4 ms·

I think calling the primaries "rigged" misses a lot of nuance about the Parties in the US and the situation at hand. First, parties are clubs and they can have

by mtanski 10y ago

I think calling the primaries "rigged" misses a lot of nuance about the Parties in the US and the situation at hand. First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. The rules of the normal election at federal level do not apply. The whole free association thing. Second, Bernie is not "real" democrat. He was prior and plans on returning to the Senate as an independent. He joined/registered early enough before the process started... but essentially he was just renting the ticket. I can understand how the party would try to dissuade that. Which leads to my third point, the party has to care about its platform, future viability and not just one candidate. The Clinton have a long history with the DNC. Obviously Bill was a generally well liked president before (by the base) but they have done a lot over the years to support other Democratic candidates in State, Congressional and even Mayoral races. They've raised a lot of money for the DNC and down tickets candidates. Finally, Bernie didn't earn any extra points (my eyes) by claiming a lot of problems with voting and the process it self. He benefit from the system where there were caucuses; in NYC (where the DNC electoral organizer sucks) he voters that were purged were in heavy HRC; and to take the the next level the campaign started claiming at the end it was going to flip the super delegates after bitching about it for a while. TL;DR Parties have their own rules; Bernie did not pay his DNC dues; parties have to care about a lot more then a single election; Bernie acted like a spoiled child about ballot box issues. Disclosure: I'm registered independent in NY. Can't vote in either parties primary as a result of that.

mason240 10y ago
>First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. Literally no one is saying otherwise. This is such a tired and ridiculous strawman.
- mtanski 10y ago
  > Literally no one is saying otherwise Nice, Argumentum ad populum. After following this election pretty closely I have observed that many people do not in fact understand how the parties operate and that the primaries are a party and not a legal construct. It's possible that people either have faulty ideas how the party process is run, or just do not have enough experience with it (many new Bernie voters).
  - specialist 10y ago
    "I have observed that many people do not in fact understand how the parties operate" This generalization includes people in the party too. "and that the primaries are a party and not a legal construct." The primaries and caucuses are legally recognized party constructs.
ethbro 10y ago
I'd be more inclined to give the two main parties the benefit of the doubt if their survival wasn't essentially guaranteed by the existing federal election method & media landscape.
- mtanski 10y ago
  I'm not really trying to give either party, or in this case the DNC the benefit of the doubt. I don't have any reservations about either party being particularly democratic (as in the party elites have most of the power). I'm just not naive about how they work but ultimately I believe they can run however they want to. If we want to reform the system that we have (two part) it's clearly not going to come from the parties. I'm personally in favor of having open primaries in every state with relatively late voter registration, getting rid of the electoral collage and the rule that if there's mo majority the senate decides the election.
enobrev 10y ago
I'm not exactly sure how to find that the requirement of "paying DNC dues" is defensible. We're not talking about a local sports club. Don't get me wrong. While I supported Bernie, I feel he was outplayed in a masterful game that he wasn't ready for. I'm not sore about it. Frankly, I'm surprised Hillary didn't win by a far larger margin, considering she had a decade to make deals and sway powerful people her way, and apparently, an entire political machine skewed in her favor. But the idea that the entire DNC teaming up with a single candidate is to be expected and not taken as simply "rigged" seems intentionally obtuse.
- mtanski 10y ago
  I would feel differently about it there was multiple viable Democratic candidates and they were helping out the favorite. Since Bernie was just renting the ticket, I don't feel this applies here.
  - enobrev 10y ago
    If Bernie ended up with < 5% of the voters / delegates, I might be obliged to agree with you, but that's far from the end result. It seems he's far more in-line with the democratic party, according to the party itself, than you're suggesting.
    - mtanski 10y ago
      The guy joined the party 1 year before the primary and he's planing on coming back to the senate as a independent. Just because he does caucus often with democrats does not change my assertion that he was just renting the ticket. This is a big difference and it matters to the party (organization).
michaelt 10y ago
Currently, the presidency is like a public park bench placed on private land. The bench is public property and everyone has the same theoretical right to sit on it - but there are only two paths to the bench, and both paths' owners charge huge fees. A hundred years ago, it probably seemed possible to build a third path - but with our modern understanding of game theory, we know a two-party system is the inevitable result of first-past-the-post. Building a third path is impossible. This creates an inconvenient contradiction - the moral legitimacy of the person sitting on the bench derives from the fact that everyone has the same right to sit on it, but we can quite plainly see the criteria for moral legitimacy are not met in practice. Some people would say we should aspire to meet the criteria for moral legitimacy; and therefore that, regardless of their private status, their internal elections for access to the path should be free, fair and open to all. Of course, other opinions are available. Some people would argue that the private property owners' rights were more important, morally, than the legitimacy of the presidency. Or that the idea of pursuing morality in politics is a joke. Or that our consent to our rulers isn't derived from the moral legitimacy of their being fairly elected, but comes from some other source such as habit or force of arms. Or that everything is a shade of grey, america is better than russia or north korea, and improving sounds like a hassle who can be bothered?
- specialist 10y ago
  Nicely crafted analogy. I don't see it. I'm very involved in party politics and have run for office. The Democratic Party isn't a single thing. I can't even summarize it briefly. One facet is a bunch of independent groups sharing the same logo, tribal identity. Another is a hierarchy of squabbling ad hoc volunteer organizations fighting each other for relevancy. A third are the Democratic themed campaigns which are largely parasitic on the party organizations. A fifth are the loose coalitions of like minded interest groups also squabbling for resources and relevance. The DNC isn't even that influential. Closest analog I can think of is a trade association that hosts conferences. I can't speak directly to the GOP's structure. From observations and contact with their players, they're similar. People don't get how candidates are chosen to run for office. Especially at the top of the ticket. I'm talking before the primary / caucus. Special interest groups form and then go candidate shopping. "Superstar" electable candidates, like GWB and Obama, are selected, groomed, promoted to other interest groups (investment clubs, individuals). Note that these groups filled the vacuum left by the decline of the traditional GOP and Dem party machines. All the other candidates are delusional self promoters. They literally have almost no chance. But they run anyway, to promote their brands, to take one for the team, to get the experience, because anything can happen during the campaign cycle, etc. Me personally, I'm still gobsmacked that Trump iced out both Cruz and Rubio. My initial post-mortem for the GOP 2016 is Trump's dark horse victory just demonstrates how dysfunctional the GOP has become (the Tea Party has driven away their "moderates").

by mtanski 10y ago

mason240 10y ago

>First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. Literally no one is saying otherwise. This is such a tired and ridiculous strawman.

mtanski 10y ago
> Literally no one is saying otherwise Nice, Argumentum ad populum. After following this election pretty closely I have observed that many people do not in fact understand how the parties operate and that the primaries are a party and not a legal construct. It's possible that people either have faulty ideas how the party process is run, or just do not have enough experience with it (many new Bernie voters).
- specialist 10y ago
  "I have observed that many people do not in fact understand how the parties operate" This generalization includes people in the party too. "and that the primaries are a party and not a legal construct." The primaries and caucuses are legally recognized party constructs.

ethbro 10y ago

I'd be more inclined to give the two main parties the benefit of the doubt if their survival wasn't essentially guaranteed by the existing federal election method & media landscape.

mtanski 10y ago
I'm not really trying to give either party, or in this case the DNC the benefit of the doubt. I don't have any reservations about either party being particularly democratic (as in the party elites have most of the power). I'm just not naive about how they work but ultimately I believe they can run however they want to. If we want to reform the system that we have (two part) it's clearly not going to come from the parties. I'm personally in favor of having open primaries in every state with relatively late voter registration, getting rid of the electoral collage and the rule that if there's mo majority the senate decides the election.

enobrev 10y ago

I'm not exactly sure how to find that the requirement of "paying DNC dues" is defensible. We're not talking about a local sports club. Don't get me wrong. While I supported Bernie, I feel he was outplayed in a masterful game that he wasn't ready for. I'm not sore about it. Frankly, I'm surprised Hillary didn't win by a far larger margin, considering she had a decade to make deals and sway powerful people her way, and apparently, an entire political machine skewed in her favor. But the idea that the entire DNC teaming up with a single candidate is to be expected and not taken as simply "rigged" seems intentionally obtuse.

mtanski 10y ago
I would feel differently about it there was multiple viable Democratic candidates and they were helping out the favorite. Since Bernie was just renting the ticket, I don't feel this applies here.
- enobrev 10y ago
  If Bernie ended up with < 5% of the voters / delegates, I might be obliged to agree with you, but that's far from the end result. It seems he's far more in-line with the democratic party, according to the party itself, than you're suggesting.
  - mtanski 10y ago
    The guy joined the party 1 year before the primary and he's planing on coming back to the senate as a independent. Just because he does caucus often with democrats does not change my assertion that he was just renting the ticket. This is a big difference and it matters to the party (organization).

michaelt 10y ago

Currently, the presidency is like a public park bench placed on private land. The bench is public property and everyone has the same theoretical right to sit on it - but there are only two paths to the bench, and both paths' owners charge huge fees. A hundred years ago, it probably seemed possible to build a third path - but with our modern understanding of game theory, we know a two-party system is the inevitable result of first-past-the-post. Building a third path is impossible. This creates an inconvenient contradiction - the moral legitimacy of the person sitting on the bench derives from the fact that everyone has the same right to sit on it, but we can quite plainly see the criteria for moral legitimacy are not met in practice. Some people would say we should aspire to meet the criteria for moral legitimacy; and therefore that, regardless of their private status, their internal elections for access to the path should be free, fair and open to all. Of course, other opinions are available. Some people would argue that the private property owners' rights were more important, morally, than the legitimacy of the presidency. Or that the idea of pursuing morality in politics is a joke. Or that our consent to our rulers isn't derived from the moral legitimacy of their being fairly elected, but comes from some other source such as habit or force of arms. Or that everything is a shade of grey, america is better than russia or north korea, and improving sounds like a hassle who can be bothered?

specialist 10y ago
Nicely crafted analogy. I don't see it. I'm very involved in party politics and have run for office. The Democratic Party isn't a single thing. I can't even summarize it briefly. One facet is a bunch of independent groups sharing the same logo, tribal identity. Another is a hierarchy of squabbling ad hoc volunteer organizations fighting each other for relevancy. A third are the Democratic themed campaigns which are largely parasitic on the party organizations. A fifth are the loose coalitions of like minded interest groups also squabbling for resources and relevance. The DNC isn't even that influential. Closest analog I can think of is a trade association that hosts conferences. I can't speak directly to the GOP's structure. From observations and contact with their players, they're similar. People don't get how candidates are chosen to run for office. Especially at the top of the ticket. I'm talking before the primary / caucus. Special interest groups form and then go candidate shopping. "Superstar" electable candidates, like GWB and Obama, are selected, groomed, promoted to other interest groups (investment clubs, individuals). Note that these groups filled the vacuum left by the decline of the traditional GOP and Dem party machines. All the other candidates are delusional self promoters. They literally have almost no chance. But they run anyway, to promote their brands, to take one for the team, to get the experience, because anything can happen during the campaign cycle, etc. Me personally, I'm still gobsmacked that Trump iced out both Cruz and Rubio. My initial post-mortem for the GOP 2016 is Trump's dark horse victory just demonstrates how dysfunctional the GOP has become (the Tea Party has driven away their "moderates").