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

[QUOTE=bitches;50057511]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.[/QUOTE] Well I'm not endorsing superdelegates, but they have never gone against the popular vote. When or if they ever do I'll be the first one to riot.

[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] My point is that its not broken. Parties should have control over who their candidate is going to be in a presidential election because it is the party that has a vested interest in who their candidate will be, both as citizens and as members of the party. Are primaries preferable to caucuses? Sure, superdelegates have more-or-less eliminated their purpose as it is, but to wail that the system is undemocratic is a tad much when the processes of choosing a candidate were intended to be undemocratic and even in a primary system remain undemocratic. I mean, how democratic do you want to go with this? Should indpendent voters get a say in who should lead a party they have no commitment to? Should Republicans get to vote for a candidate they have no intention of voting for in the general election? You want to talk about democracy? When Trudeau ran for leadership of the LPC, 300 000 Canadians were eligible to vote in the leadership election and less than 150 000 actually bothered to do so. Compare that to the American system, where candidates spend half a year traversing the country appealing to voters in every state. Which one of these systems sounds more democratic?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50057496]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] Someone who is neutral, or isn't trying to stir up shit, wouldn't say something as daft as "if this was x group, then everyone would've done x" A true bernie sanders supporter wouldn't make claims that clinton was responsible for all this without actual evidence. If anyone made the claim that Hillary Clinton / Hillary Clinton Bias is responsible for what happened in Arizona then they're doing it because they irrationally hate clinton, not because they support bernie.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057528]My point is that its not broken. Parties should have control over who their candidate is going to be in a presidential election because it is the party that has a vested interest in who their candidate will be, both as citizens and as members of the party. Are primaries preferable to caucuses? Sure, superdelegates have more-or-less eliminated their purpose as it is, but to wail that the system is undemocratic is a tad much when the processes of choosing a candidate were intended to be undemocratic and even in a primary system remain undemocratic. I mean, how democratic do you want to go with this? Should indpendent voters get a say in who should lead a party they have no commitment to? Should Republicans get to vote for a candidate they have no intention of voting for in the general election? You want to talk about democracy? When Trudeau ran for leadership of the LPC, 300 000 Canadians were eligible to vote in the leadership election and less than 150 000 actually bothered to do so. Compare that to the American system, where candidates spend half a year traversing the country appealing to voters in every state. Which one of these systems sounds more democratic?[/QUOTE] So your point is that democracies should not be ran democratically therefore the undemocratic situation is fine?

[media]https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/716290819766943744[/media] I don't know if this this tweet was made before or after the call that Bernie Sanders won Nevada, but this is certainly saying something if it was made after the call.

[QUOTE=bitches;50057555]So your point is that democracies should not be ran democratically therefore the undemocratic situation is fine?[/QUOTE] My point is that the Republican and Democratic primaries are not the core of American democracy. They're internal mechanisms for Republicans and Democrats to chose their candidates. Don't like the choices offered by either party? Go and vote third party.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057568]My point is that the Republican and Democratic primaries are not the core of American democracy. They're internal mechanisms for Republicans and Democrats to chose their candidates. Don't like the choices offered by either party? Go and vote third party.[/QUOTE] I'll take that as a yes.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057568] Don't like the choices offered by either party? Go and vote third party.[/QUOTE] Do you actually believe this recommendation is useful? If third party votes mattered in a presidential race then Bernie would have run independent.

Third party doesn't work with the current voting system. People mostly vote because they don't want the other side to win.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50057562][media]https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/716290819766943744[/media] I don't know if this this tweet was made before or after the call that Bernie Sanders won Nevada, but this is certainly saying something if it was made after the call.[/QUOTE] That was quite a while before the call was made.

[QUOTE=Aztec;50057638]Do you actually believe this recommendation is useful? If third party votes mattered in a presidential race then Bernie would have run independent.[/QUOTE] Exactly, and that's the problem. Not the Democrat and Republican primaries. If the American political system supported the ability for third parties to actually play a role, it would matter a lot less who ended up as the nominee from the Democrats and the Republicans. Changing how each party chooses its candidates won't help if the system itself relegates you to choosing between the lesser of two evils every time.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057680]Exactly, and that's the problem. Not the Democrat and Republican primaries. If the American political system supported the ability for third parties to actually play a role, it would matter a lot less who ended up as the nominee from the Democrats and the Republicans. Changing how each party chooses its candidates won't help if the system itself relegates you to choosing between the lesser of two evils every time.[/QUOTE] Ok but the democratic and republican parties control about 100% of all government positions lol. They have a stake in making sure the system doesn't change

From what I'm seeing, this will end up earning Bernie around five net delegates. Caucuses are fucking weird. Sanders also lost a fair number of delegates, even with the flip. I wonder why they didn't show.

[QUOTE=rilez;50057688]From what I'm seeing, this will end up earning Bernie around five net delegates. Caucuses are fucking weird. Sanders also lost a fair number of delegates, even with the flip. I wonder why they didn't show.[/QUOTE] Potentially this, surprised it wasn't mentioned yet. [img]http://media.fyre.co/cF3kmpsWRyuq1NsHZOPu_12294706_1039687689410129_6815153704268100619_n.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Aztec;50057687]Ok but the democratic and republican parties control about 100% of all government positions lol. They have a stake in making sure the system doesn't change[/QUOTE] I agree completely. I just find it silly to bemoan the whole processes of primaries as undemocratic when the whole system reduces you to two choices anyway. As nice as it would be to have each parties' candidate chosen directly by the people, it ignores the elephant in the room entirely, and you'd still get huge proportions of the population left feeling that their vote won't really matter. Besides, its a huge reach to say the Fed should have a role in determining how each political party selects its candidate when all other reforms to the process have come from within the parties themselves. The only way it could be done fairly is with bipartisan support, which is unlikely to happen anyway.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057715]I agree completely. I just find it silly to bemoan the whole processes of primaries as undemocratic when the whole system reduces you to two choices anyway. As nice as it would be to have each parties' candidate chosen directly by the people, it ignores the elephant in the room entirely, and you'd still get huge proportions of the population left feeling that their vote won't really matter. Besides, its a huge reach to say the Fed should have a role in determining how each political party selects its candidate when all other reforms to the process have come from within the parties themselves. The only way it could be done fairly is with bipartisan support, which is unlikely to happen anyway.[/QUOTE] So why are you consistently advocating not solving [I]any[/I] of the problem, just because there are more problems? Do you think we don't [I]know[/I] that there is more fucked up with American democracy than party management controlling who can and can't hold office? Also, nice job shifting goalposts to save face on lack of understanding our politics.

Given that the actual general election is so fucked up, it makes sense for party nomination elections to follow a similarly fucked-up procedure. The end goal of the process is to nominate a candidate that follows the platform of the party, and will stand greatest chance of election. That's why primaries are only open to registered voters - people who can't vote in the general election are ignored, even though many of them probably [I]should[/I] have the right to vote and should have their voices heard. All else being equal, if a party has to choose between a candidate who would get the greatest majority vote, or the one who will get the most electoral college delegates, they should go for the latter. In an ideal world, the presidential election would be a majority vote of some sort (a Condorcet method would be best, but instant-runoff would also be better than simple plurality voting) - and in that ideal world, party nominations should work the same way. Now, nominees have some different criteria for success compared to presidents, so it does make sense to add some other factors. The superdelegate system does make sense - all else being equal, you do want to prefer a candidate who has establishment favor over a complete outsider. I do think it is a mistake for superdelegates to declare their choices so early, since that unfairly influences voters... but it also seems like a mistake to not have all the primaries at once, so maybe I'm missing something. That said, I don't even understand what the hell is going on in Nevada. Anyone have a primer on their procedures?

snip no automerge

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057715]I agree completely. I just find it silly to bemoan the whole processes of primaries as undemocratic when the whole system reduces you to two choices anyway. As nice as it would be to have each parties' candidate chosen directly by the people, it ignores the elephant in the room entirely, and you'd still get huge proportions of the population left feeling that their vote won't really matter. Besides, its a huge reach to say the Fed should have a role in determining how each political party selects its candidate when all other reforms to the process have come from within the parties themselves. The only way it could be done fairly is with bipartisan support, which is unlikely to happen anyway.[/QUOTE] Your original point sounded like because the GOP and DNC aren't actual extensions of the government, they have the right to do whatever they want, but they are pretty much extensions of the government because the officials they elect make up the entirety of all branches of the government. So it would seem to me they should be treated less like associations independent from the government and more like associations of direct association to the government.

[QUOTE=Aztec;50057736]Your original point sounded like because the GOP and DNC aren't actual extensions of the government, they have the right to do whatever they want, but they are pretty much extensions of the government because the officials they elect make up the entirety of all branches of the government. So it would seem to me they should be treated less like associations independent from the government and more like associations of direct association to the government.[/QUOTE] My point is still the same. They aren't extensions of the government. Reforming the primary system is not a federal matter. And the candidate selection process does not need to be, nor should it be, wholly democratic. The party should retain some degree of control over who is going to lead it into an election.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057755]nor should it be, wholly democratic[/QUOTE] Agree to disagree I guess. It's my opinion that all elections should be democratic in a democracy.

[QUOTE=Aztec;50057761]Agree to disagree I guess. It's my opinion that all elections should be democratic in a democracy.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. I just don't see the primaries as being real elections at their core, but mechanisms for Republicans and Democrats to chose what horse they'll back in the actual election that matters.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057781]Fair enough. I just don't see the primaries as being real elections at their core, but mechanisms for Republicans and Democrats to chose what horse they'll back in the actual election that matters.[/QUOTE] I think of the primaries as very much a gateway to dismiss all candidates other than Democrats and Republicans and allowing them free reign to tailor a system that only benefits them has shown to be a failure of democracy. Bernie is proof of this, the rules of the DNC directly push against populist left leaning candidates. The first dozen states were conservative, the superdelegates all flock to the party favorite, etc. The issue is, even if Bernie doesn't win, the fact that he has won a dozen states and is slated to win more (some of which by landslides) proves he has a legitimate voter base which would not be represented in the polls [B]at all[/B] if he had run as an independent. This means he was forced to run as a democrat if he wanted a leg in the race at all. Like I said before, there is no chance of reforming this without electing an outsider because the entire government is controlled by DNC and GOP elected officials. But you can't actually elect an outsider because the DNC and GOP primaries weed them out.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057755]My point is still the same. They aren't extensions of the government. Reforming the primary system is not a federal matter. And the candidate selection process does not need to be, nor should it be, wholly democratic. The party should retain some degree of control over who is going to lead it into an election.[/QUOTE] They have effective control that makes them a vital extension of how our government operates. Either they need regulation or they need less power. We won't have them hold less power without abolishing them entirely because they are designed to act as an extension of our governmental election process. They literally decide (they being a handful of individuals with corporate interests), between the two, who can or can't be president. That makes them an extension of the government, in name or not.

[QUOTE=Aztec;50057793]I think of the primaries as very much a gateway to dismiss all candidates other than Democrats and Republicans and allowing them free reign to tailor a system that only benefits them has shown to be a failure of democracy. Bernie is proof of this, the rules of the DNC directly push against populist left leaning candidates. The first dozen states were conservative, the superdelegates all flock to the party favorite, etc. The issue is, even if Bernie doesn't win, the fact that he has won a dozen states and is slated to win more (some of which by landslides) proves he has a legitimate voter base which would not be represented in the polls [B]at all[/B] if he had run as an independent. This means he was forced to run as a democrat if he wanted a leg in the race at all. Like I said before, there is no chance of reforming this without electing an outsider because the entire government is controlled by DNC and GOP elected officials. But you can't actually elect an outsider because the DNC and GOP primaries weed them out.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but at the same time you might want a way to push back against populist candidates and other figures considered too radical. The Democratic party system as it stands today is essentially a compromise. You don't want another Hubert Humphrey, who got the nomination while ignoring primaries entirely, but you also don't want a George McGovern, who thrived on populist support but was utterly demolished in a general election. Both sides of the spectrum make for internal party strife. And then you get figures like a Donald Trump or a George Wallace, who thrive on populist support from the extremes of the spectrum but are reviled by moderates and party heavies. Obviously no system is perfect, but there are valid reasons that parties need to maintain some degree of control over who can run under their banner.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057835]Yeah, but at the same time you might want a way to push back against populist candidates and other figures considered too radical. The Democratic party system as it stands today is essentially a compromise. You don't want another Hubert Humphrey, who got the nomination while ignoring primaries entirely, but you also don't want a George McGovern, who thrived on populist support but was utterly demolished in a general election. Both sides of the spectrum make for internal party strife. And then you get figures like a Donald Trump or a George Wallace, who thrive on populist support from the extremes of the spectrum but are reviled by moderates and party heavies. Obviously no system is perfect, but there are valid reasons that parties need to maintain some degree of control over who can run under their banner.[/QUOTE] I understand why the systems are in place to suppress populist candidates. That is irrelevant, as long as there exists no way for legitimate candidates to run for president without being affiliated with either the GOP or the DNC, their election process shouldn't be completely in their control and thought of as "theirs to do whatever they want with". The George McGovern comparison is understandable but very weak because with current polling data which is very accurate compared to decades ago, the numbers show that most of the country would support Bernie in a general election, so he wouldn't actually lose by the numbers that McGovern lost by.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057835]Yeah, but at the same time you might want a way to push back against populist candidates and other figures considered too radical. The Democratic party system as it stands today is essentially a compromise. You don't want another Hubert Humphrey, who got the nomination while ignoring primaries entirely, but you also don't want a George McGovern, who thrived on populist support but was utterly demolished in a general election. Both sides of the spectrum make for internal party strife. And then you get figures like a Donald Trump or a George Wallace, who thrive on populist support from the extremes of the spectrum but are reviled by moderates and party heavies. Obviously no system is perfect, but there are valid reasons that parties need to maintain some degree of control over who can run under their banner.[/QUOTE] Why should the parties control the candidacy purely because the parties wish to be in power? If the popular vote is to someone who is demolished in the final election, that means most Americans didn't want that person. That's not a bad thing.

There also seems to be some interest online as to how this will affect the other caucuses. If Clinton supporters aren't enthusiastic enough to show up for second round voting in say, Washington, he could pick up a shit ton of delegates. If it were substantial enough, he could make it to 85% and make her non-viable there... which would net him another 50 delegates. Although Washington might have some viability rules, determined by election day turnout.

[QUOTE=bitches;50057878]Why should the parties control the candidacy purely because the parties wish to be in power? If the popular vote is to someone who is demolished in the final election, that means most Americans didn't want that person. That's not a bad thing.[/QUOTE] Because parties are a shared exercise. Candidates come together and pool their resources in the interest of the collective, and its these resources that are going to be put to use in the general election. Populist candidates can be a dangerous gamble, and for many the prospect of four years of Republican rule might be too much to risk wagering on a candidate who might alienate a large portion of the electorate. I'll temper that by saying that Sanders might be a unique case of a populist candidate who could garner enough support to win the election if the party would back him fully, but then again the convention is still over three months away and we're having this discussion in a topic about Sanders winning delegates. The DNC has yet to risk backing a candidate who didn't have popular support as their choice for the election, so we'll see what happens come July, the party machine might still come about as it did in 2008.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50057942]Because parties are a shared exercise. Candidates come together and pool their resources in the interest of the collective, and its these resources that are going to be put to use in the general election. Populist candidates can be a dangerous gamble, and for many the prospect of four years of Republican rule might be too much to risk wagering on a candidate who might alienate a large portion of the electorate. I'll temper that by saying that Sanders might be a unique case of a populist candidate who could garner enough support to win the election if the party would back him fully, but then again the convention is still over three months away and we're having this discussion in a topic about Sanders winning delegates. The DNC has yet to risk backing a candidate who didn't have popular support as their choice for the election, so we'll see what happens come July, the party machine might still come about as it did in 2008.[/QUOTE] All you're saying still is that the will of the American people is irrelevant because the parties are more important.