Democracy is OK if the votes go MY WAY.

[MineralMan]

I'm not sure how that came into the discussion, really. There's Hillary Clinton with more popular votes and more pledged delegates. People vote and she's ahead, and is certain to have a majority of both by convention time. Then, there's Bernie Sanders, who will have a majority of neither at the convention.

There are also 714 super delegates who will be voting. In the past, they've voted for the candidate who had the most votes. They'll do that again in 2016. But, somehow, they should switch their vote and vote for the candidate with fewer pledged delegates and actual votes, according to some.

It seems to me that those who are calling for a Sanders win, despite his numbers gained from actual primaries and caucuses, are basically saying what's in the title of this post. Where did that attitude come from? How is that democratic?

Maybe someone can explain that for me.

[stone space]

1. The supers will follow the pledged delegates.

That's been clear from the start.

It is the number that both sides have been seeking to maximize all along.

[MineralMan]

7. Well, they always have done so.

I expect they will do the same this year.

[morningfog]

53. Which years did two candidates proceed to the convention, neither having secured a total majority

through pledged delegates -- and rely on the supers to secure the nomination?

[MineralMan]

55. 2008. Neither candidate had enough delegates without the super delegates

that year, either. The super delegates determined who had a majority of all delegates. Surely you knew that.

[morningfog]

56. STRIIIIIIKE ONE! Hillary conceded before the convention.

There were not two candidates at the convention vying for the nomination. Neither secured the nomination through pledged delegates alone, but one conceded prior to the convention.

Any others?

[MineralMan]

62. Ah, OK. Keep in mind that Bernie might do exactly the same

once the primary elections are over. In fact, I rather expect him to concede before the convention. He'll still be there, and will be able to do what Clinton did in 2008, by putting Hillary's name up for election by acclamation. That would be the gentlemanly thing to do, and I'm sure that Bernie's a gentleman when you get down to brass tacks.

But, neither Clinton nor Obama had enough pledged delegates from the primaries to win outright. The super delegates would have been the deciding factor. Same as this year.

Watch for Bernie to concede after the DC primary on June 14. I'm expecting it.

[morningfog]

72. He might. We'll see. Point being there is no precedent for what could happen at this convention.

[MineralMan]

73. Yes, we'll see.

The convention hasn't started yet. Plenty of time for Bernie to see the light. He's a smart man. I'm sure he'll make the right decision. If not, then he still won't be the nominee. His choice, really, about how to proceed after June 15.

[anigbrowl]

100. You're not an umpire

And asking a trick question like that is pure trolling. MineralMan gave you the most generous interpretation of your question; you, meanwhile, have yet to explain why you think superdelegates should hand the gold medal* to the runner-up.

* a metaphor for victory. I am well aware they do not hand out actual gold medals at the convention.

[morningfog]

112. He made a claim which was wrong and then doubled down.

I have never said that supers should give it to anyone other than the pledged delegate winner. I certainly don't expect that to happen. But, his claim was wrong.

[panader0]

64. "they always have done so."

Al Franken is a super. Bernie won his state 61.6% to 38.4%. But Al Franken is still a HRC super.
He, and many more in this primary have ignored the will of their constituents. Shamefully.

[stone space]

97. Al Franken is an individual.

The supers as a group will follow the pledged delegates.

That gives quite a lot of flexibility to individual supers.

[panader0]

98. But not the will of his own state voters. Not cool.

[anigbrowl]

101. And why is that not cool?

You want superdelegates to follow the will of the voters in states where it leans Bernie's way, but to override it in states where HRC won. Let's get real here.

[LiberalFighter]

106. Yep! They will create rules that change if they don't win.

[stone space]

103. Why does it matter what individual supers do?

Unless you can guarantee me that Iowa has our appropriate percentage of supers, why should I accept your state-by-state formulation of the obligations of a particular super?

It seems designed to write in stone the state by state distribution of supers to determine the outcome, which could negatively effect my own state for all I know. Do you have evidence that the state by state distribution of supers is even fair? I have no idea.

Let's get real, OK.

The supers will follow the pledged delegates as a group.

The exact distributions on a state-by-state basis will vary.

Supers who feel compelled to vote one way or the other will do so, but as a group, the supers will follow the pledged delegates.

It's like a figurehead monarchy, as I see it.

Sure, technically they have the theoretical power to buck the trend, but they can only exercise that power once without being stripped of it permanently.

In the real world (while individuals will do as they see fit), as a group, the supers will follow the pledged delegates.

This obsession over what individual supers do is silly.

[MineralMan]

99. He will vote for the candidate with a majority

of pledged delegates, as I said. He won't have to change his planned vote. He can vote as he chooses. If Minnesotans wish, they can vote for someone else when his term as Senator is up. They won't, though. Minnesotans like Al. Minnesotans will also vote overwhelmingly for Clinton in November. Don't believe me? Just watch.

[LiberalFighter]

108. Plus the fact Minnesota used a caucus system which doesn't encourage full participation.

There were 1,053,205 that voted for him in 2014. While only 125,635 voted for Sanders in 2016.

Franken's margin of victory in 2014 was sufficient that he would not need to worry about anything related to Sanders. Especially when he isn't up for re-election until 2020.

[MineralMan]

114. Exactly. In 2020, too, Minnesota will have a primary election,

rather than caucuses. Both parties have finally recognized that the caucus system does not produce results that truly represent the will of the people. Too small a sample.

Al Franken will do as he thinks best. He will not change his decision based on the ugly crap being posted on his Facebook page. He will be reelected, if he wants to run. Simple.

[Matt_in_STL]

33. If it was clear from the start, why didn't they wait until the pledged delegates were in to endorse?

All they had to say is that they endorse the candidate with the most pledged delegates and let the process play itself out.

[stone space]

46. We aren't talking about endorsements, here.

And pledges made by unpledged delegates aren't worth the paper they are written on.

[pmorlan1]

57. Don't Muddy Things With Pesky Facts

You know they couldn't let the true democratic process to play out. You can't expect them to compete fair and square. They are incapable of that. The only thing they know is how to game the system. They've been doing it for years. It's who they are. They are proud of it and think anyone who doesn't do it is a chump. Their ethical compass was broken years ago. For them the only important thing is winning and they will do whatever they have to do in order for that to happen. The voters are just bit players in their political game. They collect them like chess pieces.

[MineralMan]

70. Because they are not required to do that.

Super delegates are free to vote for or support whoever they wish. At any time. There are no rules for them that say they have to wait to declare their support. They don't vote, though until the convention, at which time they vote at the same their state delegation votes. Whatever they said before then is meaningless. It's only their actual vote at the convention that matters.

In most cases, they will vote for the candidate they have supported, but that's not required. It's up to each unpledged delegate to decide. Some people are posting "encouragements" on super delegates' FB pages, twitter feeds and elsewhere, attempting to get them to vote in a certain way. Those "encouragements" are often in the form of some sort of nasty statement or threat. I doubt that will produce the desired result, though.

Each and every super delegate is a big, grown-up, politically aware person. They are members of Congress, Senators, and long-time Democratic Party leaders. They know their own minds and make their own decisions. Pressure is something they face all the time. Silly threats or name-calling isn't going to cause them to change their votes. Winning the majority of pledged delegates, though, might. It's a little late for that now, though.

[HumanityExperiment]

2. 'Maybe someone can explain that for me'...

you're not looking for explanation, 'Where did that attitude come from' isn't about looking for reason or discussion, it's your usual troll light post

Carry on... nothing to see here folks...

[tonyt53]

3. Actually it is a very reasonable question to ask.

[HumanityExperiment]

6. No, it's not...

how do you quantify feeling or 'attitude'?

The pivot of HRC supporters is based upon voters, and specifically voters within DEM party to 'defend' their 'popular' vote bit...

the reality that Bernie has a much larger appeal than JUST party loyalist is oddly left out of the convo... so if you REALLY wanted to know why the 'attitude' then tap into some intellectual honesty and ask yourself why HRC and her supporters love to focus on only DEM 'popularity' rather than the broader appeal a GE candidate would need to have...

Besides, why did SDs declare before a single primary vote was cast? is that counter to 'democracy'? what's the 'attitude' going on there?

how many slices can we split this hair on?

[brush]

34. So you're actually suggesting that the rules of the party be changed for Sanders

The super delegates system was instituted in the '80s, long before both Clinton and Sanders were candidates.

And in that vein, Hillary was a Democrat long before Sanders, she has built relationships within the party, served as a senator from NY, been a first lady, SOS in the Obama admin, raised money to help down-ticket candidates (many of them super delegates themselves), so of course they aligned with her.

Hell, Sanders wasn't even a democrat when they did. He hasn't put in the work in the party, so to expect all the super delegates to switch because Sanders suddenly joined the party (something he maybe should have done long before), is just unrealistic. It's not going to happen.

It's not Clinton's fault, and it's not Sanders' fault. It is what it is.

He came late to the party, literally.

[HumanityExperiment]

38. ...

She makes the case for changing the rules and for answering the OP's post here... are the SDs 'democracy'?

'The super delegates system was instituted in the '80s, long before both Clinton and Sanders were candidates.'

Know that we have clarification from DWS on that point... and knowing the history of WHY SDs were created in the first place... will you be an advocate for changing the rules or no? is that democracy in action or ???

Let's see if you can be intellectually honest going forward


'And in that vein, Hillary was a Democrat long before Sanders, she has built relationships within the party, served as a senator from NY, been a first lady, SOS in the Obama admin, raised money to help down-ticket candidates (many of them super delegates themselves), so of course they aligned with her.'

Again my point about broader appeal that Sanders has over HRC isn't addressed in your point above... why the pivot away from the broader appeal?



'Hell, Sanders wasn't even a democrat when they did. He hasn't put in the work in the party, so to expect all the super delegates to switch because Sanders suddenly joined the party (something he maybe should have done long before), is just unrealistic. It's not going to happen.'

Party over principle and party over progressive/liberal issue... got it... thx for validating that yet again...



'He came late to the party, literally.'

No, the party left progressive / liberal issues and policies to shift to the right for political expediency.... HRC is and always will be republican light

[brush]

43. I'm not stuck on the super delegate system. If he wins, change it.

But come on, to expect the rules of the game to be changed mid-game — you have to know that's not going to happen.

And you speak of pivoting away from broader appeal — Clinton seems to me to have broader appeal, 3 million more votes and nearly 300 more delegates — and she's been under repug attack for 25 years. Sanders has been under the radar, but if they had been attacking the Marxist and Trotskyite ties in his background for 25 years, I question any broad appeal he would have.

And as for another point of yours, if the party left Sanders, why did he join it? Lately all he's been doing is attacking the party. I don't think any candidate has ever joined a party, then commenced to attack the party over and over and over publicly, publicly, and expect the party hierarchy to change party rules to give him the nomination. His attacks should have been kept and negotiated in-house

It's almost comical to think that strategy is going to be successful.

Remember, he promised not to go negative, now that's all he's doing.

[HumanityExperiment]

44. pivot, pivot, pivot...

'I'm not stuck on the super delegate system' this post....

deflection 1 :: intellectual honesty 0

preceding post....

'The super delegates system was instituted in the '80s, long before both Clinton and Sanders were candidates.

And in that vein, Hillary was a Democrat long before Sanders, she has built relationships within the party, served as a senator from NY, been a first lady, SOS in the Obama admin, raised money to help down-ticket candidates (many of them super delegates themselves), so of course they aligned with her.

Hell, Sanders wasn't even a democrat when they did. He hasn't put in the work in the party, so to expect all the super delegates to switch because Sanders suddenly joined the party (something he maybe should have done long before), is just unrealistic. It's not going to happen.'

'Clinton seems to me to have broader appeal, 3 million more votes and nearly 300 more delegates'

Again... closed primaries, open primaries Bernie wins, same with caucuses


'And as for another point of yours, if the party left Sanders, why did he join it? Lately all he's been doing is attacking the party. I don't think any candidate has ever joined a party, then commenced to attack the party over and over and over publicly, publicly, and expect the party hierarchy to change party rules to give him the nomination. His attacks should have been kept and negotiated in-house'

Party over principle again? you'd think your beating that party over principle drum would get you more support... odd that's not what's happening
DEM party left progressive / liberal principles and issue... enjoy your entrancement of republican light candidate

[brush]

47. Stating that super delegate system pre-dates both candidates is not saying I'm a proponent of it

It's just stating a fact.

You also need to do some research on open and closed primaries.

Clinton has won more open primaries than Sanders.

I'm surprised you don't know that.

And why do you keep harping on "party over principle"? That argument is moot since he joined the party, plus, it's not, IMO, smart to constantly and publicly attack your own party. Sure, go after your opponent, but the party with the super delegates you want to persuade to back you? And you keep on attack them/the party — nah, not smart.

[HumanityExperiment]

48. ...

'Stating that super delegate system pre-dates both candidates is not saying I'm a proponent of it' :: 'It's just stating a fact.'

Yeah... while leaving out the 'WHY', Bernie and his campaign is about as 'grassroots' as you can get this primary cycle ... this sums it up

I stated 'Again... closed primaries, open primaries Bernie wins, same with caucuses'

You're correct, I should have stated broader appeal with independents which is and always has been correct, he wins over and over with broader appeal


And why do you keep harping on "party over principle"?

Because it's the truth, HRC is republican light, her policies and issues have always needed to 'evolve' to the left from her always starting position on the right...

[mythology]

78. Please stop repeating the nonsense that Sanders wins open primaries

Clinton has won far more open primaries than Sanders. He mostly wins caucus states where far fewer voters turn out to vote. This is actually easy to look up.

[HumanityExperiment]

82. ...

I clarified my mistake... I meant to state independents, Bernie far and away wins with independents against HRC

[MineralMan]

10. I actually am looking for an explanation. Do you have one?

You can call my posts trolling all you like. I don't care. But, I still have the question.

[HumanityExperiment]

12. ...

I deposited a post into the trollin' tin cup for ya, off another post by a responder...

[moriah]

60. Chill with the troll accusations, dude.

I don't like to have to alert but I will.

[HumanityExperiment]

68. ...

threat? 'I don't like to have to alert but I will.' Interesting angle, conflicting convictions

THIS: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512034074#post32

which started here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512034074#post4

is this the 'learn and practice new arguments that don't involve trolling accusations' angle you mentioned in another reply in this thread?

Would you alert on those replies?

I'm pretty sure I can come up with 'new' and 'exciting' ways to 'learn and practice' posts that fit within the rules... but dancing around the truth isn't something anyone should aspire to...

[moriah]

59. Mineral Man has been here long enough to deserve the respect of not attacking him...

... by calling him a troll.

But since you are new, you might not be aware of the original civility rules on DU. If you don't plan on staying after the Primary is over it might not be of much importance to you, but rules will once again be in place vs subjective civility.

Best to learn and practice new arguments that don't involve trolling accusations just because you can't refute the point.

[HumanityExperiment]

65. respect...

interesting attempt to define that word... time vested increases one's 'respect' quota

I acknowledge MM's tenure, I do not respect the posts and replies that invoke trolling

I didn't realize tenure is all that's required to use as a 'shield' against the truth if it fits the posts presented

'But since you are new, you might not be aware of the original civility rules on DU. If you don't plan on staying after the Primary is over it might not be of much importance to you, but rules will once again be in place vs subjective civility.

Best to learn and practice new arguments that don't involve trolling accusations just because you can't refute the point.'

I'm 'new' to this forum, but am not new to the realities of truth and using that truth no matter the 'tenure' or circumstance

If this reply is an attempt to frame that this forum is going to pivot to using rules to shut truthful and factual debate and conversation then that's an interesting revelation

MM is a trolling based upon his posts, I'm just directly pointing it out... others may hedge around the point without directly calling it out... if that's the 'original civility' then I can see how folks have 'evolved' their replies to meet those 'rule parameters'.. if that's the 'learn and practice' bit you allude to...

[moriah]

67. Okay, I'll make it a little more clear.

Even when dealing with single-post Obvious Trump-Humping Trolls, traditionally the only engagement allowed was to respond with "Welcome to DU! Enjoy your stay...." and either alert if it's obviously something that should be hidden, or search the Announcement forum for this round of MIRT members and report the suspected troll.

Anything else was a personal attack and would get you a hide too.

So, if you think MM is a troll, don't feed or engage him, and report him to MIRT. That's their entire job. They canned an anti-Semitic poster today with several thousand posts. But as the Rational Wiki says on trolls:

It is, of course, an improper argumentum ad hominem (personal attack) when you accuse a user of being a troll just because you don't like what they are saying or the way they are saying it. Don't accuse someone of being a troll just to dismiss their argument. Just because you disagree doesn't necessarily mean the user is trying to be disruptive, so it is necessary to measure the suspected troll against the description given above.

[HumanityExperiment]

69. Ahh, perception...

isn't this a discussion / debate forum?

Aren't the people and the very posts they present all open for discussion?

I could 'report', but I choose to 'highlight' the post or poster as the situation as I perceive it deserves... If that get's me booted so be it, but again.... truth matters to me more than feigning civility while waiting on others to 'sort out the truth'

[moriah]

75. Well, if you can't be civil, you'll be gone by July.

So I'm not too worried.

[HumanityExperiment]

79. ...

agreed, I'm not worried either

I'm absolutely positive that HRC supporters will be trolling it up after convention if HRC earns the nomination

HRC supporters have their 'hit list' rdy to roll to bait folks into getting axed using those troll threads

care to wager on that?

[moriah]

80. The only troll I will be after is the tangerine terror troll named Trump. Nt

[HumanityExperiment]

84. ...

yeah... sure... since you 'threatened' to report, I'm sure you will be watching to 'report' after convention should HRC earn the nomination and this forum pivots to GE

care to wager?

[moriah]

85. If I see you, or anyone, breaking the rules Skinner puts in place then, yes, I'll alert.

And I have alerted on a LOT of over-the-top Sanders attacks under current rules.

So please, let's drop this. Your continued persistence is actually more like what actual disrupors do than anything MM posted.

[HumanityExperiment]

86. ...

have a day!

[aikoaiko]

4. Why not ask the people who post such things in those threads?

If you really want an answer, that is.

[MineralMan]

8. Because I wanted the question to be its own thread.

It's DU. We can post as we choose here. Do you have an answer to my question in the opening post? That's what I'm looking for.

[aikoaiko]

32. Hey, you're the one who claims to be looking for answer. I pointed you to the best place to get it.

I don't think you're actually looking for an answer.

[rbrnmw]

9. that is so much bs

of course votes matter as do delegates and Hillary has the most of both.

[lunamagica]

20. The "revolutionaries" you are counting on can't even bother to vote.

[rbrnmw]

21. No we aren't

saying that doesn't make it fact

[rbrnmw]

24. Oh I think I have had my say I voted

we aren't having a revolution

[rbrnmw]

30. What is that suppose to mean?

[MineralMan]

13. No, it is not a revolution. Witness the primaries and caucuses

in all 50 states and our nominating convention. It's a regular presidential election year. You and others might not like that, but that's what's happening. In the end, we'll have nominees for both major parties and an election in November, just like always. One of those two nominees will move into the White House next January.

No revolution. Just a presidential election.

[rbrnmw]

23. Sure that's gonna happen

[HumanityExperiment]

26. 'not a revolution'...

Funny how establishment DEM types are always so quick to try to quash this optic / narrative...

Bernie's broader appeal within DEM party and def. with Independents isn't up for debate, it's a simple fact and the reasons for that is so difficult for establishment folks to grasp... hence this OP's post...

Actual activism isn't difficult to see happening, what's hilarious is the intellectual dishonesty that goes into trying to create a narrative that goes opposite of the very activism occurring in front of them

[hack89]

77. "Broad appeal"? Really?

an odd thing to say considering broad swaths of the Democratic party have rejected him? Have you looked closely at the demographics of his supporters? White men. Not much else.

[HumanityExperiment]

81. ...

'the Democratic party'

I did mention independents did I not?

You might have missed that...


'Have you looked closely at the demographics of his supporters?'

I have, interesting you haven't

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/

http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-hampshire-primary-2016-election/bernie-sanders-wins-every-demographic-group/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/06/3766055/wisconsin-bernie-sanders/

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/dear-cnn-stop-erasing-people-color-who-support-bernie-sanders

[hack89]

87. POC have overwhelmingly rejected him

as have most women. Yes - there have been exceptions in some states but in general she engenders support from a much more diverse slice of America than Bernie does. Why do you think that Bernie does so poorly in states with large non-white populations?

[HumanityExperiment]

88. pivot, pivot, pivot...

you go from this:
'an odd thing to say considering broad swaths of the Democratic party have rejected him? Have you looked closely at the demographics of his supporters? White men. Not much else.'

to this:
'Yes - there have been exceptions in some states but in general she engenders support from a much more diverse slice of America than Bernie does.'

you're getting closer to the truth, intellectual dishonesty is so unbecoming... embrace the facts and truth

[hack89]

89. His core support is white men.

there can be no doubt of that. What is left when you take away POC and women?

[HumanityExperiment]

90. ...

you're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts...

Have a day!

[hack89]

94. We know the facts.

the demographics are pretty clear.

[HumanityExperiment]

104. ...

indeed the facts are known so why veer away from them like you have?

[Blue_Adept]

28. It's not a revolution until you're in the streets with huge numbers and demands.

And possibly weapons to extract said demands.

Otherwise it IS a regular election and DEMOCRACY that you're participating in.

[J_J_]

11. Democracy fails when someone is stealing the election

This silly Op could have come from a Bush supporter in 2000 and 2004.

There is no proof Hillary is winning because the voting is done with secret software that has been designed for fraud.

If the media is so sure Bernie people are conspiracy theorists, why won't they even admit what people are angry about on TV and at least debate the subject?

They are pretending that Bernie people are mad about nothing. Why not bring up what they are mad about?

Mad About Rigged Elections? Mainstream Media Says YOU Are the Problem
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512034034

[MineralMan]

14. That is your claim.

[AtomicKitten]

74. When they stop cheating, we'll stop having a problem with it.

[anigbrowl]

102. Which campaign was downloading another campaign's data again?

These complaints of stolen elections coming from the Sanders camp ring pretty hollow, especially considering its own poor record in this area. Where's your evidence? Oh right there isn't any because it's a conspiracy, a perfectly watertight conspiracy that leaves no evidence but that is simultaneously glaringly obvious to every Sanders fan despite this.

[BootinUp]

15. Prediction: you will get more of the same, obfuscation, CT, Rigged!!! Hell, they get it

straight from Bernie and just add a few flourishes.

[KingFlorez]

17. Consider who Sanders praises

He has praised some people who don't believe in democratic process. He seems to believe in forcing your way into office based on self-righteousness.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Will democracy be "OK" if Trump wins?

[MineralMan]

41. It's up to all of us to make sure he doesn't win.

If we don't do that, then he just might. We've had other awful Republican Presidents, as I remember. Nixon, Reagan and GWB come to mind. Those caused serious setbacks. So, let's elect the Democratic nominee in 2016 and send Donald Trump back to the sidelines. That's democracy in action. What do you say? People vote. Presidents are elected. Only when things are very close is there an opportunity to steal an election, as George W. Bush did. More Democratic votes are the answer, not fewer.

So Vote for Democrats! That's the simplest answer I can offer.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. But, your "simple" answer didn't answer the question.

In your OP you questioned the principles of democracy. "Democracy is OK if the votes go my way."

So, is democracy "OK" if Trump wins? Was it OK when Reagan won? Or, Nixon? They're elections were "very close".

So, if some of us don't consider President Trump or President Clinton "OK" what should we do? How about if we exercise our democratic rights and vote for the candidate we prefer and consider "OK"?

I don't think that Hillary may lose because of 3rd party candidates or a "tough" primary or lack of "party unity". But, I do think she may lose because of the number of people fed up with lesser of two evils, not as bad, politics-as-usual and will just sit it out.

[MineralMan]

54. I don't see an alternative, really.

We have a democratically-based system of government. Sadly, far too many people do not participate in it, for one reason or another. Democracy doesn't guarantee good governance. It can't do that. All it can do is offer a way for the governed to select their own representatives, from the executives right down to the council that decides things in their own community.

I have criteria for what I think is good governance. I vote in every election. Sometimes, the people I vote for win and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the governance that results is less than I hoped for. But, I'm just one person in my community, my state and my country. I live here. I vote. I participate in politics on the local level, helping to choose and promote candidates I believe will do a decent job.

I do not expect that all of my goals will be realized. I'm just one person in society. Other people have different goals. In fact, each individual has a set of goals and beliefs about government. On a regular basis our governing officials stand for election and we vote. Some of us vote. Not even a majority of those eligible to vote bother to vote.

Those who do not vote do not participate in choosing how their society will be governed. What I'm I do do with that knowledge? I try, personally, to increase the number of people who vote. I encourage people to vote. I want people to vote. If they do not, then we get a government that is not the choice of many, but only of few.

There are elections every year. Local, county, state, and federal elections, all on different schedules, but we have those elections regularly. I participate, because I want to be part of the decision making process. I live here. I have to deal with government. I have to live with the government that is in place. So, I vote. I vote for the better of two options in almost every election and for every office. Sometimes, the better is still not as good a choice as I would wish for. But, if I do not vote, I may get the worse choice deciding things.

It is our system. Would I change our system? Perhaps. But I'd have to see what was proposed to replace it and then decide if that was better than what it replaced. Do I know what the best system would be? I do not. What might be my ideal system might be far from ideal for my neighbor. Society is complex and no governance will ever be ideal. It can't be.

I could go elsewhere. But I do not. I stay here, in a state I chose for myself and in a city I chose for myself. I'm involved with politics, particularly on the local and state level. I participate in government at the national level, but only as a lone voter, really, and an encourager of voting. I do not know what else I can do.

It's a presidential election year. Once again, I'll be voting for the better option in November. I chose an option during the primary period with November in mind. Was I right? I don't know. I believe that the candidate I support will have a better chance to be elected and will have a better chance to move things in a good direction, given the limitations of that office. As it turned out, my state gave most of its delegates to the Democratic candidate I wasn't supporting. That's OK. That was the decision of the voters who participated in our limited caucus system

It looks like the candidate I supported will be the Democratic nominee, but I would have voted for either in November anyhow. I see the candidate of the other party. That makes my decision even easier, and makes me sure I'll be out trying to get Democrats to the polling place with even more vigorous efforts.

You will do as you choose. Everyone will. Next January, the result will lead to one or another candidate moving into the White House and will determine the makeup of Congress. Will things be ideal? Certainly not. They never are. Will we be OK? I don't know. That will depend on how people vote. I hope you will vote. I hope everyone will vote.

If you have an alternative, better solution for the next four years, please let me know. I can't think of one.

[hrmjustin]

31. It is the will of the primary voters for Hillary to be the nominee.

Anyone who denies that is deluding themselves and anyone that wants to overrule the voters and put in Sanders does not believe in democracy.

[Jester Messiah]

36. We want to overrule the DNC shenanigans that resulted in this particular count of votes.

There's a wee bit of a difference.

[hrmjustin]

40. That is just rhetoric.

Hillary won Sanders lost.

[Jester Messiah]

45. You only get the bad ending if you win by cheating. n/t

[moriah]

83. And so you really believe that Hillary is so powerful and talented that she can...

... rig any election she wants to?

Almost sounds like an endorsement.

[Jester Messiah]

35. You're a taxi driver and your fare has instructed you to drive off a bridge.

Is it ethically permissible to overturn the will of your fare?

[LuvLoogie]

58. Is that one of those Revolutionary, logic optional syllogisms?

[zipplewrath]

37. No single answer

I realize you aren't really interested in an explanation, and I'm not actually one of the people that expresses such an attitude, but despite snarky tone and condescending attitude that your posts typically hold, I'll make an attempt anyways for the lurkers. But for future reference, these kinda pseudo "meta" questions work better if you actually ask a specific person about a specific statement they make.

There are several themes around your questions, but most of them leverage on the reality that at the end of this contest, this election was relatively close to a "tie". When it's all done, the difference between them will be a few hundred delegates at best, not counting the superdelegates. This perception is especially true for anyone that perceives that the system was stacked in Clinton's favor from the outset. It is also perceived by many that the hodge podge of systems, with so many not being "open" or having registration requirements months in advance, that the "democratic" part of the system was a bit bent, and not in Bernie's favor. And at the end of the day, the reality is that a good 10-15% of the Bernie vote is already over in the Trump camp. Bernie suffered from having his "revolution" interrupted by the dust up in the GOP. It took votes and really a lot of visibility away from Bernie.

Like I say, I'm not actually one that holds most of these views. I understand them, but I also know that the campaign didn't do a lot of things they should have very early on and that hurt them greatly. I suspect he never thought he'd get this far so didn't do the early work. He was probably just in it to move the needle left a little. I also think Hillary is in real trouble and there is a very good chance she will lose, and lose badly. She does very poorly with the independents and there are a lot of the GOP that will vote for anyone but another Clinton. There are folks that believe this that also believe that the democratic party has one last chance to get this right and are advocating that they do so. I'm sorry they confuse you so.

[MineralMan]

42. Thanks for the explanation.

As I understand it, though, "close" doesn't really count in elections, either primary or general. There is a winner and a loser, or more than one loser. A few hundred delegates? That is a largish win at the convention, not a "close" result. It's not even a near "tie." A majority is a majority.

The system of primary elections is far too complex, I agree. But, it is the system that has been in place in 2016, and it is the system that will be used. The time to change that primary system is during the four years preceding the next presidential election year. That was not done between 2012 and 2016, so we have the system we have.

Now, in Minnesota, we're switching from caucuses to a primary for the next presidential primary election. We're making a change, at the time when a change can be made. It was too late to make changes when the 2016 primaries began. Bernie Sanders decided to run, with that system in place, but apparently wasn't prepared for the primary campaign in a way that took advantage of the system. As you say, he may never have expected to do as well as he has, and planned a symbolic campaign.

There is no mechanism to change the system for 2016. So, that system will be used. People voted. Delegates were allocated. We also have those super delegates, who make up about 15% of the total delegate count. They can vote as they think best. They're part of the system. Most feel that they should support the will of the people, as expressed by the pledged delegate count. Many also supported Hillary Clinton from the start, of course. They're long-time Democratic Party office-holders and activists. It's not surprising. So, there's no reason for them to change their preference if the candidate they support has majorities in the popular vote and the pledged delegate count.

This primary isn't a tie. It's not even close to being a tie. The system in place is almost finished with its preliminary voting in the individual states, and the numbers will be pretty darned clear when the convention begins. Is it a democratic system? Well, people vote in primaries or attend caucuses to select the party's nominee. So, I guess it is democratic. Is it well-designed? Not really, but that''s something to be addressed for 2020, as Minnesota has now done. State-by-state.

I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question, and am responding in kind.

[zipplewrath]

49. You ignore all their points

You keep repeating that in essence "the system is the system". The system is what they are complaining about, it is the reason they are hoping that the convention "corrects" the "errors" that they perceive. You also ignore the point that Hillary is doing very badly. Actually, you're the perfect metaphor for their points. They complain that, the system was built with the specific purpose of the establishment being able to ignore them. And it's working perfectly.

The larger "system" that they are fighting though is that revolutions are usually "fought" by the minority. Expecting the majority to "join" the revolution before it has "won" isn't how things tend to work. This realignment has been coming for a long time, really since about the first Clinton term. The democratic establishment moved away from the lower middle classes a couple of decades ago, and have slowly been abandoning the labor movement. I was always worried that some GOP candidate would come along and scoop up that section. It looks like Trump might be that guy. Hillary might have just met the one person that can triangulate as well as she can.

[MineralMan]

71. I ignore nothing. I do disagree with or dismiss their points, though.

See, I'm free to do that in a democratic form of government, and on DU, too.

[zipplewrath]

91. And in the process...

And in the process, you make their point.

[Xyzse]

51. Interesting, perhaps one needs to actually check on what people actually say, rather than snipping.

It would also be better if one does not mischaracterize the actual arguments presented. Strawman tactics such as that is a disservice to the process.

Look:

Super Delegates - What was asked for was not to change their votes, merely to not broadcast who they will vote for until after the initial primary voting. In doing so, Super Delegates have sway on the general electorate and can change the outcome. Merely asking for fairness in that way does not constitute asking them to change their votes. Where it suddenly became, "they have to change their votes" is a dumb characterization and does not even make sense. Particularly since it omits any sort of justification, since there is none. That is not what is being asked for.

The other request was that the Super Delegates votes should better reflect wins in pledged delegates. Even Obama supported a commission that was trying to make it that way in 08. DNC did not go for it.

He requested to be allowed to make his case that he is the better candidate to win in GE during the convention. The party will most likely say no, but stating his case I thought was allowed. It does not matter if the delegates change their mind or not, that is absolutely their choice to make.

Voting Irregularities, sudden purging of delegates - It does not matter who is winning. If this is being done, that is a problem. That people just dismiss this without paying attention, sweeping under the rug and not acknowledging, again does not make sense.

Of course it is wrong to "somehow, they should switch their vote and vote for the candidate with fewer pledged delegates and actual votes". That again is not how things should be, and that is not what people are asking for either.

What you are saying sounds reasonable since most people think that way any way, except for the fact that what you're pointing out is not what is being brought up in question by Bernie supporters to begin with. That seems to me, to be deflecting the actual issue, while bringing up something that we are all against(or should be against).

[MohRokTah]

52. I could see the pledged delegates voting for the person with few pledged delegates if it was close.

By close I mean a single digit in pledged delegates separating the two.

I could also see it if the person with more pledged delegates was a Donald Trump style demagogue.

They are there as a final check for those two circumstances, but otherwise the person with the most pledged delegates wins.

[panader0]

61. Explanation:

Bernie polls way ahead of Hillary in the GE against Trump. Some polls have Trump ahead of HRC.
HRC has a couple of FBI investigations hanging over her head. If she is the nominee and then gets indicted, or even if the FBI recommends an indictment that the Justice Dept turns down, or if one or more of her staff are indicted, it will spell disaster for the Democratic party. If she gets elected prez, and then the indictments come, more disaster. The Repubs will go after her
in a way that'll make Benghazi look like a game of checkers.
So, if the supers really want a Democrat in the White House, they should vote for Bernie.

[mcar]

63. K&R

[EndElectoral]

66. Democracy is fine either way. Doesn't mean the best candidate for America is chosen. ie - GW Bush

Same is true for primaries.

[anotherproletariat]

76. I have not heard one good argument on why Sanders should get the nomination.

The title of your post seems to be the best one yet.

[zipplewrath]

92. He has a better chance in the General?

I realize that this is rarely a consideration in party politics. But none the less, it is a serious consideration.

[anigbrowl]

107. That's not a good argument, it's a speculative claim

I think he'd be a complete disaster in the general, myself. Of course you'd prefer to support him, which is totally fair, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'd be better. - by which I mean 'more likely to win the Presidency' in the context of this discussion. He's less popular than Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, so why do you think he's going to outperform her in the GE vs Trump?

[zipplewrath]

110. Independents

Too many people who didn't get to vote for him. He's polling better too. And he takes voters from Trump, Hillary LOSES voters to Trump. It's the year of the anti-establishment. Hillary is about as establishment as it gets.

[anigbrowl]

111. Yeah sure

[B Calm]

93. I've not heard one good argument why Hillary should get the nomination!

[MineralMan]

95. Votes and delegates.

She has a majority of both. No other reason is needed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. The integrity of the system matters to people regardless of who wins or loses

cannot wait for November. Pallast and others have warned you that this is just the prelim games for November.

You either care about this (and I have since 2000), or you don't... no middle ground.

by the way, I believe our elections are that fucking compromised.

[pangaia]

105. Copy & Paste..er...Post.

[floriduck]

109. Unless Hillary has enough pledged delegates to win right now, it's a race.

I would think that you would want super delegates to back the person 1) most likely to beat the GOP nominee and 2) ends up with the most pledged delegates and 3) and allows every state's electorate to cast their ballot.

If Clinton supporters have sooooo much confidence their candidate will win, then they should have no issues with letting things play out completely. I see a lot of confidence from her supporters but oh so little patience.

If Bernie loses as many expect, he will support Hillary and he will ask his followers to do the same. But for some odd reason, Clinton people have a real mental block about letting primaries run their course. Very sad.......

[MineralMan]

113. The primaries will run their course, and I have not

suggested that they shouldn't. In the next three weeks, every primary, including the DC one on June 14, will be over. Everyone will have voted. When that time has passed, Hillary Clinton will have the majority of pledged delegates. That much is certain. So, I have complete confidence in that.

What Bernie Sanders does is up to him. I suggest, and have suggested, that he take a close look at the situation and do the thing that will help elect a Democrat as President. He knows what that thing is, even today. The remaining primaries are not going to alter that situation.

Finally, predictions about the General Election are premature. At this point, it's impossible to say how that will turn out, and polling is irrelevant, since the GE campaign is going to change poll results as people see what the campaign brings. The convention should not even consider that. They should nominate the person who has won the primary race, as measured by the pledged delegate count. Period.