By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders; Clinton’s winning because more Democrats want her to be the nominee

WolfpackN64 on 31 May 2016
snyps said:

 

I live in Washington and saw the mail in ballot. They couldn't have made it any easier to vote. Caucuses are hard, they are confusing, they require passion to succeed. 

 

Which reason do you feel Our Fore Fathers chose to justify making the United States of America a Republic with indirect Democracy? Do you feel it was because Voters, giving no effort, were less able to manage the good of the land than Delegates, who worked hard to be chosen directly by the voters who sit for hours at a caucus?

 

I encourage you all to attend a caucus and to volunteer yourself to be their delegate to your county convention. It will be worth it to you to see why we are an indirect Democracy, and why delegates must be elected not annointed (super), for the good of the land.

The US really needs to just ditch the delegate system alltogether.



Around the Network
snyps on 31 May 2016
WolfpackN64 said:
snyps said:

 

I live in Washington and saw the mail in ballot. They couldn't have made it any easier to vote. Caucuses are hard, they are confusing, they require passion to succeed. 

 

Which reason do you feel Our Fore Fathers chose to justify making the United States of America a Republic with indirect Democracy? Do you feel it was because Voters, giving no effort, were less able to manage the good of the land than Delegates, who worked hard to be chosen directly by the voters who sit for hours at a caucus?

 

I encourage you all to attend a caucus and to volunteer yourself to be their delegate to your county convention. It will be worth it to you to see why we are an indirect Democracy, and why delegates must be elected not annointed (super), for the good of the land.

The US really needs to just ditch the delegate system alltogether.

If that's the impression I gave than I shall never give advice ever again.



WolfpackN64 on 01 June 2016
snyps said:
WolfpackN64 said:

The US really needs to just ditch the delegate system alltogether.

If that's the impression I gave than I shall never give advice ever again.

No, that's what I really think should happen. the USA isn't a democracy, it's a half democracy. People don't vote and chose the system, they vote for people in the government to elect the government.

If representative democracy wasn't already removed from the people enough, the USA makes the distance even larger.



snyps on 02 June 2016
WolfpackN64 said:
snyps said:

If that's the impression I gave than I shall never give advice ever again.

No, that's what I really think should happen. the USA isn't a democracy, it's a half democracy. People don't vote and chose the system, they vote for people in the government to elect the government.

If representative democracy wasn't already removed from the people enough, the USA makes the distance even larger.

Have you heard the quote 

 

“A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

 

 

When asked what system of government they had forged, Ben Franklin replied, "A Republic if you can keep it." Ideally, a proper democracy in a Republic is conducted by small groups consisting of a few hundred land owners electing their 7-8 delegates. Those delegates from each county make up a few hundred and they decide the party candidate. That is the right way to make the U.S. Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Conversely, a system were every person votes directly in a popular vote, irresponsible out number the responsible. The election gets decided by the ones that won't lift a finger to change a thing. The Democratic Party is so well trusted by it's supporters that it has given itself more voting power than it's individual members. The Superdelegate is not a thing in The Republican Party. In this converse system that we have today, the candidate, and thus the U.S. Government, is made; of the bank, by the bank, for the bank.

A Republic is the only right way to run a democracy. But we have lost it.



Soundwave on 02 June 2016

Clinton should be the nominee, she has more overall votes than Sanders does.

Of course now the Sanders camp is saying the superdelegates should over turn the popular vote and put Sanders above Clinton ... so suddenly superdelegates aren't so bad when they overturn the will of the majority, so long as they're doing it for their candidate of choice.



Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 02 June 2016
snyps said:
WolfpackN64 said:

No, that's what I really think should happen. the USA isn't a democracy, it's a half democracy. People don't vote and chose the system, they vote for people in the government to elect the government.

If representative democracy wasn't already removed from the people enough, the USA makes the distance even larger.

Have you heard the quote 

 

“A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

 

 

When asked what system of government they had forged, Ben Franklin replied, "A Republic if you can keep it." Ideally, a proper democracy in a Republic is conducted by small groups consisting of a few hundred land owners electing their 7-8 delegates. Those delegates from each county make up a few hundred and they decide the party candidate. That is the right way to make the U.S. Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Conversely, a system were every person votes directly in a popular vote, irresponsible out number the responsible. The election gets decided by the ones that won't lift a finger to change a thing. The Democratic Party is so well trusted by it's supporters that it has given itself more voting power than it's individual members. The Superdelegate is not a thing in The Republican Party. In this converse system that we have today, the candidate, and thus the U.S. Government, is made; of the bank, by the bank, for the bank.

A Republic is the only right way to run a democracy. But we have lost it.

That's really a big bunch of hooey. You're defending a democratic deficit. The US should enter the 21st century, not be stuck with the basis of a system from the 18th.



Faust on 02 June 2016

i guess Trump is our next president then.... (sigh) still voting for sanders next week



fatslob-:O on 02 June 2016

It's not rigged but it's severely flawed ...

The idea of superdelegates is undemocratic when the party leaders can practically overturn the choice of the public ...

The thought of one candidate using it's connections to largely influence the race early on is rather unpalatable when it means fumbling other candidates in the end. I'd rather have first past the post than to have a nomination process consisting of a partial oligarchy ...



Ruler on 02 June 2016

*more democrats but not people overall



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread

Soundwave on 02 June 2016
fatslob-:O said:
It's not rigged but it's severely flawed ...

The idea of superdelegates is undemocratic when the party leaders can practically overturn the choice of the public ...

The thought of one candidate using it's connections to largely influence the race early on is rather unpalatable when it means fumbling other candidates in the end. I'd rather have first past the post than to have a nomination process consisting of a partial oligarchy ...

Yeah but the irony here is it's the Sanders camp now calling on superdelegates to over turn the will of the majority of voters (in which Clinton is leading). 

Hilary has more votes plain and simple, has nothing to do with delegates, superdelegates or anything, Bernie has less votes which means he's run a spirited campaign, but ultimately a losing campaign. 

When Clinton lost to Obama she did eventually cede and fall in line, Bernie should do the same if he loses.