In which states have you caucused?
1 Like
None. But I read good.
1 Like
I see. I’ve caucused in three states (and voted in primaries in several others). In my experience caucuses are the closest thing we have to an ideal democratic process.
6 Likes
Not good enough by half.
At least now I don’t need to feel bad for laughing and giving grief to the DNC person who called for donations this morning (who solicits donations on Sunday?)
.
1 Like
I voted in the NH primary. Sanders won by a greater than 50% margin. In some counties, he received DOUBLE the votes as Clinton. That evening, it was declared a tie.
In Wyoming, he won 56%-44%. Again, it was declared a tie, with each getting 7 delegates.
In Rhode Island, he won 55%-43%, and lost the delegate vote 13-20.
Again in Indiana.
And Montana. And Michigan.
13 Likes
Not as concerned with the “outcome” as the delta in the results.
I also find no solace in your “everybody cheats” sensibility. The way I see it, Clinton should have stepped down from the campaign as soon as evidence of collusion with the DNC was revealed. Then the delegate count would not have much mattered, and Trump would be history right now.
4 Likes
I can absolutely see the case for abolishing the superdelegate system. It’s dumb.
But it isn’t dumb because it’s undemocratic, it’s dumb because it’s pseudo-democratic. Whether it’s 715 extra votes, or 315, or 9,995 doesn’t matter: you’re still saying that if your party goes crazy or is seized unawares at root level by something that is recognizably not your party*, you’ll still abide by the results of the “vote” as long as enough people go crazy or get installed through trickery.
I mean, it’s never mattered either way, but how does that make sense?
What you’re trying to accomplish when you have any superdelegates is to create what amounts to a Council of Nope. The Council of Nope would have infinity votes, and its only function would be to say “Nope!” in an emergency. Hopefully they never would. But you can either have some essential embodiment of what your party is about that transcends all the bylaws or insurgencies, or you can cast your lot in with pure democracy and not have such a thing.
Either one of those seems like a very defensible position, but superdelegates are the shittiest possible compromise, combining the virtues of neither with the problems of both.
*I don’t mean Clinton-vs.Sanders stuff, I mean flat-out hijacking by totally unrelated entities. It happens a lot in the minor parties, especially in states where past election performance gets you an automatic ballot access line.
2 Likes
I’d be interested to know why. I think we’ll end up disagreeing on what types of procedures constitute an ideal democratic process.
1 Like
Even if the DNC was blatantly favoring Clinton over Sanders, I don’t see this as surprising or anything objectionable. Sanders is I-VT, not D-VT. And I say that as somebody who donated to, and voted for, Sanders.
1 Like
Is this a bad thing? Obviously you don’t want the party establishment to have complete control over the process, but going full anti-establishment has sent the GOP into absurdity. I think the best system really is a balance.
Obviously a lot of people in the party establishment really liked Clinton, in both 2008 and 2016. Part of this was from Clinton being underhanded (support me or you won’t get a job when I win) but a lot was because people in the party thought Clinton would have been a really good President.
I think the superdelegates do give voters important information, which is the preference of the people who are best informed on the issues and the candidates.
I think the big problem isn’t the existence of superdelegates, or the possibility that they can thwart the results of the primary, it’s that the party hasn’t really made clear what their role is.
In both 2008 and 2016 there was a lot of anxiety that the superdelegates would overturn the results of the primary and both Clinton in 2008 and Sanders 2016 actually made appeals for superdelegates to do exactly that. This is the stuff that freaks people out.
Now consider the following, say the party announces the role of superdelegates is:
- To take a poll of the party establishment and communicate that to the public.
- In the case of a major scandal or surge, where it’s clear that the leader in pledged delegates is no longer the choice of the primary voters, that the superdelegates can reverse the decision.
Set that standard and I think the superdelegates become much less controversial.
1 Like
Almost everything you wrote is wrong. New Hampshire was not declared a tie and Sanders did not have double the votes as Clinton. He got 60% of the vote and 62% of the delegates. In Rhode Island he won 54% of the vote and got 54% of the delegates. In Indiana he won 53% of the vote and got 53% of the delegates. In Montana he won 51% of the vote and got 51% of the delegates. In Michigan he won 49% of the vote and got 51% of the delegates! Wyoming is dumb and has a non-binding primary. Those should be gotten rid of. But that discrepancy would only account for 2-3 delegates of the 359 delegate margin that Clinton won by.
What you’re looking at is delegate counts that include the Superdelegates who traditionally vote for the presumptive nominee during the Convention, it’s why they’re often called unpledged delegates. Superdelegates have always done this. In 2008 they voted overwhelmingly for Obama despite a much closer primary than 2016. This is done to give the nominee a clearer win and hopefully unite the party for the general election.
There is a lot that can be changed and reformed about the Democratic Primary but easily disproved lies won’t help your point.
5 Likes
15/9 delegates is pretty accurate for 152193/95355 votes, and in Sanders favor to boot… So at least for New Hampshire I guess your statement is only accurate for new coverage if I’m being generous.
Well, again there’s the issue. It wasn’t about Clinton and Sanders, it was about the Party Loyalist versus the outsider. And as I’ve stated before, the issue is that we have two private organizations acting as gatekeepers for our public office.
2/3 of Americans want a viable third party. Ross Perot got 20% of the popular vote and not one electoral vote. And in this, an election between the two least liked candidates in memory, with grassroots support and the full power of the internet, no third party was able to crack 1% of the vote.
Both parties have colluded to create higher barriers of entry to third party candidates than party nominees. They refuse to participate in televised debates if anyone else is invited. They wrote our textbooks to describe America as a two party system, when it absolutely is not. They have a complete stranglehold on our democratic process. That’s where the issue is.
Either the parties are private organizations which can run themselves however they want, or they each represent half of our government, and need to operate by the same fairness principles as the government itself- But they do not get to have it both ways.
7 Likes
First past the post IS a two-party system. The problem isn’t that there’s only two parties contending for the presidency, it’s that it’s the same two parties contending for every race.
There’s no reason for the same R&D to be competing in Alabama and Seattle. Elections in Alabama should generally be a contest between the GOP and the Tea Party. Elections in Seattle should be between the Clinton and Sanders wings of the Democratic Party.
Then when it comes to the Senate and Congress there would be 3 or 4 parties from which to assemble coalitions instead of just 2. Eventually that could extend to the Presidency as well, but start at the bottom not the top.
2 Likes
What you’re looking at is delegate counts that include the Superdelegates who traditionally vote for the presumptive nominee during the Convention,
This is the entire goddamned fucking point, that those were being broadcast as already having been awarded to Clinton from pretty much day one.
New Hampshire was not declared a tie and Sanders did not have double the votes as Clinton. He got 60% of the vote and 62% of the delegates.
Sanders got 151,584 votes to Clinton’s 95,252. That’s 56,332 more votes, and greater than 50% of 95,252. In Cheshire county, he won 70%-29%. In Grafton, it was 66%-32%. Sullivan was 68%-29%.
And that night, YES, it was in fact declared a tie, with each receiving 14 delegate votes. Sanders went on to pick up two more superdelegates to Clintons +1, but that was much later. The media reported the two candidates matched delegate votes. I was there. I watched the results live. This was my home state. Again, this is the entire point, that superdelegate votes were being added to Clinton’s total well in advance of any actual votes taking place.
And again, this created the appearance of widespread support and momentum for the Clinton campaign in the media, which as other people have argued, did in fact have a tangible result on the later primary votes.
7 Likes
Here are just a couple: (1) You have to be ready to discuss the candidates with neighbors who disagree with you, so you actually have to think about positions; (2) They are small, so hyperlocal, which means they are usually close and easy to get to (mine have all been in easy walking distance of home) so do not discriminate against people who have transportation issues (eg, can’t afford a car); (3) they tend to be held at times that working people can attend (two of the states had them in the evenings, a third on Saturday); (4) entry for candidates is easy: a couple of times my caucus started with 8 or 9 expected candidates, but some people came ready to argue for 2 or 3 more that weren’t part of the unoffocial roster; (5) no need to print ballots in advance, so more flexibility and less reliance on the whims of the centralized government; (6) In Iowa at least they use a version of transferable voting, which means you can come with a favored candidate, but when that candidate ends up not being viable you have another shot can vote for the next one down on your preference list; (7) Since they are small and consist of neighbors, odds are that you know (or at least recognize the faces of) the people in your caucus, so there’s less of headache when it comes to eligibility if your ID isn’t perfect; (8) You’re likely to have officers from your local party in your caucus, which increases your access to them, and the framework gives you both opportunity and incentive to get involved in a meaningful way in the party.
For me (1) is the big one. Actual discussions of policy and candidates with your neighbors, in an environment where you are all treating the discussion as serious and important because it is an integral part of voting, is a remarkable experience.
5 Likes
151584/(151584+95252)*100 = 61.4%
This wasn’t an issue with the superdelegates or the Democratic Party, Sanders won 62.5% of the pledged delegates as he should have.
The problem was the media massively screwing up. There’s no excuse for that NBC page, there is no possible interpretation by which the NH primary awarded Sanders 16 delegates and Clinton 15.
2 Likes
As I have said several times Superdelegates often declare their support early. Most declared for Clinton in 2008 and Dean in 2004. Both had the same appearance of momentum and both lost. Superdelegate’s declared votes have been included in the coverage of primaries for decades.
As for New Hampshire Sanders won 60% of the vote and got 60% of the bound delegates. Double does not mean 50% greater it mean 100% greater.
After Super Tuesday Sanders never lead the popular vote or in bound delegates. Clinton’s win was very decisive. I voted for Sanders and I was disappointed that he didn’t win. But clinging to the idea that he would have won if not for a couple marginals factors is ignorant of reality.
1 Like
God fucking dammit.
Cheshire, Grafton, Sullivan. I already posted the numbers.
My mistake. I misread your original statement.
2 Likes
