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

[QUOTE=bitches;50058003]All you're saying still is that the will of the American people is irrelevant because the parties are more important.[/QUOTE] If you're so determined to push this victim narrative, you might want to at least wait until the DNC has actually chosen a candidate. And also recognize that "the will of the American people" seems to not include the eight million people who have cast their votes for Clinton thus far.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50058022] And also recognize that "the will of the American people" seems to not include the eight million people who have cast their votes for Clinton thus far.[/QUOTE] I don't think he was harping on those eight million people at all, just the fact that the DNC can directly fight against and obliterate legitimate candidates that threaten them because they own their own system.

The only democratic suppression I see is Hillary constantly pulling lies and threatening to destroy Bernie by proxy.

[QUOTE=Aztec;50058043]I don't think he was harping on those eight million people at all, just the fact that the DNC can directly fight against and obliterate legitimate candidates that threaten them because they own their own system.[/QUOTE] Which at the moment hasn't actually happened. Thus far the race has consisted mainly of open and closed primaries. Even if you just want to sit on speculation, the point still stands that the DNC hasn't actually gone against the will of primary voters and picked a candidate who hasn't had majority support since 1968. [QUOTE=Map in a box;50058077]The only democratic suppression I see is Hillary constantly pulling lies and threatening to destroy Bernie by proxy.[/QUOTE] So basically its been the same as every political race up to now.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50058022]If you're so determined to push this victim narrative, you might want to at least wait until the DNC has actually chosen a candidate. And also recognize that "the will of the American people" seems to not include the eight million people who have cast their votes for Clinton thus far.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about the current situation of this election. I said that earlier. What I said was that the parties should not have as much [I]power[/I] as they do have, without being recognized as controlling a key part of government. With this much control, they should also be able to be federally regulated. Your narrative is that they should not be forced to behave democratically just because it would be better for the sake of the [I]party[/I], regardless of the democratic illusion.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50058079]Which at the moment hasn't actually happened. Thus far the race has consisted mainly of open and closed primaries.[/QUOTE] Yeah it has. Unless you are blind to the fact that a complex network of pundit sites and mainstream media sources routinely show charts and graphs showing super delegate counts indistinguishable from pledged delegate counts in order to boost Hillary's perceived lead. Which, speaking of those same delegates, continue to only endorse Hillary regardless of what their state wants. The same delegates that were able to bolster Hillary's number by DNC choosing to do the entire deep south before the rest of the country. Or the DNC making sure to not expose Bernie before super Tuesday by limiting the number of debates and only increasing them after he gained traction after New Hampshire. I'm also not exactly sure if the DNC can be blamed for this although it's pretty clear that no one seems to care but having former president Bill Clinton literally at major voting locations all the time and not getting any kind of flak for it has been pretty ridiculous.

[QUOTE=bitches;50058087]I'm not talking about the current situation of this election. I said that earlier. What I said was that the parties should not have as much [I]power[/I] as they do have, without being recognized as controlling a key part of government. With this much control, they should also be able to be federally regulated. [B]Your narrative is that they should not be forced to behave democratically just because it would be better for the sake of the [I]party[/I], regardless of the democratic illusion.[/B][/QUOTE] I'm not saying it shouldn't be done because I think it would be [I]better[/I] for the parties. I'm saying it shouldn't be done because the government should not have the power to dictate how political parties operate on any intricate level. Parties should exist outside of the political structure, not be a part of it.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50058125]Parties should exist outside of the political structure, not be a part of it.[/QUOTE] Regulating something doesn't make it "part of the political structure". It already is part of the political structure by the nature of the fact that it constitutes the entirety of all elected positions. Regulation doesn't mean incorporation into the government. I don't really see what you mean by that.

[QUOTE=Aztec;50058119]Yeah it has. Unless you are blind to the fact that a complex network of pundit sites and mainstream media sources routinely show charts and graphs showing super delegate counts indistinguishable from pledged delegate counts in order to boost Hillary's perceived lead. Which, speaking of those same delegates, continue to only endorse Hillary regardless of what their state wants. The same delegates that were able to bolster Hillary's number by DNC choosing to do the entire deep south before the rest of the country. Or the DNC making sure to not expose Bernie before super Tuesday by limiting the number of debates and only increasing them after he gained traction after New Hampshire. I'm also not exactly sure if the DNC can be blamed for this although it's pretty clear that no one seems to care but having former president Bill Clinton literally at major voting locations all the time and not getting any kind of flak for it has been pretty ridiculous.[/QUOTE] But those problems with the media aren't something you can solve by regulating the primary process. It's a whole other issue altogether. [QUOTE=Aztec;50058137]Regulating something doesn't make it "part of the political structure". It already is part of the political structure by the nature of the fact that it constitutes the entirety of all elected positions. Regulation doesn't mean incorporation into the government. I don't really see what you mean by that.[/QUOTE] I meant it more as creating a direct link in power between the government and the parties. A government should not be using its power to dictate how parties operate outside of creating the general framework of rules by which they agree to abide by. Establishing that parties should run primaries and caucuses, and have delegates that vote on candidates is fine, but telling parties how and when those primaries and caucuses should occur, and how delegates should be chosen is too much.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50058125]I'm not saying it shouldn't be done because I think it would be [I]better[/I] for the parties. I'm saying it shouldn't be done because the government should not have the power to dictate how political parties operate on any intricate level. Parties should exist outside of the political structure, not be a part of it.[/QUOTE] Parties SHOULD exist outside of the political structure. They SHOULD not be a part of it, but they are. Parties in America are absolutely a huge component of the political structure. They decide who is allowed to be voted upon. That makes them inherent to the political structure. With that power, it should not be legal for them to abuse it.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50058227]But those problems with the media aren't something you can solve by regulating the primary process. It's a whole other issue altogether. [/QUOTE] Not really, the entire existence of super delegates is to skew media reports in favor of the party favorite, which due to shoddy nonexistent campaign finance laws, media outlets like Time Warner who donate sums of money to candidates like Hillary have power to influence votes. [quote] Establishing that parties should run primaries and caucuses, and have delegates that vote on candidates is fine, but telling parties how and when those primaries and caucuses should occur, and how delegates should be chosen is too much.[/quote] I still cannot fathom why you'd ever think that. As if the current system doesn't lend itself to incredible levels of abuse. I don't fear federal regulation as much as I fear corporate subversion.

It's really hard to hear that Sanders is unelectable when his turnout breaks the election

[QUOTE=bitches;50058251]Parties SHOULD exist outside of the political structure. They SHOULD not be a part of it, but they are. Parties in America are absolutely a huge component of the political structure. They decide who is allowed to be voted upon. That makes them inherent to the political structure. With that power, it should not be legal for them to abuse it.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. I'd just rather that power be retained by the parties than handed over to a federal government run by the same parties. I guess that's where we differ. [QUOTE=Aztec;50058255]Not really, the entire existence of super delegates is to skew media reports in favor of the party favorite, which due to shoddy nonexistent campaign finance laws, media outlets like Time Warner who donate sums of money to candidates like Hillary have power to influence votes.[/QUOTE] And to ensure that elected party officials can make their voices heard in deciding who will lead the party into an election, but I guess that doesn't have quite as much bite as what you said. [QUOTE=Sableye;50058273]It's really hard to hear that Sanders is unelectable when his turnout breaks the election[/QUOTE] I mean, the guy got his picture taken with Weezer yesterday. That's all the endorsement I need to support him.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50058327]And to ensure that elected party officials can make their voices heard in deciding who will lead the party into an election, but I guess that doesn't have quite as much bite as what you said.[/QUOTE] That's a laughable reason for the existence of super delegates

super delegates exist to prevent things like trump from happening. a person who runs for the party but hates the party and is gaining traction.

[QUOTE=Aztec;50058380]That's a laughable reason for the existence of super delegates[/QUOTE] I mean, as far as I know the Hunt Commission did happen, so I'm pretty sure its not laughable.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50058327]Fair enough. I'd just rather that power be retained by the parties than handed over to a federal government run by the same parties. I guess that's where we differ. And to ensure that elected party officials can make their voices heard in deciding who will lead the party into an election, but I guess that doesn't have quite as much bite as what you said. I mean, the guy got his picture taken with Weezer yesterday. That's all the endorsement I need to support him.[/QUOTE] What I've really been hinting at is the removal of party power via larger voting reform; they would not hold nearly so much corruptible sway if voting was all handled electronically and in tiers of preference. There would be no split tickets because your second choice would assume your vote should the first fail; we wouldn't have least popular politicians with 40% of the vote winning over candidates with 30% each if the 60% chose the other 30% candidate as their second choice. That's what it takes to allow 3+ parties to form, and gives the voters more power besides, and all through a simple ranking of most to least favoured. Not that I'm an expert on all voting models, but it's certainly a lot better than what we have now. By allowing more parties or independent candidates to form, the abusive potential of the parties are removed. [editline]3rd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50058410]super delegates exist to prevent things like trump from happening. a person who runs for the party but hates the party and is gaining traction.[/QUOTE] Trump is a monstrous idiot but it takes honest democracy to teach a country what kinds of leaders are actually any good. Even if he won, he would make it harder for future populists to take office.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50058413]I mean, as far as I know the Hunt Commission did happen, so I'm pretty sure its not laughable.[/QUOTE] I'm not really sure why that makes it any less laughable at all actually. What exactly is the point of a delegate who, historically speaking, is always going to side with the candidate who has the most pledged delegates? The only purpose for them is to fool voters early on into thinking a candidate is surging. Unless you can remind me exactly what their function is since they have always changed their pledge to go along with the popular vote, making them functionally useless as a part of the primary process.

[QUOTE=bitches;50058420]What I've really been hinting at is the removal of party power via larger voting reform; they would not hold nearly so much corruptible sway if voting was all handled electronically and in tiers of preference. There would be no split tickets because your second choice would assume your vote should the first fail; we wouldn't have least popular politicians with 40% of the vote winning over candidates with 30% each if the 60% chose the other 30% candidate as their second choice. That's what it takes to allow 3+ parties to form, and gives the voters more power besides, and all through a simple ranking of most to least favoured. Not that I'm an expert on all voting models, but it's certainly a lot better than what we have now. By allowing more parties or independent candidates to form, the abusive potential of the parties are removed.[/QUOTE] See, now I'm on the trolley. Serious electoral reform is the core of the issue. [QUOTE=Aztec;50058445]I'm not really sure why that makes it any less laughable at all actually. [B]What exactly is the point of a delegate who, historically speaking, is always going to side with the candidate who has the most pledged delegates?[/B] The only purpose for them is to fool voters early on into thinking a candidate is surging. Unless you can remind me exactly what their function is since they have always changed their pledge to go along with the popular vote, making them functionally useless as a part of the primary process.[/QUOTE] To ensure that somebody wins. The Hunt Commission created superdelegates to give elected party officials a voice at the convention in order to prevent a deadlocked convention and ultimately prevent party strife in the process.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50058498] To ensure that somebody wins. The Hunt Commission created superdelegates to give elected party officials a voice at the convention in order to prevent a deadlocked convention and ultimately prevent party strife in the process.[/QUOTE] That's unfortunate that they aren't being used for that purpose then, they should probably start using them for that purpose instead of never using them for that purpose I suppose. If that was their main purpose then they would vote at the convention, not before the convention. Not that they really even vote before the convention, but for whatever reason they get counted as if they do. Much to the party favorite's benefit.

[QUOTE=bitches;50058420]What I've really been hinting at is the removal of party power via larger voting reform; they would not hold nearly so much corruptible sway if voting was all handled electronically and in tiers of preference. There would be no split tickets because your second choice would assume your vote should the first fail; we wouldn't have least popular politicians with 40% of the vote winning over candidates with 30% each if the 60% chose the other 30% candidate as their second choice. That's what it takes to allow 3+ parties to form, and gives the voters more power besides, and all through a simple ranking of most to least favoured. Not that I'm an expert on all voting models, but it's certainly a lot better than what we have now. By allowing more parties or independent candidates to form, the abusive potential of the parties are removed.[/QUOTE] You are pretty much explaining why the alternate vote is more democratic than first past the post given that a larger percentage of the populations will is being acknowledged with is otherwise plundered when they are split between two similar politicians.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50058498]See, now I'm on the trolley. Serious electoral reform is the core of the issue. To ensure that somebody wins. The Hunt Commission created superdelegates to give elected party officials a voice at the convention in order to prevent a deadlocked convention and ultimately prevent party strife in the process.[/QUOTE] There's no reason to have deadlock in the digital age. Voting by preferential order will work without a literal tie among the population.

[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] [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] It's good and fine when it's a candidate that is actually not from the establishment, doesn't represent this failure of a status quo system we've been living under for decades now, and actually has a clean and solid record behind him that proves he's a respectable and more than qualified man for the job who could do great things if given the chance. You're not being original by pointing this stuff out, you're not actually making any good points here, and I think I speak for the vast majority of people when I say that we honestly and unashamedly don't give a fuck about the fact that it happened to Clinton-- nor do we give a fuck about how upset her supporters might be. Now they know how we felt after the coin tosses in Iowa. [editline]3rd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Pascall;50057404]Duh. Nobody says Hillary's supporters shouldn't be upset. I'm just happy because I voted for Bernie?? ?? Let me be happy.[/QUOTE] No. How dare you be happy. You're undermining democracy with this behavior lol.

Well darn. I can't believe I've been undermining democracy this whole time..............

[QUOTE=Govna;50058645]It's good and fine when it's a candidate that is actually not from the establishment, doesn't represent this failure of a status quo system we've been living under for decades now, and actually has a clean and solid record behind him that proves he's a respectable and more than qualified man for the job who could do great things if given the chance. You're not being original by pointing this stuff out, you're not actually making any good points here, and I think I speak for the vast majority of people when I say that we honestly and unashamedly don't give a fuck about the fact that it happened to Clinton-- nor do we give a fuck about how upset her supporters might be. Now they know how we felt after the coin tosses in Iowa. [editline]3rd April 2016[/editline] No. How dare you be happy. You're undermining democracy with this behavior lol.[/QUOTE] Dude, you can't justify bending the rules just because you're convinced you're right. I'm super pro-Bernie and if you would have a problem with this happening in favor of Clinton, you should have a problem with it happening in favor of Bernie.

I mean ultimately there's a difference between being happy that the system is broken and fucked up - which I'm pretty sure most people aren't - and being happy that something sort of good just seemed to happen because of it I hate that shit like this happens in this way, but I don't hate the result in this case people's views are gonna differ depending on which side they're on and what they believe shit's fuck up though, essentially

[QUOTE=Pascall;50058706]I mean ultimately there's a difference between being happy that the system is broken and fucked up - which I'm pretty sure most people aren't - and being happy that something sort of good just seemed to happen because of it I hate that shit like this happens in this way, but I don't hate the result in this case people's views are gonna differ depending on which side they're on and what they believe shit's fuck up though, essentially[/QUOTE] This is how I feel. I think the system is fucked and I'm glad it happened, frankly, but to say that it's fine [b]solely because it happened in favor of a candidate someone likes[/b] is bullshit.

[QUOTE=geel9;50058680]Dude, you can't justify bending the rules just because you're convinced you're right. I'm super pro-Bernie and if you would have a problem with this happening in favor of Clinton, you should have a problem with it happening in favor of Bernie.[/QUOTE] With a system this broken we need to take whatever we can get. If abusing the broken nature of it is the key to getting it fixed then abuse away. I'd rather do that then not abuse it, not elect officials that will reform the system, and retain the broken system as-is.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;50058552]You are pretty much explaining why the alternate vote is more democratic than first past the post given that a larger percentage of the populations will is being acknowledged with is otherwise plundered when they are split between two similar politicians.[/QUOTE] First past the post makes me want to pull my hair out with how crazy stupid it is, almost everything is better than it.

I honestly wanna see Trump vs Sanders because it'd be such a fucking show