|
Mauser posted:I had to look up South Bend and it's a town of 100k people. Why doesn't he run for governor or something? That's one of the things I just can't get over about this guy. I live in a smallish metro area / college town and you'd never think of it in the realm of national politics, and we're 2.5x the size of South Bend, and in a more important state. Mayo Butt shouldn't be here. Everything about him comes off like project that had to be pulled from the incubator early because someone realized this was their last chance at relevance, or something. Bullshit liberalism is dying in favor of true leftism, and he was the establishment's 2032 pick that they pull before he was ready because 2016 happened and they were all caught off guard when their glorious leader Clinton was robbed of her birthright. It's no mistake bloomer liberals lol I've the guy, he was designed by them. e:terrible snipe, but my dog is sleeping, so no pics. Plus she's all drugged up because she ate poo poo on out patio the other day playing grabass and also for some reason has some issue with her anal glands that she's seeing the dogtor for tomorrow ReidRansom fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Feb 20, 2020 |
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Crumbskull posted:To your mind, allowing the candidates to apportion delegates as they see fit and also allowing a bunch more delegates who don't represent any electorate at all decide to nominate someone who did not get the most votes and delegates is a more democratic system than giving the nomination to the person with the most votes? Delegates are no longer bound to their candidate. They are free to vote their conscience - after the first round, at least. FPTP Delegates are not a particularly democratic way of apportionment in the first place, which is the only reason problems like this arise. If we had 9 candidates in this election, and one candidate got 12%, and the other candidates all got 11%, it is not the democratic result to simply declare the 12% candidate the victor. I really shouldn't have to explain the flaws of FPTP voting systems. I am sure most posters in this thread know those flaws and are pretending otherwise because they find it convenient. Lemming posted:Yes, but if more people vote for one person than any other, that person should win The delegate vote is *literally* how this is determined. You are literally asking people to ignore both the legal result of the election and the will of the majority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:22
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:In the case that the top candidate only has a plurality of the delegates, by what process do you think a candidate should be chosen? Again, and unfortunately, Democratic primaries don't do ranked choice. They should - but they don't. hmmmm obviously whoever hosts the best cocktail parties for Superdelegates
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:22
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Delegates are no longer bound to their candidate. They are free to vote their conscience - after the first round, at least. What point are you trying to make? Everyone agrees that the current system is undemocratic
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:You literally are not. You do understand that most is not synonymous with majority, right? Your earlier question about whether we're selectively fine with FPTP is invalid. You're holding Bernie's prospective non-plurality majority to a standard only available in a system designed to incorporate ranked choice of some kind. That's not our present reality. It is absolutely acceptable to take the moral stance that popular vote ought to win. It's the best metric that we can look at in a broken system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
Herewaard posted:What point are you trying to make? Everyone agrees that the current system is undemocratic Um, that people are embracing undemocratic problems with it as long as it benefits their candidate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Your earlier question about whether we're selectively fine with FPTP is invalid. You're holding Bernie's prospective non-plurality majority to a standard only available in a system designed to incorporate ranked choice of some kind. That's not our present reality. It determines ranked choice via delegate ballot. That is built in from the ground up. getting 30% is NOT winning the popular vote!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:If we had 9 candidates in this election, and one candidate got 12%, and the other candidates all got 11%, it is not the democratic result to simply declare the 12% candidate the victor. I really shouldn't have to explain the flaws of FPTP voting systems. I am sure most posters in this thread know those flaws and are pretending otherwise because they find it convenient. No one is ignoring anything. We're saying that those 11% candidates don't have a better claim on the nomination in your scenario than the 12% candidate, and those 88% of delegates actually don't represent the will of the voters at all once they're unbound. There's no good solution given that this is the system that we have, but a brokered convention is the worst solution. edit- TheDeadlyShoe posted:It determines ranked choice via delegate ballot. Ranked choice of the delegates, which is absolutely meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:You are literally asking people to ignore ... the will of the majority. I think you need to stop, re-read this excerpt right here, and go think about what metric in this race is best tied to the will of the people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Delegates are no longer bound to their candidate. They are free to vote their conscience - after the first round, at least. TheDeadlyShoe posted:FPTP Delegates are not a particularly democratic way of apportionment in the first place, which is the only reason problems like this arise. That's true but the remedy is to apportion them in a more democratic way, not to let the delegates horse trade and make backroom deals to vote for whomever alongside a bunch of other new delegates that weren't voted for by anybody. If you're going to apportion them FPTP then whoever gets the most votes should win, that's how FPTP works. If you don't think that's democratic enough, apportion the delegates some other way, don't just invalidate the will of the voters and let party insiders select the winner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Um, that people are embracing undemocratic problems with it as long as it benefits their candidate? Current options are plurality vote or 4000 delegates deciding the nominee. Which is more democratic?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:27
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Um, that people are embracing undemocratic problems with it as long as it benefits their candidate? No, people are opposing the even more undemocratic problem of a brokered convention with horse-trading and extra superdelegates. I'm starting to suspect you are missing the point on purpose
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:28
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:It determines ranked choice via delegate ballot. That is built in from the ground up. It's becoming clear that you're not really getting this yet. I have faith that you, like Chris Matthews, will in time come to bend the knee to democracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:28
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:He would not be the winner by any rule of the contest, nor any democratic principle. You can argue that better democratic processes require a majority, probably with some sort of preference voting or, failing that, actual rounds (like a caucus), and I would agree. But, the Democratic nomination contest is not set up that way. It is actually even worse than first-past-the-post by delegates, in that it allows for unelected "delegates" (they are not really delegates - no one voted for them and they are not there to represent anyone other than themselves) to swing the nomination to anyone they choose in the second round, if there is a second round. In the past this was based on the shared delusion - partially a lie - that they would not really overrule the will of the Democratic electorate by nominating anyone other than the candidate with the most elected delegates. Now we are facing a scenario where there is a very real possibility that they might really do that, and you are kind of an anti-democratic rear end in a top hat for suggesting that that's all well and good, and even justified. Again, there is no one with the stronger claim to the nomination than the candidate with the most delegates, and any kind of "well this other candidate is what most of the people really want" is so open to abuse and bias as to be obvious to anyone, even you. MSDOS KAPITAL fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Feb 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:29
|
|
|
Herewaard posted:Current options are plurality vote or 4000 delegates deciding the nominee. Which is more democratic?  Are you loving serious? Delegation is the foundation of our entire system of government. That's it. I'm out. Y'all are broke-brained.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:29
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:
Our current system of government sucks balls, hth
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:30
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:
Yeah our system of government is real precious alright
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:31
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:
This is the problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:31
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:
by that reasoning why have primary elections at all, decision-making about the party is already delegated to the DNC by party elections, they can just pick the nominee in a smoke-filled room and that's democratic according to you
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:31
|
|
|
Also it's hilarious because I'm pretty sure everyone here would drastically prefer something like a ranked choice popular vote primary, and also absolutely no one at all would be happy with Bernie winning with 12% of the vote or something ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:It determines ranked choice via delegate ballot. That is built in from the ground up. Yes actually, if you get the most votes you win the popular vote
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:
And how do you think those delegates are selected in actual government races?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Delegates are no longer bound to their candidate. They are free to vote their conscience - after the first round, at least. You could make an argument like this if all the delegates were picked by votes. It'd be awkward, but it could lead to a kind of parliamentary result where Bernie's 45% of delegates needs to pick up another 5% from somewhere so there's some backroom dealing. Superdelegates blows a pretty big hole in the argument, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:
Good riddance. I'll just go ahead and report any further posts from you here since you promised you'd leave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:34
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:
Man I really wanted Medicare For All, but the Superdelegates in congress that nobody voted for said no again and passed the Pfizer Gets Your Firstborn If You Can't Pay For Insulin Act instead, I guess that was the democratic will of the voters, better luck next year!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Man I really wanted Medicare For All, but the Superdelegates in congress that nobody voted for said no again and passed the Pfizer Gets Your Firstborn If You Can't Pay For Insulin Act instead, I guess that was the democratic will of the voters, better luck next year! Totally cool and good to let them decide the party nominee. Very democratic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
"But we elect delegates to congress who can ignore the voters after the election if they want to" is also a weird defense, because when they renege like that we quite rightly get pissed and call it unethical
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:
Yeah, it's us that are broke brained, because we think the people with the most votes, should win. It is definitely us who believe that who are broke brained and not the guy who thinks that the person with less votes should win. You have really done well here. Bravo, you are a good boy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:42
|
|
|
Can someone provide a legitimate reason why super delegates are even a thing? Beyond the obvious DNC reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:43
|
|
|
Who's the blond lady on MSNBC who keeps being wrong about talking about Trump in the debate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:45
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Also it's hilarious because I'm pretty sure everyone here would drastically prefer something like a ranked choice popular vote primary, and also absolutely no one at all would be happy with Bernie winning with 12% of the vote or something ridiculous. it's also effectively impossible given the 15% threshold to get 12% you'd have to be below viability in a lot of states, as would everyone else. The breakdown would be weird and regional and undemocratic as all gently caress because small differences in votes would be the difference between some delegates and none in a bunch of places for pretty much everybody there's probably no outcome that could satisfy everyone in that situation unless you have some other way of finding out what voters want like a lot of good polling showing an undeniable voter preference for one of the candidates without that, choosing the 12% guy would have problems, but any of the 11% guys would be even worse because they have no better claim and did worse in the one measure we do have
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:46
|
|
|
Beachcomber posted:Who's the blond lady on MSNBC who keeps being wrong about talking about Trump in the debate? Without watching, Claire mccaskill?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:46
|
|
|
Kirios posted:Can someone provide a legitimate reason why super delegates are even a thing? Beyond the obvious DNC reason. They were instituted after McGovern won the primary system that he designed and understood better than all the other candidates, and then went on to lose catastrophically to Nixon. The nominal reasoning was that this obviously proved a loud uncompromising majority of primary voters could nominate a divisive candidate who was unpopular with the rest of the party and America, and so the party needed a way to stop that from happening again and find a compromise candidate who could win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:51
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Wait - does that money go to the loving DNC? Let me correct myself, as far as I know it does not go to the actual DNC. I do assume a healthy portion of it either goes to, or is directed by, the same Democratic establishment bloc. I would not mind being proved wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:51
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Without watching, Claire mccaskill? They finally used her name again, and it's A.B. Stoddard. Was just wondering if she was often wrong in dumb ways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:53
|
|
|
MrBuddyLee posted:Btw, half of the top YouTube clips about the debate right now are Bloomberg media corporation clips, heavily edited to make Mike look less bad. Yes, both directly through sponsorship and indirectly through very reliable astroturfing methodology that has been the subject of a new field of informatics and public policy research that's grown explosively since 2016.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:55
|
|
|
Follow Charlie Warzel on Twitter if you occasionally want a really simple but thorough write-up into modern signal amplification
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 06:57
|
|
|
I made two payments tonight, from my severely beat to poo poo bank account. One was part of a payment plan to a hospital. The other was a donation to Bernie Sanders, so maybe someday someone won't have to go through the stress and financial ruination of a trip to the ER.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Serious talk: Regardless of stupid delegate systems, another thing you are all missing is that Ranked Choice is a bad system anyways and arguably the only thing worse than FTTP. Ideally, legislature should just be proportional representation (based on voting for a party and the percentages getting given delegates accordingly), while executive positions should be chosen through Fallback Voting (my favorite), or Approval/Range voting. For reference, by Arrow's Theorem, minus a few edge cases (that are really bad systems of their own right), ranked choice systems lack monaticity. What this means is that ranking a candidate higher on your list can actually hurt them. For example, lets assume we are using IRV and say the top votes are Social Democrat with 20,000 votes, Liberal with 13,000, and fascist with 12,000. The second choice of 11,000 fascist voters are the liberals, and only 1,000 goes to the SocDems. Meanwhile, 60% of the liberals second choice is the SocDems, and 40% to the fascists. Then, if SocDems vote as they wish, they will lose the vote 21,000 to 24,000. However, if between 1,000 and 10,000 of the SocDems instead put the fascist at the top of the vote, the SocDems would win. I don't want any part in a system where I may consider voting for the far right candidate so my candidate can win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 07:24
|
|
