Due to Delegate Absences, Bernie Sanders May Have Just "Won" Nevada - Polidicks

[media]https://twitter.com/ClarkDems/status/716419889930481664[/media] [quote]Almost 600 more people showed up to support the Vermont senator than did those to support former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Of the almost 9,000 delegates elected on caucus day in February, 3,825 showed up to the convention at Cashman Center today. The final vote count, after two 10-minute realignment periods, was 2,964 for Sanders and 2,386 for Clinton. Each will now send a number of delegates proportional with those totals to the state convention, for a total of 2,911 delegates from Clark County. In the February caucuses, Clinton had won 4,889 delegates to the county convention, while Sanders had won 4,026.[/quote] [url]http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/apr/02/sanders-wins-most-delegates-at-clark-county-conven/[/url] The above results are for Clark County, which holds about 70% of Nevada's population. If this were to stay true through the state convention (which it may not, if a recount is called and produces different results), Bernie would likely end up with more total state delegates than Hillary, resulting in a "win" in the state for him. As far as I can tell, what happened is: 5,357 total delegates showed up to the Clark County Democratic Convention (as of the last count) to represent the voters of each candidate. Originally, about 9,000 people signed up to be delegates. Not enough showed up in support of Clinton, so Sanders had the most delegates at the convention. The party officials tried to stall the final tally to get enough Sanders delegates to leave, so that Clinton would be in the majority and win the county. That didn't happen, therefore, Sanders technically won the county, which combined with his win of Washoe county, could potentially swing a win for the state to him if enough of these delegates go to the state convention. [i](I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS, THIS IS HOW I'M INTERPRETING WHAT HAPPENED. IF SOMEONE KNOWS THIS ISN'T RIGHT PLEASE CORRECT ME AND I WILL EDIT IT)[/i]

What is so hard about just having a direct popular vote? Yes, you could say that the system the Democrats use today is an evolution of the previous system where the people now known as superdelegates choose the party nominee. But even then, what the Labor party does here for determining federal party leader is to give half of the voting power to registered party members, and the other half of the voting power to elected party members.

parties nominate their own candidates, so they can do whatever they want ruleswise

[QUOTE=person11;50057224]parties nominate their own candidates, so they can do whatever they want ruleswise[/QUOTE] True but in this case hillary's delegates didn't show up and vote.

Good.

This type of shit shouldn't be happening regardless of who benefits from it.

[QUOTE=person11;50057224]parties nominate their own candidates, so they can do whatever they want ruleswise[/QUOTE] This is--to my understanding--at present true, but there's nothing stopping the federal government from deciding to regulate the shit-show that is the party nomination process. These elections affect the entire country, states/parties having these dumb as shit rules/processes shouldn't be allowed.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50057297]Good.[/QUOTE] Had this happened to Bernie, you guys would be making conspiracy theories as to why they didn't show and demanding a do over

I feel like at least one of those delegates straight up switched sides and refused to cast their vote, which is pretty messed up democracy wise, even if it benefited bernie. [editline]2nd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50057326]Had this happened to Bernie, you guys would be making conspiracy theories as to why they didn't show[/QUOTE] This whole election is a shit show. Being pleased with where the cards fall doesn't mean your happy with the game of 52 pickup.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50057297]Good.[/QUOTE] It's good for democracy to be undermined, as long as it's your preferred candidate who comes out on top?

[QUOTE=DaMastez;50057322]This is--to my understanding--at present true, but there's nothing stopping the federal government from deciding to regulate the shit-show that is the party nomination process. These elections affect the entire country, states/parties having these dumb as shit rules/processes shouldn't be allowed.[/QUOTE] depends on your point of view countries all around the world have different degrees of people's input in determining party nominees/leaders for example the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the Labour Party leader in the UK was the first time the party did so in a completely democratic way among Labour supporters also: some parties are too small to set up primary elections and just have the same candidates, like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson

[QUOTE=DaMastez;50057322]This is--to my understanding--at present true, but there's nothing stopping the federal government from deciding to regulate the shit-show that is the party nomination process. These elections affect the entire country, states/parties having these dumb as shit rules/processes shouldn't be allowed.[/QUOTE] It's not really a federal matter though. Primaries and caucuses are the internal workings of each political party, it should be left to the parties to determine how exactly they want to go about selecting a candidate.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057354]It's not really a federal matter though. Primaries and caucuses are the internal workings of each political party, it should be left to the parties to determine how exactly they want to go about selecting a candidate.[/QUOTE] There is so little actual democracy left in America. The house is plagued by gerrymandering, corporations can make unlimited contributions and form super PACs, the last thing we need are the primaries for the fucking presidency becoming filled with anti-democratic fuckery because we haven't been diligent enough in preventing that from happening.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;50057311]This type of shit shouldn't be happening regardless of who benefits from it.[/QUOTE] Hillary's supporters should have showed up then.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057354]It's not really a federal matter though. Primaries and caucuses are the internal workings of each political party, it should be left to the parties to determine how exactly they want to go about selecting a candidate.[/QUOTE] You say that as though the parties don't have a gross deal of control over who becomes president of the US. They both have the ability to ignore the will of the people and choose their own candidates, and due to the power the status quo of the system offers, the president will almost without exception be one of those two chosen individuals. What about that is democratic?

Also, I had no idea delegates were actual people. I thought they were some score system. What does your vote even mean?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50057394]Also, I had no idea delegates were actual people. I thought they were some score system. What does your vote even mean?[/QUOTE] Ideally, the delegates you help choose show up and vote the way you want, but they didn't show up. These are county convention delegates which help choose how the state delegates vote btw.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50057394]Also, I had no idea delegates were actual people. I thought they were some score system. What does your vote even mean?[/QUOTE] Not very much. When actually voting for the president, if your state votes for the candidate you don't your vote is essentially void. Worse than void actually, because it gets counted towards the candidate you didn't choose.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;50057375]There is so little actual democracy left in America. The house is plagued by gerrymandering, corporations can make unlimited contributions and form super PACs, the last thing we need are the primaries for the fucking presidency becoming filled with anti-democratic fuckery because we haven't been diligent enough in preventing that from happening.[/QUOTE] But they're already undemocratic by design. The majority of primaries are already closed off as it is. The problem lies not in the primaries, but in the partisanship of American politics itself. All the primaries are is a bunch of Democrats and Republicans getting together to choose who their candidate for the election will be, but by nature of the American political system they take on this major role that they were never intended to have.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50057326]Had this happened to Bernie, you guys would be making conspiracy theories as to why they didn't show and demanding a do over[/QUOTE] Duh. Nobody says Hillary's supporters shouldn't be upset. I'm just happy because I voted for Bernie?? ?? Let me be happy. [editline]2nd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sb27;50057341]It's good for democracy to be undermined, as long as it's your preferred candidate who comes out on top?[/QUOTE] Boy.

The delegate system is something from a time without digitalized records, when it was actually more reliable to group votes into smaller sets of individuals who act as physical proof of those small votes. A delegate in that sense represents a group of voters and casts all their votes with the delegate's presence. In a digital age it is perverse. [editline]2nd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057401]But they're already undemocratic by design. The majority of primaries are already closed off as it is. The problem lies not in the primaries, but in the partisanship of American politics itself. All the primaries are is a bunch of Democrats and Republicans getting together to choose who their candidate for the election will be, but by nature of the American political system they take on this major role that they were never intended to have.[/QUOTE] "broken democracies are not the problem"

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50057326]Had this happened to Bernie, you guys would be making conspiracy theories as to why they didn't show and demanding a do over[/QUOTE] had this happened to Bernie, the united states would nuke canada, vladimir putin would sell russia to a young ukrainian child, and the south would rise again. you see how easy it is to make wild claims with nothing on the table other than your bias

[QUOTE=bitches;50057408]The delegate system is something from a time without digitalized records, when it was actually more reliable to group votes into smaller sets of individuals who act as physical proof of those small votes. A delegate in that sense represents a group of voters and casts all their votes with the delegate's presence. In a digital age it is perverse. [editline]2nd April 2016[/editline] "broken democracies are not the problem"[/QUOTE] If you think eliminating caucuses are going to cure the ails of American democracy, you might as well throw in the towel now.

[QUOTE=sb27;50057341]It's good for democracy to be undermined, as long as it's your preferred candidate who comes out on top?[/QUOTE] Unless there was actual evidence that there was some sort of delegate suppression, then there is nothing wrong with this happening. Democracy wasn't undermined here. It's like complaining that democracy is undermined because people refuse to vote. I will fully admit that there is something wrong with Bernie Sanders and/or bias towards bernie sanders if there is actual evidence that this happened because of Bernie Sanders or bias towards bernie sanders.

But what happen if those missing delegates show up at Nevada's state convention on May 14 and 15. Do their votes still count?

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057429]If you think eliminating caucuses are going to cure the ails of American democracy, you might as well throw in the towel now.[/QUOTE] so you're for addressing the real issues while simultaneously believing that party management choosing the president instead of citizens, and massive vote erasure via outdated models, are perfectly fine because "it was already broken"

Also just fyi for the thread, there is some executive level controversy happening regarding the Chair. I apologize for the sovereign citizen level recording but it tells us that there is something going on. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSGSMbD-EVk[/media] [url]http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/bernie-sanders-wins-nevada-flips-clark-county-convention-las-vegas-delegates-arrested-clinton-videos/[/url]

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50057425]had this happened to Bernie, the united states would nuke canada, vladimir putin would sell russia to a young ukrainian child, and the south would rise again. you see how easy it is to make wild claims with nothing on the table other than your bias[/QUOTE] I'm not saying anything happened. Just that based from past events, Bernie supporters are quick to make claims as to why he's losing. And what bias are you talking about? I'm neutral on the whole thing.

[QUOTE=bitches;50057485]so you're for addressing the real issues while simultaneously believing that party management choosing the president instead of citizens is perfectly fine because "it was already broken"[/QUOTE] It's not "party management", the delegates are elected from the winners of the caucuses. They're normal people that volunteered to be there. Only Hillary's didn't show up.

[QUOTE=patq911;50057504]It's not "party management", the delegates are elected from the winners of the caucuses. They're normal people that volunteered to be there. Only Hillary's didn't show up.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about the delegate situation from this particular piece of news. I was referring to the fact that our parties are legally allowed to completely ignore caucus votes. Superdelegates for the democrats, and literal "we chose this guy instead" for the republicans.