Bernie v Joe, Who do you like?

[Valmy]

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?

You are presenting one scenario as if it is the only outcome. I already conceded it might work if it is effectively a tie.

But I am sorry I care about this fucking country and I am not interested in having its institutions destroyed. Having a candidate with the most votes, especially if it is a wide margin, by denied would be a disaster in this current atmoshere.. I am not sure why you are so intent on spinning this any other way.

I mean if this system was put in place in the Ridings in Canada your party would lose almost every election. Why shouldn't the will of the majority who didn't vote for the Conservative Party not get the seat? Obviously the other parties should get together and decide the NDP or Liberals should get it, because clearly that was what the voters wanted really the party who finished in second place to win. Seems fair.

[Valmy]

If we want a system where the person with the most votes doesn't win, at least have ranked choice voting or some way for the voters to weigh in again.

[dps]

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.

Well, technically, you could say that there is only 1 federal election in the US.  And the person with the most votes doesn't win.  And I'm not talking about a situation such as in 2000 or 2016 in which a Presidential candidate wins the popular vote but wins in the Electoral College.  I'm talking about the fact that to win the Presidency, you have to get a majority, not just a plurality.  If no candidate wins a majority in the EC, then the House of Representatives choose the President from the top 3 finishers in the Electoral College.  Of course, this has only come into play once, in 1824.

The sticking point is that we're used to first past the post voting in the US, where you just have to gain a plurality of the votes to win.  But a Presidential nominating convention, where you need to have an actual majority, is, like the Electoral College, one of the few exceptions.

Of course, the mandate that a candidate has to have a majority in the EC to be elected comes from the Constitution.  The requirement that a candidate have a majority at a convention in order to secure the Presidential nomination does not come from the Constitution, but from party rules.  The parties could save themselves any potential problems simply by doing away with the requirement of having a majority in order to get the nomination, and allow the conventions to pick the nominee using a fptp system.  I can think of a few problems that could cause, though.

[Valmy]

Well, technically, you could say that there is only 1 federal election in the US.  And the person with the most votes doesn't win.  And I'm not talking about a situation such as in 2000 or 2016 in which a Presidential candidate wins the popular vote but wins in the Electoral College.  I'm talking about the fact that to win the Presidency, you have to get a majority, not just a plurality.

Not true. To win the Electoral Votes from a state you just need the most votes, not the majority of votes.

Of course, the mandate that a candidate has to have a majority in the EC to be elected comes from the Constitution.  The requirement that a candidate have a majority at a convention in order to secure the Presidential nomination does not come from the Constitution, but from party rules.  The parties could save themselves any potential problems simply by doing away with the requirement of having a majority in order to get the nomination, and allow the conventions to pick the nominee using a fptp system.  I can think of a few problems that could cause, though.

I mean I understand the rules. I am addressing this from a strategic and political point of view. The Republicans once stole the Primary from Roosevelt despite him having won almost every Primary, because most states did not have primaries. We all know how much damage that did to the Republican Party.

So could the Democrats, by their own rules, nominate the candidate who got fewer votes? Sure. Of course they could. But should they? No. That is all I am saying. Now I understand that that is not strictly how the process is designed, I understand that the candidate is not entitled the nomination just because they won the plurality of votes. I am just saying that to do otherwise would be a very very bad idea. You might as well just paint the White House Red and put an elephant in the front yard if they do that.

[Razgovory]

Vote Sanders, you fools.

I don't think replacing one cult of personality with another is much of an improvement.

[Valmy]

Vote Sanders, you fools.

I don't think replacing one cult of personality with another is much of an improvement.

Obama was a cult of personality. Cults of personality are not all the same.

Besides there are people who are left wing who actually support Sanders because they agree with his policies, there are many other leftwing candidates allied with Sanders that they support. This is not some Sanders cult and it will continue on long after he leaves politics...which could be very soon. But him leaving will not change much. There will be plenty of others to pick up his banner.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not so sure.

As I say I don't think Sanders is anything like Corbyn. The movement around him reminds me a lot of Corbynism though, which I'm not sure is an enduring political movement (though parts of it are) or just a cult of the magic grandpa.

[Valmy]

I'm not so sure.

As I say I don't think Sanders is anything like Corbyn. The movement around him reminds me a lot of Corbynism though, which I'm not sure is an enduring political movement (though parts of it are) or just a cult of the magic grandpa.

I mean that would be fine with me, but we already have people like AOC out there.

[Berkut]

If we want a system where the person with the most votes doesn't win, at least have ranked choice voting or some way for the voters to weigh in again.

That is exactly what a multi-round convention is intended to create!

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - she's incredible.

And maybe there'll be more or less total overlap, and she can pick up Bernie's support. But I do think there is something to the Bernie bro point about some of his support and wonder if some of it'll possibly evaporate if a woman's in charge.

Again it's another comparison with Corbynism which was often very laddish and Corbynish events were often not a pleasant atmosphere if you weren't a young straight white man.

[Valmy]

If we want a system where the person with the most votes doesn't win, at least have ranked choice voting or some way for the voters to weigh in again.

That is exactly what a multi-round convention is intended to create!

Well I don't see that others see it that way.

I mean I am voting, campaigning, and funding whomever wins. I am just very concerned about splitting the party on the eve of a huge election and handing a propaganda win to Trump. This election is lokely to be very close anyway.

[The Minsky Moment]

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?

Not a huge surprise if you assume that Buttigieg voters = white and college educated.

[viper37]

durka durka

Biden will not wreck America's economy and he's not an isolationist.  Plus, he's not Putin's favorite candidate.  3 points for him.  From a foreigner's point of view.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm a little surprised we still have 47 posters.

You lurkers suck.

[dps]

Well, technically, you could say that there is only 1 federal election in the US.  And the person with the most votes doesn't win.  And I'm not talking about a situation such as in 2000 or 2016 in which a Presidential candidate wins the popular vote but wins in the Electoral College.  I'm talking about the fact that to win the Presidency, you have to get a majority, not just a plurality.

Not true. To win the Electoral Votes from a state you just need the most votes, not the majority of votes.

Re-read my post.  I wasn't talking about winning a state.  I'm talking about winning the Elector College vote itself.  You have to get a majority of the EC votes to be elected President;  a plurality isn't enough.