Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Columbus wrote:If Clinton was truly progressive, no one would refuse to vote for her.
What a Can-yuck-yuck-istanian.
Trump has as many voting supporters as Sanders does, roughly.
You are an idiot suffering terribly from Dunning-Kruger effect.
I am glad you are one of the idiots who is ineligible to vote in my country.
Tom
! |
GENERAL MODNOTE Columbus, calling other members "idiots" etc is not the level of discourse we expect here, you are advised not to post this way. Further incidents may result in moderator action. Do not comment on this moderator action in this thread as it may be considered off topic and removed without notice. |
GT2211 wrote:lol more conspiracy mongering
Willie71 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/politics/new-york-primary-voter-problem-polls-sanders-de-blasio/
Willie71 wrote:I guess the standard used worldwide to flag frauds doesn't matter in America?
Willie71 wrote:It's interesting. Exit polls were a 5 point difference, but the results were a 14 point difference. When there is a discrepancy if three points, there is likely election fraud. We know a lot if people were disenfranchised. In any event, whether it was fraud or not, it doesn't matter, since Sanders cannot overcome the deficit, regardless of the cause. Even as the investigation happens, has there ever been a result overturned? I've never seen it. Sad day for democracy, especially in a country that considers itself the world leader in freedom. If it is related to fraud, there is little to prevent the same in future states. It's a done deal.
thaesofereode wrote:crank wrote:The weird thing about that story is a lot of it appears tailored to go against Bernie, but is overall harmful to Dims generally in the long run. If it was not incompetence, then it was incompetent nonetheless. They're not called Dims for nuthin'.
Hm. Except that I do believe it's the Board of Elections, which is part of the local government and not the political party people who are responsible for maintaining the voter registration rolls, which means that they have responsibility for the maintenance of the voter rolls for BOTH parties, not just for one party or the other. The parties don't maintain their own voter registration lists ... at least not those that are actually used when administrating elections.
Willie71 wrote:It's interesting. Exit polls were a 5 point difference, but the results were a 14 point difference. When there is a discrepancy if three points, there is likely election fraud. We know a lot if people were disenfranchised. In any event, whether it was fraud or not, it doesn't matter, since Sanders cannot overcome the deficit, regardless of the cause. Even as the investigation happens, has there ever been a result overturned? I've never seen it. Sad day for democracy, especially in a country that considers itself the world leader in freedom. If it is related to fraud, there is little to prevent the same in future states. It's a done deal.
crank wrote:Willie71 wrote:It's interesting. Exit polls were a 5 point difference, but the results were a 14 point difference. When there is a discrepancy if three points, there is likely election fraud. We know a lot if people were disenfranchised. In any event, whether it was fraud or not, it doesn't matter, since Sanders cannot overcome the deficit, regardless of the cause. Even as the investigation happens, has there ever been a result overturned? I've never seen it. Sad day for democracy, especially in a country that considers itself the world leader in freedom. If it is related to fraud, there is little to prevent the same in future states. It's a done deal.
Almost every major election,you hear of serous problems, everyone promises to do something about it, like Obama, and nothing ever gets done. Right now, the FEC is useless, it has 3 dims 4 repugs, and no one cares, even the FEC itself says it isn't doing anything any time soon. Even SCOTUS is aiding and abetting voter suppression. The MSM doesn't cover any of it beyond maybe a superficial mention. They won't even go after the repuglicans and their constant fraudulent claims of voter fraud and the voter suppression legislation they pass based on this fraud.
OlivierK wrote:I think the voting system needs an overhaul, with an independent federal authority reponsible for redistricting and conducting elections.
But the primary system can be as fucked as each party wants it to be: it's a private matter for each party, and they can do as they please to select their nominee. There's no need for the public to be involved at all, but clearly the majors believe there's a benefit to allowing it, but they can, and do, add all manner of conditions to that participation, for good reasons (minimising the risk of trolling by supporters of opposing parties) and bad (making the public's participation a veneer for undemocratic processes).
OlivierK wrote:Willie71 wrote:It's interesting. Exit polls were a 5 point difference, but the results were a 14 point difference. When there is a discrepancy if three points, there is likely election fraud. We know a lot if people were disenfranchised. In any event, whether it was fraud or not, it doesn't matter, since Sanders cannot overcome the deficit, regardless of the cause. Even as the investigation happens, has there ever been a result overturned? I've never seen it. Sad day for democracy, especially in a country that considers itself the world leader in freedom. If it is related to fraud, there is little to prevent the same in future states. It's a done deal.
The actual results line up well with polls done with better methodology than exit polls.
proudfootz wrote:OlivierK wrote:I think the voting system needs an overhaul, with an independent federal authority reponsible for redistricting and conducting elections.
But the primary system can be as fucked as each party wants it to be: it's a private matter for each party, and they can do as they please to select their nominee. There's no need for the public to be involved at all, but clearly the majors believe there's a benefit to allowing it, but they can, and do, add all manner of conditions to that participation, for good reasons (minimising the risk of trolling by supporters of opposing parties) and bad (making the public's participation a veneer for undemocratic processes).
Yes, how the Democratic Party selects its nominees is its own affair.
But it's not good PR to have a 'system' which undermines any claims to represent the preferences of its rank and file members, just as it's not good for the actual elections to be conducted in such a way as to undermine the confidence of the electorate.
Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests