• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie will unfairly get more delegates

S

Slavister

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
11,178
Reaction score
8,232
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let me start by saying I have no problems with Bernie winning the nomination and will vote for him in the general if he does. I like Bernie in many ways. However, I have no illusions about where we are with votes.

So to all those that pretend that more Bernie delegates = will of Dem voters (and that includes Bernie himself), I want to point out that Dem rules BENEFIT the front-runner (Bernie as of now). And considering the Progressive vs Moderate candidates we have, this benefit could very well be unfair if directed toward Bernie.

Example: voting in some state gets 30% to Bernie, 20% to Biden, 13% Bloomberg, 11% Pete, 11% Amy, 11% Warren, 4% rest.

Thanks to 15% cutoff rule, Bernie gets 60% of delegates and Biden gets 40%.

So 67% of Bloomberg, Pete, Amy, ... voters just got counted toward Bernie!

That is clearly not a true representation of what THOSE voters would have wanted.
 
Last edited:
Slavister said:
Let me start by saying I have no problems with Bernie winning the nomination and will vote for him in the general if he does. I like Bernie in many ways. However, I have no illusions about where we are with votes.

So to all those that pretend that more Bernie delegates = will of Dem voters (and that includes Bernie himself), I want to point out that Dem rules BENEFIT the front-runner (Bernie as of now). And considering the Progressive vs Moderate candidates we have, this benefit could very well be unfair if directed toward Bernie.

Example: voting in some state gets 30% to Bernie, 20% to Biden, 13% Bloomberg, 11% Pete, 11% Amy, 11% Warren, 4% rest.

Thanks to 15% cutoff rule, Bernie gets 60% of delegates and Biden gets 40%.

So 67% of Bloomberg, Pete, Amy, ... voters just got counted toward Bernie!

That is clearly not a true representation of what THOSE voters would have wanted.
Click to expand...

But that's the way it is.
 
Yeah, it's messed up.
 
Slavister said:
Let me start by saying I have no problems with Bernie winning the nomination and will vote for him in the general if he does. I like Bernie in many ways. However, I have no illusions about where we are with votes.

So to all those that pretend that more Bernie delegates = will of Dem voters (and that includes Bernie himself), I want to point out that Dem rules BENEFIT the front-runner (Bernie as of now). And considering the Progressive vs Moderate candidates we have, this benefit could very well be unfair if directed toward Bernie.

Example: voting in some state gets 30% to Bernie, 20% to Biden, 13% Bloomberg, 11% Pete, 11% Amy, 11% Warren, 4% rest.

Thanks to 15% cutoff rule, Bernie gets 60% of delegates and Biden gets 40%.

So 67% of Bloomberg, Pete, Amy, ... voters just got counted toward Bernie!

That is clearly not a true representation of what THOSE voters would have wanted.
Click to expand...

What you need is electronic role-call voting like Congress has where your vote is public information.

Then you could change your vote, up to the election to reflect your opinion.

Think of how many pollsters and canvasser would be out of jobs.

I'm looking to put people out of jobs, pollsters, lobbyists, lawyers, doctors, wildfire fighters.

Vote for me, your taxes will go up and you'll get no new social programs.
 
The Democratic Party is a private organization. They can use any mechanism they want to select a nominee.

It's commonly believed that "democratic" processes (i.e. primaries) are preferable. I'm not 100% convinced of that. The majority sometimes makes terribly unwise choices. Parties used to exert significant discipline on who got the nominations, but that's gone. That's how the Republicans ended up with Trump.

For elections of officials who will have the power to enact and execute law, there's no substitute for democratic elections, because everyone has to have a voice to prevent special interests from over-riding the rest of the population (at least in principle). For selection of the candidates people vote for, it's not the same.
 
Slavister said:
Let me start by saying I have no problems with Bernie winning the nomination and will vote for him in the general if he does. I like Bernie in many ways. However, I have no illusions about where we are with votes.

So to all those that pretend that more Bernie delegates = will of Dem voters (and that includes Bernie himself), I want to point out that Dem rules BENEFIT the front-runner (Bernie as of now). And considering the Progressive vs Moderate candidates we have, this benefit could very well be unfair if directed toward Bernie.

Example: voting in some state gets 30% to Bernie, 20% to Biden, 13% Bloomberg, 11% Pete, 11% Amy, 11% Warren, 4% rest.

Thanks to 15% cutoff rule, Bernie gets 60% of delegates and Biden gets 40%.

So 67% of Bloomberg, Pete, Amy, ... voters just got counted toward Bernie!

That is clearly not a true representation of what THOSE voters would have wanted.
Click to expand...

So the guy who gets the most votes, shouldn't win becomes something something rules unfair, something something Bloomberg/Pete/Amy votes etc. etc. yea whatever.

The democrats spent 3 years yelling that the guy with the most votes should win. Now, the guy they don't like may ACTUALLY get the most votes, they want to go "oh uh, we should stop him at the convention".

nope. **** off. You made your bed now lay in it!
 
DarkWizard12 said:
So the guy who gets the most votes, shouldn't win becomes something something rules unfair, something something Bloomberg/Pete/Amy votes etc. etc. yea whatever.

The democrats spent 3 years yelling that the guy with the most votes should win. Now, the guy they don't like may ACTUALLY get the most votes, they want to go "oh uh, we should stop him at the convention".

nope. **** off. You made your bed now lay in it!
Click to expand...

When there are 2 contestants, it makes sense that most votes should win.

When there are 3 or more, guy with most votes may or may not represent what most voters would like. OP illustrates how a Progressive may get most delegates (much more disproportionately than votes) simply because Moderates have many more candidates competing.

It's not rocket science.
 
vanceen said:
The Democratic Party is a private organization. They can use any mechanism they want to select a nominee.

It's commonly believed that "democratic" processes (i.e. primaries) are preferable. I'm not 100% convinced of that. The majority sometimes makes terribly unwise choices. Parties used to exert significant discipline on who got the nominations, but that's gone. That's how the Republicans ended up with Trump.

For elections of officials who will have the power to enact and execute law, there's no substitute for democratic elections, because everyone has to have a voice to prevent special interests from over-riding the rest of the population (at least in principle). For selection of the candidates people vote for, it's not the same.
Click to expand...

OP point is not whether majority makes a good or bad choice but that current mechanism being used does NOT properly represent majority wishes.

If we had a much more fair ranked voting instead in Dem party primaries, the results could have been MUCH different. All of them are better than what we have, but an example of a good one is here: you just mark each candidate on how much you like them and the voting system takes care of the rest.
 
I don't think Comrade BS will unfairly get more delegates. I think the NDSNC, formerly known as DNC, who is controlled by the globalist will select Mini Mikey Dumberg as their man and then screw over Comrade BS for the nomination. :twocents:
 
Slavister said:
When there are 2 contestants, it makes sense that most votes should win.

When there are 3 or more, guy with most votes may or may not represent what most voters would like.
Click to expand...

If the guy with the most votes does not represent what most voters like, then CERTAINLY, that would mean that all the other guys who come in second, 3rd, 4th...don't represent what most voters like either. 1st place is the best for a reason, because if he can get the most votes, that means he's democrats best bet to win.
 
vanceen said:
The Democratic Party is a private organization. They can use any mechanism they want to select a nominee.

It's commonly believed that "democratic" processes (i.e. primaries) are preferable. I'm not 100% convinced of that. The majority sometimes makes terribly unwise choices. Parties used to exert significant discipline on who got the nominations, but that's gone. That's how the Republicans ended up with Trump.

For elections of officials who will have the power to enact and execute law, there's no substitute for democratic elections, because everyone has to have a voice to prevent special interests from over-riding the rest of the population (at least in principle). For selection of the candidates people vote for, it's not the same.
Click to expand...

"That's how the Republicans ended up with Trump."? No, the Republicans ended up with Trump because of Hilarity and Bernie, and it appears that something similar will occur in November.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
If the guy with the most votes does not represent what most voters like, then CERTAINLY, that would mean that all the other guys who come in second, 3rd, 4th...don't represent what most voters like either. 1st place is the best for a reason, because if he can get the most votes, that means he's democrats best bet to win.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Imagine some random country where people voting for a President are given 4 choices: Trump (from a red party), Bernie, Pete, Biden (from a blue party)

Trump gets 30%, Bernie gets 25%, Pete gets 20%, Biden gets 15%.

Just because Trump got more votes does not mean most people want Trump. It may very well mean that 70% do NOT want Trump and would have preferred ANY of the other 3 candidates to Trump. So of all the choices, Trump is actually THE WORST choice. Any of the "losers" would have represented will of the people better than the highest-votes-Trump choice.

This is exactly the same reason why strong 3rd party candidates spoil elections for the party they are closest to.

All these problems would go away with ranking voting system, like this STAR voting one: you give each candidate on a score (even same-scores allowed) and the system figures out the true winner.

smallvoice said:
"That's how the Republicans ended up with Trump."? No, the Republicans ended up with Trump because of Hilarity and Bernie, and it appears that something similar will occur in November.
Click to expand...

No, Republicans ended up with Trump long before Hillary/Bernie. Americans ended up with Trump in part because of Hillary / Bernie business, but Republicans were the ones to choose their Dear Leader to represent them first.
 
Last edited:
Slavister said:
Nope.

Imagine some random country where people voting for a President are given 4 choices: Trump (from a red party), Bernie, Pete, Biden (from a blue party)

Trump gets 30%, Bernie gets 25%, Pete gets 20%, Biden gets 15%.

Just because Trump got more votes does not mean most people want Trump. It may very well mean that 70% do NOT want Trump and would have preferred ANY of the other 3 candidates to Trump. So of all the choices, Trump is actually THE WORST choice. Any of the "losers" would have represented will of the people better than the highest-votes-Trump choice.

This is exactly the same reason why strong 3rd party candidates spoil elections for the party they are closest to.

All these problems would go away with ranking voting system, like this STAR voting one: you give each candidate on a score (even same-scores allowed) and the system figures out the true winner.



No, Republicans ended up with Trump long before Hillary/Bernie. Americans ended up with Trump in part because of Hillary / Bernie business, but Republicans were the ones to choose their Dear Leader to represent them first.
Click to expand...
and i assume, next thing you'll tell me, is why, somehow, must americans would rather have the 2nd or 3rd place person. right?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
and i assume, next thing you'll tell me, is why, somehow, must americans would rather have the 2nd or 3rd place person. right?
Click to expand...

That's what the convention is for - to sort that out. To see where the delegates that were pledged to 2nd and 3rd and 4th and 5th person would go to. Would they go to the 1st person, or to combine and win over the 1st person. It's not the best system but better than no system at all. Runoff elections, equal.vote, fairvote and other ranking systems represent even better voting systems. What we have is a weak one - contested convention.
 
Slavister said:
That's what the convention is for - to sort that out. To see where the delegates that were pledged to 2nd and 3rd and 4th and 5th person would go to. Would they go to the 1st person, or to combine and win over the 1st person. It's not the best system but better than no system at all. Runoff elections, equal.vote, fairvote and other ranking systems represent even better voting systems. What we have is a weak one - contested convention.
Click to expand...

oh yes...if ONLY we had ranked voting.

Bernie vs every other candidate in head to head matchup.

Sanders demolishes Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar head-to-head, says new poll.

Good luck beating trump after stealing the nomination from Bernie.
 
I take that back. My bad.

Comrade BS is going to have the big one, and then the insane nutjobs on the left will have Globalist Granny as their guy providing she can stay out of the Pinot Noir. AND not go all wobbly again.
 
Slavister said:
Let me start by saying I have no problems with Bernie winning the nomination and will vote for him in the general if he does. I like Bernie in many ways. However, I have no illusions about where we are with votes.

So to all those that pretend that more Bernie delegates = will of Dem voters (and that includes Bernie himself), I want to point out that Dem rules BENEFIT the front-runner (Bernie as of now). And considering the Progressive vs Moderate candidates we have, this benefit could very well be unfair if directed toward Bernie.

Example: voting in some state gets 30% to Bernie, 20% to Biden, 13% Bloomberg, 11% Pete, 11% Amy, 11% Warren, 4% rest.

Thanks to 15% cutoff rule, Bernie gets 60% of delegates and Biden gets 40%.

So 67% of Bloomberg, Pete, Amy, ... voters just got counted toward Bernie!

That is clearly not a true representation of what THOSE voters would have wanted.
Click to expand...

You mean the democrats primary system is rigged? Oh, my!!!!!! Like everything else they do. Who gave away questions to a candidate prior to the Presidential debates in 20116.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom