A

Alcander

Member
I live in the bay area, and on my way to and from work yesterday in SF I saw 3 instances of people with giant "VOTE BERNIE" dangling them down off of the pedestrian overpass over the freeway. Like giant homemade signs.

I can't wait for this to be over
 
R

royalan

Member
I wouldn't mind getting rid of superdelegates, but not if they otherwise leave the primary rules as they are. As we've seen with Trump and Bernie this year (and even Edwards in 08), that would be fucking madness.

I do think there needs to be some method by which party leaders and representatives can assert some level of influence over the race. I do not want a system where some charismatic/batshit-crazy demagogues who don't even belong to the party whose nominations they're running for can jump in and get far (and even win) by spreading populist bullshit. People look at Bernie's success in the primary as a sign that Hillary is a weak candidate. Meanwhile. I'm praising the gay gods that we got such a strong candidate in Hillary, because look at the nut we could have ended up with otherwise.

I do think both parties would be wise institute stricter requirements for running for their party's nomination. Because as fun as the shitshow is to watch, I would much rather have a process that's closer to...you know, actually functioning. And if there is ANY story to come out of 2016, it's do not expect the media to do their damn job vetting candidates.
 
G

googleplex

Member
Ok... Every time I've entered a room at work today. I've been involuntarily saying "Purse First"

What the fuck have you've done to me PoliGaf?!
 
R

Retromelon

Member
Had a dream last night where benji was teaching a history class I was in and he was giving us a challenge where he told us political, historical facts and we had guess if they were true or false, and he was geeking out excitedly about it. I raised my hand and said, I don't want to do this political shit, this shit is corny dawg and he said you failed the course. Also in my dream he looked like a slightly younger Jeff weaver

Got to stop reading poligaf so much
 
U

User1608

Banned
Retromelon said:
Had a dream last night where benji was teaching a history class I was in and he was giving us a challenge where he told us political, historical facts and we had guess if they were true or false, and he was geeking out excitedly about it. I raised my hand and said, I don't want to do this political shit, this shit is corny dawg and he said you failed the course. Also in my dream he looked like a slightly younger Jeff weaver

Got to stop reading poligaf so much
Click to expand...
Lmao. I had the word "werk" show up in my dream thursday. Thanks Adam!😂
 
P

Paskil

Member
Retromelon said:
Had a dream last night where benji was teaching a history class I was in and he was giving us a challenge where he told us political, historical facts and we had guess if they were true or false, and he was geeking out excitedly about it. I raised my hand and said, I don't want to do this political shit, this shit is corny dawg and he said you failed the course. Also in my dream he looked like a slightly younger Jeff weaver

Got to stop reading poligaf so much
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a nightmare than a dream.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom