Except, it is not about "backroom undemocratic deals." It is about consensus and majorities and building coalitions. It is not about someone with a minority of delegates winning. I do agree that "Super delegates" are undemocratic. Also, I don't think Senator Sanders will end up with the most delegates.
If the person with the most votes has 30% of the votes, that means they don't have 70% of the votes. There's a process to allow those 70% to still have their say instead of being completely ignored. Maybe Sanders ought to try to get 50% or more of the votes so there's no problem at the convention.
Mayor Pete is up on the "hot seat." Mayor Pete was "about getting our message out." He went after Klobuchar because she should be prepared to defend her voting record. Not sure I agree with that. He hammered on the pundits saying that the only two choices are "Bloomberg and Sanders" who are not Democrats. He believes in the Democratic Party, unlike the "other mayors" one of whom was a Republican and one who was an Independent. Strong majority for change, but unity. Chris Mathews really dislikes Bernie Sanders.
As cool with it as Sanders was in 2016 when he got smoked in the delegate race but fought well past dead in hopes of getting to the convention with enough delegates to do this very same thing.
so the 70% will support the person with maybe 15% of the votes? Makes sense. This isn't some parliamentary system where you get elected and build a coalition. It's a completely undemocratic backroom deal and will end the party.
Nicole Wallace doing a good job explaining how well Mayor Pete did in the debate and is the "most disciplined" candidate. Jason Johnson wants a contested convention. Oh, crap, MSNBC are putting Steve Kornacki on tv. Time to walk my dog.
Senator Warren up on the stage now. Oh, man, she should be president. She is just terrific. She is still going after Mayor Bloomberg. She has no doubt he will "drop another $100 million to erase the memory of his debate performance." Warren just stated Bloomberg should not be considered as the Democratic candidate. She also claims that she is not strategic. Oh, come on, Senator Warren, you know exactly what you are doing.
For me, Warren is the best choice among those running. But Bernie does have his cult, which makes it harder for Warren to move up. Even so, the person who did the best in the debate (at least based on the portions I saw) was clearly Warren. If she can convince at least some of the Bernie supporters that a younger, more progressive but less socialist, woman would do a better job than a guy who should have been the Democratic nominee in 2016 not in 2020, then I think she might have a chance to pick up votes from those who don't want either an older, male, version of Hillary (Biden) nor the billionaire who might have been a much more decent Republican nominee than Trump. In that case, she might end up moving up the polls. All told, while I wouldn't be gutted if Bernie got the nomination 4 years later than he should have, Warren is the best choice for the Democrats to put up against Trump. To me, at least, all the rest have issues, some more than others.
The problem is though - there is no rule that plurality wins. In fact - that specifically isn't the rule. The party decides where no one carries the pledged delegates. In other words, the delegates coalesce around a winner. I agree that isn't direct democracy, but a delegate system specifically is not most votes win. Whomever has the most delegates at the end of the day wins.
It was a stupid question. You could have a plurality of 27-26-25...by what logic does the guy with 27 have a God given right to the nomination? PS...Sanders had the opposite opinion in 2016. Cuz he's a normal politician who is selfish. He's not Jesus.
In deference to Sanders* super delegates do NOT get a vote on the first ballot anymore. *50% serious, 50% joking. Like Hillary did through the devious, underhanded method of appealing to POCs.
I keep asking this but what if Mike Bloomberg has the plurality? I would be thinking in that case, by far the majority of Dem voters would support the convention stopping him. we only need to see what happened with Trump to see the damage that can occur when the party loses control over the nom.
Also, in what world do you feel that a private club should be forced to allow anyone -- literally anyone, in some cases -- to decide the club's leader?
It's just like the electoral college. You aren't voting for a candidate, you are voting for really smart people who, in their infinite wisdom, will select the best candidate for you.
It actually kind of is in some ways. When you vote in primaries (shit even the general) you are not voting for Bernie Sanders, you are voting for a bunch of people that like Bernie Sanders very much to go to a convention and pick a nominee for the Democratic party. Once the first vote is done, and none gets the nomination (if it happens) in theory those people will then turn into some type of caucus to see if they can get more people to support their candidate and vise versa, who ever comes out with the most support (more than half) gets the nomination. The undemocratic part is that those delegates are not really free to make their own decisions, they technically are hard pledged to a candidate and that candidate can use them to support whom even he/she wants. If we (the DNC) really wanted this to be Democratic, they would release all the delegates after the first (or second round) and tell them ok, now you all decide, like a big National caucus, they can start eliminating candidates with small support until 1 gets the majority.
Well that club wants people outside the club to vote for members of that club (in the general election), so there is that. But it does create problems.
My favorite tweets from last night: Michael Bloomberg went and paid $400M for five people to tell him to fuck off and here I would’ve done it for free— actioncookbook (@actioncookbook) February 20, 2020 Respect Batman so much for taking his billions and spending it on being a superhero with no powers who won’t use a gun rather than doing whatever Michael Bloomberg is doing with his life— 🦍BUM CHILLUPS AKA SPENCER HALL🦍 (@edsbs) February 20, 2020 Amy: you little fuck. sleep with one eye open. I will fucking send you to hell, cuntPete: you know I’m tired of the racism against mayors,— Lead Actor from Pixar’s Sodas (@ByYourLogic) February 20, 2020 Pete and Amy have spent so much time memorizing oppo about the other, it's clearly a labor of love.— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) February 20, 2020 Elizabeth Warren’s energy heading into this debate pic.twitter.com/Gh0dMhkoqA— Stephanie Murray (@stephanie_murr) February 20, 2020
...except that is not how a parliamentary system works. You are confusing the election with the establishment of a "government" (as in who is actually going to do what). To coalitions are very different. That all sounds pretty undemocratic to me.
That is actually how elections (in the USA) work, you vote for delegates, you do not directly vote for a candidate (well presidential elections/primaries). There are more quirks to it for sure, but when/if I markdown Klobuchar come March 17th, I am voting to select Illinois delegates to go vote for her in the national convention.