The "rigged" Democratic nominating process

[onenote]

A lot of folks, from Donald Trump to some Sanders supporters claim the Democratic party's nominating process is "rigged." Leaving aside the unwillingness of some people to gather that this is the "Democratic Party's" nominating process and thus by definition distinguishable from the general election process, let's consider a couple of other approaches. In both of these scenarios, super delegates are eliminated from the process.

Option 1: Get rid of proportional voting. Proportional voting isn't used in the GE. So why use it in the nominating process? The reason, of course, is to help candidates like Sanders, who would be quickly destroyed under a winner take all approach. Here are the numbers. If the Democratic primaries and caucuses were winner take all, Clinton would have already clinched the nomination with 2246 delegates. Even if Sanders won all of the remaining contests, he couldn't catch her. And that's with Sanders being given the wins in two caucus states (Nebraska and Washington) where a subsequent non-binding primary was won by Clinton.

Option 2: Base the nomination on who does better, under a winner take all system, in the states won by the last Democratic nominee to be elected president. Under this scenario, the states (plus DC) won by Obama in 2012 have 2675 delegates. Clinton has won states with 1385 of those delegates, Sanders only 635. There are four contests that Obama won that haven't yet been decided: California, DC, NJ and NM. If Sanders wins them all, he picks up another 655 delegates. And still loses.

Yes the system is "rigged" (although I wouldn't use term - I'd say its tilted) towards maintaining the viability of an otherwise non-viable candidate. And that candidate is Sanders.

[Trust Buster]

1. This is sad. This poster points to Trump's words as evidence of rigging. Embarrassing.

Why can't both sides leave crazy Trump out of this ?

[onenote]

2. Why is it sad? Is it not true that he said that? Is it not true that others have said it?

Do facts make you sad?

As my post makes abundantly clear, I disagree with anyone who says it was rigged in favor of Clinton.

[Trust Buster]

3. I understand and agree with your position. But, Trump only says it's rigged to cause problems

for Hillary. The guy doesn't have a legitimate thought.

[onenote]

4. Agreed wholeheartedly.

[grossproffit]

5. HRC supporters couldn't even celebrate her wins here w/o claims of rigging.

Really nasty stuff.

[Scuba]

6. I suspect you don't truly appreciate the sophistication of election-rigging, circa 2016.

[onenote]

7. Please expand.

[Scuba]

9. Here's a starter kit for you, and it doesn't even attempt to address issues ...

... like unfair media coverage, dark money or anything outside direct election rigging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

1 Specific methods

1.1 Electorate manipulation
1.1.1 Manipulation of demography
1.1.2 Disenfranchisement
1.1.3 Division of opposition support
1.2 Intimidation
1.3 Vote buying
1.4 Misinformation
1.5 Misleading or confusing ballot papers
1.6 Ballot stuffing
1.7 Misrecording of votes
1.8 Misuse of proxy votes
1.9 Destruction or invalidation of ballots
1.10 Tampering with electronic voting machines
1.11 Voter impersonation
1.12 Artificial results

If you give a damn about fair elections, I recommend you follow the Brad Blog.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. LOL. Yes ... it's a conspracy theorists work of art! But to truly appreciate it ...

you must go back to the fall of Rome and make its connection to the moon landing. The key to the cypher is easily understood by, first visiting Easter Island, then Stone-hedge, that will lead you to the Vatican, and the election-rigging, circa 2016, will all be clear.

[Garrett78]

12. Having wondered what motivates them, I've read a few articles on conspiracy theorists.

You may find these interesting:

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/24/why_people_believe_in_conspiracy_theories/

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/conspiracy_theory_psychology_people_who_claim_to_know_the_truth_about_jfk.single.html

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. Thanks. But I'll save them for later...

that kind of stuff, typically, gives me a headache.

[Garrett78]

16. I hear you.

One of the big takeaways is the fact that conspiracy theorists, many of whom mean well, very much want to believe there is an evil cabal pulling strings behind the curtain. Because if that's true, all they have to do is expose them so that the masses will destroy them, and then all will be right with the world.

Well, there isn't an omnipotent evil cabal. There's just systems.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. Yep. But I think it's more selfish than that ...

if that's true, all they have to do is expose them so that the masses will destroy them, and then THEY WILL ASSUME THEIR PROPER PLACE IN THE ORDER OF THINGS ... AT THE TOP.

[Scuba]

15. Wow, your credibility just took a huge dive with me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. LOL ... you promote conspiracy theories ...

and you want to talk about credibility? LOL

Let me be clear, I like you ... We, frequently, disagree; but, I don't care what anyone concocting conspiracy theories to explain away a political loss thinks about my credibility.

Perhaps, things will change after your emotional investment is spent and the wonderment wears off.

[Scuba]

23. So you're in denial that elections are being rigged in this country. Do you not remember ...

... "President" George Bush?

Does Florida 2000 not ring a bell?

Does Ohio 2004 not ring a bell?

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. The Democratic Primaries are not the General Elections of 2000 or 2004.

[Scuba]

29. Are you suggesting there's been zero evidence of election rigging in the 2016 Dem Primary?

That's there's no dark money influencing opinion?

That no voter registrations were lost or changed without approval?

That the media provided even, unbiased coverage of all the major candidates?

That no electronic voting machine failed an audit?


C'mon, man. You're not naive. So what's that make you?

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. No ... There is no evidence of election rigging in the 2016 Democratic Primaries ...

There have been clerical errors and bone headed decisions by republican state officials.

Yes ... There has been dark money influence ... but that is not "election rigging".

C'mon, man. You're not naive. So what's that make you?

A resident of reality?

[Scuba]

44. "Clerical errors." Yeah, that's it.

[TimPlo]

46. Ha you are so wrong.

"C'mon, man. You're not naive. So what's that make you?"

And he proved you wrong by showing he was naive.

[oberliner]

8. Rigged in terms of the DNC being predisposed towards one candidate

I think the argument is that the DNC took steps to give Hillary an advantage, not that the delegate apportioning process itself was rigged.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. I'm not sure that the DNC took steps to give Hillary an advantage ...

as much as not conceding steps that would benefit Bernie.

[oberliner]

18. Having so many Super D's coming out for HRC so early

It made it appear that Hillary already had a big lead before the voting even began in the primaries and caucuses.

A lot of those Super D's were DNC members, most of whom endorsed Clinton very early in the process.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. Yeah, but as we are constantly, and alternately, reminded ...

the SDs' votes don't get counted until the convention. So, any "lead" is no more significant than a straw poll.

[oberliner]

24. Understood

However the MSM sporadically would present the race with the Super D's included, giving the impression that Hillary had a much more insurmountable lead than she had with just the pledged delegates.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Okay ... So the "rigging" sentiment is a media creation for the ignorant?

[oberliner]

32. My point was that the sense of it being rigged came from the Super D's

Not from the elements noted in the OP.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Oh ... I got that. And, I expand that to ...

it being a media creation ... playing on the ignorant.

[mythology]

30. And yet they switched to Obama in 2008

Because Obama won the pledged delegate count. If Sanders had done so, they would have switched to him.

[oberliner]

34. Agreed

I am just arguing that the Super D's gave the impression of a rigged process, moreso than the issues cited in the OP.

[onenote]

48. How is that rigging anything

Super delegates aren't subject to some gag rule. They can and do announce their support for a particular candidate just like anyone else. The only difference is that they have a vote at the convention. But that doesn't mean their supposed to hide under a rock.

And if the fact Clinton had the support of the Democratic insiders in a race against someone who wasn't a Democrat until just before he announced his candidacy (which can't possibly be a shock to anyone) suppressed Bernie's vote, why didn't it suppress Clinton's as well. After all, if the race was decided before it was run, why bother to take the time to vote for your candidate if she's going to win anyway?

And let's consider fundraising. Bernie did pretty well in late 2014 raising funds. Did all those people think they were throwing their money in the toilet? Did they not know about the super delegates?

Bernie handily won the second of the first four contests and nearly won the first. I don't recall a lot of Bernie's supporters here saying that the race was over then. Do you really think Sanders would have won South Carolina if there weren't super delegates?

I hear a lot of excuses from Sanders' supporters. Not a lot of recognition that if you're going to run an outsider campaign, you can't expect a lot of support from the insiders. There's a reason that Patrick Leahy and Peter Welch are (and have been in the past) super delegates and Bernie has never been. This is the process for selecting the Democratic Party nominee and Bernie wasn't a Democrat until this election cycle.

[Garrett78]

13. Caucuses don't constitute rigging in the sense people use the term, but...

...I can't see Sanders being even remotely in the running without them. Not all that many people can or desire to take part in caucuses relative to primaries. They're not easily accessible for working people, parents, persons with disabilities, persons who wish to keep their vote private, etc. They suppress the vote in a big way. Look no further than the fact that WA's meaningless primary had much greater turnout than WA's caucus.

[oberliner]

19. Caucuses are definitely unfair

In my opinion, every state should be a primary state, and super d's should be eliminated.

[Garrett78]

22. Agreed.

I would do away with caucuses and superdelegates. I would stick with proportional allocation.

And I would only have 4 sets of primaries, each 1-2 months apart. 12-13 states in each group, each group representing the various regions of the US. The groups would rotate each election cycle.

[oberliner]

25. Why group them regionally?

Wouldn't it be better for the groups to be more geographically diverse?

[Garrett78]

28. That's what I meant by them representing the various regions.

I should have worded my post differently. Each group would consist of states from every region of the US.

[oberliner]

31. Got it

Yes, in that case, I agree with your proposal.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. To gauge regional sentiment>

[Garrett78]

37. That'll be easy enough to do without grouping them regionally.

I'd want each grouping to represent a diversity of regions.

None of what I'm proposing, though, would have altered the result this year. Do away with superdelegates and caucuses. Have 4 sets of primaries. And Clinton is still the nominee--probably by an even wider margin.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. I agree ...

when I said "regional sentiment", I could have said "diversity".

[mythology]

36. One problem with that approach is that it benefits candidates who start with more money

There are problems with starting with Iowa and New Hampshire, but they are small enough that it's possible for a lesser known candidate to build up support. In a primary that starts with 12 or 13 states, even if they are geographically close, inherently advantages the candidates with the most initial money.

[Garrett78]

39. I would make campaign finance changes, as well.

I don't want them to be geographically close. The campaign season is so damn long. If that first set of states doesn't vote until late January, there should be plenty of time for candidates to reach out to those 12-13 states.

No state should have as much sway as IA and NH do, especially given how unrepresentative those states are of the Democratic electorate.

[TimPlo]

47. It would not happen for 8 years

"I would make campaign finance changes, as well."
There is no evidence that Clinton would even consider campaign finance reform. She is one worst offenders of skirting the campaign finance rules. There have been 2 instances of "new" innovative ways that she has used money to get around the spirit of the laws. From setting up larger than allowed donations by funneling them through State party's and working with a SuperPac because of a loophole in a flawed law.

[Garrett78]

49. I'm under no illusion that my suggestions will come to fruition.

[oberliner]

40. How so?

Can you elaborate?

[Garrett78]

41. mythology can speak for himself/herself, but...

...I think the idea is that campaigning is expensive and getting around to that many states is very costly.

But with enough campaigning time (and nationally televised debates), as well as campaign finance reform, I think that problem would be solved.

[onenote]

45. I'm curious what sort of "regulation on the media" you would advocate

that would be consistent with progressive notions regarding the First Amendment.