|
"yeah lots of voters trying to decide between bernie and biden well anyway here's a voter wondering whether to vote for amy or pete - we'll be talking to them all night"
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
oh it's lester loving holt as well? wow this is gonna be bad
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
metasynthetic posted:Oh, good to know. I already don't always tip depending on how mad I am at the DNC on any given day but I was pleased with everyone gutting Bloomer tonight. I want my tips back, in that case.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I am not sure whether the delegate question was meant as a softball for Bernie or as a grenade for the Democratic party. In this primary it's easy to envision a scenario where Bernie gets a plurality of delegates but not actually enough to win the nomination straight up. It made logical and ethical sense for the other candidates to say that they wouldn't automatically support Bernie in that scenario, especially since his voter % would very probably be significantly less than his delegate %. It was, frankly, smarmy of Bernie to not cut that line of questioning off at the knees. Crumbskull posted:How do you figure it makes ethical sense? Any course of action that might result in a win, and for that matter any exercise of power over and above just turning the "democracy" crank to see what comes out, is unethical behavior to a liberal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Lol. It's pretty clear that the candidate with the plurality of the delegates has the strongest claim to the nomination, isn't it? Who else would?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 06:18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Not sure I can get behind just shitcanning regional representation entirely. Also, FPTP > IRV is a hell of claim to make and your edge-case hypothetical does not remotely come close to proving it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 07:46
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Honestly don’t see deadly shoe’s point here. That's it - no need to dig deeper. If Sanders' and Biden's roles were reversed he'd be here howling about how the superdelegates need to hand the candidate with the plurality of the delegates the nomination and that to do anything else would be both undemocratic and severely dangerous to the party's chances in November both at the top of the ballot and everywhere else. You don't need to dig around in the entrails of arguments like these to try to divine some hidden and deeper meaning: what you're looking at is mostly poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 09:00
|
|
|
WOWEE ZOWEE posted:Sorry tangent here, but your avatar is very confusing. You were banned like 11 years ago but my first thought is that you were just recently banned. I've taken care of it
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How do I explain the problems of approval voting in a way so simple even a quivering lib can understand.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
uh I was just trying to channel jkrowling I don't know if dumbledore is an anti-Semite 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2020 10:48
|
|