|
lmao Klobuchar "well we're not all as perfect as you" stop hitting yourself
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
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? Indiana hates him it's national office or nothing
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
Zophar posted:I don't think Pete knifing Kloubachar so hard is going to play well for him. Good for everyone else but gently caress I kinda pitied her a little there. no way gently caress her he was right she voted for 2/3 of Trump's judges, pity the people that are about to be hosed over in the courts
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:In the New Hampshire primary, Bernie got 25% of the vote but 38% of the delegates. This is normal owing to the nature of the delegate assignment rules. It's easy to see a scenario for the entire primary where Bernie gets a plurality of like 30% of the vote and 45% of the delegates. It is not violating the will of the people in any way for the other candidates to say they don't support an automatic Bernie victory in that scenario. Yes it is If they choose someone else, how do they know that's the will of the people. Does Warren go back and ask everyone who voted for her if they're fine with her giving her delegates to Pete or whoever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:It's an assumption made with the full knowledge its imperfect. We could build a more responsive system today, but these systems were the best available when devised. And TL;DR inertia. TheDeadlyShoe posted:I'm making no such assumption at all. If Bernie has such support, he should come through the convention just fine. And even if they voluntarily stayed out of it, candidates can give their delegates to anyone they want, they don't have to give it to the candidate with the most support! If people vote for Warren because she promised Medicare For All, then she cuts a deal with Biden to make him president, she's going against the will of her voters. TheDeadlyShoe posted:Bernie is not *owed* the nomination in the scenario of getting a questionable plurality. Not by the rules of the contest and not by any rule of ethics. But that's what you guys are saying. TheDeadlyShoe posted:In this hypothetical, Bernie would be the major beneficiary of anti-democratic flaws in the First Past The Post voting systems. Anyone who cares enough to post in this thread has probably bitched about FPTP and the electoral college being counter-democratic bullshit. Well, it's time to put up or shut up in that regard. Do you love FPTP as long as it benefits your guy?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 06:11
|
|
|
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. 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? 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:
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
"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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Eh It's a sufficiently weird edge case that's probably impossible to pull off without advance knowledge of how people will vote and would require a huge amount of coordination to pull off. The realistic possibility of having to cast a strategic vote under ranked choice is almost non-existent. The reason FPTP sucks so bad is you pretty much have to vote strategically every time. I don't really care if a strategic vote is theoretically possible if I'd never actually have to make that choice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 07:33
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:I don't see a contradiction between acknowledging that FPTP is bad and undemocratic and ought to be replaced, and thinking that, of the ways a plurality-but-not-majority scenario could be decided within the rules we have, going with most votes wins is the least undemocratic method. I think the other guy was confusing people calling for the least undemocratic option available with people endorsing FPTP as a democratic method simpliciter Simple confusion doesn't really explain how hard they were working to avoid acknowledging that superdelegates exist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
Approval voting seems real bad, because if a majority of people want the socialist to win, but everyone votes for the centrist just in case, the centrist will get the most votes every time despite a majority preferring someone else. You'd have to strategic vote every time, either gamble that your guy will win if you don't vote for the centrist, or gamble that the fash might win unless you do vote for the centrist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
Chamale posted:If your objection is that this doesn't result in enough socialists being elected, no democratic system can elect socialists if the electorate doesn't like socialists. That wasn't my objection, read it again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
How do I explain the problems of approval voting in a way so simple even a quivering lib can understand. Okay: there's an election for Headmaster of Hogwarts between Albus Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Dolores Umbridge whose platform is "maybe you don't think I'm perfect but vote for me to keep Voldemort out" 9,998 voters want Dumbledore to win but they're so scared of Voldemort they'll vote for Umbridge too just in case. Voldemort votes for himself and Umbridge. Umbridge votes for herself only because she cares more about winning than beating Voldemort. Final numbers: 10,000 Umbridge 9,998 Dumbledore 1 Voldemort Umbridge is elected even though 99.98% of the voters preferred Dumbledore. Do you see the issue now. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Feb 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Isn't Dumbledore an anti-Semite though? idk I didn't read those books
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:You had to dream up a scenario where nearly 10,000 voters enable two voters to decide everything? That's the least likely thing ever, and if it is ever a real problem then we might as well do away with democracy entirely. That was an extreme example but that problem would occur all the time, because under approval voting the candidate preferred by a majority isn't guaranteed to win.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Yeah no poo poo, if you let individual voters pick as many candidates as they like someone could win with fewer unique individual voters. That’s called consensus and it’s part of the design. That's not consensus at all though. 99.999998% of the voters can agree that candidate A is the best choice, but a tiny minority can elect candidate B instead. It rewards fear and hostage taking, because you're just voting against candidates and not for them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2020 17:56
|
|