Defending our nominating process and some other things

[jespwrs]

You know, Obama was my fourth choice in the beginning. Hillary was eighth on my list.
As time went on and the nomination process played out, it became clear to me that I would line up with Obama. I know that some Hillary supporters are really disappointed with how things have turned out, and I understand that.

I just wanted to say that I am not frustrated with Hillary because she is still in the race, or because I disagree with her about some issue or anything-it's the endless manipulation and deception that is so frustrating to me. Especially when she is poking holes in the credibility of our nomination process, and thus in any nominee selected that is not her. It's hard for me to understand how you can't be appalled by her behavior. She's just so transparently deceptive and fake it bothers me to no end every time I hear the next press release. I don't think people would feel it so urgent that she leave the race now if she wasn't continuously escalating her rhetoric regarding the moral credibility of the nomination process and thus, any nominee selected that is not her.

She now feels that our process is morally reprehensible and utterly horrible, on par with slavery and universal suffrage? She espouses the greatness of the "popular vote". For those who say the popular vote is the only thing that matters this year, keep in mind the process provides no way of accurately tallying all participants' votes. Also, before you jump on the pop vote bandwagon, keep in mind that the process used has been developed over decades, and there are reasons it is the way it is, many of which are quite good I might add, and Democrats from all states have added input to this process, again, over many decades. {Aside: There are no credible arguments that the MI and FL elections provided a fair chance to any candidate involved and thus are irrelevant. This is so obvious that it warrants no further discussion.} So please, before dismissing the current process consider all the work and all the people's input you are throwing out the window, based on an argument that is so ridiculous, I can't even type it without laughing.

Thanks for listening.(reading I guess).

[Youphemism]

1. It's pretty indefensible, but unchangeable for now.

I believe in the electoral college system -- which might not be a popular view in this forum.

It was set up by some very smart people who realized long ago that if you used nothing but the popular vote, candidates would only campaign in and represent the interests of large population centers.

The result would be, for example, that New York could dump its sewage into any rural area with a small population -- instead of choosing the logical place it's found: New Jersey. (Okay, I undermined my own argument for the sake of a cheap joke. But I think you get my point.)

The democrat delegate system, on the other hand, needs fixing -- but not in the middle of any race. Hillary can complain all she wants. You don't change an electoral process while the campaign is going any more than you fix a car while you're driving it.

But after this campaign is over, I'm sure the democrats will revisit the idea that a bunch of superdelegates -- politicians who need money and political favors -- have a vote that roughly outweighs half the country (about 2,200 minus about 800 is about 1600). There's nothing remotely democratic or sensible about that. It all but ensures corruption.

Also, it's moronic to take all representation from a state for rescheduling a primary when the scheduling of that process can fall under control of the opposing party. Again, it was done by the rules, so changing it is also bad. But, like the guy stuck at the edge of a cliff between two tigers, the answer is not to get yourself into that situation in the first place.

The democrats need to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. After all the dust has settled, they'd better get down to doing just that.

[jespwrs]

2. However

"Also, it's moronic to take all representation from a state for rescheduling a primary when the scheduling of that process can fall under control of the opposing party."

This did not occur and has never ocurred to my knowledge.

[Youphemism]

3. Actually, it did occur -- this year

You can listen to the Florida republicans actually laughing when the Florida democrats tried to reschedule the primary to avoid getting penalized by the DNC:

http://www.dangelber.com/audio/RepGelberexchangewithRepRivera3May2007.wma

[dbmk]

4. Hmm..

MadFloridian has proven that to be a fake maneuver as the democrats were laughing with them, and were completely(bar one) on board with moving it up.

If the R&BC had deemed them to be honestly fighting it, I am pretty sure the punishment had been different.

[FrenchieCat]

5. That was my take as well.

FL Dems laughing with the FL Reps.

[Youphemism]

6. I don't pretend to know -- but that's beside the point

The point being, regardless of whether that happened in this instance, the rules permit exactly that to happen.

I have to say, it seems pretty odd to me that democrats would be laughing along with the republicans, knowing that they were about to have their votes discounted. But I guess stranger things have happened -- especially in Florida.

My point, though, is that the rules need to allow for the possibility that a controlling-power republican administration can't mess up the democratic primary in this way. It seems clear that *could* have happened, whether or not it did in this case.

Also, it doesn't seem like a good idea, short of some horrible trickery, to wipe out an entire state's delegates. The half-delegate count that the republicans did would probably be a more proportional response -- and there are probably other, less drastic punishments than complete discounting.

We just want to make sure to fix these issues before the next election. I hate the spot we're in now which, no matter how it is resolved, will involve making rules up "on-the-fly" and pissing people off. I don't think it's a wild suggestion that this situation is less than ideal and that we should have rules and methods for future elections that avoid this kind of trouble.

[dbmk]

7. The rules do allow for that.

Afaik, they state that the punishment can fx. be waived if the democrats have worked to the best of their ability to prevent a timing violation.

Or something to that effect.

I honestly think the legislators would be relatively indifferent to the delegates being halved - compared to being first. They are not after representation - they are after publicity.

[Youphemism]

8. Nothing should be "waived" once the voting starts...

...certainly not based on any criterion as subjective as "working to the best of their ability."

If a punishment is to be measured out, it needs to be fair the first time. Delegate representation must be carved in stone before voting starts. Any changes after that point are a bad idea -- but if there is some absolute need for them, then they should be based on completely objective criteria, based on true-false, yes-no answers to questions.

All the players who decide these things have a stake in the outcome. There should be no doubt about the yardstick by which victory will be measured.

[dbmk]

9. Absolutely true.

And there wasn't until Senator Clinton needed the votes.

[Youphemism]

10. But she hasn't broken any rule...

...So clearly the rules need to be changed to keep this from happening again.

I'm unclear on what you're saying... Are you suggesting you like the current system and that nothing needs to change to avoid these problems in the future?

[dbmk]

12. I don't think I said she did

But she is hoping the RB&C will renege on the rules they set.

[Youphemism]

13. Her only footing is that the rules are stupid

Nobody, not even the most ardent of Hillary supporters, would be behind her if the rules they set weren't stupid.

There is no other word to describe a rule that discounts all of Florida after what happened in 2000. The dems need that state, and pissing them off is not the way to win it.

Once again, I'd ask whether you're actually supporting the current rules -- not for this election. I get the impression we both agree that rules should not be changed during the contest. And not just the decision to discount all of Florida, but also rules such as the one that says superdelegates should have the power to outvote half the country.

To me, these rules are just as indefensible as Clinton's claim that they should be changed *during* the campaign season.

[dbmk]

14. Really?

"Nobody, not even the most ardent of Hillary supporters, would be behind her if the rules they set weren't stupid."
You can't seriously believe that?
(Something like that would land people on my ignore list usually, but I sense this is a slip in an otherwise reasonable debate)

As far as the rules go, me supporting them or not is perhaps the wrong choice of word, since I don't live under them.

But I'll contribute with my thoughts on them.

The rules stipulate a baseline punishment, and then gives the rules commission room for indiviual judgement.

And I can't see it done any other way. Otherwise you will enable cynical calculation and opposite, remove the option of leniency in the cases where the rules are a round hole for a square peg.

As far as the specific ruling, I understand the issue in taking away all the delegates and consequently keeping the voters in the two states out of influence. On the other hand I can't what else they could have done, as it was clear that just halving the delegates wouldn't mean much to the people breaking the rules, as they were clearly not after representation, but publicity.

The punishment was dealt beforehand, so they rules were clear going in. And they must have felt that the cost of dishing out that punishment was worth the cost, because they must surely have made the same deliberations that you advocate

What I do think should change, is the apparent option of the R&BC to change it back in the middle of the race - if I have it understood correctly. I think that should be an option solely possible by total agreement among the contenders.

As far as superdelegates go, I can see why they are needed. There has to be a safety valve for the party to stop what the party sees as someone not representing its values or in other ways being completely catastrophic. If they think its to the benefit of the party to overrule the voters(if they have the numbers to do so) - then why shouldn't they?
If the party suffers afterwards because of it, they were wrong and will pay the price for that, I would imagine.

Which is also why they would never overrule a decision of the pledged delegates in a race like the current one. Because the risk far outweighs any eventual gains. Either way. And I imagine that it almost always will.

I guess thats what I think, then. So I think they are defensible, while perhaps not perfect.

[Youphemism]

16. Alright, *almost* as indefensible...

Okay, so the most ardent of Hillary supporters (and Obama supporters, for that matter) won't listen to *any* kind of reason.

"As far as the rules go, me supporting them or not is perhaps the wrong choice of word, since I don't live under them."

You live under the direct consequences of them. Not sure why you'd think that disqualifies your opinion from mattering.

"Otherwise you will enable cynical calculation and opposite, remove the option of leniency in the cases where the rules are a round hole for a square peg."

Exactly. There should neither be leniency nor harshness. And if cynical calculation favors losing half their delegates to move their primary date, so be it. If that turns out to have been a mistake, fix it before the next election. We'd still be better off than we are now, with two states potentially alienated from the party.

You just clearly, "These are the rules. This is the punishment if you break them. There is no subjective call to be made. There will be no review later. No committee is going to meet to render God's Latest Judgment on how votes are to be counted."

"...It was clear that just halving the delegates wouldn't mean much to the people breaking the rules, as they were clearly not after representation, but publicity."

And it looks as if that's about what will happen now -- but deciding it at this point pisses off a lot of people. The republicans decided it up front, and they aren't having party issues with it. Even if their contest had continued like that of the dems, I doubt anyone would be upset. And the sky would not cave in because one or two states traded half their votes for an early shot at the primary. Instead, people would be laughing at those states right now for prematurely ejaculating a potentially decisive weight of votes.

"What I do think should change, is the apparent option of the R&BC to change it back in the middle of the race - if I have it understood correctly. I think that should be an option solely possible by total agreement among the contenders."

I agree with the first part. The second part is off base. I don't care what the contenders think, any more than I care to negotiate the rules with other players in the middle of a Scrabble game. The rules are the rules. Any negotiation of them invites corruption.

"If they think its to the benefit of the party to overrule the voters(if they have the numbers to do so) - then why shouldn't they?"

Not much point in arguing this one, if that's what you really believe. To me, it sounds like the epitome of elitism. "The voters might get it wrong." So might the superdelegates. Between the voters and those who are mired in politics, I'll take the will of the voters every time. Don't bother mentioning McGovern, or anyone else. Voters get it wrong sometimes. Politicians get it wrong more often, and they're much easier to buy off. Not much point in calling it a "democratic" party, when the hoity toity can overrule the hoi polloi.

[TheDoorbellRang]

11. You should read madfloridian's journal

She has chronicled the whole Florida debacle since the start. In 2000 we had the Florida Republican party messing with the rst of the country. This year the Florida Democratic party decided it was their year for the major dick award.

[jespwrs]

15. Here's the video if you haven't seen it...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE&feature=related

Dumb ass.

I think this video alone should spell the end of Gellar's career in politics. He's chuckling while playing with the Florida citizen's ability to participate in the primary. I'm sure it's not so funny now.

[Youphemism]

18. Again, a problem created by the rules...

Okay, this guy had clearly read the rule that said they needed to make an effort to reschedule, and interpreted it stupidly.

It just makes the point that there should be no rule that determines vote counting based on intent. If this guy had not been such a dork (if he'd been a better actor) they might have pulled it off.

The rules need to be carved in stone, or they'll be bent -- no, "pretzeled."

You can't say things like "well, if you really try, maybe a bunch of party elites will get together and decide, with complete impartiality, what will happen.

They won't. Guaranteed.

[NashVegas]

17. I Think There Are HUGE Holes in Our Nominating Process That Voters NEED to See

Namely, that it's all a sack of bullshit. I don't mind if the party wants to choose its nominee in ye olde backroom. In fact, I'd prefer it if it didn't mean pitting Democrats against Democrats.

The candidate that the capitalist party is happiest with will be the nominee, and this will happen because the media, even the alternative media that relies on advertisers, is owned part and parcel by the capitalist party and the writers and broadcasters will shepherd the masses to vote the way the capitalist party leaders want them to.

If the voters or one of the candidates are obstinate and reveal the farce, that is the danger.

Of course the irony is that it's this same show that was put on in 1992. Or have we forgotten "The Annointed."

The holes were already there, and we ignore them at our Democracy's own peril.

If you cannot see the double standards that have been applied to the campaigns, you're hopeless.