Support NeoGAF

[Frankfurter]

Eh, it just plays out weird because Wyoming has so few people and has only one congressional district.

Yeah, I get that. But I don't get why it has to be so complicated to begin with. Why split it up into 3 seperate delegate "classes", how is that making the system better (maybe it does, I don't know)?

-> Wyoming has 14 delegates, Sanders wins 56%, therefore gets 8, Clintons wins 44%, therefore gets 6. Easy, makes sense, represents the will of those who voted pretty well.
Those 4 other delegates would go to Clinton anyway I guess.

 

[Foffy]

People are mad at the math, not math in general.

Speak for yourself! Numbers is always puttin' the man in his place.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Yeah, I get that. But I don't get why it has to be so complicated to begin with. Why split it up into 3 seperate delegate "classes", how is that making the system better (maybe it does, I don't know)?

The DNC's proportional delegate assignment is the exact same for every state. It just works a little weird for the few states that only have one congressional district.

 

[kmag]

Yes and if you read my post you'll see I said that if they want to fix it, during an election isn't the time. He should have started years ago. You can't fix a system and run in it at the same time.

It'd be hard for him to argue the Democratic party should change it's system pre running for their nominee as President as you know he wasn't actually in the party at that time.

 

[Moppeh]

I think that's precisely the issue as many see it, though.

That's fine, I'm just correcting you, is all.

And in this specific situation, having them be assigned by state voting would still result in a massive Clinton lead.

 

[E-Cat]

This is not democracy. Get your shit together, America.

 

[Suikoguy]

Yes and if you read my post you'll see I said that if they want to fix it, during an election isn't the time. He should have started years ago. You can't fix a system and run in it at the same time.

One of Sander's campaign staff is actually the de facto creator of the system in the first place.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ter-democratic-nomination-fight-again-n516891

Also some more background on the doublespeak from the Sanders campaign that is fueling all of this bullshit:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-campaign-tries-to-have-1404877438296118.html

This is not democracy. Get your shit together, America.

Thanks for not bothering to read any of the thread before responding!

 

[Joni]

This is not democracy. Get your shit together, America.

It doesn't need to be. The election hasn't started. This is just a party selecting its candidate.

 

[StopMakingSense]

This is not democracy. Get your shit together, America.

What's your country's process for nominating its party leaders?

 

[E-Cat]

It doesn't need to be. The election hasn't started. This is just a party selecting its candidate.

But why let the public vote on it at all if not everyone's vote is worth the same?

 

[mclem]

I'm sure there's a fair few Republicans gazing wistfully across the aisle and wishing they had a superdelegate system of their own.

But why let the public vote on it at all if not everyone's vote is worth the same?

What countries do have a truly equally-balanced vote, anyway? I know we in the UK don't for our general elections, for one thing; the US's electoral college system effectively weights votes, too.

 

[goomba]

It doesn't need to be. The election hasn't started. This is just a party selecting its candidate.

so why have the primaries at all? Just let the parties select their leaders internally like most countries do. it seems that is what they do behind the scenes anyway so why bother with a long drawn out circus like this ?

 

[Foffy]

I'm sure there's a fair few Republicans gazing wistfully across the aisle and wishing they had a superdelegate system of their own.

It'd kill Trump, surely.

Good thing they don't have it. Republicans, as they are, need to be burned to ashes regarding political clout.

 

[StopMakingSense]

But why let the public vote on it at all if not everyone's vote is worth the same?

Man, there is a 100ish year history to the presidential primary process that would explain why it's so weird. Hell, there weren't even binding primaries prior to 1970. Even then, only 14 states even ever had them.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

But why let the public vote on it at all if not everyone's vote is worth the same?

Clinton has the support of so many superdelegates at this point because she's so far ahead in the national popular vote. If Sanders doesn't like that, perhaps he should have actually campaigned in the south.

Superdelegates break toward the national leader, as they should (doing it any other way could lead to a stalemate). But even if they were portioned out on a state by state basis like pledged delegates, Clinton would still be ahead.

so why have the primaries at all? Just let the parties select their leaders internally like most countries do. it seems that is what they do behind the scenes anyway so why bother with a long drawn out circus like this ?

Really? The party is picking Clinton? You're sure it has nothing to do with her massive popular vote lead over Sanders nationwide?

 

[E-Cat]

I'm sure there's a fair few Republicans gazing wistfully across the aisle and wishing they had a superdelegate system of their own.



What countries do have a truly equally-balanced vote, anyway? I know we in the UK don't for our general elections, for one thing; the US's electoral college system effectively weights votes, too.

In Finland, the person who gets the most votes becomes president.

 

[Rehynn]

so why have the primaries at all? Just let the parties select their leaders internally like most countries do. it seems that is what they do behind the scenes anyway so why bother with a long drawn out circus like this ?

They allow parties to vet potential nominees with the participation of voters before the general election to see who would be the best candidate.

 

[teruterubozu]

Man, there is a 100ish year history to the presidential primary process that would explain why it's so weird. Hell, there weren't even binding primaries prior to 1970. Even then, only 14 states even ever had them.

And now it's a big TV ratings boon. Shit is here to stay.

 

[StopMakingSense]

In Finland, the person who gets the most votes becomes president.

Um. This is not the actual presidential election, this is the party selecting it's candidate.

How do the parties in Finland select their candidates?

This is the analog.

 

[malfcn]

14*.56=7.84, why round down?

 

[E-Cat]

How does the party select it's candidate.

This is the analog.

Internally, but that's hardly the point. When there's a public election, it's a public election with none of this delegate/superdelegate BS.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Not having the party behind you though is about the same as having a 0% chance of getting the nomination, therefore having the party behind you becomes a pretty crucial element of the process anyway.

Right which means playing by their rules. I mean we're openly mocking the fact that the GOP is going to bend over backwards probably to change all their rules to stop Trump yet some people seem to think the Democrats ought to change any rule in the book that isn't helping Sanders whilst ignoring the fact that for example caucuses are one of the only reasons Sanders is still around.

 

[StopMakingSense]

14*.56=7.84, why round down?

Read my explanation on the last page.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Internally, but that's hardly the point. When there's a public election, it's a public election with none of this delegate/superdelegate BS.

It's not a public election. It is a parties own selection process for it's presidential candidate.

 

[soundscream]

Holding out hope for another Michigan. Also, a record 6 million people have given money to the campaign, so he's basically obligated to continue as he has.

This movement didn't start with Sanders and it won't end with him. This election cycle is just a taste of things to come. The Baby Boomers are dropping like flies, and their kids and grandkids don't have the stupid Red Scare ingrained in their memories.

What movement?

 

[E-Cat]

It's not a public election. It is a parties own selection process for it's presidential candidate.

So, why is the public voting?

 

[lednerg]

Clinton has the support of so many superdelegates at this point because she's so far ahead in the national popular vote. If Sanders doesn't like that, perhaps he should have actually campaigned in the south.

Superdelegates break toward the national leader, as they should (doing it any other way could lead to a stalemate). But even if they were portioned out on a state by state basis like pledged delegates, Clinton would still be ahead.

SD's are by and far people loyal to the DNC. That's the whole point of them.

 

[StopMakingSense]

SD's are by and far people loyal to the DNC. That's the whole point of them.

SDs are merely a firewall to prevent against this:

 

[ClosingADoor]

So, why is the public voting?

To nominate the presidential candidate for their party. Some states have closed elections, so only registered democrats can vote, others have open ones. That is up to the party itself to decide.

 

[Suikoguy]

Clinton has the support of so many superdelegates at this point because she's so far ahead in the national popular vote. If Sanders doesn't like that, perhaps he should have actually campaigned in the south.

Superdelegates break toward the national leader, as they should (doing it any other way could lead to a stalemate). But even if they were portioned out on a state by state basis like pledged delegates, Clinton would still be ahead.



Really? The party is picking Clinton? You're sure it has nothing to do with her massive popular vote lead over Sanders nationwide?

I don't think this is accurate. This primary started with a significant number of Supers backing Clinton. Which is no surprise, as she has been an active Democrat forever now, and has many relationships with many of the Supers, and was a close runner up in the 2008 primary. The majority of the media, however, has not included those Supers when talking about the state of the race. Unless you are a Republican on a certain morning show on CNN that is wanting to stir shit up for your own benefit.

 

[Clefargle]

Internally, but that's hardly the point. When there's a public election, it's a public election with none of this delegate/superdelegate BS.

The one with the most Superdelegates is currently leading the popular vote by millions. Soooooo

 

[E-Cat]

The one with the most Superdelegates is currently leading the popular vote by millions. Soooooo

So, you're saying it's ok because it just happens to be that the two align?

I'm also not only talking about the primaries, the electoral college cockblocked Al Gore's win in 2000 even though he had the majority of the popular vote.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I also love complaints about democracy and super delegates from the campaign whose literal strategy is:

1) every super delegates in states Sanders won has to vote for Sanders because it's the will of the state

2) super delegates in states Hillary win should vote for Sanders because he's better


The utter hypocrisy in that statement and these complaints is amusing, but also sad.

I think that's either misinterpreting or misrepresenting what they have said. From what I've seen it's more that they say they won't give up because if Superdelegates switch after they win states it will make the gap less daunting. As it is the current race looks like this;

"Total" Delegates:
Clinton: 1790
Sanders: 1113

That's a big difference, and people don't like voting for losing candidates. But if we look at just delegates earned from Primaries\Caucuses:

Pledged Delegates
Clinton: 1304
Sanders: 1075

The gap shrinks from 677 to 229. That difference--according to the Sanders campaign--affects peoples perception of the race. It also means that there are disproportionately more Super's on Clinton's side compared to what the votes\caucuses represent. I've also seen that allegedly Hillary has gotten 3m+ more votes than Bernie anyway, so it's irrelevant. But lets look at that claim, because a lot of Caucuses only report the amount of wards won by each candidate or congressional districts, so those are almost impossible to get legitimate vote totals for, and even when they do count it in some states you have to wait weeks or months for the totals to come out. So lets just look at Primaries--which Clinton has won more of.;

Primary Votes For Hillary Clinton: 9,233,997
Primary Votes For Bernie Sanders: 6,686,172
Total Votes: 15,920,169

So that Narrative is only factoring in Primary results, not Caucuses--unless you're going to claim that somehow despite losing a majority of the caucuses Hillary has maintained the exact same lead or even pulled away (since the difference from just Primaries is 2,547,825). When factoring in all this it's very likely that the popular vote advantage Hillary has is less than people claim, and the Pledged Delegate count is actually pretty reflective of the will of the American People.

 

[Moff]

So, why is the public voting?

to make it a little more democratic than simply a 100% internal decision like in most countries, yours included

 

[hammysaurusrex]

"I made an 87%, so how come I didn't get an A?"

"The cut-off for an A is 90%"

"You don't understand though, that person with an 83% also got a B and I did better than them - so I'm suppose to get an A"

 

[Suikoguy]

So, you're saying it's ok because it just happens to be that the two align?

I'm also not only talking about the primaries, the electoral college cockblocked Al Gore's win in 2000 even though he had the majority of the popular vote.

Where are you from? You don't seem to have any understanding of the US political process if you are comparing the electoral college with US Political Primaries.

 

[lednerg]

SDs are merely a firewall to prevent against this:

That's not what's going on these days, though:

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/719483176100372480

Poll of who people would definitely not vote for:

Clinton: 49%
Sanders: 37%
Trump: 63%
Cruz: 55%
Kasich: 46%​

 

[ClosingADoor]

So, you're saying it's ok because it just happens to be that the two align?

I'm also not only talking about the primaries, the electoral college cockblocked Al Gore's win in 2000 even though he had the majority of of the popular vote.

Super delegates are the parties own concern. It is how they decide to nominate their candidate. In most cases the super delegates vote with the front runner. But it can protect against things like Trump taking over, which would not be in the interest of the party. I see little wrong with that.

The Al Gore thing is a separate issue from that.

 

[Machina]

Is anyone really surprised? Citizens United was the final nail in Democracies coffin in America.

 

[Joni]

So, why is the public voting?

In Finland, I assume that the members of the party can vote on their leader when there is a party election? In the USA, it is similar, the country is just a lot bigger and they turn it into a media circus. What happens in an afternoon in Finland, is a months long process in the USA.

 

[Suikoguy]

Is anyone really surprised? Citizens United was the final nail in Democracies coffin in America.

Wow just wow, this has absolutely nothing to do with Citizens United. Did you even read the OP, let alone any of the thread before posting?

 

[Gotchaye]

Is anyone really surprised? Citizens United was the final nail in Democracies coffin in America.

tbh the story of this primary on both sides is that you can do a great job fundraising but still get your ass kicked come the actual election.

 

[goomba]

Clinton has the support of so many superdelegates at this point because she's so far ahead in the national popular vote. If Sanders doesn't like that, perhaps he should have actually campaigned in the south.

Superdelegates break toward the national leader, as they should (doing it any other way could lead to a stalemate). But even if they were portioned out on a state by state basis like pledged delegates, Clinton would still be ahead.



Really? The party is picking Clinton? You're sure it has nothing to do with her massive popular vote lead over Sanders nationwide?

Didnt Clinton win the popular vote in 2008 ?

Superdelegates switched to Obama, the reasoning for these party bosses leaving Clinton was summed up by an Arizona Democratic Party official quoted in The New York Times:

“Senator Barack Obama is strengthening the Democratic Party by bringing in new voters, young and old, into the process,” Ms. Fernandez said in a statement released by the Obama campaign. “ I believe Senator Obama has the best ability to win the White House in November and lead this country forward.”
Ms. Fernandez was Mr. Obama’ s 241st superdelegate endorsement...

Following that same reasoning, they may switch to Bernie this time.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Internally, but that's hardly the point. When there's a public election, it's a public election with none of this delegate/superdelegate B

This isn't a public election. It's not even a primary. It's a closed caucus. Only Democrats are allowed to participate. It's also run by the party, not by the state. It's private.

And it isn't for the national convention, these are delegates from each precinct who will go to the party's county convention. The county convention usually happens a couple weeks later.

And no, the county convention doesn't elect delegates to the national convention either. They go to the Wyoming Democratic Convention. That is on May 28th. They are the ones that elect delegates for the Democratic National Convention.

As far as delegate splits, it has to do with the size of Wyoming. It is small. Super small. It is the smallest state in the union, with only 586,000 people.

 

[Suikoguy]

tbh the story of this primary on both sides is that you can do a great job fundraising but still get your ass kicked come the actual election.

True, when it comes to Presidential contests at least, SuperPacs don't seem to do shit. Now, that does not seem to hold the further down to the micro level you go in government races.

 

[Joni]

Didnt Clinton win the popular vote in 2008 ?

Superdelegates switched to Obama, the reasoning for these party bosses leaving Clinton was summed up by an Arizona Democratic Party official quoted in The New York Times:

Following that same reasoning, they may switch to Bernie this time.

They switched to the person who had won the delegate count with superdelegates. Hillary could have won if the superdelegates stayed with her, but she would have less regular ones.

 

[Machina]

Wow just wow, this has absolutely nothing to do with Citizens United. Did you even read the OP, let alone any of the thread before posting?

Who the hell do you think Clinton's super delegates are?

 

[Suikoguy]

Who the hell do you think Clinton's super delegates are?

Wait, are you being serious or trolling?

 

[Gattsu25]

Because that's not how the math works in the actual way delegates are determined. It is broken up in a way that breaks toward Hillary. It's also simplified because WY only has one congressional district.

(the percentage is separately run against At Large, CD, and bound PLEO delegate totals, then added up)

There are 8 CD delegates, 55.7% for B gives him 4.457 Delegates to 3.543. Rounded to 4-4

There are 4 At-Large delegates, 55.7% for B gives him 2.23 to 1.77. Rounded to 2-2.

There are 2 Bound PLEO delegates, 55.7% for B gives him 1.12 to 0.88. Rounded to 1-1.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WY-D

Thanks for this post. Finally the math makes sense on this vote.

One of Sander's campaign staff is actually the de facto creator of the system in the first place.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ter-democratic-nomination-fight-again-n516891

Also some more background on the doublespeak from the Sanders campaign that is fueling all of this bullshit:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-campaign-tries-to-have-1404877438296118.html



Thanks for not bothering to read any of the thread before responding!

Interesting reads. Second link in particular

 

[excelsiorlef]

I also love complaints about democracy and super delegates from the campaign whose literal strategy is:

1) every super delegates in states Sanders won has to vote for Sanders because it's the will of the state

2) super delegates in states Hillary win should vote for Sanders because he's better


The utter hypocrisy in that statement and these complaints is amusing, but also sad.

and

3) The South doesn't count.

What's your country's process for nominating its party leaders?

Yeah seriously, I'm Canadian, party leaders are selected usually a a convention here, often on a one day or one week vote, and limited to party members only.

For example only 300,000 people were able to select Trudeau as leader of the Liberal party, but frankly party leadership should be more closed off than a general election.