Support NeoGAF

[ultratruman]

Thank God we have independent internet media to give us the REAL STORY!

 

[Adaren]

Voice votes with this many people just don't work for precision. If everyone understands that voice voting is really checking "Are people just voting for their side's stance?", then it's an okay way to confirm that assumption.

The problem is that it gives people the reasonable-but-incorrect idea that their voice vote can actually matter. Like "Oh, if we yell louder than Hillary's side, then we can swing the vote!" Nope. If the majority group just used the voice vote to express that at least 90%+ of them are in favor of it, then they're probably almost all in favor of it and it's over. And the chair probably doesn't want to waste time testing for the statistically improbable scenario that a significant number of Hillary delegates don't actually want to support their party's caucus positions.

 

[legacyzero]

The video shows clear bullshittery. I was like WTF

Come on guys, you're scaring away the few Bernie people this site has left.

Oh look, more passive aggression aimed at Bernie supporters.

 

[Y2Kev]

The video shows clear bullshittery. I was like WTF


Oh look, more passive aggression aimed at Bernie supporters.

Can you please just address the article? What about it is a mischaracterization? This is the third time I've seen you complain about "bullshittery" but now it's pretty clearly spelled out for you. Why did you say WTF in the face of evidence to the contrary? Will anything convince you?

 

[Adaren]

Oh look, more passive aggression aimed at Bernie supporters.

Can we not do this?

 

[legacyzero]

Can you please just address the article? What about it is a mischaracterization? This is the third time I've seen you complain about "bullshittery" but now it's pretty clearly spelled out for you. Why did you say WTF in the face of evidence to the contrary? Will anything convince you?

I mean, the article just tells me /shrug "I dont see anything wrong"

Yet the video give me clear "Thats bullshit!" Feelings

Skip to 2:19 to avoid TYT stuff.
https://youtu.be/435x0dQ5Lzg

What is supposed to convince me otherwise? And people dismiss (conveniently) any source I bring, But then I need to just accept Politifact? Why is that?

Can we not do this?

Sorry, Im not afraid to call it out. Its bullshit how Bernie supporters are treated like that in these threads. Its why the majority of them won't come in here.

 

[Y2Kev]

Because they clearly explain what's happening in the videos that should help to explain why your gut feeling is wrong. But it would seem that isn't going to happen regardless-- is that a fair statement?

And yes the reputability and purported neutrality of given sources is going to come into play. People generally will trust reporters at established outlets more than people on YouTube and tyt. That may be unfair but in this case I'm not seeing it.

That's hardly to say the process is perfect or that there weren't irregularities. But it's pretty clear to me all rules were followed.

 

[mxgt]

That is equal parts hysterical and sad. Enjoy your echo chamber I guess...

Hilarious.

 

[Eidan]

All the explanations and evidence in the world won't change a person's mind if their evidence is the all-knowing power of their gut.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I mean, the article just tells me /shrug "I dont see anything wrong"

Yet the video give me clear "Thats bullshit!" Feelings

Skip to 2:19 to avoid TYT stuff.
https://youtu.be/435x0dQ5Lzg

What is supposed to convince me otherwise? And people dismiss (conveniently) any source I bring, But then I need to just accept Politifact? Why is that?

Sorry, Im not afraid to call it out. Its bullshit how Bernie supporters are treated like that in these threads. Its why the majority of them won't come in here.

Why are you putting more faith in your "feelings" and anecdotal evidence than the investigation provided by an unbiased, well respected, media source?

The question isn't "why should I accept Politifact" but rather "why should I discredit Politifact" and for that, there are very few arguments. They're prize winning, highly regarded journalists.

 

[Blader]

I mean, the article just tells me /shrug "I dont see anything wrong"

Yet the video give me clear "Thats bullshit!" Feelings

Skip to 2:19 to avoid TYT stuff.
https://youtu.be/435x0dQ5Lzg

What is supposed to convince me otherwise? And people dismiss (conveniently) any source I bring, But then I need to just accept Politifact? Why is that?

Because you routinely pick bad sources to listen to.

Politifact is an established (oh no there's that word!) credible journalistic source. TYT is clearly not.

 

[BitStyle]

Great that Politifact took the time to write a clear and concise analysis of this. There was quite a lot of allegations being levied on the NV dems.

All the explanations and evidence in the world won't change a person's mind if their evidence is the all-knowing power of their gut.

Indeed

 

[BotoxAgent]

Man, I hope this hurts Bernie's poll numbers

 

[Blader]

So I find the article a bit frustrating because it ignores the main complaint I have seen from the Sanders side.

The calls of the Voice votes.

Is that actually the main complaint? To me, the main complaint from the Sanders side seems to be that a corrupt convention chair disenfranchised Bernie delegates by not allowing them to register in time for a vote -- when the truth is that most of those Bernie delegates didn't even bother to show up or had their registration in order (and that the vote was called *before* they could register, even though the meeting was set for an hour earlier than the Sanders camp alleges).

 

[Drek]

Caucuses exist because they're the cheapest form of primary.

"Getting rid" of caucuses means convincing somebody to pay for and run a primary election.

For legal reasons, all primaries are funded by state goverments. (Because the former system of charging high fees to get on the ballot was unconstitutional, see Bullock v. Carter.)

So basically what you guys want is to take over a bunch of state governments and mandate primary elections.

This does not seem like a bad idea necessarily, but it's not actually something that can easily be executed on.

I'd like to see primaries for federal posts rolled into federal campaign financing, taking the burden off the states.

Not only would it reduce the financial burden but it would allow for the establishment of federal worker standards over the people running the system and could be used as a "dry run" of new voting technology.

My ideal would be something along the lines of this:
The primary process is 10 weeks long, starting the first Tuesday of May. Every week 5 states go each Tuesday. Territories can pick which week they want to join in on, but it has to be one of the 10 weeks. States submit a 1-10 priority list of what weeks they want and are seeded accordingly, with states always having the right to retain their previous seeding from the last primary (i.e. Iowa and NH can keep themselves locked in for week 1).

This would reduce the time for campaigning during the primary, reducing the glut of advertising, the rally schedule, etc. which not only helps to mitigate political fatigue on the general population but would also reduce the importance of money in the process, since the ability to keep splashing the pot and run around the nation on expensive private jets would be greatly minimized due to the condensed schedule. We would basically see it move to national ad buys and key major rallies where candidates can get a more direct message out.

A few other changes I would make:
Primary ballots would all be multi-party. No matter your registration you get to show up and vote for one D, one R, and one of any other party in the process for every federal post. Primary candidates would be selected from a full spectrum of the electorate, just like the general.

Debates would still be divided on party lines but would consist of one debate the week after the State of the Union, nationally televised and streamed for everyone, that focused on issues raised within the State of the Union. Two weeks later (about the second week of February) another debate is held that focuses on foreign policy. Then the last week of February (just before the primaries) another debate focused on foreign policy is held. Ds and Rs coin flip on who gets first pick of Friday or Saturday coverage. If a third party ever emerges Thursday would be added to the schedule with Sunday added for a 4th, etc..

Wrap the process up and get it over with if you ask me. Nullify the potential for disruption voting by giving everyone the ability to vote on each side of the isle so we get more moderate candidates in general. Use it as a pre-test for the major elections in November and push new voting technology with it.

 

[boiled goose]

Is that actually the main complaint? To me, the main complaint from the Sanders side seems to be that a corrupt convention chair disenfranchised Bernie delegates by not allowing them to register in time for a vote -- when the truth is that most of those Bernie delegates didn't even bother to show up or had their registration in order (and that the vote was called *before* they could register, even though the meeting was set for an hour earlier than the Sanders camp alleges).

You might be right that my personal issues might not be the main issue the campaign had problems with.

Is it possible that the voice votes were clear to the chair? Sure.

Am I skeptical based on the videos (not just audio but what is actually visibly happening). Yes I am very skeptical.

The thing was clearly a mess, and I know there is a tradeoff between transparency and efficiency. In this case I would have leaned a bit more towards transparency.

For big controversial decisions in Which both sides arw going to be yelling, just do a roll call. Hillary had more delegates that were approved at the convention, but it was still so close... a voice vote just doesn't seem appropriate to me..

It's just going to seem unfair and piss people off. But again, I find myself in the minority here. You guys know the context of the election, watch the video, and don't see anything wrong.

 

[Blader]

You might be right that my personal issues might not be the main issue the campaign had problems with.

Is it possible that the voice votes were clear to the chair? Sure.

Am I skeptical based on the videos (not just audio but what is actually visibly happening). Yes I am very skeptical.

The thing was clearly a mess, and I know there is a tradeoff between transparency and efficiency. In this case I would have leaned a bit more towards transparency.

For big controversial decisions in Which both sides arw going to be yelling, just do a roll call. Hillary had more delegates that were approved at the convention, but it was still so close... a voice vote just doesn't seem appropriate to me..

It's just going to seem unfair and piss people off. But again, I find myself in the minority here. You guys know the context of the election, watch the video, and don't see anything wrong.

I guess I don't see this as a "big controversial decision," partly because, like the dreaded coin tosses in Iowa that decided the fate of one or two delegates, the end result -- even if it had been (imo undeservedly) in Bernie's favor -- would be totally negligible to the big picture. Votes weren't stolen or ignored, delegate spots weren't given to a candidate that didn't deserve them, nobody was tricked or lied to. As far as controversies go, confusion over arcane and ultimately unimportant rules processes are pretty low on the totem pole.

 

[brainchild]

Because they clearly explain what's happening in the videos that should help to explain why your gut feeling is wrong. But it would seem that isn't going to happen regardless-- is that a fair statement?

And yes the reputability and purported neutrality of given sources is going to come into play. People generally will trust reporters at established outlets more than people on YouTube and tyt. That may be unfair but in this case I'm not seeing it.

That's hardly to say the process is perfect or that there weren't irregularities. But it's pretty clear to me all rules were followed

Oh?

So despite Politifact (an established, trusted source I'm assuming) saying that the nays appeared to be louder based on video evidence, we should just ignore this statement from them? Is the chair making a determination out of an indeterminable result 'following the rules'?

Politifact did not say that the chair made the correct determination, only that the determination was her's to make. In fact, their refutation of the issue with the voice votes was completely fallacious. They argued that even though the nays were louder, it was irrelevant because there were more Clinton delegates in the room than Sanders delegates.

The problem with such an argument is that neither Sanders nor Clinton delegates are obligated or bound to vote nay or yea on any particular issue, so no one can definitively say which side voted which way. Considering the vote to adopt the temporary rules included provisions for the chair to unilaterally do whatever she felt like without regard to anyone else's input, I'd imagine that even some Hillary supporters would oppose the vote to make those rules permanent.

Now, if the chair was interested in following the rules, she would have called for a standing division according to Section VI. e. of the convention rules, or a rising vote according to Robert's Rules of Order. Clearly, Lange was more interested in doing whatever Lange felt like, as evidenced by the video footage.

I find the casual dismissal by Politifact of the voice vote issue to be of great concern, considering how fundamental such voting is to the process. If voting can go completely ignored like this, it is wholly undemocratic and unacceptable, and every single one of those delegates have a right to protest.

As for the minority report regarding the 64 delegates, even if we assume that it was 100% fabricated (and this would be an assumption, considering that no proof beyond testimony has been put forth regarding the bases of the ejections of most of these delegates), we cannot fault the delegates for taking the minority report at face value; it's not like they were the ones responsible for investigating the matter.

I should also note that, per the temporary rules (and later confirmed by at least one testimony from a Clinton delegate) the chair was given complete and sole power over the choosing of which delegates would be ejected for whatever reason she saw fit.

Yet another reason why those rules should have never passed by voice vote in the first place.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

They argued that even though the nays were louder, it was irrelevant because there were more Clinton delegates in the room than Sanders delegates.

Which is why there's no issue with the voice vote.

I'd imagine that even some Hillary supporters would oppose the vote to make those rules permanent.

None have come forward.

 

[legacyzero]

Because you routinely pick bad sources to listen to.

Politifact is an established (oh no there's that word!) credible journalistic source. TYT is clearly not.

Im more of a SecularTalk guy myself. Im more for the video evidence. TYT kinda annoys me, actually. But even when I see vids of proof that Hillary has lied, flopped, and done dishonest stuff. But when I post that, its shouted down because its not from the mainstream media.

 

[royalan]

I'd like to see primaries for federal posts rolled into federal campaign financing, taking the burden off the states.

Not only would it reduce the financial burden but it would allow for the establishment of federal worker standards over the people running the system and could be used as a "dry run" of new voting technology.

My ideal would be something along the lines of this:
The primary process is 10 weeks long, starting the first Tuesday of May. Every week 5 states go each Tuesday. Territories can pick which week they want to join in on, but it has to be one of the 10 weeks. States submit a 1-10 priority list of what weeks they want and are seeded accordingly, with states always having the right to retain their previous seeding from the last primary (i.e. Iowa and NH can keep themselves locked in for week 1).

This would reduce the time for campaigning during the primary, reducing the glut of advertising, the rally schedule, etc. which not only helps to mitigate political fatigue on the general population but would also reduce the importance of money in the process, since the ability to keep splashing the pot and run around the nation on expensive private jets would be greatly minimized due to the condensed schedule. We would basically see it move to national ad buys and key major rallies where candidates can get a more direct message out.

A few other changes I would make:
Primary ballots would all be multi-party. No matter your registration you get to show up and vote for one D, one R, and one of any other party in the process for every federal post. Primary candidates would be selected from a full spectrum of the electorate, just like the general.

Debates would still be divided on party lines but would consist of one debate the week after the State of the Union, nationally televised and streamed for everyone, that focused on issues raised within the State of the Union. Two weeks later (about the second week of February) another debate is held that focuses on foreign policy. Then the last week of February (just before the primaries) another debate focused on foreign policy is held. Ds and Rs coin flip on who gets first pick of Friday or Saturday coverage. If a third party ever emerges Thursday would be added to the schedule with Sunday added for a 4th, etc..

Wrap the process up and get it over with if you ask me. Nullify the potential for disruption voting by giving everyone the ability to vote on each side of the isle so we get more moderate candidates in general. Use it as a pre-test for the major elections in November and push new voting technology with it.

Disagree with the bold. Maybe it's not happening to a significant degree, but in the age of social media, we are seeing more coordinated efforts of troll voting. It wouldn't even need to be coordinated. I can honestly say, as a Democrat, if I could vote in both primaries I would DEFINITELY vote for the weakest Republican against my chosen candidate.

I still think good faith voting should be encouraged at the primary level. One vote for a candidate in your chosen party, ideally for the candidate you want to win. Voters in both parties getting a say in who their opposing party nominates, while maintaining their ability to vote in their own primary, would be shenanigans.

 

[shinra-bansho]

You can't be "ejected" if you're not even there.

 

[boiled goose]

Oh?

So despite Politifact (an established, trusted source I'm assuming) saying that the nays appeared to be louder based on video evidence, we should just ignore this statement from them? Is the chair making a determination out of an indeterminable result 'following the rules'?

Politifact did not say that the chair made the correct determination, only that the determination was her's to make. In fact, their refutation of the issue with the voice votes was completely fallacious. They argued that even though the nays were louder, it was irrelevant because there were more Clinton delegates in the room than Sanders delegates.

The problem with such an argument is that neither Sanders nor Clinton delegates are obligated or bound to vote nay or yea on any particular issue, so no one can definitively say which side voted which way. Considering the vote to adopt the temporary rules included provisions for the chair to unilaterally do whatever she felt like without regard to anyone else's input, I'd imagine that even some Hillary supporters would oppose the vote to make those rules permanent.

Now, if the chair was interested in following the rules, she would have called for a standing division according to Section VI. e. of the convention rules, or a rising vote according to Robert's Rules of Order. Clearly, Lange was more interested in doing whatever Lange felt like, as evidenced by the video footage.

I find the casual dismissal by Politifact of the voice vote issue to be of great concern, considering how fundamental such voting is to the process. If voting can go completely ignored like this, it is wholly undemocratic and unacceptable, and every single one of those delegates have a right to protest.
.

Yup...
That is the issue I have been pointing out on my posts.
Just because Clinton had more delegates, the chair shouldn't be able to assume that all of the individual delegates will vote on every single issue the way that their "leadership" wants them to vote.

Which is why there's no issue with the voice vote.

See above. If who has more delegates should decide everything at the convention without actually voting? Why have the freaking convention at all???? The voting is important and IMO the voice vote calls were not appropriate here..

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Yup...
That is the issue I have been pointing out on my posts.
Just because Clinton had more delegates, the chair shouldn't be able to assume that all of the individual delegates will vote on every single issue the way that their "leadership" wants them to vote.

Not a single Clinton delegate has come forward and said "hey wait a minute, I didn't vote for this"

See above. If who has more delegates should decide everything at the convention without actually voting? Why have the freaking convention at all???? The voting is important and IMO the voice vote calls were not appropriate here..

Because it's a standard procedure and it's safe to assume the vote would be on candidate lines, which it was (as there's no evidence any Clinton delegate intended not to vote for it), so the person with the most delegates wins.

 

[jack_package_200]

Im more of a SecularTalk guy myself. Im more for the video evidence. TYT kinda annoys me, actually. But even when I see vids of proof that Hillary has lied, flopped, and done dishonest stuff. But when I post that, its shouted down because its not from the mainstream media.

How do you watch without cringing every three seconds?

 

[Koomaster]

Now, if the chair was interested in following the rules...

If I understand the rules stated that she makes the determination in the voice vote. If she determined the ayes have it and followed through then she followed the rules. End of.

You, I and anyone who is not her could say, 'oh but obviously the 'no' vote is louder in the video.' But to her maybe it was not, or she discounted the people purposely yelling and trying to up the decibel level which is not what the voice vote is supposed to be.

Whatever factors, it was her job to make a determination, she made one, she followed the rules; there is really no more discussion to be had there about whether she followed rules or not.

 

[boiled goose]

Not a single Clinton delegate has come forward and said "hey wait a minute, I didn't vote for this"

Rules don't work retroactively... You have to follow them... :S

This is ultimately so consequential that it is almost irrelevant to discuss, but jeez.. I just can't..

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The issue with the video is that it's taken from the Sanders side of the room, so it sounds ds like they are winning the voice vote.

And all politicians have lied or flip flopped. Videos are a terrible way to argue because print allows a person to review the evidence at thier own pace. I find these video essays tend to be more emotion based and less well founded all around, on any topic.

 

[Blader]

Im more of a SecularTalk guy myself. Im more for the video evidence. TYT kinda annoys me, actually. But even when I see vids of proof that Hillary has lied, flopped, and done dishonest stuff. But when I post that, its shouted down because its not from the mainstream media.

I have never heard of SecularTalk before, and a quick Google search does not inspire any confidence in it :lol

Despite what Sarah Palin and co. would like everyone to believe, the mainstream media is not out to get you. The NY Times, AP, WaPo, et al. are all (largely) credible sources with scores of credible, established, and knowledgeable if not expert reporters working for god knows how long to obtain and vet proper sources and report stories as accurately as possible. And when they don't, their feet are held to the fire, and very publicly so. I don't know what standard SecularTalk is held to, but I'm going to hazard a guess that they won't be in the running for a Pulitzer anytime soon.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Rules don't work retroactively... You have to follow them... :S

This is ultimately so consequential that it is almost irrelevant to discuss, but jeez.. I just can't..

100% of rules were followed

 

[brainchild]

Which is why there's no issue with the voice vote.



None have come forward.

A voice vote is not determined by the number of people in a room. If you want to go by the number of people in the room, you call for a standing division or rising vote. Those are the rules.

Furthermore, we do not know how many Clinton delegates went with the nays or yays, so a voice vote cannot merely be assumed by how many Clinton delegates are in the room vs. how many Sanders delegates are in the room.

And at least one Clinton delegate has come forward to talk about how some Sanders supporters were disenfranchised.

https://youtu.be/N4PqKCdqkaA

 

[boiled goose]

I have never heard of SecularTalk before, and a quick Google search does not inspire any confidence in it :lol

Despite what Sarah Palin and co. would like everyone to believe, the mainstream media is not out to get you. The NY Times, AP, WaPo, et al. are all (largely) credible sources with scores of credible, established, and knowledgeable if not expert reporters working for god knows how long to obtain and vet proper sources and report stories as accurately as possible. And when they don't, their feet are held to the fire, and very publicly so. I don't know what standard SecularTalk is held to, but I'm going to hazard a guess that they won't be in the running for a Pulitzer anytime soon.

If you think that many mainstream news outlets are not subject to editorial influence from their corporate ownership, then you are truly naive.

There are many factors that influence what gets covered and how it gets covered.
Hits, ratings, real journalism, but also things like "access".

If you want to see a clear example of when the mainstream media failed us see the news coverage in the ramp up towards the Iraq war. The news failed the American people. If you do a case study, you can understand the factors that lead to that failure.

I tend to prefer watching independent media, not because they are not biased (they are!) but because their bias is much more transparent.

 

[Chichikov]

Yup...
That is the issue I have been pointing out on my posts.
Just because Clinton had more delegates, the chair shouldn't be able to assume that all of the individual delegates will vote on every single issue the way that their "leadership" wants them to vote.

So the argument really boils down to "Sanders could've maybe got a couple more delegates if some people would've have subverted the will of the voters and made the caucus even less democratic"?

 

[Justin]

A voice vote is not determined by the number of people in a room. If you want to go by the number of people in the room, you call for a standing division or rising vote. Those are the rules.

Furthermore, we do not know how many Clinton delegates went with the nays or yays, so a voice vote cannot merely be assumed by how many Clinton delegates are in the room vs. how many Sanders delegates are in the room

And at least one Clinton delegate has come forward to talk about how some Sanders supporters were disenfranchised.

https://youtu.be/N4PqKCdqkaA

Do you think sanders should've won the caucus? If the purpose of the caucus is to display the organizing power of your campaign didn't Bernie fail spectacularly when almost 500 of his delegates didn't even show up?

 

[ClosingADoor]

If you think that many mainstream news outlets are not subject to editorial influence from their corporate ownership, then you are truly naive.

There are many factors that influence what gets covered and how it gets covered.
Hits, ratings, real journalism, but also things like "access".

If you want to see a clear example of when the mainstream media failed us see the news coverage in the ramp up towards the Iraq war. The news failed the American people. If you do a case study, you can understand the factors that lead to that failure.

I tend to prefer watching independent media, not because they are not biased (they are!) but because their bias is much more transparent.

Their bias is more transparent because in a lot of cases they are more biased. Which one is more likely to put out a biased story: the independent Youtube channel with a couple of guys running it, or the newspaper with a 100 year history, large journalistic names, a full editorial team and editor in chief who will check what is being put out?

 

[JP_]

Because it's a standard procedure and it's safe to assume the vote would be on candidate lines, which it was (as there's no evidence any Clinton delegate intended not to vote for it), so the person with the most delegates wins.

That's not how the rules are supposed to work with voice votes. You can agree with the outcome without coming up with wrong justifications for it.

So the argument really boils down to "Sanders could've maybe got a couple more delegates if some people would've have subverted the will of the voters and made the caucus even less democratic"?

I'm less bothered by the outcome than I am about how it went down.

 

[boiled goose]

100% of rules were followed

Ok want to argue semantics? :S

Sure, it is part of the "rules" that the chair has the authority to determine the outcome of voice votes. Is it the intent of the rules that the chair can determine that outcome of voice votes regardless of what actually happens on the floor? I doubt it.

Then I will modify my statement to:

The "spirit" of the rules wasn't followed (IMO). If a voice vote is not clear, time to get some numbers down. Just going by which side has more people is not appropriate, because individuals are not bound to vote a certain way.

Saying no one has come forward shows the outcome wasn't affected, which is probably true, but I am not arguing about the outcome. I think the PROCESS is important. The process needs to be fair and transparent. The process itself has value and purpose.

So the argument really boils down to "Sanders could've maybe got a couple more delegates if some people would've have subverted the will of the voters and made the caucus even less democratic"?

Huh???? where have I said that Sanders would have gotten more delegates? I think the outcome would have been the same.
My single objection has been that I don't think the voice votes were appropriately done. That's it.

 

[hawk2025]

People are afraid of shadows, screaming at them, and then being afraid again of the fucking echo of their own voices.

At least nearly all the lies and misleading "reports" have been walked back to just hammering on regarding the verbal vote now.

Progress.

 

[Justin]

Their bias is more transparent because in a lot of cases they are more biased. Which one is more likely to put out a biased story: the independent Youtube channel with a couple of guys running it, or the newspaper with a 100 year history, large journalistic names, a full editorial team and editor in chief who will check what is being put out?

I seriously have to laugh at the people holding up TYT as a trusted news source. I saw a clip once where one of the hosts was saying she was considering cutting family and friends of her life that were Hillary supporters.

 

[brainchild]

If I understand the rules stated that she makes the determination in the voice vote. If she determined the ayes have it and followed through then she followed the rules. End of.

You, I and anyone who is not her could say, 'oh but obviously the 'no' vote is louder in the video.' But to her maybe it was not, or she discounted the people purposely yelling and trying to up the decibel level which is not what the voice vote is supposed to be.

Whatever factors, it was her job to make a determination, she made one, she followed the rules; there is really no more discussion to be had there about whether she followed rules or not.

The issue with the video is that it's taken from the Sanders side of the room, so it sounds ds like they are winning the voice vote.

And all politicians have lied or flip flopped. Videos are a terrible way to argue because print allows a person to review the evidence at thier own pace. I find these video essays tend to be more emotion based and less well founded all around, on any topic.

Delegates from the Clinton camp say that the voice votes results could not be determined, including this delegate

https://youtu.be/N4PqKCdqkaA

Nina Turner, who spoke at the convention, said the nays were louder.

https://youtu.be/UxvGqaok7nE

Yes, the chair had the power to make the call on the voice votes. That's following the rules. However, I simply do not believe it was possible for her to make a determination that matched the actual outcome without a standing division. I believe she cheated. I suppose you could argue that you can technically cheat and still follow the rules, but whether she gets off on a technicality or not, her actions were unfair and undemocratic.

 

[The Technomancer]

You guys realize the point of a voice vote is not actually to see which camp can be louder right?

 

[hawk2025]

Media bias comes largely from the demand side.

Smaller outlets are notedly more biased and wear their bias on their sleeve because they appeal to specific niches rather than broader audiences.

 

[Chichikov]

I'm less bothered by the outcome than I am about how it went down.

Don't get me wrong, I think there's a whole lot that should be fixed in the primary process, but as a whole, the goal of the process is to pick the candidate most Democrat wanted, and it worked.
And if you want to fix the process, I don't think that getting super upset about what is at most is some minor, localized problem is the way to go.

 

[brainchild]

Ok want to argue semantics? :S

Sure, it is part of the "rules" that the chair has the authority to determine the outcome of voice votes. Is it the intent of the rules that the chair can determine that outcome of voice votes regardless of what actually happens on the floor? I doubt it.

Then I will modify my statement to:

The "spirit" of the rules wasn't followed (IMO). If a voice vote is not clear, time to get some numbers down. Just going by which side has more people is not appropriate, because individuals are not bound to vote a certain way.

Saying no one has come forward shows the outcome wasn't affected, which is probably true, but I am not arguing about the outcome. I think the PROCESS is important. The process needs to be fair and transparent. The process itself has value and purpose.



Huh???? where have I said that Sanders would have gotten more delegates? I think the outcome would have been the same.
My single objection has been that I don't think the voice votes were appropriately done. That's it.

We are in vigorous agreement, but I don't think anyone cares at this point. They're so hung up on technicalities that no one is bothering to ask how wrong any of this is.

 

[hawk2025]

We are in vigorous agreement, but I don't think anyone cares at this point. They're so hung up on technicalities that no one is bothering to ask how wrong any of this is.

Hung up on technicalities?

Oh, that's precious.

The whole story and context is about a huge sequence of lies regarding corruption on the Nevada convention, and we are hung up on technicalities because you've decided to die on the vocal vote hill?

 

[The Technomancer]

Don't get me wrong, I think there's a whole lot that should be fixed in the primary process, but as a whole, the goal of the process is to pick the candidate most Democrat wanted, and it worked.
And if you want to fix the process, I don't think that getting super upset about what is at most is some minor, localized problem is the way to go.

This is sort of the problem here. If there was evidence that the results actually undermined the democratic results of the Nevada voters then there would be a lot more ground to stand on. As it is, the response seems to be incredibly disproportionate to the actual amount of harm done. Is it worth being upset about? Sure. Send a letter. Make a phone call. But the sheer level of energy being put into being upset about this specific set of events when the actual outcome was "delegates were allocated accurately based on the candidate's results" just seems, well, petulant and again, disproportionate

 

[boiled goose]

You guys realize the point of a voice vote is not actually to see which camp can be louder right?

Oh I know it is to get an estimate of the number of votes. Typically, when unclear an assembly member can call division and another method has to be used...

 

[Justin]

Delegates from the Clinton camp say that the voice votes results could not be determined, including this delegate

https://youtu.be/N4PqKCdqkaA

Nina Turner, who spoke at the convention, said the nays were louder.

https://youtu.be/UxvGqaok7nE

Yes, the chair had the power to make the call on the voice votes. That's following the rules. However, I simply do not believe it was possible for her to make a determination that matched the actual outcome without a standing division. I believe she cheated. I suppose you could argue that you can technically cheat and still follow the rules, but whether she gets off on a technicality or not, her actions her unfair and undemocratic.

Anyone who is a fan of boxing or UFC knows you want to finish the fight before it goes to the judges because at that point it could go either way. Bernie failed in organizing this when he should've had a knockout in the first round and instead it went to the judges.

 

[brainchild]

You guys realize the point of a voice vote is not actually to see which camp can be louder right?

I do understand that. However, if it is not clear if the nays or yeas have the majority vote, the vote is supposed to be called to a standing division, which did not happen.

I do not believe the chair made the call in fairness, based on ALL available evidence.

 

[JP_]

You guys realize the point of a voice vote is not actually to see which camp can be louder right?

If you can't tell which group is larger based on a voice vote, you're not supposed to make a wild guess and assume a smaller group was simply louder (if you knew group sizes and how they'd vote, you wouldn't need to take the vote in the first place). You should use a standing vote.

Voice votes are only useful when it's a strong majority or nearly unanimous.