Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Fair under the rules which are designed to make it extremely difficult for someone who isn't in favor with the party bosses to win, but they won without breaking their own rules, so you can say that much for the DNC.
Speaking of DNC shenanigans, the Delegate convention in Nevada got chaotic as hell
due to a last-minute rules switch and reports that 58 Sanders delegatesnote were excluded from the convention entirely for "administrative reasons
" without being given a chance to contest the ruling. It got to the point that 20 local sheriffs were called in to escort Sanders supporters out of the building - given they were considering a sit-in at the hotel (which likely has no official affiliation with the DNC), the supporters were in the wrong on that particular idea, but as others have said...
This fucking election.
Edit: here's a decidedly more dispassionate link regarding the hullabaloo at the Nevada convention
.
edited 15th May '16 8:06:44 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
In fairness, Sanders himself had nothing to do with either oddity, nor did Clinton. And I'd actually take worse exception to the idea of "We have to reflect the popular vote" as opposed to the reasons they DQ'd 58 delegates, as that's what led to a number of complaints in other States, where the hand-count was "fixed" to reflect the auto-count. I can't recall which State, but I know I linked to a youtube vid of the person complaining to the election committee there when it happened - I want to say Illinois, but memory fails me.
edited 15th May '16 10:06:45 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"@Jovian: I'm specifically referring to the fact that primaries are allowed to be closed despite being publicly funded, which is something that more less flies in the face of the notion that the parties are private organizations that can run themselves however they want. The reality is that both of the parties are apparatuses of the state in the same way as in a One-Party state like Russia or China.
Obviously the fact that there's two of them is a fairly significant difference, but due to the design of the American political system, it's more or less impossible for legislature to pass unless the ideological gap between the parties is extremely small, or one party holds all political power at the federal level. You could almost call it a "One and a Half Party State"
The whole "the two parties are basically the same" meme more or less has to hold true in order to avoid deadlocks in our system, which would be an acceptable price to pay for a more stable form of government, were that only the case. At best, there's little to no difference in the long term stability of Presidential democracy as it is practiced in America and parliamentary democracies, and there's even some political scientists who argue presidential systems are inherently less stable than parliamentary systems.
I just really don't see the point of having a system that's as rigid as ours when there's no significant evidence that it offers any benefits over more mutable alternatives.
edited 15th May '16 11:59:24 AM by CaptainCapsase
Are we still talking about the system being "unfair" to Sander?
edited 15th May '16 12:03:25 PM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username
I'm talking more broadly about how the issues with American democracy, and more specifically about the
![]()
It's a mechanism of suppressing votes, the more complicated the voting process, the fewer people tend to vote, and this effect is particularly pronounced against poor/young voters. Incidentally, caucuses, where Sanders tended to do best, are absolutely idiotic in my opinion. There's literally no reason not to have open primaries considering even in open states the amount of fifth column voters are even rarer than Trump-Sanders crossover voters.
edited 15th May '16 12:10:58 PM by CaptainCapsase
It's not specifically biased against minorities, but it tends to suppress poorer voters who simply don't have the time or the energy to go through a complicated registration process.
![]()
Perhaps I'm biased because I spent around 5 hours on the phone due to my registration not actually being changed despite me submitting an application (found in an obscure corner of the state's website) about a month in advance of the deadline.
edited 15th May '16 12:12:49 PM by CaptainCapsase
It's quite a bit more complicated in some states, particularly the big ones like NY, for example. In that particular case, there was a deadline 6 months in advance of the primary, well before ordinary voters actually start paying attention to the process.
I wouldn't be so opposed to the way primaries work if our system actually allowed for more than 2 political parties.
edited 15th May '16 12:18:24 PM by CaptainCapsase
You only need to register once, and yeah, NY's deadline is kind of dumb, but you only have to care about it once.
You don't have to specifically register to participate in the primary. That's a load of bull. The most you need to do in some places is bring a form of ID, and I didn't even need that.
NY's registration process was incredibly simple, it just had an early deadline. Trust me, I just did it this year.
edited 15th May '16 12:22:17 PM by smokeycut
![]()
Most of the big states, except for California are fairly difficult about registering for primaries, and that's where most of the delegates are.
The point is, closed primaries are pretty much in the same vote of voter ID laws. They don't really accomplish much besides making it harder for people to vote, particularly those who don't start paying attention until the weeks coming up on the primary.
edited 15th May '16 12:21:53 PM by CaptainCapsase
Okay, I'm wrong about the other big states other than NY having extremely inconvenient dates (most were 2 months to a month in advance), but let's go back to the main point: What does a closed primary accomplish other than slightly lowering voter turnout dependent on how hard it is to register?
edited 15th May '16 12:26:47 PM by CaptainCapsase
