Bernie gets more votes. Then Bernie gets more votes again. Then Pete "wins". Hmmm..

[DanTex]

"I think most Americans, of any party, ought to be able to get on board with the idea that one person, one vote, counting equally, is the fairest way to choose our president."

-- Mayor Pete

[dsc]

1. than I guess you have a problem with all of our primaries

as that winds up happening fairly routinely. To take one example. In NC we have 13 CD, 4 get 4 delegates, 5 get 5 delegates, 1 gets 6, 2 get 8 and 1 gets 9 based on voting for Gov Cooper and Hillary Clinton (both in 2016). The more people vote voted for them in a district the more delegates that district gets. Now take two candidates, one wins 15% of the vote in a 4 person district and one wins 15% of the vote in a 9 person district. Each gets one delegate from that but it took way more votes to get the delegate from the 9 person district than the 4 person one. In short, we don't do proportional allocation of delegates.

[booley]

26. well clearly Buttigeig does given his statement

anyway, this is concerning a caucus.

If this had been a primary, sanders would have won.

[LeftTurn3623]

2. Did you not witness the general election

Hillary got more votes. Who is the President?

[gab13by13]

3. I think you just made the posters point.

[LeftTurn3623]

7. I agree with the posters point

It should be 1 vote and popular vote should be what is counted.

[beastie boy]

4. I am curious, are you expressing frustration with unfairness of the fact or suspicion of foul play?

[DanTex]

12. Not foul play. Not really unfairness even, just arbitrariness.

I'm challenging the spin that Pete "won" because he got more state delegate equivalents despite, so far, getting less actual votes in both the first and second allocations.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. The goal is SDEs. The candidate with the most of them wins.

Delegates are not awarded strictly by vote totals in caucuses. That’s just the way that screwed up system works.

[DanTex]

29. Actually, the goal is national delegates.

SDEs are an intermediate part of the calculation from votes to national delegates. In national delegates, they tied. In votes, Bernie won.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. National delegates aren't allocated by popular vote either.

But please go back to 2016 and review what Bernie was complaining about then. Seems like he’s changed his tune since Iowa didn’t bring him what he expected.

[William769]

5. You play with what you are dealt.

BTW, he's right about the Electoral College.

[denem]

6. Pete has won the narrative.

Bernie needed a stand out win in IA. He did not get it. His win in NH will be less impressive than 2016. Then it's on to NV.

[LanternWaste]

8. I get it... blame a known-process for working within its own margin.

I'm guessing we'll be watching the groundwork getting laid down for small intimations of malicious conspiracies at the expense of Bernie in the coming state primaries...



(given enough wiggle-room, I'd lay even money that another third-way bogey-man will grace the narrative)

[squirecam]

9. Everyone knew the rules

Bernie should have focused on getting more support outside college towns.

The rules were even changed this year. Otherwise only Pete’s win would be reported.

Don’t complain about it now.

[Me.]

11. They Were Changed Because He Insisted On It

It was his plan for transparency. And now it has boomeranged.

[MineralMan]

10. Delegate allocation. Look into it.

In all 50 states, delegates to the Democratic Nominating Convention are allocated in much the same way. It is not the popular vote alone that decides which candidates get delegates. It is a district by district thing.

I'm sure you knew that already, though.

[DanTex]

13. It's a bit hypocritical for Pete to be touting "one person one vote" and then claiming "victory"

based on some formula with coin tosses and "state delegate equivalents." That much is obvious.

[honest.abe]

14. So what is he supposed to say? I reject my victory since the rules are unfair to Bernie?

[MineralMan]

17. Well, it really is one person one vote at the district level.

Delegate allocation is a complicated process, but "one person one vote" is the standard at the precinct and district levels. We are, in the United States, a republic with people elected in various districts representing us.

The delegate allocation process represents the process, right down to the individual precinct and district.

Primaries and caucuses in presidential primaries are designed to reflect the voters' preferences right down to the precinct level. It's the very same process we used to election everyone from city council members to the President, and ever office in between.

For example, my city of St. Paul, Minnesota has six city council members and six wards in the city. Each ward has between 10 and 15 precincts in it. So, each city council member is elected by the precincts in a particular ward. What the rest of the city thinks about that election is irrelevant.

It's all a bottom-up system. It works at all levels of representation.

Only candidates for statewide offices are elected by the majority of voters in a given state. Everyone else is elected by smaller divisions. In Democratic presidential primaries, everything goes right down to the precinct level.

That's our system of government - a representative republic. If you don't like it, a constitutional convention is the only recourse.

[SidDithers]

20. Did someone vote more than once?...

Sid

[DanTex]

22. Right, I'm sure that's what Pete meant.

[MineralMan]

23. So, what other things about our system of government don't you like?

Coin tosses are used to settle ties. What should be done? Give nobody the delegate or office. We have settled many tied elections in that way in this country.

"State delegate equivalents" are how Iowa does things in its caucuses. Delegates are not directly chosen at precinct caucuses. That is done later, at the district or state conventions. In other places, actual delegates are chosen in other ways. But, delegates still have to be chosen.

Everyone who went to a caucus meeting in Iowa had one vote, but one vote does not usually elect select anyone.

It's better to understand how a thing works before criticizing it, I think.

I'm not excusing Iowa's failed caucus system. I think it should be done away with, but primaries still have to translate votes into delegates in some way. One person cannot elect a delegate. It takes a group of people who vote the same way to do that. We do not do direct democracy much here in the United States when it comes to electing people in primary elections. We just don't. It's all part of a process. Direct democracy does not work in any population group that cannot fit into one room.

[TwilightZone]

39. Exactly.

"I'm sure you knew that already, though."

I guarantee it. Just stirring the pot, as always.

[phleshdef]

15. Buttigieg had nothing to do with how the Iowa caucus works and he didn't force anyone to choose him.

...as their second choice when their first choice was nonviable.

Everyone knows Iowa is a mess. And the delegates coming out of Iowa are basically nothing.

[DanTex]

16. Even with second choices, Bernie still got more votes.

It's only the state delegate equivalent formula that put Pete on top. In terms of national delegates, Pete and Bernie are tied, as of now.

[ehrnst]

18. As I recall, you said that you "weren't much interested in the popular vote"

when it came to the 2016 elections anyway....

You said all that really mattered in the end are the delegates.

[R B Garr]

25. LOL. I remember that, too. Lots of concern over Hillary and the EC

[ehrnst]

31. Yep, DanTex going back and forth on this one...

Getting whiplash.

[R B Garr]

32. Yes, lots of gaps in the recall.

Whiplash indeed!

[ehrnst]

19. You said that "votes didn't much interest you" because it's the delegates that count...

At least when talking about Hillary Clinton winning more votes in the 2016 general...

Double standard there?



In response to a post that stated Hillary won the votes...


DanTex (18,839 posts)

56. OK, but that's not the kind of win I'm interested in.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=476680

[mathematic]

21. Sanders fought to keep the caucus.

This is this system that Bernie Sanders, Man of Principle, fought for.

[W_HAMILTON]

24. They are playing under the rules that Sanders himself helped write.

Blame him.

But, oh wait, Sanders actually won a lot of those outer rural counties (that are weighted more heavily) in 2016 whereas Buttigieg is leading in them now, so that wasn't so much a problem back when Sanders was getting an over-proportional share of SDEs, but it is now that he isn't benefiting from that system.

Figures.

[Squinch]

38. But this time he wants different ones. Meanwhile, his supporters keep telling me that

Bloomberg can't just demand rule changes to suit himself.

[texasfiddler]

27. If we elected Presidents by popular vote

Almost all of our candidates would win. Unfortunately we have to work within the system we have. How does Bernie win the electoral college?

[HarlanPepper]

33. ...

[Rene]

34. Pete and Joe need to both dropout

Their involvement with shadow Inc is too wrong and compromising.

[krissey]

35. DNC cheat again? Because the only Sanders supporter I know came in the other night crying about

the DNC cheating again and how "they" would never allow Sanders to win. Not that it is a Sanders loss. But it is all about Sanders being cheated. Sanders should have won Iowa by a landslide. His loss is on him.

[Squinch]

36. It's a conspiracy, I tells ya! A conspiracy against Bernie! Add that to the list!

[ehrnst]

37. I hear the DNC is behind it just to thwart Bernie....

They are all powerful...

[TwilightZone]

40. He's talking about the general election. You're talking about the Iowa caucus.

And you don't seem to understand the difference.

Add that to the pile.

[ehrnst]

41. Yep.

Posting at that frantic rate doesn't leave much time for one to read the responses that correct their misunderstanding or inconsistencies.

[DanTex]

42. Strange, I thought he was appealing to a general principle there.

[ehrnst]

44. Yes, strange that it wouldn't be obvious that the Iowa Caucus and the general election are

different... and Pete was not talking about the Iowa caucuses...

So what changed your mind about the "general principle" of "not being interested in vote totals" as much as focusing on delegates being the final arbiter of what's important in an election - like when you are reminded that Hillary won the popular vote.

See also: Iowa caucuses don't actually represent a % of Iowa Democratic voters.... which may be why certain candidates with loud, enthusiastic, manic energy delegates who work to wear down the other delegates do better than in primaries, where the choice of the majority is very clear.

[USALiberal]

43. Nice try! nt

[scheming daemons]

45. Might want to re-check the number, Dan. Buttigieg leads in the 2nd alignment votes now.

[ehrnst]

46. Well, this must be a dilemma...

Well - if it does turn out that Sanders does get more votes....