Morning Joe: Democratic Primary system rigged against voters

The point is that you didn't know them until recently....and you didn't whine and b**** about them until this election AND the only reason you are b****ing about them is because they are hurting your boy Trump because he hired incompetent people who didn't know the rules to run his campaign and he's getting beaten by people who hired better people and are running a smart campaign.

When it comes to Sanders, right now the rules are working against him, but if Hillary gets indicted, and that makes the superdelegates switch to him, then those same rules will be what gets him the nomination.

 

What do you find unfair about the delegate thresholds per Rage's link?

I don't see how they disadvantaged Bernie except that he came up a bit short to nab one more delegate.

 

You don't seem to understand. Everything has rules. If you don't like the rules, work to change them, whining doesn't get you anything.

If you are nice in making your protest and shows genuine interest to make change for the better good of everyone then you may get some sympathy.

If you whine and bash others for rigging the system ... then you get bashed for being stupid to boast. Understand?

 

Pretty sure people were complaining about superdelegates being pro-Hillary back in 2008 but it didn't end up mattering. Different situations though.

It's been 8 years since we've had a dem primary to complain about it being an undemocratic and corrupted process.

 

In 2008, super delegates were siding with Hilary until she lost the popular votes, then most flipped over to Obama.

 

The difference between 2008 and 2016 is that while Super Delegates initially supported Clinton Obama took an early lead in pledged delegates that he never reliquished. By the time of the convention Clinton was mathematically eliminated and the Super Delegates went with the winning ticket. If Sanders comes back and takes the lead in pledged delegates I would expect that the Super Delegates to switch over to him for party unity. Personally even though I'm a Clinton supporter I would hope they would support whoever got the most pledged delegates.

As I've said though it's very ironic that Sanders supporters whose candidate is trailing in pledged delegates and actual votes now are saying the process is unfair and that the super delegates should bail him out. IN other words they aren't complaining about the system being rigged but that it should be rigged in their favor.

 

The exercise in democracy is the general election. The primaries are a season for political parties to decide what they want to do.

 

This may help clarify the "super delegate" kerfuffle...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XtuWiHYmr4U?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Superdelegates are not the same for DNC vs RNC. The DNC superdelegates have no allegiance to the will of the people and there are more of them.

I believe the RNC superdelegates are mandated to vote with the will of the people so I'm not sure what Trump is up in arms about.

Democratic party? I think Sanders has a beef and so should the rest of the Democratic voters if they truly believe in democracy.

 

The RNC doesn't have superdelegates. The RNC has some states that have some weird rules when it comes to the allocation of some of their delegates, Cruz's people paid attention to that and managed to secure them while Trump's people either ignored them or didn't know the rules so Trump whines about it like the little b**** he is.

 

I'm going to ad something else to the discussion. The truth is that the parties don't actually need to have caucuses or primaries to nominate. They could just choose who will be there nominee at a convention through rules they apply. It's a historical quirk of our two party system that the party nominating process is now considered an exercise in democracy (emphasis on small 'd') when originally it wasn't and for most small parties it isn't.

 

The RNC has three delegates for each state but they have been told by the RNC to vote with the popular vote for that state. So, in the case of the RNC winning a state means extra delegates.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-campaign-tries-to-have-1404877438296118.html

Even as Bernie’s supporters continue to inundate superdelegates with their anti-elitist arguments, Sanders and his top campaign officials are now arguing that superdelegates should back Bernie even in states where he didn’t win — and even if he doesn’t win a majority of the popular votes cast.

 

Exactly... I'm not saying that Bernie is the good guy here I'm saying that the DNC can pick who they want to represent the Democratic party regardless of who the people want and this is how the DNC wants it.

For a party that is named Democrat they sure have gamed the system to make certain that the Elite in the Democratic party can pick a candidate if the unwashed masses pick a crappy one.

 

Yeah but that's the smart way of doing things. It's easy to say what they should do, but would you let a random vote by the public determine how you spent your money?

The reason for the primaries is to get a broad idea of a candidate's support before picking the guy the party wants to put their support behind. Doing it 100% by a vote is dangerous because you really might end up with a "Boaty McBoatface" type candidate that enough window lickers voted for to be the majority.

Just look at Boaty McBoatface himself, Donald Trump.

 

Right, why let the people pick who governs... that would be stupid.

 

They do pick who governs, we're not talking about picking who governs, we're talking about picking who a party supports in an election. Having parties endorse candidates in theory helps the unwashed brainless masses out there to make a decent decision, one that they are likely incapable of doing on their own. Where the parties screw up is by giving those unwashed brainless masses too much control over who they throw their support behind. The Democrats have a system that is the appearance of democracy while retaining veto power if the people do something stupid, IMO that's a really good system. The GOP has sort of an actual democratic system, which is r****ded.

The US uses a representative system for a reason, because people are stupid. I think going forward the GOP would do well to modify their system to being more like the system the Democratic party uses.

 

If you have so little faith in the people then why have them in the process at all?

 

Like I said, the reason to have them in the process is to get a broad idea of support for a candidate. Also, they'd be smart to not let just any idiot run for their nomination. The GOP should have just said no to Trump and they'd have saved themselves a LOT of headache and be a lot more likely to win the upcoming election.

A smart political party would only allow those to run that they deem acceptable and would make sure they hold veto power over the people if they do something stupid.

Another factor is that people like to feel like they are important even though they obviously aren't. Giving them some small voice in the process makes them feel special....but you shouldn't go crazy and give them too much say.

 

Again, if you'd be fine basing all of your economic decisions like if you spend your money on bills or if you buy booze and hookers with it on a popular vote, then sure, feel free to complain about the process. I certainly wouldn't be fine letting idiots determine my actions.