Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is an abomination of epic proportions.

Delegates

Hilary has 394 Delegates and Sanders only has 44 as of right now.

Two huge wins that say people want Sanders and he only has 44?

This is a rigged system.

This is not democracy.

Republicans have something called secured delegates which are similar.

They both need to be eliminated. On both sides, this is not democracy.

The people spoke and said Sanders has been winning, he should have the delegates.

Hilary Clinton does not get to decide when her coronation is and steal this elections from Bernie.

He leaves NH less delegates then her.

I AM FCKING OUTRAGED

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268935-clinton-likely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates

lol

I guess that doesn't piss you off in the slightest.

It should make everyone disillusioned with the system of things

Only the actual number of votes cast by actual people should matter. Everything else is bollocks.

Hey, perhaps you should be wondering about these two huge organizations called 'parties' - which are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution- getting to decide that the president will effectively come from one of them, while you're at it.


As for superdelegates, they've never decided a nomination, always followed the popular vote in the end, and unlike ones won by the state votes, can switch back and forth. Hillary doesn't have their votes, she has some saying they intend to vote for her, which is a difference.

Originally posted by Q99
Hey, perhaps you should be wondering about these two huge organizations called 'parties' - which are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution- getting to decide that the president will effectively come from one of them, while you're at it.


As for superdelegates, they've never decided a nomination, always followed the popular vote in the end, and unlike ones won by the state votes, can switch back and forth. Hillary doesn't have their votes, she has some saying they intend to vote for her, which is a difference.
I agree about the party comment; however, the superdelegate situation can definitely "persuade" many of the disillusioned voters to vote for whoever seems to be the "likely" candidate....don't you agree? This is bias in it's rawest form.

I agree that the US primary system is one of the most stupid and insane systems of election you can imagine. While I like that the voting process is relatively public there's a lot of idiocy thrown in with the system (spaced out primaries, caucuses as a concept, super delegates, independent voters being allowed to vote, winner-take-all votes).

On the other hand the system that was in place before the current system was insanely corrupt and had no transparency whatsoever. I'd say what it was replaced with is better, but still ridiculous.

The primary system as it is currently set up gives the false impression that this is a part of the election process and that Americans have the right to participate in that process. It also makes it seem like the parties are actually part of that process, which the parties like as it gives them more respectable standing. This is not true, parties are private organisations, potentially they could just say "this is our candidate, **** popular opinion", on the other hand that also means that they can be replaced (or completely change and adjust their policies), which has happened in the past.

Personally I favour a transparent voting system within a party and only for actual members of that party, at the same time, but that may be my orderly German heart speaking.

There's no point throwing around terms like "This is not democracy" here as if some sort of right is being eroded.

You have a democratic right to vote on who represents you. You do not have a democratic right to vote on who gets nominated to be put to the vote of who represents you. Who the parties nominate from within themselves is their own business. That there is any public consultation at all here is a private decision made by them, and they can tamper with or dilute that or share it with other systems as much as they like.

I agree with Bardock- the only issue here is the weird way that the primary process has become somehow confused with the election process itself. You need to keep perspective on what this process actually is- it is a party choosing its own nominee. In most western nations, the public is not involved in that at all, and that has no impact on the idea of democracy.

In France everyone can vote at the primary elections of the two major parties. I don't think it discredits the party system at all, actually it reinforces their internal choices by the popular vote.

Hey, wanna know what else can happen? All the delegates become unpledged after the first vote.

So! Let's say we go into the convention. Donald Trump is in first place, Cruz right behind, plus Jeb and Kasich are still somehow all around by with way less. Donald doesn't have the critical win threshold, but he's the closest.

First round of delegate voting, no winner.

Delegates are now released, allowed to change sides so as to move til someone wins.


And the winner is....


Mitt Romney!


Yes, in the convention, once delegates are released, they can vote for people not previously in the race.

Imagine if you will, Mitt Romney winning the 2016 primary. What would your reactions be?




Originally posted by Raisen
I agree about the party comment; however, the superdelegate situation can definitely "persuade" many of the disillusioned voters to vote for whoever seems to be the "likely" candidate....don't you agree? This is bias in it's rawest form.


....? You do realize this isn't supposed to be non-biased. This is "Who does our political party support," and pushing for one or the other is what campaigning and gathering support is about.


Senators, congresspeople, governers, and so on, are supposed to say, "I support Candidate X, I like their views, and if you like me, I recommend you vote them." That's what endorsements are.

---


Part of the reason for superdelegates and such is to prevent a hijacking btw.

You know how Sanders is popular with left-leaning independents? Imagine someone, like, twice as popular with independents, but unlike Sanders, had Cruz-level popularity with party actors, and a lot of democrats *really* disliked them, and continued to call on independents to vote in any open primary en mass. And imagine the vote for the popular-with-official-dems candidates was split and resolved late. So they come into the convention, and someone that much of the Democrats actually don't like is in first place due to winning primaries with independ support. Superdelegates can thus vote and say, "No, we're going to support our actual candidate, not someone trying to take party support via using non-party support." That's basically what they're there fore.

If on the flip side, someone with both outsider and actual-party support clearly won, but they voted someone else, and then people called BS and didn't support the official candidate... well, that's democracy in action, the party loses the people and rightly so.


Primaries are a process by which partisan organizations decide who they want to support as a representative of their goals specifically going into the general.