Nevada Convention Rules (HRC group)

[LisaM]

So I was reading through the proposed rules that everyone made such a brouhaha about and they all seem perfectly fine, not to mention they were sent out ahead of time for everyone to review.

http://nvdems.3cdn.net/ea5a7f0df495b0cf4c_z2m6bnqh5.pdf

In particular, look at Section V regarding Decorum. (I'm sorry, I couldn't excerpt it because it formatted badly).

Now look at the proposed counter rules:

http://kernlawoffices.com/NSDP/Final%20Draft%20Rules.pdf

Again, pay attention to the part about Decorum. It's very telling. I had heard that for at least one of the previous rounds, people had shown up with noisemakers and (seriously) vuvuzelas. Here, in their proposed counter rules, they are advocating for disruption, yelling, and the use of noisemakers. I was able to excerpt from the second link. It's clear that they didn't like the rules because the rules wanted some semblance of order.

PROBLEM: These rules are stifling free speech, they are discriminatory to excited and passionate voters, and they have the effect of keeping voters (who are, by definition, dissenting voices), from participating in the state convention. These rules, as written, are a SMACK IN THE FACE to democracy and are discouraging people from participating in the democratic process. Section e is especially egregious, encouraging convention attendees to not even converse with one another. If they wish to halt conversations on the convention floor, what is the purpose of having a convention? WHAT COUNTRY ARE WE LIVING IN?

SOLUTION: Section V should be completely removed from this plan.

Just shaking my head here!

[Gothmog]

1. Allegations of fraud and misconduct at Nevada Democratic convention unfounded

Here is some fact checking on this issue http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

Supporters of Sanders believed that the convention rules, which have been largely the same since 2008, gave an unfair amount of power to Lange, the convention chair. The rules specifically lay out that all convention votes must be done by voice vote, and that only the convention chair can declare the winner or call for a more specific method of voting among the thousands of delegates.

The rules, which can be read here, also state that any amendment attempts must be approved by two-thirds of the convention delegates — which would be difficult given the nearly even number of Clinton and Sanders backers present.

Sanders backers say the continuing nature of the presidential primary necessitated more rule changes.

The Sanders campaign did not respond to a request for comment. In a previous statement, the campaign detailed several allegations of misconduct from the state party, which we considered as part of this fact-check. "At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place," the campaign said in that statement.

However, there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaigns.

The first major fight happened in the morning, with the convention being gaveled in nearly 40 minutes after the scheduled 9 a.m. start time.

In a voice vote, Lange approved adoption of a preliminary credentials report showing more Clinton than Sanders delegates. Immediate howls of protests from the Sanders contingent emerged, many of whom rushed the dais and started screaming insults and obscenities directly at Lange.

Although several videos from the event appear to have louder "nays" than "yeas," both preliminary and final delegate counts showed that Clinton supporters outnumbered Sanders supporters in the room.

And trying to determine the outcome of a voice vote from a video of around 3,000 delegates is somewhat arbitrary to begin with. The only person with authority to call for a different voting mechanism is the convention chair: Lange.....

Our ruling

Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said Nevada Democratic Party leaders "hijacked the process on the floor" of the state convention "ignoring the regular procedure and ramming through what they wanted to do."

Caucuses and delegate math can be incredibly confusing, and the arcane party structures don’t reflect how most people assume presidential selection works.

But the howls of unfairness and corruption by the Sanders campaign during Nevada’s state Democratic Convention can’t change the simple fact that Clinton’s supporters simply turned out in larger numbers and helped her solidify her delegate lead in Nevada.

There’s no clear evidence the state party "hijacked" the process or ignored "regular procedure."

We rate this claim False.

[LisaM]

2. Exactly, thanks! They really wanted the rules changed to favor their tactics.

I suppose in a way it's understandable - everyone wants their candidate to win - but I read through the proposed party rules which seem completely reasonable.

I went through the changes the Sanders people requested, and the fact that they wanted to completely eliminate the section on decorum jumped out at me!

I will admit to a completely irrational hatred of vuvuzelas. We were listening to a World Cup game on the radio that year it was in South Africa and I asked my SO if the stadium had been swarmed by bees (which of course makes no sense because everyone would be screaming and running away). "No, that's vuvuzelas!"

[Gothmog]

3. It would have required a two-thirds vote to change the rules

The Sanders supporters did not have even a simple majority and so their anger was really misplaced and dump

[FarPoint]

4. Republicans must be behind Sanders....he appears to of cut a deal..

A big deal too....There must be a dirty secret or something Sanders needs covered. Acts like a man boxed into a corner by republicans.