Bernie v Joe, Who do you like?

[Barrister]

Ultimately my position is:

1. The Democrats better support whomever wins the plurality of the votes, to not do so would be disastrous in the current paranoid anti-establishment atmosphere. The narrative of the crooked Democrats would be hard to shrug off.

It depends on how it all shapes up - but why?  If you don't have a majority, you haven't won.

In particular if the margin is relatively small, why do you have the right to be declared the winner.  You should have to negotiate with the other candidates and earn the votes of their delegates.

[The Minsky Moment]

The logic that Sanders supporters have explained to me is that they understand none of his policies will get passed as he wants them, but a compromised position is probably going to be better than they would get from somebody less radical. I don't know.

The question is not what is the best negotiating position to start from.  The question is - if one starts with the employer-based health care system we have - what is the most likely path to getting to the end result of a proper universal system.  ACA was never intended to be an endpoint.  ACA- with the public option that was removed in the negotiations before passage - was hoped to be the beginning of a ultimate transition to true universal care. 

[Valmy]

It depends on how it all shapes up - but why?  If you don't have a majority, you haven't won.

In every single federal election in the US, and in Canada for that matter, the person with the most votes wins (well ok on a state by state basis in the Presidential election, since it is really 50 small elections but still...). If you start rationalizing around that people will be very pissed off. But there is one exception:

In particular if the margin is relatively small, why do you have the right to be declared the winner.

If the margin is just a few delegates then maybe, if there is essentially a tie. But this is why: Because if you select the person with fewer votes it looks anti-democratic and corrupt and feeds the Trumpian narrative that the Democratic party is a corrupt league of elitists who are the enemy of the common people. I mean hell it feeds that narrative already present inside the party itself. It makes it harder to win in the general election.

You should have to negotiate with the other candidates and earn the votes of their delegates.

If that needs to happen to get the person with the most votes to win then sure.

I am just interested in winning this election and having the democratic party collapse into chaos right as we are selecting our candidate seems like a bad strategy to me.

[Sheilbh]

It depends on how it all shapes up - but why?  If you don't have a majority, you haven't won.

In particular if the margin is relatively small, why do you have the right to be declared the winner.  You should have to negotiate with the other candidates and earn the votes of their delegates.

I think that's one of those things that's technically right, but politically an issue. I think it would smack of unfairness.

[Valmy]

It depends on how it all shapes up - but why?  If you don't have a majority, you haven't won.

In particular if the margin is relatively small, why do you have the right to be declared the winner.  You should have to negotiate with the other candidates and earn the votes of their delegates.

I think that's one of those things that's technically right, but politically an issue. I think it would smack of unfairness.

Yeah I am just saying it would be politically disastrous, not that the Democrats would be breaking any rules.

If they do decide to do this, they better have a well thought out and iron-clad strategy on how to deal with the implications.

[Barrister]

It depends on how it all shapes up - but why?  If you don't have a majority, you haven't won.

In particular if the margin is relatively small, why do you have the right to be declared the winner.  You should have to negotiate with the other candidates and earn the votes of their delegates.

I think that's one of those things that's technically right, but politically an issue. I think it would smack of unfairness.

Trump didn't win the most votes yet is still President.  Someone (Sanders) may well complain about unfairness, but I'm not sure how far it would resonate.

I think the margin of victory matters though.

[Sheilbh]

Trump didn't win the most votes yet is still President.  Someone (Sanders) may well complain about unfairness, but I'm not sure how far it would resonate.

I think the margin of victory matters though.

He won the electoral college - I've got issues with it but that's the system.

My view is whoever wins the most delegates should be the nominee - unless it's very narrow and there's a split, in that case I could see an argument that it's better to favour the popular vote (but that's effectively favouring primaries v caucuses). Anything else looks unfair and like a stitch-up - votes should matter.

If Sanders lost because of that I don't know if he would complain about unfairness - though his supporters might. Last time Sanders was a loyal soldier and did more campaign events for Hilary than she did in 2008 for Obama. I imagine he'd do the same again though there might be frustration. But I think if that happens Trump would be the one making it resonate - Democrats cheating their own supporters etc etc. And he'd probably link it into the inevitable victimhood narrative of how they'll do anything to try and beat him - I fully expect him to be accusing the Democrats of trying to rig the election, just like he was hinting in 2016.

[Valmy]

Trump didn't win the most votes yet is still President.  Someone (Sanders) may well complain about unfairness, but I'm not sure how far it would resonate.

I think the margin of victory matters though.

He won the most electoral votes by winning the state elections. Exactly like winning delegates in a Primary.

I do think, despite your claims, that there is anger about the electoral college and it does resonate and its existance does damage our democratic institutions. So why double down on that?

[Barrister]

Because votes matter.

If Bernie fails to get to a majority, Biden is close behind him, and remaining delegates are pledged to candidates who have now thrown their support to Biden, why should the will of the majority who didn't want Bernie be swamped by the plurality who did?

[alfred russel]

There is a difference between winning the presidency with a minority of voters but in the electoral college and winning a nomination with a minority of voters / delegates.

For starters, the presidency is the prize, so to a certain extent it doesn't matter how you win so long as you win. Trump (and previously Bush) opponents may regard the process as a travesty but Trump is still president. The nomination is just one step toward getting the prize - the presidency. If Sanders supporters are furious about the process, they may not join the broader coalition to get the democrat in the white house.

Also, while there is significant precedent for the electoral college, there is not for contested conventions under modern rules. The parties pay lip service (maybe more than lip service) to democratic ideals, and the rules were shifted to reflect that, but you still have super delegates and the processes don't really align themselves to easy analysis of democratic intent. Suppose that Biden gets a plurality of votes cast but Bernie a plurality of delegates (because caucuses have less voters, and Bernie does better there). Who should be the nominee? Ultimately if it is close I assume the losing side could accept a loss and an outreach would occur to bring the party together (such as Biden making Bernie the VP). But if Bernie has a clear lead under any measure and the super delegates come in to favor Biden, all hell could break lose.

Moving toward two candidates does seem to reduce the risk, however.

[DGuller]

Parties should be free to resolve their own issues they way the see fit.  Democracy applies to elections, not to how parties function.  If the candidate is a controlling asshole boss to his workers, is that also a failure to adhere to democratic ideals?

The problem is that we just have two parties by system's design, so the organizational party matters are everyone's business.  Ideally if you don't like what the party is offering you in the voting booth, you just vote for another one that in some way represents your interests or values.

[Sheilbh]

Because votes matter.

If Bernie fails to get to a majority, Biden is close behind him, and remaining delegates are pledged to candidates who have now thrown their support to Biden, why should the will of the majority who didn't want Bernie be swamped by the plurality who did?

But there's a leap there from voting for another candidate to not wanting Sanders - he could be their second choice, they may just really like their other candidate or whatever else. Voters are messy, look at the Buttigieg voters, how many people here would have thought more Buttigeig supporters back Bernie + Warren v Biden + Bloomberg?

I think the cleaner, fairer route is whoever gets the plurality wins. The only exception, possibly, is if it's super narrow and one candidate won on delegates and one won in votes because I think you have two slightly competing sources of legitimacy there. But even then it should be between those candidates only.

As I say, I think it should apply whoever gets the most delegates.

[dps]

Vote Sanders, you fools.

"Fools".  Yeah, that sounds like Sanders voters to me.

[ulmont]

Trump (and previously Bush) opponents may regard the process as a travesty but Trump is still president.

The Bush process was more of a travesty, considering that Bush was elected by 1 vote...Rehnquist's.

[merithyn]

You guys really have no idea how health care in the US actually works, do you?  I can understand how Tamas would be confused about it, but HMB should know better (assuming that I'm remembering it correctly that HMB is an American).

If I went by what a lot of the media says about the US health care system or what many internet posters say, I would never have been to a doctor in my adult  life, because I would have just assumed that I couldn't afford it.  Well, guess what, I can afford health care and doctor's visits, even though I probably have one of the lowest household incomes of any poster here.

You're lucky then.

I have two sons with full-time jobs and no health insurance because they're 26. If either of them gets this virus and gets sick, they're screwed.

Neither gets paid time off, either. And they work in the service industries. So if they get sick, they'll probably still go to work.

Count your blessings,  dps, because these guys aren't far off from a hell of a lot of younger Americans.