The way their party rigs the voting, why do Democrats even bother to vote?

AlwaysWrite

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
ABSURD! UNFAIR! RIGGED! A JOKE! FRAUDULENT! VOTERS BE DAMNED!

All of the above apply to the Democrat Party primary voting system and its "Super Delegate" fiasco, but you sure don't (or won't) hear much about it in the lamestream media.

The system is rigged from the start because the Super Delegates represent roughly one-sixth of the overall delegate count, and what Democrat voters wanted -- and thought they were getting -- in New Hampshire meant virtually NOTHING.

Even though Hillary Clinton barely won the Iowa caucuses, that was enhanced -- at least slightly -- WITH THE HELP OF COIN FLIPS that determined delegates in six precincts, the delegate count will wind up in Hillary's favor by about 29-21. Worse yet, even though Bernie Sanders dominated the New Hampshire vote by a 60.4% to 37.9% margin, both Hillary and Bernie got the same amount of delegates (15 each) to the national convention.

That's because of the ridiculous, quirky Super Delegate situation embraced by the Democrats. Those Super Delegates are predominantly white, male members of the Democrat National Committee (DNC), along with other state and federal elected officials, and they are allowed to make their own pick regardless of how their home state voted. And in a recent count, 414 support Clinton and only 14 support Sanders.

[Republicans have a few Super Delegates -- generally 3 per state, but unlike Democrat rules, the Republican Super Delegates MUST VOTE according to the result of their respective state primaries. But not so with the Democrats.]

So why does anyone bother to vote in a Democrat Party primary? Are they stupid, or just unknowing? Then again, a case could be made that many voters standing behind Clinton or Sanders aren't too smart or informed to begin with.
 
Last edited:
B

bbfreeburn

Active Member
AW you may want to read about what actually went on, rather than spouting conservative talking points. (and there are multiple sources for this information.)

No, Hillary Clinton did not win Iowa because of a coin flip

By Robert Yoon, CNN


  • Did Hillary Clinton win the Iowa caucuses thanks to coin flips?
  • Coin flips -- specifically "games of chance" -- are used in rare circumstances at precinct caucuses to adjudicate ties or resolve issues created by rounding errors
(CNN)Hillary Clinton claimed victory in the Iowa caucuses Tuesday after topping Democratic rival Bernie Sanders by the skin-of-her-teeth margin of 49.9% to 49.6%. There's been some confusion about how much of a role -- if any -- coin flips played in determining who won delegates.

Coin flips -- specifically "games of chance" -- are used in rare circumstances at precinct caucuses to adjudicate ties or resolve issues created by rounding errors. At stake at these precinct-level coin flips is the one remaining slot in that precinct for a campaign to send a delegate to attend that precinct's county convention. Coin flips are not used to decide which candidate wins a state convention delegate or national convention delegate.

How many coin flips were there on Monday night?

The Iowa Democratic Party does not have comprehensive records on how many coin flips/games of chance were held Monday evening. However, they do have partial records.

More than half of the 1,681 Democratic caucuses held Monday night used a new Microsoft reporting app. Of those, there were exactly seven county delegates determined by coin flip. The remaining precincts did not use the Microsoft app, and instead used traditional phone-line reporting to transmit results. In these precincts, there no are records of how many coin flips occurred. There's only anecdotal information on these precincts.

Who won these coin flips?

Of the seven coin flips/games of chance that were held in precincts using the Microsoft app, six of those were flips to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Clinton or Sanders. Of those six Clinton-vs.-Sanders coin flips, Sanders won five and Clinton one. The seventh coin flip was used to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Sanders or Martin O'Malley. Sanders won that coin flip as well. So in the seven coin flips that the Iowa Democratic Party has a record of, Sanders won six of them.

So it's incorrect to say that Clinton won every coin flip.

As for the less-than-half of the precincts that didn't use the Microsoft app, it's unclear how many coin flips took place. Only anecdotal information is available on these flips, such as web videos that circulated Monday night.


Did Clinton win the Iowa caucuses thanks to coin flips?

Clinton won the Iowa caucuses by the equivalent of about four state delegates. If the anecdotal evidence of Clinton winning six coin flips is correct, she would have won six county delegates through coin flips (setting aside the fact that party records show Sanders also won six county delegates as a result of coin flips). There is not a one-to-one correlation between county delegates and state delegates, or to national convention delegates.


Based on the party's delegate selection rules, a single county delegate represents a tiny fraction of a state convention delegate (the exact ratio is difficult to calculate because it varies from county to county).

Norm Sterzenbach, the former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party who oversaw the party's 2008 and 2012 Iowa caucuses, told CNN:

"I can say with almost absolutely certainty this election would not have been changed because of the coin flips. It would take a very large number of these to make that kind of impact, and one candidate would have to win them all. Our empirical evidence and anecdotal information shows that one candidate didn't win them all, and that coin flips are not that frequent."

Sterzenbach has worked with the Iowa caucuses since 2000. He is not aligned with any 2016 campaign, has not endorsed a candidate, and did not caucus for any 2016 candidate.

He says that four state delegate equivalents may seem like a small amount, but that it would take "a lot" of county delegates to amount to four state delegates. Sterzenbach said based on his recollection, there seemed to have been more instances of coin flips being held in 2008 than in 2016.
 
M

MI2AZ

Active Member
Well, speaking for me, who wants to know the truth if it's not what I want to hear? Better to listen to the talking heads spout their verbal poison against the American people. That's American politics.
 
AlwaysWrite

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
bbfreeburn said:
AW you may want to read about what actually went on, rather than spouting conservative talking points. (and there are multiple sources for this information.)
Click to expand...
Dear bbfreeburn:

I didn't say that Hillary won Iowa BECAUSE of coin flips, but I did re-edit that sentence slightly, and it should now read to your satisfaction. Also, I had previously read the item that you re-posted (about the coin flips).

I only mentioned the coin flips because they are another ridiculous situation involving Democrat primary voting, but the thrust of my mini-editorial was the SUPER DELEGATE situation. In all of your liberal wisdom, do you think the New Hampshire delegate apportionment (15-15) is fair, based on Sanders' landslide victory? And do you feel that the true importance of the Super Delegates is receiving the publicity it merits?
 
B

bbfreeburn

Active Member
Of course it's not fair. And the super-delegate system is downright stupid. I do agree that it does make the primary process a joke.

I do think it's getting publicity. However the sheeple aren't paying attention to it.
 
AlwaysWrite

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
bbfreeburn said:
Of course it's not fair. And the super-delegate system is downright stupid. I do agree that it does make the primary process a joke.

I do think it's getting publicity. However the sheeple aren't paying attention to it.
Click to expand...
... and regardless of how anyone looks at the Super Delegate situation, they should admit (without question) that it is FAR MORE UNFAIR the way the Democrats do it as compared with the way the GOP does (with Super Delegates required to vote the way their state does).
 
AlwaysWrite

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
In a way, although Bernie Sanders might have a legitimate complaint if he were to bring up the Super Delegate farce, he logically shouldn't complain because ... HE'S IN FAVOR OF TAKING WHAT SOMEONE EARNED AND RE-DISTRIBUTING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE.
 
AlwaysWrite

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
bbfreeburn said:
Then we should get rid of the electoral college? After all, the people don't actually vote for the president.
Click to expand...
... but at least, though not constitutionally mandated, members of the electoral college almost always follow the wishes of voters in the respective states, whereas -- as we've already seen in recent weeks -- a number of Super Delegates have already pledged one-sided support of Hillary, even though their states haven't reflected that support.
 
9andaWiggle

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
bbfreeburn said:
Then we should get rid of the electoral college? After all, the people don't actually vote for the president.
Click to expand...
The electoral college I am OK with, although I feel it could be improved upon. For one, the rules for the electors should be mandated and the same for all states.

Second, I disagree with the "winner take all" approach most states have, as it basically silences a great portion of the base that is supposedly represented; their vote doesn't count. I'm not sure the specifics of Nebraska and Maine's proportional systems, but "proportional" makes more sense to me. If 40% of the districts voted for "X", then why should their congressional representative vote be given to "Y"? Some math and rules would have to be figured out in regards to when/how the congressional votes would be split (based on voting district win%), but IMO this is something that should be done to account for/represent ALL voting districts (voters) in all states.
 
W

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
IF A DELEGATE DOES NOT VOTE THE WAY HIS DISTRICT WANTS HIM TO VOTE, WHY CANT HE BE FIRED FOR NOT DOING WHAT HE WAS ELECTED TO DO? THE WHOLE SYSTEM FROM TOP TO BOTTOM IS FLAWED AND DOOMED TO FAIL.
 
AlwaysWrite

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
WAMO said:
IF A DELEGATE DOES NOT VOTE THE WAY HIS DISTRICT WANTS HIM TO VOTE, WHY CANT HE BE FIRED FOR NOT DOING WHAT HE WAS ELECTED TO DO?
Click to expand...
Dear WAMO:

Probably for the same reason that a president or member of Congress often doesn't get fired when they don't vote the way that their constituents want them to vote.
 
AlwaysWrite

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
I'm the complete opposite of a Bernie Sanders fan, but Bernie's supporters should be livid when they find out that even though Sanders easily won the New Hampshire primary, he didn't get any more delegates to the national convention than Hillary Clinton.

Because of the rigged system of Super Delegates, the Democratic Party can -- and certainly intends to -- manipulate who gets the nomination, and it leads to the question: Were New Hampshire voters just wasting their time in selecting their choice of candidates?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top