The Game is Rigged: Hillary Leave New Hampshire with Equal Number of Delegates as Sanders

[smaneck]

Hillary Reaches Base With AOL Login Page Ad
2/10/16
Isn't the majority of AOL's subscriber base dial-up still?

Hmm, I wonder why she has a problem appealing to young voters?

https://grabien.com/story.php?id=48293

 

[The Cadet]

I don't like the term "spoiler". I understand it, but it bugs me because (to me anyway) it seems to imply that somehow those votes were owed to one of the other parties and that's just not true.

It's commonly said that Perot was the spoiler in the 92 election and cost Bush his re-election. The problem is Perot cost Bush nothing, because he hadn't earned those votes from the people.

It's not about being "owed" votes so much as it is about rational self-interest. Sure, Gore wasn't owed my friend Noreen's vote, but when she voted for Nader, she essentially threw her vote away. Gore was by no means perfect, but he was a lot better than Bush, and to avoid that unfortunate turn of events, Gore needed every liberal vote. Which he didn't get, because, well, Nader.

 

[DLR]

I don't like the term "spoiler". I understand it, but it bugs me because (to me anyway) it seems to imply that somehow those votes were owed to one of the other parties and that's just not true.

It's commonly said that Perot was the spoiler in the 92 election and cost Bush his re-election. The problem is Perot cost Bush nothing, because he hadn't earned those votes from the people.

Incidentally the Angriest Gnome was right with all his charts and numbers, NAFTA was a horrible idea.

Perot was an exception. He had the highest third party performance in the last 100 years. It was not the typical sub 10% performance. He was intelligent, self-funded and he wasn't there to entertain himself. He truly gave his best effort to actually win. Except for the choice or VP. IIRC a qualified but older gentleman that came off as senile in the debates.

Do you remember his rants about "the Republican dirty tricks committee?" LOL did he get mad and those rants were hilarious.

 

[Willtor]

It's not about being "owed" votes so much as it is about rational self-interest. Sure, Gore wasn't owed my friend Noreen's vote, but when she voted for Nader, she essentially threw her vote away. Gore was by no means perfect, but he was a lot better than Bush, and to avoid that unfortunate turn of events, Gore needed every liberal vote. Which he didn't get, because, well, Nader.

This is exactly right.

To expand:

Probably, everybody who voted for Nader preferred Gore to Bush. It was the same for Buchanan and Bush. Every vote for Buchanan was a missed vote for Bush (except in Florida). Nevertheless, filling in the bubble next to the "spoiler's" name doesn't transmit that information. This is why Sanders had to answer the question about whether it was he or the Democratic candidate that was the spoiler in his Vermont race, where the Republican won.

Obviously, obviously, it doesn't have to be this way. There are alternate voting systems that don't have this defect. What if voters ranked candidates in order of preference instead of selecting one, for example? There are a number of ways to score a system like that, but all of the obvious ones mean that all voters can vote the way they like and not worry that choosing their favorite Cherry Garcia over a more mediocre Chunky Monkey might result in a selection of Liver 'n Onions.

 

[TerranceL]

It's not about being "owed" votes so much as it is about rational self-interest. Sure, Gore wasn't owed my friend Noreen's vote, but when she voted for Nader, she essentially threw her vote away. Gore was by no means perfect, but he was a lot better than Bush, and to avoid that unfortunate turn of events, Gore needed every liberal vote. Which he didn't get, because, well, Nader.

Eh, it still sounds to me like being "owed" especially with the "throwing away votes".

Your friend voted her conscience, that's good. I'll take people voting FOR someone over voting AGAINST someone any day of the week.

We will never see any change unless we change ideas like this.

 

[The Cadet]

Your friend voted her conscience, that's good. I'll take people voting FOR someone over voting AGAINST someone any day of the week.

But at the end of the day, the vote for did nothing, while the vote against may very well have. Yeah, the system sucks, but we can still work within it to our own best interest.

 

[zephyrWiccan]

Clinton likely to leave NH with same number of delegates as Sanders | The Hill

Clinton won nine delegates in the primary but came into the contest with the support of six superdelegates, who are state party insiders given the freedom to support any candidate they choose.​

Too bad Hillary didn't have the same folks as in Iowa who counted ballots ... to at least make the pretense of the process being fair.

So, they took a big dump on the will of the people. The fix is indeed in among establishment folks who want someone like Hillary in power instead of someone not so easily controlled, like Bernie. Disgusting.

 

[Willtor]

Eh, it still sounds to me like being "owed" especially with the "throwing away votes".

Your friend voted her conscience, that's good. I'll take people voting FOR someone over voting AGAINST someone any day of the week.

We will never see any change unless we change ideas like this.

It's game theory. The way to change the way people choose their candidates is to change the rules of the game. Take a similar example:

After Germany capitulated in WWII, the Manhattan Project scientists (most vocally, Oppenheimer) questioned why the work was continuing. After all, they were developing the bomb as a deterrent to Germany, right? A petition began circulating among the scientists that asked President Truman to pledge that he wouldn't drop the bomb on Japan, until the petition was stopped by the authorities.

One of Truman's advisers (can't remember who... could look it up if you're curious, but I don't want to wake my wife) came up with a ballot to get a feel for everyone's preferences. The choices were worded so that the scientists were split and the plurality came out only slightly higher (IIRC) than the most aggressive option. The two highest results were presented to Truman, making it look like a significant rift, while the overwhelming majority actually opposed the most aggressive option.

The scientists' consciences differed, and we would have liked for the game to be such that they need not have thought about the rules, but only have considered their consciences. That wasn't the game. The game was rigged.

 

[Willtor]

Robert Reich has a petition that I signed, regarding superdelegates.