20 ms·

Manipulate an election? What? Firstly, Clinton straight out won more votes then Sanders, secondly, it's absolutely legitimate for leadership of a political part

Manipulate an election? What? Firstly, Clinton straight out won more votes then Sanders, secondly, it's absolutely legitimate for leadership of a political party to try to influence who that party nominates as its candidate. It's an organization. Sanders could have run for president as a socialist and nothing was stopping him from doing so.

harshreality 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law In light of that, if you don't believe parties have a duty to be fair to all primary contenders, then I'm at a loss. How do you expect to avoid cronyism and corruption when "private" political parties are outed working to bias primaries and you say that's okay?
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  what does "fair" mean? A party's purpose is to advance a set of ideas. So, absolutely, the party leadership can choose not to be fair to a primary candidate that does not support those ideas. As an example, if Sanders is a socialist and wants to advance socialist ideas, he can form his own party and have it be on the ballot. And that party should be free to reject primary candidates who are not socialists, no? otherwise, why have parties in the first place ? Having said all that, the democratic primary election was pretty fair and the current candidate is the one who won the most votes.
  - harshreality 10y ago
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-san... Don't you think fair means, at a minimum, not doing that kind of thing? The DNC's officials were trying to persuade their own party's voters against one primary candidate and for another primary candidate. As I understand it, a party's purpose is to organize and provide membership for people sharing whatever ideology they share, who are then (among other things) capable of signing petitions for candidates seeking to run under that Party's name. If enough party members from enough districts sign your petition, you're on that party's primary ballot in that State. Most of what the DNC and RNC do, or what they should do, is either administrative, or attacking the other party. I'm not defending that DNC vs RNC dynamic; I think we'd probably be better off without the party system, at least as it currently exists as a privatized crony-capitalism bullshit theater with very public repercussions... and I'm also in favor of fixing the voting systems used by the States. But, in the meantime, the DNC and RNC should be banned from trying to influence their own primaries. If DNC officials want to attack one primary candidate, they should quit the DNC and go work for an opposing primary candidate's campaign. They don't want to do that, because they'd lose the status of working under the aegis of the DNC; they'd be working merely for one candidate or another, any of which could lose. To put it succinctly, a political party official should act in a purely administrative manner with respect to the party's own internal operation, including its primaries.
    - vasilipupkin 10y ago
      Well, I disagree with your last statement. Party officials should act to protect the raison d'être for this party's existence in the first place. As I said above, if you are a socialist, by all means, register a socialist party, get on the ballot in every state, raise enough money for advertising, etc. to be competitive - nothing is stopping you from doing this. That does not mean that non socialist party officials should just roll over whenever a socialist runs in their primaries. As an example, say what you want, Donald Trump is clearly not a conservative in any meaningful sense of conservatism. What is the long run result of his candidacy? there is a high probability that the long run result is irreversible damage to Republican party. Surely, party officials can act to prevent something like this, and not simply act as disinterested administrators. A political party in the US is essentially a private non for profit organization - that can run its affairs as the leadership of that party sees fit
  - cwisecarver 10y ago
    You do realize that the DNC not being "fair" might have affected who won the most votes, right? That's the entire point.
    - vasilipupkin 10y ago
      in what way? do primary voters not support Hillary Clinton more than they support Sanders? Was it not up to them to decide ? were they in any way prevented from deciding ?
Bartweiss 10y ago
Hang on, I think you're misunderstanding my objection. Clinton won a majority, so the primary wasn't "stolen". She probably would have won without any DNC intervention, so it wasn't "rigged", either. And the DNC is under no duty to be objective, so it wasn't malfeasance in that sense. My complaint is specifically that the DNC denied attempting to skew things to Hillary, and collected money while pretending to be neutral. Sanders repeatedly accused the DNC of favoring Hillary and attacking him, and DNC staffers said that the claims were untrue and absurd. Priebus and the RNC openly opposed Trump, as was their right. Donors to the RNC knew that they were effectively donating to Cruz and Rubio, and against Trump. The DNC insisted they weren't opposing Sanders, and then did so behind the backs of voters and donors. So no, I'm not mad that a party committee tried to influence a primary. I'm mad that they did so while swearing up and down they weren't, and mocking the Sanders campaign for claiming otherwise.
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  I guess, although you have to realize the reality of politics is often like this. It is because the voters on average are quite misinformed, so they will not understand the nuance of the situation. So, yes, they got caught in a lie and had to resign as a result.

harshreality 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law In light of that, if you don't believe parties have a duty to be fair to all primary contenders, then I'm at a loss. How do you expect to avoid cronyism and corruption when "private" political parties are outed working to bias primaries and you say that's okay?

vasilipupkin 10y ago
what does "fair" mean? A party's purpose is to advance a set of ideas. So, absolutely, the party leadership can choose not to be fair to a primary candidate that does not support those ideas. As an example, if Sanders is a socialist and wants to advance socialist ideas, he can form his own party and have it be on the ballot. And that party should be free to reject primary candidates who are not socialists, no? otherwise, why have parties in the first place ? Having said all that, the democratic primary election was pretty fair and the current candidate is the one who won the most votes.
- harshreality 10y ago
  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-san... Don't you think fair means, at a minimum, not doing that kind of thing? The DNC's officials were trying to persuade their own party's voters against one primary candidate and for another primary candidate. As I understand it, a party's purpose is to organize and provide membership for people sharing whatever ideology they share, who are then (among other things) capable of signing petitions for candidates seeking to run under that Party's name. If enough party members from enough districts sign your petition, you're on that party's primary ballot in that State. Most of what the DNC and RNC do, or what they should do, is either administrative, or attacking the other party. I'm not defending that DNC vs RNC dynamic; I think we'd probably be better off without the party system, at least as it currently exists as a privatized crony-capitalism bullshit theater with very public repercussions... and I'm also in favor of fixing the voting systems used by the States. But, in the meantime, the DNC and RNC should be banned from trying to influence their own primaries. If DNC officials want to attack one primary candidate, they should quit the DNC and go work for an opposing primary candidate's campaign. They don't want to do that, because they'd lose the status of working under the aegis of the DNC; they'd be working merely for one candidate or another, any of which could lose. To put it succinctly, a political party official should act in a purely administrative manner with respect to the party's own internal operation, including its primaries.
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    Well, I disagree with your last statement. Party officials should act to protect the raison d'être for this party's existence in the first place. As I said above, if you are a socialist, by all means, register a socialist party, get on the ballot in every state, raise enough money for advertising, etc. to be competitive - nothing is stopping you from doing this. That does not mean that non socialist party officials should just roll over whenever a socialist runs in their primaries. As an example, say what you want, Donald Trump is clearly not a conservative in any meaningful sense of conservatism. What is the long run result of his candidacy? there is a high probability that the long run result is irreversible damage to Republican party. Surely, party officials can act to prevent something like this, and not simply act as disinterested administrators. A political party in the US is essentially a private non for profit organization - that can run its affairs as the leadership of that party sees fit
- cwisecarver 10y ago
  You do realize that the DNC not being "fair" might have affected who won the most votes, right? That's the entire point.
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    in what way? do primary voters not support Hillary Clinton more than they support Sanders? Was it not up to them to decide ? were they in any way prevented from deciding ?

Bartweiss 10y ago

Hang on, I think you're misunderstanding my objection. Clinton won a majority, so the primary wasn't "stolen". She probably would have won without any DNC intervention, so it wasn't "rigged", either. And the DNC is under no duty to be objective, so it wasn't malfeasance in that sense. My complaint is specifically that the DNC denied attempting to skew things to Hillary, and collected money while pretending to be neutral. Sanders repeatedly accused the DNC of favoring Hillary and attacking him, and DNC staffers said that the claims were untrue and absurd. Priebus and the RNC openly opposed Trump, as was their right. Donors to the RNC knew that they were effectively donating to Cruz and Rubio, and against Trump. The DNC insisted they weren't opposing Sanders, and then did so behind the backs of voters and donors. So no, I'm not mad that a party committee tried to influence a primary. I'm mad that they did so while swearing up and down they weren't, and mocking the Sanders campaign for claiming otherwise.

vasilipupkin 10y ago
I guess, although you have to realize the reality of politics is often like this. It is because the voters on average are quite misinformed, so they will not understand the nuance of the situation. So, yes, they got caught in a lie and had to resign as a result.