At NV, why didn't the Bernie campaign explain to their delegates

[pnwmom]

that the rules in place since at least 2008 required a 2/3 vote of all the delegates for any amendments? In other words, a super-majority was required for any amendments.

Why didn't they explain to them that since only about half of the delegates were Bernie people, they wouldn't be able to shove through any changes opposed by the Hillary delegates? And that a voice vote, which was also called for in the rules, was sufficient to discern that there wasn't the required 2/3 approval?

Why did the Bernie campaign instead choose to whip the delegates up into a lather?

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.

[Gothmog]

1. Because the rules do not apply to the Sanders campaign

If the Bernie bros want something, then they need to get notwithstanding the rules

[MariaThinks]

26. Like bernie's solutions to real problems, they don't follow the real world and any rationale.

to Bernie, if he does not win - he was screwed over.

Scary man.

[workinclasszero]

29. The revolution don't need no stinking rules!

If they can't get what they want by the rules then let the chairs fly where they may!

[ViseGrip]

2. Gee, why didn't he warn them their registrations were switched and not to bother going?

[boston bean]

3. In one word EGO

[MariaThinks]

28. Bernie is a scary man.

[anotherproletariat]

4. I bet them came to the convention planning on disruption. They didn't like the caucus results

so wanted to take out their anger on the DNC. They never cared about the rules.

[YouDig]

5. They figured if they just yelled a lot the rules wouldn't matter.

[grossproffit]

6. Rules, like math were created by oligarchs. They don't apply to them.

[Nanjeanne]

7. You miss the point. The amendments were never allowed to be brought up for the 2/3 vote. That's

all people wanted. They filed the amendments with the necessary signatures by the necessary 9:30 AM deadline. They probably would have lost on the 2/3s vote anyway - but the vote was never allowed to happen. It makes no sense. According to Erin Bilbray - who is a Superdelegate and a member of the Nevada DNC - it was one of the reasons her father, an ex-Congressman and Hillary supporter, tore up his ballot and walked out of the Convention. It wasn't that people didn't understand the rules. It was that the rules that were in place were not followed.

It really would be great if the the posters on DU understood what the actual problem was at the Nevada Convention instead of just the bs that's being thrown about.

[pnwmom]

9. That isn't what Politifact says, and I trust the non-partisan fact checker more than I do

the Bernie campaign at this point.

The Sanders campaign later alleged that Lange refused to accept petitions to change the rules, which is inaccurate.

In an interview, Lange said the board received a handful of petitions to change the convention rules but not all of them met the requirement to have signatures by 20 percent of convention goers.

Lange said the proper procedure for an amendment to the rules would have been during a short period for public comment before the temporary rules were adopted as permanent.

None of the three Sanders supporters who spoke, including Nevada superdelegate Erin Bilbray, made any motion to amend the rules during that time, so they were approved as written.

Volunteers circulating the petitions changing the rules abandoned their efforts after the permanent rules were adopted, saying they missed their chance to introduce them.

[Nanjeanne]

18. Well if Politifact says it then it must be correct. I mean Lange said they didn't meet

the rules. So she must be telling the truth. Erin Bilbray never said she made a motion to amend a rule. She didn't. She said there were others who did make the motion - and had the necessary 20% signatures. But of course, she must be lying.

Everyone who disagrees with Lange is lying and Lange is telling the truth. Like Ralston and the chair throwing.

Okey dokey.

[brush]

12. They still wouldn't have gotten the amendment approved since it required a 2/3 vote . . .

And Clinton won on election day. I repeat, she won on election day. All this kerfuffle was about was trying to change what happened when it counted.

It failed, and was rather silly as it was only about a 1 or 2 delegate swing, hardly enough to close the near-300 delegate gap Clinton has on Sanders.

It was like, WTF — out-of-control anger and cursing Senator Boxer and death threats to the chairwoman over a couple of piddling delegates that wasn't going to change anything nationally.

[Nanjeanne]

16. Why is the point so hard for you to understand. The amendments may not have passed. But people would

like to be involved in the process. It's called democracy. It's something Democrats should actually embrace - even if the result isn't what they would like - their voices should be heard.

How sad some of the people here who call themselves Democrats are. Boggles the mind.

[TwilightZone]

36. No, it's called disruption and wasting time. If you understand the rules and know for a certain...

fact that any amendments you are going to submit are going to fail because of the 2/3 rule, you're submitting them for no reason other than to disrupt the proceedings.

This isn't complicated.

[Nanjeanne]

37. Oh yes that damn democracy is so messy.

[azurnoir]

8. Because the state of Nevada sent out the rules and a 2/3 vote was never allowed

hmmm it seems you may have unintentionally just proven what we've been saying all along -thank you for that

[pnwmom]

10. Not true. They had voice votes and the Bernie delegates wanted it to be re-done. n/t

[azurnoir]

13. so by a voice vote you know beyond any question that 2/3rds were with Hillary?

I don't think so, especially seeing as how the nays were much louder than the yeahs

[pnwmom]

14. No. As I said, they were split about down the middle. But the Bernie delegates

would have needed a 2/3 majority to get an amendment approved, and they didn't have it.

[AgingAmerican]

11. The rules were ignored by the Nevada Democratic party

So your OP is a waste of typing.

[pnwmom]

15. They were followed by the party and ignored by the Bernie campaign,

who apparently arrived there with the intention to disrupt.

[MineralMan]

17. I suspect that a lot of Sanders delegates had little experience

with how a Democratic convention works. Few convention delegates, actually, every read the convention rules. They are almost always simply adopted in a pro forma vote at the beginning of the convention agenda. Occasionally, a change has been made in the existing rules since the previous convention, and those changes are outlined when adopting the rules is called for a vote. Typically, those changes are minor. The rules for conventions are usually of long standing.

I've read the rules for the district conventions I attend as a delegate. In doing so, I'm one of the very few delegates at large who ever have read them, though. First time attendees as delegates are usually poorly informed about how the convention operates. As a precinct chair, I generally answer a lot of questions from new delegates from my precinct, either at the convention or beforehand. That's why I've read the rules.

For people unfamiliar with a formal convention, it can be a confusing, foreign experience. Most people know little about formal meeting protocols or how they operate and often make mistakes in thinking they can simply object and have things change the way they want. That never happens, or the conventions would never complete their business.

The rules are designed to keep the convention on track in doing what it is designed to do. The rules are important in doing that.

"Ms. Chairperson: I have a point of order question."

Sometimes a parliamentarian has to rule on those questions. There's always a parliamentarian. Roberts Rules of Order, which are adopted during the adoption of the rules, has an answer for everything. It's how such bodies operate. It was derived from the rules of Congress, back in the 19th century, and has been updated multiple times.

It's a cool book, for detail-oriented people. It's worth reading. That's how things work. I've read it several times, but am still not qualified to be a parliamentarian.

[Nanjeanne]

20. I suspect that a lot of Sanders delegates understood very much how and what was required and

followed the new and rather arbitrary rules perfectly.

So there you are . . .

You weren't there - I wasn't either.

[MineralMan]

24. And I bet they didn't.

I'm a long-time convention delegate. I pretty much guarantee they didn't. They showed no understanding at all...just anger and frustration at not being able to get their way.

[Nanjeanne]

33. Since neither of us were there - neither of us know the reality. But everyone can have an opinion.

[pnwmom]

22. Thanks. I think this was the problem. Too many inexperienced people being led by

people who should have known better . . . I don't know whether the Bernie campaign people were uninformed themselves or just taking advantage of the delegates' inexperience.

[MineralMan]

27. Understanding convention rules is rare among delegates.

Those rules are complex and dense. With luck, the convention chair understands them pretty well. That's not even always true, in my experience. But, there are always some people at the convention who do. The chair of the rules committee is always there at the convention, and can provide more information, thank goodness. That person often also acts as the parliamentarian. Thank goodness there's usually someone competent to do that.

As for the Sanders campaign people, odds are that none of them had actually read the rules closely, either.

Here's the link to the pdf of the actual rules. They were available before the convention, as always:

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

[Wellstone ruled]

19. So many newbes to the process this time around and

rather than reading their informational material,they chose to go the Convention ill prepared.

[LexVegas]

21. Or at least explain to his delegate's parents. nt

[boston bean]

23. It gets him some campaign $$ to instead claim the system is rigged and make themselves out to be

victims of some grand conspiracy.

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. "Why did the Bernie campaign instead choose to whip the delegates up into a lather?"

Feel free to cite any verifiable evidence that Bernie's campaign did any such thing. Absent such, have the honor to delete that assertion...

[pnwmom]

34. Here:

The campaign official urges them to take over the convention and change party rules. Even though the party rules require a 2/3 majority for amendments and they weren't even close to that.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/17/politics/democrat-bernie-sanders-revolt/index.html

But new audio obtained by CNN shows a senior Sanders aide -- on the eve of the Nevada convention -- encouraging the senator's supporters try to "take over" the convention, change party rules and continue the "revolution" that Sanders has long campaigned on.

"You should not leave," Joan Kato, the national delegates director, told Sanders supporters in a meeting last week at the Rumor Boutique Hotel. "I'm going to repeat that, unless you are told by someone from the campaign ... that you can leave, you should not leave."

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. And you think that constitutes "whipping into a lather?" Seriously?

It most certainly doesn't in my estimation...but thank you for the substantive response. Not much chance we're going to get even close to an agreement on this one, I suspect. I see that as "don't fall for any of the shenanigans that may well have occurred previously."

[riversedge]

30. Too bad Sanders fans did not read the rules.

[leftynyc]

31. I guess they figured

if they yelled loud enough and stamped their feet they would get their way (like parents whose child is having a tantrum in public will often give them what they want).

[MineralMan]

32. Here's a very pertinent section of the rules for the Nevada Convention

Had they actually been followed, none of this would have occurred, and a number of delegates would have been removed from the floor.

Decorum
a. All delegates, alternates, and guests are entitled to attend and participate in the
convention free of harassment or intimidation. Anyone harassing or attempting to
intimidate any delegate, alternate, or guest to the convention shall be ejected from the
convention immediately and shall forfeit any fees paid for the convention or other
convention activities.
b. Any intentional disruption of any convention activities may result in immediate ejection
from the convention, including the forfeiture of any fees paid for the convention or
other convention activities.
c. Guests invited to speak to the convention shall not have their remarks or presentations
interrupted or interfered with in any manner, including auditory or visual distractions
from the floor. Violation of this rule may result in immediate ejection from the
convention, including the forfeiture of any fees paid for the convention or other
convention activities.
d. Noisemakers of any kind are prohibited at the convention.
e. Conversation on the floor should be kept to a minimum out of respect for guests,
delegates and speakers. Those delegates, alternates, and guests wishing to converse
should exit the floor.
f. The Sergeant(s) at Arms shall have the authority to enforce these rules with the
approval of the Convention Chair.