The Democratic Safe House

[GodLovesCats]

A proportional vote is fairer and it makes more sense in a race with so many people. Otherwise all the votes in a state can go to somebody with 85% of the state voting for somebody else.

The proportional vote is why we can't get a clear winner in Iowa.

 

[Arcangl86]

The proportional vote is why we can't get a clear winner in Iowa.

I don't think we need a "clear winner" at this stage. There is just the ridiculous practice of treating Iowa and NH as baramaters of the nation that makes people care so much about who wins there.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I don't think we need a "clear winner" at this stage. There is just the ridiculous practice of treating Iowa and NH as baramaters of the nation that makes people care so much about who wins there.

Watch out for Nevada possibly having problems too. It is a problem if two states can't call a clear winner.

 

[mark46]

Watch out for Nevada possibly having problems too. It is a problem if two states can't call a clear winner.

I will try to be clear. The Democratic Party elects delegates. It matters NOT AT ALL whether there is a clear "winner" in an individual state. What matters is how many delegates will be pledged to each candidate at the convention.

When we select about 1/3 of our delegates on March 3rd, the discussion at the end of the evening will NOT be who won the overall popular vote in the 13 or so jurisdictions voting, if the networks even bother to give us such a useless number. It will not even matter who won more delegates in an individual state (as Buttigieg did win in Iowa; with a tie in NH). What will matter is who won how many delegates on March 3rd, what the total delegate count is on march 4th, and the projections for future delegates.

And yes, a candidate who isn't getting enough delegates may say that he or she has more total popular votes (as Hillary keeps saying compared to Trump). A candidate may even try to tell us that he or she won more states, another useless number.

 

[mark46]

Watch out for Nevada possibly having problems too. It is a problem if two states can't call a clear winner.

I would be fine with there being no clear winner in Nevada. That would mean that Sanders has lost considerable support, given his current standing in the polls in Nevada.

 

[GodLovesCats]

On Election Day, the media always shows the percentage of the poular vote total for each candidate. That is what everyone talks about. On other days people talk about delegates, but in all my years watching the election results I never heard news reporters mention delegates. This is the first year I started to pay any attention to the delegate total in each state.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I would be fine with there being no clear winner in Nevada. That would mean that Sanders has lost considerable support, given his current standing in the polls in Nevada.

No it certainly would not. All it would mean is a Google form on iPads should not be used at caucuses.

 

[mark46]

On Election Day, the media always shows the percentage of the poular vote total for each candidate. That is what everyone talks about. On other days people talk about delegates, but in all my years watching the election results I never heard news reporters mention delegates. This is the first year I started to pay any attention to the delegate total in each state.

I can't help what you pay attention to. As is the case in every primary and caucus, the delegates were reported in Iowa and NH. That has been the case in every primary and election as long as there has been television coverage.

In fact, until THIS year, the Democratic Party of Iowa has NEVER, EVER reported/released the popular vote. The change this year was made based on one of requests that Sanders mad after the 2016 caucuses.

With regard to March third, apparently you think that the media will add together all the popular vote from all the states and report it. That is very unlikely to be the case. The media will DEFINITELY report the total number delegates won by each candidate, as they have in every election.
=====
This is easy enough to check. Just hit a couple of weeks.
=======
And just BTW, in the national election, the total popular vote is reported, but the focus is on delegates (called electors) to the Electoral College. Few paid attention to the total popular vote, until after the election was decided and the Clinton folks decided to make a big deal of the popular vote. Of course, if the election were based on the popular vote, no one knows what the result would have been, since the campaigns would have been much different.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I do NOT think the media will add up popular votes for all of the elections on March 3.

Remember I am from Ohio, which has primaries, and just began learning how caucuses work this year. In Ohio I did learn about delegates, but only to the extent that they go to party conventions to nominate the candidate who won each state and the Democratic Party has superdelegates but not the Republican Party for some weird reason.

We do know if only the popular vote mattered Clinton would be our President now. She won it by 3 million votes.

 

[mark46]

I do NOT think the media will add up popular votes for all of the elections on March 3.

Remember I am from Ohio, which has primaries, and just began learning how caucuses work this year. In Ohio I did learn about delegates, but only to the extent that they go to party conventions to nominate the candidate who won each state and the Democratic Party has superdelegates but not the Republican Party for some weird reason.

We do know if only the popular vote mattered Clinton would be our President now. She won it by 3 million votes.

Since you ar learning about Democratic rules. Here are some more.

1) All elections are proportional, rather than winner take all like the Republicans. In a Republican primary, a candidate might win all the delegates of a state with 40% of the vote.

2) Candidates need to get at least 15% of the vote to get any delegates.

3) State are free to calculate delegates for each congressional district, stateside, or both.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Why don't they make one rule for all 50 states and 5 territories? It seems wrong to let them choose how delegates are coiunted.

 

[mark46]

Why don't they make one rule for all 50 states and 5 territories? It seems wrong to let them choose how delegates are coiunted.

By all means push for a constitutional amendment putting control of elections in the hands of federal rules. Most Americans celebrate the differences across America, and celebrate the idea of having state and local jurisdictions. Other countries have different systems with one set of rules for the entire country.

 

[GodLovesCats]

What I want the government to push for is elimination of the electoral college. It never made any sense - not even before the hanging chad debacle in 2000. Whoever gets the most votes wins every other race in America. The presidential race should be no different.

 

[mark46]

What I want the government to push for is elimination of the electoral college. It never made any sense - not even before the hanging chad debacle in 2000. Whoever gets the most votes wins every other race in America. The presidential race should be no different.

What are you suggesting for the primaries? You seem to want to get rid of delegates.

How about no delegates and one national primary, or maybe three or four. That way you can put almost all the power into the hands of the larger states, and in the hands of those with lots of money.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I support state primaries (not caucuses) without delegates run by the Secretary of State. The primary election dates don't matter. It does not give more power to people and organizations with money.

 

[mark46]

I support state primaries (not caucuses) without delegates run by the Secretary of State. The primary election dates don't matter. It does not give more power to people and organizations with money.

OK, so the Secretary of State set the rules for Democratic primaries, or have you gotten rid of political parties.

So, who is allowed on the Democratic ballot? Without delegates? So, the winner get all the representatives to the Democratic National convention?

 

[GodLovesCats]

There can still be political parties. The nomination process would end when the last primary closes, not at the party conventions. What do we need delegates for?

 

[mark46]

There can still be political parties. The nomination process would end when the last primary closes, not at the party conventions. What do we need delegates for?

No delegates? So, you are going to add the popular votes of all the states, after the primaries, to determine the candidates for each party. And what what national body would be in charge of this process. And who would you by this national law decide is to go to the national conventions and pass rules? And are you requiring the dozens of parties to also run primaries, or is your proposed system only for Democrats?

TO BE CLEAR, I favor the Democratic Party (and all the other parties) being in charge of their nominating processes. Also, I favor national conventions for all parties, where delegates will do the business of the parties.

Also, yes, I would eliminate caucuses for the Democratic Party, and have primaries based on proportional vote, with a 15% requirement. This would have the result of reduces the power and vote to candidates who have appeal to only very dedicated groups in small sections of a state. For the Democratic Party, I would also require early voting for at least 4 days, including a weekend.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I read an article about an observant Jew in Nevada complaining because caucuses were on a Saturday he could not vote. That was in 2008. This year Nevada finally has early voting from February 15-18.

 

[DaisyDay]

Amazing - Donald actually retweeted this Trump as Nero meme. How tone-deaf can a person be?

Donald J. Trump on Twitter