If you want less Hillary vs Bernie talk ban @the cac mamba and Nap.This thread is that shyt I don't like.
If anyone else made this thread it would do numbers.
DNC votes to limit role of Superdelegates moving forward
- Thread starter the cac mamba
- Start date
If anyone else made this thread it would do numbers.
The fukk are you asking to ban me for?If you want less Hillary vs Bernie talk ban @the cac mamba and Nap.
If anyone else made this thread it would do numbers.
Stop caping for that Trump troll with cac trump voters in his family. TO hell with him. Hillary didn't cure AIDS now his bytch ass is running around whining. Dude needs his shyt pushed in.
storyteller
Veteran
How is this a better question?
- Not all super delegates are elected by their state popular vote.
- If the representatives were forced to vote in line with their states popular vote you'd essentially have an electoral college where only the largest states mattered
- Clinton still would have won because she won the most votes/states in the primary
You said the Super delegates have never overridden their constituents...never?
Point by point not
- So then they represent who exactly and what makes that democratic?
- This seems like an admission that if super delegates want, they CAN supercede the will of the voters in the states they rep...again that's doesn't sound democratic.
- I literally "regardless of if it would mean Bernie wins or not"
I'm not caping for anyone or asking for anyone to be banned. Just merely pointing out that most Anti-Hillary comments are started by @the cac mamba and most Anti Bernie shyt is started by you. shyt ain't that serious.
Besides, you're ban-proof/bush-proof. Relax.
No, I said Superdelegates have never swayed the vote against the will of the electorate.
This mean, when has a candidate won the pledged delegates, but lost the nomination due to superdelegates. You tried though.
the cac mamba
Veteran
It falls in line with most other representative functions of American government. Personally, I don't think it's necessary, but it's a red-herring used by Sanders supporters attempting to justify his loss in the primary.
Here's why:
Bernie himself was not above going against the will of the voter, as you put it, in order to secure the nomination.
the cac mamba
Veteran
i asked you a question the other day that you ducked
you claim that Russia sending out memes influenced the presidential election trumps way. you then turn around and claim that the DNC stacking the deck and all but crowning hillary didn't influence the perception that the nomination was hers. why the hypocrisy?
the cac mamba
Veteran
breh, hillary won the primary fair and square, just like trump won the election fair and square. right?It falls in line with most other representative functions of American government. Personally, I don't think it's necessary, but it's a red-herring used by Sanders supporters attempting to justify his loss in the primary.
Here's why:
Bernie himself was not above going against the will of the voter, as you put it, in order to secure the nomination.
That's false equivalence.
Super-delegates make up 15% of total delegates. 85% of the votes were out there. Everything about the super delegates, who they are, their make-up, etc was out in the open. Most of them are elected officials. Many on the ballots that same election. If people felt subverted or felt that 15% of the vote secured a nomination they had means for recompense. Vote them out.
If you want this to work out, then we can keep it simple and say, people are idiots. They believed memes and chose not to vote. We can also say people are idiots and thought that 15% of the vote predetermined the election. Unfortunately for you, that would make you an idiot.
the cac mamba
Veteran
who's talking about superdelegatesThat's false equivalence.
Super-delegates make up 15% of total delegates. 85% of the votes were out there. Everything about the super delegates, who they are, their make-up, etc was out in the open. Most of them are elected officials. Many on the ballots that same election. If people felt subverted or felt that 15% of the vote secured a nomination they had means for recompense. Vote them out.
If you want this to work out, then we can keep it simple and say, people are idiots. They believed memes and chose not to vote. We can also say people are idiots and thought that 15% of the vote predetermined the election. Unfortunately for you, that would make you an idiot.
the party had selected clinton. everyone knew that the party had selected clinton, which affected their perception. i KNEW bernie wasnt winning that fukkin primary, as did everyonenow you're just lying
who's talking about superdelegates
now you're just lying
The thread is about Superdelegates. And you said this:
my god breh
You get all worked up and forget what you said in your own posts. Drugs are bad.
Bernie lost because he received less votes. Not because of pledged delegates.
the cac mamba
Veteran
and im telling you that the dems' sheeplike base swallowed the notion that it was hillary's turn because the DNC had decided itThe thread is about Superdelegates. And you said this:
You get all worked up and forget what you said in your own posts. Drugs are bad.
Bernie lost because he received less votes. Not because of pledged delegates.
breh....how many republicans ran for president? 15? how many democrats ran for president? ONE
how can you deny facts?
storyteller
Veteran
No, I said Superdelegates have never swayed the vote against the will of the electorate.
This mean, when has a candidate won the pledged delegates, but lost the nomination due to superdelegates. You tried though.
You picked out a statement that said "you're right, it will
it would be nice to vote in the dem primary without knowing i'll be overrode by some party whore who got the most donations"and said this never happens in response. Note in the bold, it's an individual speaking about his vote, not the entire electorate (which is why I was careful in my initial reply to limit super delegate impacts to state level regardless of the overall winner or loser). I can see how that miscommunication can happen when you're more focused on justifying Bernie's loss than the actual discussion on what role Super Delegates play or how a voting base may feel their votes have been marginalized. We're on two different wavelengths here...
It falls in line with most other representative functions of American government. Personally, I don't think it's necessary, but it's a red-herring used by Sanders supporters attempting to justify his loss in the primary.
Here's why:
Bernie himself was not above going against the will of the voter, as you put it, in order to secure the nomination.
I didn't jump into this discussion focusing on why Bernie lost, as a matter of fact I DISTANCED myself from that stance in my initial post when I said "whether he won or not." My stance isn't a "Bernie would have won" one, it's a "superdelegates are not necessary and can cause disillusionment in a voting base as exemplified by @the cac mamba and his comment." We seem to be mostly in agreement there with superdelegates being unnecessary. If you don't think it can make voters feel their selections have been marginalized, that's a point of disagreement. I'd say that when an election ends with delegates being handed out proportionally and then the gap is closed by Super Delegates some of whom apear to have made their selections before the primary happened...that's going to impact the electorate in that area.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
The thread is about Superdelegates. And you said this:
You get all worked up and forget what you said in your own posts. Drugs are bad.
Bernie lost because he received less votes. Not because of pledged delegates.
