I told you a consensus in this case is a majority. It's a pretty basic concept, and hardly an arbitrary marker in most forms of governance where a vote is necessary.
Las Vegas Democratic Debate, 9PM ET on NBC/MSNBC | Six candidates on stage, none of whom has bankrupted a single casino.
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
If someone were to come out of the contested convention as winner who definitively had less votes than the front runner. That would quite literally be anti-Democratic. The person with the most votes is still the person with the most votes.
weird how we're arguing about what bernie said in 2016 when he just said something much better in 2020 and everyone else said the thing he said in 2016 (and, i can't stress this enough, didn't actually do in the end). personally i think we should criticize the people who said it an hour ago, if we're arguing in good faith!
Or we could point out the hypocrisy in supporting undemocratic measures and outdated voting systems when they benefit you and decrying them when they don't🤷♂️
We don't live in a democracy though, and neither party is trying to model a true democracy in candidate selection.
Would the Dem party picking someone other than the candidate with a plurality of the votes do irreprable harm? Probably. But people make dumb choices all the time and the rules that everyone agreed to at the start, including Sanders, are the process as it stands. Sanders' team even had a far larger say in the process than any progressive candidate basically ever.
Says the person who clearly doesn't understand just how many people will get fucking steamrolled with 4 more years of Trump, which will almost certainly include another SCOTUS appointment and probably allow for some really fucked up voter laws getting enacted to ensure GOP rule far beyond.
Finding the broken, antiquated, and unfair rules of the Dem party disgusting is one thing. Acting like its remotely equivolent to the other party who actively want to suppress votes and claim dictatorial powers of the POTUS when they have the office must take some real galaxy brain bullshit rationale.
I genuinely can't tell if youre being serious right now. The very definition of a majority:
So why is it the person with the hypothetical majority, not actually considered to be a majority? And if that system were to, undemocratically have people of the party IE not voters, pick and choose a different person than the one who got the majority, how are we justifying this as not ignoring the will of the voters?
That is true and as such we have a system that is, as I originally said, capable of ignoring the will of the voters. This changes nothing about what I said. The dem party can crash and burn if they chose this route and no rationalizing of its stupid system is going to save it.
A plurality is not a majority. Party rules require a majority.
But this whole system is stupid. It should be a single national jungle primary and then a runoff election for the top two if no one gets 50%. This whole process is a waste of time and energy that should be spent fighting Trump. Instead I am growing more and more certain that Trump is going to win.
I don't disagree. And I think that would be the most likely outcome. I think fears of Bernie Sanders getting "screwed" at the convention is overblown by Sanders supporters who have convinced themselves that the 2016 primary was close (it wasn't), and that Sanders lost because of some dastardly machinations by Debbie Wasserman-Schulz (it wasn't the reason). If he gets the most votes, he's going to be the nominee.
Think people are making too much out of the plurality answer. None of them were answering from a principled stance. All were answering in self interest.
Sanders can answer that way because he's the most likely to achieve it. It would be irresponsible of the others and could easily e spun as throwing in the towel to say a candidate with a plurality should absolutely be the non since it's very likely it won't be them.
There's effectively zero chance the nom isn't the one with the most delegates.
Sanders can answer that way because he's the most likely to achieve it. It would be irresponsible of the others and could easily e spun as throwing in the towel to say a candidate with a plurality should absolutely be the non since it's very likely it won't be them.
There's effectively zero chance the nom isn't the one with the most delegates.
all but one candidate on stage tonight loudly supported the undemocratic and outdated voting systems you're apparently very concerned about
That's really unfavorable to poorer campaigns and upstarts.
This is getting embarrassing.
Majority as in the number in which one candidate has more votes than all other candidates combined. Greater than 50 percent. It's commonly used in American politics. Literally just google the definition of majority and come back to me about democracy.
sorry but the alternative is a process by which natural allies all end up hating each other's guts by the end. Look how acrimonious this debate was!
A capitalist? The absolute *horror*! Get my smelling salts before I faint.
Sorry - calling yourself a capitalist in America isn't going to hurt you as a candidate.
I am aware that there is a distinction in how other bodies of government use it, what I am saying is is that when a majority of people vote for one person over another, and a group of people at their own will ignores that choice to make a different one of their own, we are ignoring the will of the voters. Its not up for debate honestly. If there was a realignment or ranked voting I would agree it wouldnt be ignoring the will of the people. But thats not whats happening at a contested convention.
Basically:
I think there's some miscommunication about what specifically "majority" means. your point stands. if you get the most votes, you should win. But in this race of 6 people, probably no one will get over 50% of the vote.
He could win, pass M4A, cure cancer, and eradicate racism in the hearts of all mankind and party leadership will still say that shit.
For sure. But having the next option be "people given super delegates decide the outcome without any input from the voting public", is explicitly ignoring the will of the people if they give it to someone with less votes and delegates.
I disagree. Progress happens because people keep pushing. LGBTQ marriage and marijuana legalization didn't happen by interpreting every loss as "we need to give up and go in the other direction." The voices just get louder and louder over time. Millennials overwhelmingly support M4A and progressive politics afaik. As they age and Gen Z does too, you'll see an even larger demographic okay with ideas that predecessors weren't. If M4A doesn't pass in this next term, it will come eventually, because the USA is headed toward collapse with the status quo.
And what I'm saying is, if a candidate has not secured a majority, it's not ignoring the will of the people to go to a contested convention. It's an acknowledgement that the majority did NOT choose the candidate with the most votes. And I'm also saying that the answer given by the candidates on the stage was one any of them would give given their position.
We've literally seen Sanders' position on this shift conveniently as his fortunes have improved from 2016 to 2020. Do you think this is just because Bernie is a great guy?
Michael Bloomberg is 78 years old and has billions of dollars and that he would still subject himself to this kind of complete ass kicking is how I know I will never have the ego neccesary to ever be even a fraction of how rich he is.
but then we have to ask ourselves: was Bernie right to have had those positions? And if he wasn't, then surely these candidates are also not right. And what kind of policies would Bloomberg, Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg try to push w/ their leverage in a contested convention - do we want to see them try?
They did choose the candidate with the majority of votes tho lol. Having one person gain over 50% against 5-6 other people is an incredibly silly and arbitrary stipulation. The person with the most votes would be what the will of the people voted for.
I already answered your question previously. Its a bad answer when he gave it in 16 and would be if he gave it again here. But he didn't. Its just another reason why people mock how incompetent the DNC primary is, its needlessly complicated and the fact they have a process in which can circumvent what the people vote for is ignoring the will of the people, and why people would view it as such and would let the party die if they decided to try it.
Majority doesn't make complete sense when that majority doesn't always get decide by popular vote. I think that's all we are saying. I'm not arguing that is the way it is now and always have been. Going by popular vote should be the way things should be.
They are going to be riots in the streets of Milwaukee if it happens
Sadly she doesn't have a chance of winning, but I'm voting for her as long as she stays in. She's the right combination of progressive policy and ability to get the job done (Bernie hits the first but strongly lacks the second - you can't enact policy if you consider compromise to be a dirty word).
I'd rather be inclusive and testing with some hurt feelings than the more exclusionary system.
To me there's a difference. Being a capitalist is a point of pride for Warren. There's a certain level of cognitive dissonance when she says she wants to fight for the working class then brags about being a capitalist in the next sentence. It seems like a calculated political stance rather than an honest critique of a broken system. Bernie's a capitalist so far as it is a necessary reality for the foreseeable future. And the label of Democratic Socialist is a signal that he's serious about fighting for self determination among the working class.
America isn't ready for true Democratic Socialism, but Sanders is certainly trying to get us there. Warrens vision comes off as more technocratic and extends so far as expanding labor rights and giving back power to unions that has been increasingly eroding. Which is all great, don't get me wrong. But I think Bernie's vision extends a little bit farther than that and I think it's worth fighting for.
I don't think it's a right or wrong thing honestly. You could easily make the moral argument that ignoring the majority who did not vote for a candidate and instead awarding the nomination to the candidate with the plurality is wrong.
I was against the Sanders' campaign dragging their feet to concession when Clinton obviously had the nomination clinched because I thought that time would have been better spent focusing on the general. I didn't think Sanders was "wrong" per se or immoral. Just a politician trying to win a campaign. Same goes for everyone tonight.
Warren straight up lied when she said klobuchars healthcare plan is only 2 paragraphs on her website.
Klobuchars healthcare plan on her website is actually very detailed.
Klobuchars healthcare plan on her website is actually very detailed.
This country needs to get rid of the EC and these dumbass National Conventions. Have the whole country vote for their nominee on the same day and give the candidate with the most popular votes the nomination.
Majority and popular vote aren't really two opposing things here.
I think that's a fair answer. but yeah I don't actually think we have anything to worry about anyway. whoever is in the lead will likely be the candidate.
She still stands a chance! Anything can change and only 2 very tiny states have voted so far. We won't know the nominee until Super Tuesday at the earliest. I early voted for Warren today in Texas.
Yes. Really.
The majority opposed your candidate. To ignore that is to ignore the will of the people. Stop ignoring the will of the people.
That's literally every outcome in a plurality, no matter who you pick.
that moral argument would be dumb as dogshit though because not checking the box next to bernie's name on a ballot doesn't mean you'd prefer the next best moderate. reminder that the most popular second choice for biden voters currently is bernie (and so it is for warren as well)
putting aside legitimately making a moral argument centered around, fundamentally, annulling a plurarity of votes in favour of a bunch of backroom deals is laughable. make one of pragmatism all you like but no one who says they're merely doing the right thing by the american people in doing so deserve anything but derision
