Support NeoGAF

[shinra-bansho]

You guys realize the point of a voice vote is not actually to see which camp can be louder right?

This has been something of an amusement in this debacle.

In a room of two people the louder one wins.

 

[JP_]

Don't get me wrong, I think there's a whole lot that should be fixed in the primary process, but as a whole, the goal of the process is to pick the candidate most Democrat wanted, and it worked.

I think it's pretty important that people are able to trust the process. When rules aren't followed or the rules are abused, it casts doubt on the process. Even if it worked out "as it should," a compromised process gives the impression that the results were compromised.

 

[Intheflorsh]

I'm actually confused as to what the point of the voice vote was at all. If more Hillary delegates showed up, shouldn't that have been that?

 

[brainchild]

Hung up on technicalities?

Oh, that's precious.

The whole story and context is about a huge sequence of lies regarding corruption on the Nevada convention, and we are hung up on technicalities because you've decided to die on the vocal vote hill?

Corruption at the state party level was certainly not disproven by the Politifact article, although you could argue that there is no evidence of fraud.

Anyone who is a fan of boxing or UFC knows you want to finish the fight before it goes to the judges because at that point it could go either way. Bernie failed in organizing this when he should've had a knockout in the first round and instead it went to the judges.

Based on the rules at the convention, the chair had enough power to force a Clinton win even if Bernie won the first round, so your analogy doesn't work here.

 

[gutter_trash]

Anyone who is a fan of boxing or UFC knows you want to finish the fight before it goes to the judges because at that point it could go either way. Bernie failed in organizing this when he should've had a knockout in the first round and instead it went to the judges.

the Oregon Primary was supposed to be one of his ''Knock Out'' states like Washington... he failed to even deliver one of the most hipster white states in the Union

following Hillary's big win in Puerto Rico, New Jersey is going the help her cross over to the finish line hours before California finishes counting. It is officially over on June 7th

 

[The Technomancer]

I think it's pretty important that people are able to trust the process. When rules aren't followed or the rules are abused, it casts doubt on the process. Even if it worked out "as it should," a compromised process gives the impression that the results were compromised.

But in this case the people trying to "follow the rules to a T" were doing so with the explicit aim of gaming things to get their candidate a few more delegates. That that's possible does more damage to my faith in the process than knowing that some people caught on in the middle of it

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I'm actually confused as to what the point of the voice vote was at all. If more Hillary delegates showed up, shouldn't that have been that?

Yes, Which is why the voice vote was just a routine procedure and was basically meaningless since they already knew the results of the vote based purely on how many delegates were there.

 

[hawk2025]

Corruption and fraud, by their own definition, cannot be completely "disproven".

The claims regarding the existence of actual evidence of it were summarily dismissed.

Enjoy the nothingburguer.

 

[JP_]

But in this case the people trying to "follow the rules to a T" were doing so with the explicit aim of gaming things to get their candidate a few more delegates. That that's possible does more damage to my faith in the process than knowing that some people caught on in the middle of it

I'm all for changing bad rules, but it seems like you're suggesting it's ok to break the rules when you don't like them.

 

[brainchild]

Do you think sanders should've won the caucus? If the purpose of the caucus is to display the organizing power of your campaign didn't Bernie fail spectacularly when almost 500 of his delegates didn't even show up?

No, Hillary should have won. Plain and simple. I just think the process was unfair and handled very undemocratically.

 

[Blader]

If you think that many mainstream news outlets are not subject to editorial influence from their corporate ownership, then you are truly naive.

There are many factors that influence what gets covered and how it gets covered.
Hits, ratings, real journalism, but also things like "access".

If you want to see a clear example of when the mainstream media failed us see the news coverage in the ramp up towards the Iraq war. The news failed the American people. If you do a case study, you can understand the factors that lead to that failure.

I tend to prefer watching independent media, not because they are not biased (they are!) but because their bias is much more transparent.

Failures of mainstream journalism do not make mainstream journalism a failure. Independent news outlets are more transparent about their bias because they are more inherently biased. I do not see how that makes them a more credible alternative for gathering information.

We are in vigorous agreement, but I don't think anyone cares at this point. They're so hung up on technicalities that no one is bothering to ask how wrong any of this is.

Arguing over voice vote procedures while ignoring the big picture of Bernie still being apportioned the proper amount of delegates (despite trying to grab more than he was entitled to by the vote) and the majority of his supporters not even showing up at all has got to be the definition of hung on up on technicalities in this case.

 

[legacyzero]

How do you watch without cringing every three seconds?

I have never heard of SecularTalk before, and a quick Google search does not inspire any confidence in it :lol

Despite what Sarah Palin and co. would like everyone to believe, the mainstream media is not out to get you. The NY Times, AP, WaPo, et al. are all (largely) credible sources with scores of credible, established, and knowledgeable if not expert reporters working for god knows how long to obtain and vet proper sources and report stories as accurately as possible. And when they don't, their feet are held to the fire, and very publicly so. I don't know what standard SecularTalk is held to, but I'm going to hazard a guess that they won't be in the running for a Pulitzer anytime soon.

He's not for everyone lol.

I do like how hw breaks down things and helps me keep a constant understanding of the issues from a progressive standpoint.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

So, wait. Is the argument "The chair has a right to call the voice vote if the result is clear to him/her. However, the result wasn't clear to me, therefore ______."? That doesn't really seem like a good argument to me.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm all for changing bad rules, but it seems like you're suggesting it's ok to break the rules when you don't like them.

I'm saying that making an on the fly call to adjust the rules (although its arguable if that even happened) when you realize the rules as written might lead to an undemocratic result is, again, something I have trouble being mad about. Is it wrong? Arguably, sure. Is it worthy of the sheer magnitude of the response that its gotten? Not in a million years.

And lets be clear here: the goal of the Bernie camp was to achieve an undemocratic result, if we define the democratic result as proportional delegate assignment

 

[JP_]

Yes, Which is why the voice vote was just a routine procedure and was basically meaningless since they already knew the results of the vote based purely on how many delegates were there.

We can all agree the situation would probably have not escalated so much if they simply voted with a more precise method according to the rules, right? Nothing forced them to not take a standing vote and instead rely on the dubious voice vote.

 

[Justin]

Corruption at the state party level was certainly not disproven by the Politifact article, although you could argue that there is no evidence of fraud.



Based on the rules at the convention, the chair had enough power to force a Clinton win even if Bernie won the first round, so your analogy doesn't work here.

This is stupid. I'm trying to say that nearly 500 Bernie delegates didn't show up. Hillary won by just over 30 delegates I believe. If you think that the chair would have still counted in a way that would've awarded Clinton the delegates if even just a third of the 500 absent sanders delegates showed up then there really is no point in further discussion on this with you. Bernies campaign lost this. Not some grand conspiracy or a renegade chair bent on destroying democracy. Sanders lost the caucus due to his campaigns failure to get their delegates to show up.

Also according to the rules the chair could've thrown out all the Bernie delegates for not following decorum.

 

[Chichikov]

I think it's pretty important that people are able to trust the process. When rules aren't followed or the rules are abused, it casts doubt on the process. Even if it worked out "as it should," a compromised process gives the impression that the results were compromised.

Wait, you think this fuckery is helping people trust the process?
Again, the process is flawed no doubt, but it seemed to have worked as intended.

 

[Maledict]

I'm actually confused as to what the point of the voice vote was at all. If more Hillary delegates showed up, shouldn't that have been that?

Because a full, roll-called voter takes a lot of time, and if you have to do it for each item you won't get through the business of the meeting and therefore won't get anything done. So you have a voice vote to show to the chair whether or not the parties are broadly in agreement with the vote.

It's not supposed to be accurate, it's just a way of doing votes fast - if the chair sees the Clinton supporters shouting no and the Sander's supporters shouting yes, then she knows that the Clinton supporters won because they had more delegates and can call it like that.

The only time a voice vote turns into a roll-called vote is when there is confusion or disparity. A lot of people seem to think that if the chair can't instantly tell how the vote went that means it's supposed to turn into a roll-called vote, and that isn't the case at all. Nor is the volume of the votes supposed to tell who won or lost.

It's a parliamentary procedure designed to allow a meeting to function without getting bogged down in details. All of the allegations being made about it by the Sander's camp shows they simply don't understand the point of a voice vote or how they are conducted.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

We can all agree the situation would probably have not escalated so much if they simply voted with a more precise method according to the rules, right? Nothing forced them to not take a standing vote and instead rely on the dubious voice vote.

No.

To me it shows people at a convention who are new to the political process and don't understand standard procedure and take issue with it because they came into the convention with a chip on their shoulder. They walked into the convention assuming it was corrupt from the start and looked for any excuse to justify their unfounded fears.

Routine voice votes, which happen all the time, should not cause mini riots to break out. That's not normal at all.

 

[Intheflorsh]

We can all agree the situation would probably have not escalated so much if they simply voted with a more precise method according to the rules, right? Nothing forced them to not take a standing vote and instead rely on the dubious voice vote.

But a standing vote would have just revealed again that Hillary had more delegates in attendance, so what's the point? Unless you believe 30+ Hillary delegates would have changed their mind suddenly.

 

[JP_]

Wait, you think this fuckery is helping people trust the process?
Again, the process is flawed no doubt, but it seemed to have worked as intended.

No? I basically said a flawed process makes it harder for people to trust the process and as a result, harder for people to trust the results. I don't think that's controversial.

 

[hawk2025]

We can all agree the situation would probably have not escalated so much if they simply voted with a more precise method according to the rules, right? Nothing forced them to not take a standing vote and instead rely on the dubious voice vote.

Yes, of course.

That doesn't make it undemocratic or unfair.

It makes it an unfortunate result of a shitty, complicated caucus system where screaming and bullying can get you farther than actual votes.

Especially when the fear of the screaming and rage is probably what led to them trying to rush through it and get it done in the first place. They should have known better, but it remains a minor detail in a pack of lies, righteous indignation, and persecution complexes.


People came in mad and expecting to be disenfranchised, because their campaign told them so.
At the first little shadow, they fucking flipped out.

 

[JP_]

No.

To me it shows people at a convention who are new to the political process and don't understand standard procedure and take issue with it because they came into the convention with a chip on their shoulder.

Routine voice votes, which happen all the time, should not cause mini riots to break out. That's not normal at all.

Routine voice votes are voice votes in which it is nearly unanimous. There's a reason the rules have stipulations for when the voice vote is less useful.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Routine voice votes are voice votes in which it is nearly unanimous.

It was unanimous. Shouting louder doesn't mean there are more people.

When you know exactly how everyone is going to vote, but have to hold a vote for procedural reasons, a simple voice vote allows people to move on with the convention.

 

[Intheflorsh]

Because a full, roll-called voter takes a lot of time, and if you have to do it for each item you won't get through the business of the meeting and therefore won't get anything done. So you have a voice vote to show to the chair whether or not the parties are broadly in agreement with the vote.

It's not supposed to be accurate, it's just a way of doing votes fast - if the chair sees the Clinton supporters shouting no and the Sander's supporters shouting yes, then she knows that the Clinton supporters won because they had more delegates and can call it like that.

The only time a voice vote turns into a roll-called vote is when there is confusion or disparity. A lot of people seem to think that if the chair can't instantly tell how the vote went that means it's supposed to turn into a roll-called vote, and that isn't the case at all. Nor is the volume of the votes supposed to tell who won or lost.

It's a parliamentary procedure designed to allow a meeting to function without getting bogged down in details. All of the allegations being made about it by the Sander's camp shows they simply don't understand the point of a voice vote or how they are conducted.

Yeah, I get it now. At first I assumed "loudness" actually mattered (which would have actually been a problem), but I see why it's used.

 

[JP_]

It was unanimous. Shouting louder doesn't mean there are more people.

That's not what unanimous means.

When you know exactly how everyone is going to vote, but have to hold a vote for procedural reasons, a simple voice vote allows people to move on with the convention.

They were taking votes on rules and other things. There's no such thing as "When you know exactly how everyone is going to vote."

 

[balladofwindfishes]

That's not what unanimous means.

You have 100 people. 60 of them you know will vote one way. 40 will vote the other. You have to hold some kind of vote. You know the result of the vote already. You hold a voice vote so time isn't wasted because what's the point if you know the results already?

They were taking votes on rules and other things. There's no such thing as "When you know exactly how everyone is going to vote."

They voted on candidate lines. Unless evidence of the contrary is provided?

 

[shinra-bansho]

We can all agree the situation would probably have not escalated so much if they simply voted with a more precise method according to the rules, right?

I don't know. Can we?

The ultimate result would have been Clinton winning the two measly delegates this nonsense is about.

The two that the Sanders supporters managed to gain through subversion at the county level.

Stolen.

Which is ultimately what angry young men were angry about leading to aggression and harassment.

At every turn there are baseless calls of corruption. Why wouldn't there be them here regardless of the method? The only acceptable outcome that doesn't mean corruption occurred was Sanders winning.

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't know. Can we?

The ultimate result would have been Clinton winning the two measly delegates this nonsense is about.

The two that the Sanders supporters managed to gain through subversion at the county level.

Stolen.

Which is ultimately what angry young men were angry about leading to aggression and harassment.

Yup. To quote myself from the last page: This is sort of the problem here. If there was evidence that the results actually undermined the democratic results of the Nevada voters then there would be a lot more ground to stand on. As it is, the response seems to be incredibly disproportionate to the actual amount of harm done. Is it worth being upset about? Sure. Send a letter. Make a phone call. But the sheer level of energy being put into being upset about this specific set of events when the actual outcome was "delegates were allocated accurately based on the candidate's results" just seems, well, petulant and again, disproportionate

 

[brainchild]

Yes, Which is why the voice vote was just a routine procedure and was basically meaningless since they already knew the results of the vote based purely on how many delegates were there.

The vote to adopt the temporary rules as permanent could not possibly be determined by how many people from each side are present in the room. They are not all bound to the same votes.

Corruption and fraud, by their own definition, cannot be completely "disproven".

The claims regarding the existence of actual evidence of it were summarily dismissed.

Enjoy the nothingburguer.

The two terms are not interchangeable. You can't disprove corruption, but you can disprove fraud. Fraud is an action, while corruption has to do with influence, which is not falsifiable.

Politifact has not done a good job in dismissing evidence of corruption at the convention, because the evidence is debatable in terms of its influence on the party.

Evidence != Proof

Failures of mainstream journalism do not make mainstream journalism a failure. Independent news outlets are more transparent about their bias because they are more inherently biased. I do not see how that makes them a more credible alternative for gathering information.



Arguing over voice vote procedures while ignoring the big picture of Bernie still being apportioned the proper amount of delegates (despite trying to grab more than he was entitled to by the vote) and the majority of his supporters not even showing up at all has got to be the definition of hung on up on technicalities in this case.

No, it's an entirely different argument altogether. I believe that it would only be fair for Hillary to win Nevada, but assembling an undemocratic process for a party convention is a separate issue that I take umbrage with.

So, wait. Is the argument "The chair has a right to call the voice vote if the result is clear to him/her. However, the result wasn't clear to me, therefore ______."? That doesn't really seem like a good argument to me.

No, my argument is that all available evidence suggest that it was not possible for the chair to make a clear determination.

Another example would be if she was sleeping during the vote and then made a determination afterward. She still has the right, but her determination could not possibly have been made fairly.

 

[Chichikov]

No? I basically said a flawed process makes it harder for people to trust the process and as a result, harder for people to trust the results. I don't think that's controversial.

Anyone who looks without bias can clearly see that Hillary will get the nomination because she got more votes that Sanders (you know, democracy).
It's Bernie supporters (and sadly, people in his campaign for some extent) who are seeding that mistrust in the results because they are unhappy with the outcome.

 

[Big Baybee]

Who to trust? Politifact or neoGAF poster brainchild?

 

[JP_]

You have 100 people. 60 of them you know will vote one way. 40 will vote the other. You have to hold some kind of vote. You know the result of the vote already. You hold a voice vote so time isn't wasted because what's the point if you know the results already?

Are you just making this stuff up as you go? You don't know the results already. That's why you take a vote. The rules don't force them to take a bunch of meaningless votes just for the hell of it.

I don't know. Can we?

The ultimate result would have been Clinton winning the two measly delegates this nonsense is about.

The two that the Sanders supporters managed to gain through subversion at the county level.

Stolen.

Which is ultimately what angry young men were angry about leading to aggression and harassment.

At every turn there are baseless calls of corruption. Why wouldn't there be them here regardless of the method?

It's not like Sanders supporters devolve into pure chaos every time they lose. They've accepted unfavorable results without issue just like other camps. I think it's a bit silly to suggest that process has no effect on perception of the outcome.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The vote to adopt the temporary rules as permanent could not possibly be determined by how many people from each side are present in the room. They are not all bound to the same votes.

It can. There were more Hillary people there.

Just because they aren't bound to vote for things in Hillary's favor doesn't mean any of them did. There's no evidence at all this happened, unless you can provide a Clinton delegate who voted against this rule change?

Are you just making this stuff up as you go? You don't know the results already. That's why you take a vote. The rules don't force them to take a bunch of meaningless votes "just because."

You know the results just by how many delegates are in the room and the breakdown of who they represent.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

No, my argument is that all available evidence suggest that it was not possible for the chair to make a clear determination.

Another example would be if she was sleeping during the vote and then made a determination afterward. She still has the right, but her determination could not possibly have been made fairly.

And why was it not possible? Was she out of the room? Did she have headphones in? What is it that makes it impossible for her to make the determination?

 

[brainchild]

Who to trust? Politifact or neoGAF poster brainchild?

Certainly not me. Trust the evidence, wherever it leads, not anyone else's conclusions.

Anyway, I've offered my two cents.

Have fun with this thread, boiled!

 

[Alucrid]

Who to trust? Politifact or neoGAF poster brainchild?

has politifact reviewed six hours of periscope footage?

 

[JP_]

You know the results just by how many delegates are in the room and the breakdown of who they represent.

That's called an estimate. That's not the results. The results are, you know, the actual results of the vote.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

That's called an estimate. That's not the results. The results are, you know, the actual results of the vote.

And it was determined the results of the vote was to adopt the rules.

 

[royalan]

If I understand the rules stated that she makes the determination in the voice vote. If she determined the ayes have it and followed through then she followed the rules. End of.

You, I and anyone who is not her could say, 'oh but obviously the 'no' vote is louder in the video.' But to her maybe it was not, or she discounted the people purposely yelling and trying to up the decibel level which is not what the voice vote is supposed to be.

Whatever factors, it was her job to make a determination, she made one, she followed the rules; there is really no more discussion to be had there about whether she followed rules or not.

I think this is what's causing the confusion, voice votes not being literal shouting matches. They're a broad measure of consensus. And when you're in front of the audience, versus in the audience, it's MUCH easier to get a measure of the general consensus in the room, versus people just screaming their heads off.

 

[Gotchaye]

Anyone who looks without bias can clearly see that Hillary will get the nomination because she got more votes that Sanders (you know, democracy).
It's Bernie supporters (and sadly, people in his campaign for some extent) who are seeding that mistrust in the results because they are unhappy with the outcome.

Yeah I feel like if you're worried about people getting "the impression that the results were compromised" when it should be obvious to everyone that the results are not compromised in any interesting way - the Nevada delegates split exactly the way you'd expect, the delegates overall are splitting just about as you'd expect, the superdelegates are almost certain not to overturn the choice of the majority of voters or the winner of the majority of delegates, etc. - then you should mostly be angry at the people spending a lot of time trying to convince everyone else that the results are compromised.

Like, convention fuckery is nothing new. Go look at what Ron Paul did in 2008. But nobody cared because it doesn't matter - the party drew up some rules to try to make it a bit harder for future Ron Pauls to hijack delegates and that was that.

It is really hard to see what motivates so much anger about this other than people being mad that Sanders is losing and looking to make process complaints instead of dealing with the fact that not enough people want him to be the nominee.

 

[JP_]

And why was it not possible? Was she out of the room? Did she have headphones in? What is it that makes it impossible for her to make the determination?

https://twitter.com/jhfearless/status/731729730211303425

I think most people would find it hard to believe it was a clear vote.

 

[excelsiorlef]

https://twitter.com/jhfearless/status/731729730211303425

I think most people would find it hard to believe it was a clear vote.

One side had more people than the other. Both sides voted along group lines.

 

[boiled goose]

I don't know. Can we?

The ultimate result would have been Clinton winning the two measly delegates this nonsense is about.

The two that the Sanders supporters managed to gain through subversion at the county level.

Stolen.

Which is ultimately what angry young men were angry about leading to aggression and harassment.

At every turn there are baseless calls of corruption. Why wouldn't there be them here regardless of the method? The only acceptable outcome that doesn't mean corruption occurred was Sanders winning.

This post is so full of biased framing it is hilarious.

SUBVERSION, STOLEN. Hey I agree that the multiple tiered convention process and caucuses are extremely silly, but out organizing your opponent at each stage is definitely within the process. Clinton won first stage, Sander gained a bit in second stage, Clinton recovered the difference back at the third stage. That is totally fine!!

"Angry young men" . WTF. In both the video you can clearly hear and see people from both genders clearly upset. In one of the released statement regarding harassment, the perpetrator was a woman. I am not excusing or condoning harrasement AT ALL, but to say that it was "angry young men" is purposefully misleading, dishonest, and agendy driven.

Certainly not me. Trust the evidence, wherever it leads, not anyone else's conclusions.

Anyway, I've offered my two cents.

Have fun with this thread, boiled!

I'm done too. I think we have made our case as clearly as possible.
People can read the arguments and follow the evidence and make up their own minds as honestly as possible.

Finally, the quick dismissal without reading what some of the actual objections have been posted in the thread. Neither brainchild nor I have ever said Sanders should have won.

Having an honest and nuanced discussion is apparently too difficult though.

 

[hawk2025]

"Trust the evidence, wherever it leads" is fantastic advice once we assume that we have a representative sample of the actual evidence, proper separation of cognitive and confirmation bias, and the correct tools to analyze said evidence.

 

[Gotchaye]

I mean, I find it pretty implausible that the chair was actually able to reliably determine the winner of a voice vote without just making assumptions about how people were voting based on her knowledge of who they were there to represent. But I also don't see why I should care about this even a little bit and I feel like someone could fairly mock me for paying way too much attention to this stuff just for having written these sentences.

 

[The Technomancer]

This post is so full of biased framing it is hilarious.

Finally, the quick dismissal without reading what some of the actual objections have been posted in the thread. Neither brainchild nor I have ever said Sanders should have won.

But if you agree that the issue is that Sanders shouldn't have one then, again, the response seems disproportionate to what was "actually at stake"

 

[Orbis Tabula]

https://twitter.com/jhfearless/status/731729730211303425

I think most people would find it hard to believe it was a clear vote.

I'll have to bookmark this to watch later, as I'm at work without headphones. But, I'm gonna make an ass out of myself and assume here that this is a video of how the voice vote doesn't sound clear from the floor? In which case, my response would be that just because a voice vote sounds unclear from one position, that doesn't mean it is impossible for the results to be clear to a person in another position.

 

[damisa]

She still has the right, but her determination could not possibly have been made fairly.

So after days of arguing that you were only mad about the rules and not the result itself, now suddenly you admit it no rules were broken and you're just mad because her perfectly legal judgement seemed unfair because the people shouting louder didn't get what they wanted. Whatever keeping beating this meaningless dead horse and expressing outrage that the minority Bernie supporters that could be bothered to show up couldn't steal delagates. What a high moral ground to stand on

 

[Koomaster]

No, my argument is that all available evidence suggest that it was not possible for the chair to make a clear determination.

I feel like we're talking in circles here but again this your opinion. To you who have seen the footage, you cannot make a clear determination. To her, who was there and had the power to do so, she was able to make a determination and did.

You can't say; 'Oh you have the power to decide who wins.' and then when that person chooses one side over the other you come back and say; 'Nope nope nope, I don't agree, you didn't do it right, you cheated!'