Clinton

[Sandydragon]

Most people here are pretty much convinced it is being rigged for Clinton. The whole Democrat system lets them do just that. I don't see why anyone would even debate that.

The system is a mess. No arguments there. But more people have voted for Clinton. That is a fact. Perhaps an inconvenient fact.

[Zhivago]

The posters dismissing the possibility of fraud here are deluded.

[morepork]

Most people here are pretty much convinced it is being rigged for Clinton. The whole Democrat system lets them do just that. I don't see why anyone would even debate that.

The system is a mess. No arguments there. But more people have voted for Clinton. That is a fact. Perhaps an inconvenient fact.

What is most inconvenient is the ability of people that aren't rich to vote. Sorry, but that is fact. The inner circle has a much clearer path from which to shout. Sanders would cream that trout if this were not an issue. Youth, minority, and specific electorates. It's completely FUBAR.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Of course differences in exit polls and the actual results are proof of fraud, yet the fact that more Democrats are voting for Hilary than Bernie is conveniently ignored. Perhaps his supports are just making more noise?

Are you completely ignoring the entire conversation we had just a couple of days ago? Clinton is winning the vote amongst longstanding Democrats, no one is doubting that. The issue is the voting process and DNC going out of its way to make it extremely difficult for new members or independents, among who Sanders is completely wiping the floor with Clinton, from participating in what is supposed to be an open process backed by public office.

I've already given you the example of NY, but in case you wanted an update the DNC has refused to accept the over 90,000 voter ballots from Brooklyn, A Sanders area, that were "lost" on the day and are now being taken to court by the public for not allowing those people to have their say, to which they have said they will fight. Yes, thats right, they are going to fight 90,000 registered Democrats having their votes counted.

You seem to misunderstand the point. It isn't supposed to be an open process. Some states hold open primaries, but far from the majority. It's supposed to be a party process to to select the party's candidate. Therefore the party is likely to be resistant to what used to be called entryism - joining a party so that you can vote for a candidate which may even be contrary to that party's aims.

[Sandydragon]

TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...

How dare you suggest such a thing. Exit polls (sampling under 2000 people) are there to check if there's fraud. Which is why they are commissioned by news organisations. None of whom are claiming voting fraud. How could there possibly be any error in that size of of sample?

A quick review of the Internet shows that whilst exit polls have been used in some countries to show fraud, this isn't the case in thevUS. Some exit polls aren't even true exit polls, but are conducted before people actually vote, apparently. Claiming that there is definitely fraud as a result is pushing it. Even the inventor if exit polls has his doubts that they are reliable enough to be a good indicator f fraud in the US.

[Sandydragon]

Of course differences in exit polls and the actual results are proof of fraud, yet the fact that more Democrats are voting for Hilary than Bernie is conveniently ignored. Perhaps his supports are just making more noise?

Are you completely ignoring the entire conversation we had just a couple of days ago? Clinton is winning the vote amongst longstanding Democrats, no one is doubting that. The issue is the voting process and DNC going out of its way to make it extremely difficult for new members or independents, among who Sanders is completely wiping the floor with Clinton, from participating in what is supposed to be an open process backed by public office.

I've already given you the example of NY, but in case you wanted an update the DNC has refused to accept the over 90,000 voter ballots from Brooklyn, A Sanders area, that were "lost" on the day and are now being taken to court by the public for not allowing those people to have their say, to which they have said they will fight. Yes, thats right, they are going to fight 90,000 registered Democrats having their votes counted.

You seem to misunderstand the point. It isn't supposed to be an open process. Some states hold open primaries, but far from the majority. It's supposed to be a party process to to select the party's candidate. Therefore the party is likely to be resistant to what used to be called entryism - joining a party so that you can vote for a candidate which may even be contrary to that party's aims.

Quite. This isn't a public election, it's a party one.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Are you completely ignoring the entire conversation we had just a couple of days ago? Clinton is winning the vote amongst longstanding Democrats, no one is doubting that. The issue is the voting process and DNC going out of its way to make it extremely difficult for new members or independents, among who Sanders is completely wiping the floor with Clinton, from participating in what is supposed to be an open process backed by public office.

I've already given you the example of NY, but in case you wanted an update the DNC has refused to accept the over 90,000 voter ballots from Brooklyn, A Sanders area, that were "lost" on the day and are now being taken to court by the public for not allowing those people to have their say, to which they have said they will fight. Yes, thats right, they are going to fight 90,000 registered Democrats having their votes counted.

You seem to misunderstand the point. It isn't supposed to be an open process. Some states hold open primaries, but far from the majority. It's supposed to be a party process to to select the party's candidate. Therefore the party is likely to be resistant to what used to be called entryism - joining a party so that you can vote for a candidate which may even be contrary to that party's aims.

Quite. This isn't a public election, it's a party one.

Well it's sort of both. There need to be rules and the rules need to be adhered to. What the rules are are up to the Democratic Party and they delegate them to each state branch.

[UGagain]

TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...

How dare you suggest such a thing. Exit polls (sampling under 2000 people) are there to check if there's fraud. Which is why they are commissioned by news organisations. None of whom are claiming voting fraud. How could there possibly be any error in that size of of sample?

A quick review of the Internet shows that whilst exit polls have been used in some countries to show fraud, this isn't the case in thevUS. Some exit polls aren't even true exit polls, but are conducted before people actually vote, apparently. Claiming that there is definitely fraud as a result is pushing it. Even the inventor if exit polls has his doubts that they are reliable enough to be a good indicator f fraud in the US.

Dude, please. If this were Russia being talked about your attitude would be completely opposite.

The exit polls indicate that there is fraud going on. Further evidence confirms it. Reams of further evidence.

To be unaware of the massive fraud that is a regular feature of US politics is one thing but to argue that it does not happen is willful ignorance.

Save your sophistry for someone who can't see through it.

[UGagain]

Are you completely ignoring the entire conversation we had just a couple of days ago? Clinton is winning the vote amongst longstanding Democrats, no one is doubting that. The issue is the voting process and DNC going out of its way to make it extremely difficult for new members or independents, among who Sanders is completely wiping the floor with Clinton, from participating in what is supposed to be an open process backed by public office.

I've already given you the example of NY, but in case you wanted an update the DNC has refused to accept the over 90,000 voter ballots from Brooklyn, A Sanders area, that were "lost" on the day and are now being taken to court by the public for not allowing those people to have their say, to which they have said they will fight. Yes, thats right, they are going to fight 90,000 registered Democrats having their votes counted.

You seem to misunderstand the point. It isn't supposed to be an open process. Some states hold open primaries, but far from the majority. It's supposed to be a party process to to select the party's candidate. Therefore the party is likely to be resistant to what used to be called entryism - joining a party so that you can vote for a candidate which may even be contrary to that party's aims.

Quite. This isn't a public election, it's a party one.

No. Once again you've entirely ignored the OPs post to argue a strawman. The issue in NY is one of voter suppression of registered Democrats in working class areas.

[UGagain]

The posters dismissing the possibility of fraud here are deluded.

If it isn't discussed by the great and the good of the corporate media class, it doesn't exist.

[Stom]

While i do think the likelihood of this election being clean is very low, it does rest on the accusers shoulders to prove it, or at least install reasonable doubt.

One big problem to that is the lack of high quality media coverage. When the only major news channels calling things out are RT and al-jazeera, many won't believe them...

[UGagain]

While i do think the likelihood of this election being clean is very low, it does rest on the accusers shoulders to prove it, or at least install reasonable doubt.

One big problem to that is the lack of high quality media coverage. When the only major news channels calling things out are RT and al-jazeera, many won't believe them...

Why? Surely in a notional democracy it is incumbent on the officials to show that they are overseeing the system fairly.

And clearly, they are not.

[Sandydragon]

You seem to misunderstand the point. It isn't supposed to be an open process. Some states hold open primaries, but far from the majority. It's supposed to be a party process to to select the party's candidate. Therefore the party is likely to be resistant to what used to be called entryism - joining a party so that you can vote for a candidate which may even be contrary to that party's aims.

Quite. This isn't a public election, it's a party one.

Well it's sort of both. There need to be rules and the rules need to be adhered to. What the rules are are up to the Democratic Party and they delegate them to each state branch.

But to have an expectation to vote, it's reasonable to expect that they are paid up Dmocrats who are in a membership category that allows voting.

[Sandydragon]

How dare you suggest such a thing. Exit polls (sampling under 2000 people) are there to check if there's fraud. Which is why they are commissioned by news organisations. None of whom are claiming voting fraud. How could there possibly be any error in that size of of sample?

A quick review of the Internet shows that whilst exit polls have been used in some countries to show fraud, this isn't the case in thevUS. Some exit polls aren't even true exit polls, but are conducted before people actually vote, apparently. Claiming that there is definitely fraud as a result is pushing it. Even the inventor if exit polls has his doubts that they are reliable enough to be a good indicator f fraud in the US.

Dude, please. If this were Russia being talked about your attitude would be completely opposite.

The exit polls indicate that there is fraud going on. Further evidence confirms it. Reams of further evidence.

To be unaware of the massive fraud that is a regular feature of US politics is one thing but to argue that it does not happen is willful ignorance.

Save your sophistry for someone who can't see through it.

You've argues that exit polls are used to show fraud. But this is incorrect. The methodology used in the US prevents that. You're fraud argument is looking like wishful thinking, at least from a widespread perspective.

[UGagain]

A quick review of the Internet shows that whilst exit polls have been used in some countries to show fraud, this isn't the case in thevUS. Some exit polls aren't even true exit polls, but are conducted before people actually vote, apparently. Claiming that there is definitely fraud as a result is pushing it. Even the inventor if exit polls has his doubts that they are reliable enough to be a good indicator f fraud in the US.

Dude, please. If this were Russia being talked about your attitude would be completely opposite.

The exit polls indicate that there is fraud going on. Further evidence confirms it. Reams of further evidence.

To be unaware of the massive fraud that is a regular feature of US politics is one thing but to argue that it does not happen is willful ignorance.

Save your sophistry for someone who can't see through it.

You've argues that exit polls are used to show fraud. But this is incorrect. The methodology used in the US prevents that. You're fraud argument is looking like wishful thinking, at least from a widespread perspective.

What utter tripe. Once again you are making grand assertions on a topic that you know absolutely fuck all about.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Quite. This isn't a public election, it's a party one.

Well it's sort of both. There need to be rules and the rules need to be adhered to. What the rules are are up to the Democratic Party and they delegate them to each state branch.

But to have an expectation to vote, it's reasonable to expect that they are paid up Dmocrats who are in a membership category that allows voting.

It is reasonable to expect that, but those aren't the rules in every state. Some states allow any registered voter to vote in a primary, whereas others require you to register as a democrat. I'm not sure but I think some might require you to be a member of the democratic party.

[Stom]

Well it's sort of both. There need to be rules and the rules need to be adhered to. What the rules are are up to the Democratic Party and they delegate them to each state branch.

But to have an expectation to vote, it's reasonable to expect that they are paid up Dmocrats who are in a membership category that allows voting.

It is reasonable to expect that, but those aren't the rules in every state. Some states allow any registered voter to vote in a primary, whereas others require you to register as a democrat. I'm not sure but I think some might require you to be a member of the democratic party.

Which is a problem. With a system so utterly indecipherable, no wonder there are both accusations of fraud and major issues such as the ones in NY and Nevada. It begs the question: why set it up this way, to which the only possible answer can be: to make it less transparent, so the party can have the final say.

I know it's just a comedy show, but Last Week Tonight did raise good points.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

But to have an expectation to vote, it's reasonable to expect that they are paid up Dmocrats who are in a membership category that allows voting.

It is reasonable to expect that, but those aren't the rules in every state. Some states allow any registered voter to vote in a primary, whereas others require you to register as a democrat. I'm not sure but I think some might require you to be a member of the democratic party.

Which is a problem. With a system so utterly indecipherable, no wonder there are both accusations of fraud and major issues such as the ones in NY and Nevada. It begs the question: why set it up this way, to which the only possible answer can be: to make it less transparent, so the party can have the final say.

I know it's just a comedy show, but Last Week Tonight did raise good points.

Last week tonight raised excellent points and it's an excellent programme - even if it has effectively killed The Bugle. I don't think either party has had the final say since they set up elections for candidates, so I think we can discount that as the purpose of the Byzantine (some might say Kafkaesque) rules. I can see why each state is given a certain amount of autonomy. I do think they should standardise how the delegates are distributed based on the votes (I'd prefer pro rata) and formalise or abolish (I'd prefer the latter) super-delegates. I see no reason to impose on each state who they should have as the electorate. I'd probably want them to abolish caucuses.

[Stom]

It is reasonable to expect that, but those aren't the rules in every state. Some states allow any registered voter to vote in a primary, whereas others require you to register as a democrat. I'm not sure but I think some might require you to be a member of the democratic party.

Which is a problem. With a system so utterly indecipherable, no wonder there are both accusations of fraud and major issues such as the ones in NY and Nevada. It begs the question: why set it up this way, to which the only possible answer can be: to make it less transparent, so the party can have the final say.

I know it's just a comedy show, but Last Week Tonight did raise good points.

Last week tonight raised excellent points and it's an excellent programme - even if it has effectively killed The Bugle. I don't think either party has had the final say since they set up elections for candidates, so I think we can discount that as the purpose of the Byzantine (some might say Kafkaesque) rules. I can see why each state is given a certain amount of autonomy. I do think they should standardise how the delegates are distributed based on the votes (I'd prefer pro rata) and formalise or abolish (I'd prefer the latter) super-delegates. I see no reason to impose on each state who they should have as the electorate. I'd probably want them to abolish caucuses.

You see, I do. They should have a standardised system. It doesn't matter which, just a standardised one to stop any debate afterwards. If everyone has the same rules, there can be no arguments. It's because there are different rules for everyone that we get these arguments.

[UGagain]

It's not (just) a matter of process as you'd like to spin it.


It's a matter of discernible electoral fraud

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Which is a problem. With a system so utterly indecipherable, no wonder there are both accusations of fraud and major issues such as the ones in NY and Nevada. It begs the question: why set it up this way, to which the only possible answer can be: to make it less transparent, so the party can have the final say.

I know it's just a comedy show, but Last Week Tonight did raise good points.

Last week tonight raised excellent points and it's an excellent programme - even if it has effectively killed The Bugle. I don't think either party has had the final say since they set up elections for candidates, so I think we can discount that as the purpose of the Byzantine (some might say Kafkaesque) rules. I can see why each state is given a certain amount of autonomy. I do think they should standardise how the delegates are distributed based on the votes (I'd prefer pro rata) and formalise or abolish (I'd prefer the latter) super-delegates. I see no reason to impose on each state who they should have as the electorate. I'd probably want them to abolish caucuses.

You see, I do. They should have a standardised system. It doesn't matter which, just a standardised one to stop any debate afterwards. If everyone has the same rules, there can be no arguments. It's because there are different rules for everyone that we get these arguments.

To (more-or-less) unitary countries like ours it seems weird but it's a federal country and a federal system. I'd allow them to do what they want within parameters as above.

[Sandydragon]

It would make the process more transparent to have a national standard, although I do understand why this would probably be opposed in thevUS.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

It would make the process more transparent to have a national standard, although I do understand why this would probably be opposed in thevUS.

I don't think simpler is necessarily more transparent.

[UGagain]

The system is corrupt by design. Anyone who can't see that massive systemic fraud and corruption has occurred is trying not to see.

[UGagain]

The dominant political Parties are anything but dominant in terms of representing the people they claim to represent. The largest category of eligible voters are those that don’t vote followed by political Independents. Data Sources: Gallup, Pew.