Iowa Caucus 2020 - MegaThread

[starlord]

Yes, my problem is with the entire system. It is why I stated before that until 3rd parties are viable, those like Sanders have no choice but to go through those 2 gatekeepers and they have no one to blame but themselves for that as both parties actively refuse to allow for viable 3rd parties because to takes away from their powers.

My view is that once 3rd parties are actually viable (and by that, I also mean sustainable, not something that comes up every century or so and completely eats another party which slowly moves in the same aways again due to financial interests and personal power), THEN I can agree with the talking point that he should run third party and such.

But till they are viable, they have no one to complain to but themselves as to why Sanders, Trump, AoC and all the others run in their parties to stand chances and that they should be required to let them all in and be given equal chances in their primaries because of it and let the voters decide without the parties interfering or playing favorites.

And for examples as to them doing it. While I can go over the whole 2016 deal where others try and deny it, I can do better than that where NO ONE can even hope to deny them playing favorites and trying to keep out leaders who actually represent people they want votes and donations from.

All I have to do is link their rule change after the 2018 election. They disliked people with Sanders ideals starting to primary them and actually have them to deal with his views and policies in the discussion and changed their own rules to blacklist anyone who helps them against an incumbent. It is blatant proof of them trying to shut them out of making the decisions or dealing with them during the elections but they still want their voters to fall in line and give them money anyways at which point I can honestly say they can get the fuck out of here with that shit.

If they don't want my candidates to even run and a fair shot, then they don't want my vote or my donations.

Which is why I said, if they are fair and my candidate loses legitimately without them playing fuck-fuck to do it, I can back the winner, but if they can't respect the candidate enough to not screw them, then I don't respect the results enough to back them in the general.

nothing stops a third party from being "viable" except lack of support.

you are free to vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you want.
people are really frustrated with everything that doesn't favor bernie as "proof of dem corruption", as though there's not people who don't care for bernie or something.
its not a valid criticism that "a party doesn't cater to my demands because they try to maintain a consistent ideology" - you are supposed to find the party that fits you, not the other way around. same for candidates.

i get that you are frustrated that what you like isn't that popular, but thats how democracy works.

you brought up the green and libertarian parties- theres a reason that parties who demand more stringent ideological purity appeal to less people have therefore have a smaller base. same reason that bernie tries to have his cake and eat it by denigrating the dems while simultaneously running as one.

[beanman12345]

Nobody said it would be easy. But the difficulty is in convincing Americans you're worth voting for, not some systemic, institutional barrier you have to surmount.

Literally all it takes to replace the Democratic Party with another is Americans voting for that new party's representatives. That's pretty much it. Some relatively small costs to get your names on ballots, but that's it.

Again, you are vastly underestimating the democratic parties power, in fact you are not even taking any of it into account. It isn't about someones agenda or simply voting one way, The democratic party is a monopoly, they do not topple easily.

[Fugus]

nothing stops a third party from being "viable" except lack of support.

you are free to vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you want.
people are really frustrated with everything that doesn't favor bernie as "proof of dem corruption", as though there's not people who don't care for bernie or something.
its not a valid criticism that "a party doesn't cater to my demands because they try to maintain a consistent ideology" - you are supposed to find the party that fits you, not the other way around. same for candidates.

i get that you are frustrated that what you like isn't that popular, but thats how democracy works.

You neglect how the system works entirely for this judgement and neglect the whole reason why the Green and the Libertarian parties aren't seen as actual parties and why all the other parties died.

Without ranked choice, if you split your votes between 2+ groups that actually share overlap, the party that is most dislike them now has a massive advantage because of it allowing them a massive boost where they win even as they least wanted option by the voters.

If 33% of the voters voted the Sanders Party, 30% voted for the Democrat party and none of them wanted the Republicans, that 63% of the votes can kick rocks because the Republicans just destroyed them both with only 34% of the vote.

Until you accept that fact and work it into your logic, you will continue to miss why you are wrong.

[Endus]

Ok, lets say Sanders starts his own party, great, he gets to be among the Libertarian and the Green parties. The parties that are seen as nonparties as they are not viable and only serve as spoilers to the big 2 tent parties.

Under this system, those 2 parties will likely never get major support no matter even if the majority supported them because they carry the stigma of being "Unelectable" due to the current system.

Yes. That's sort of my point. Bernie Sanders is completely unelectable as President without the Democrats backing him. He needs them. They do not need him.

Quite literally, the options are to

1. Actually run in the party for even a chance at an election.
2. Go 3rd party hoping to overcome the stigma of being a "Spoiler Vote" or "Unelectable" that people vote for them in such a number that it completely allows them to replace another party.

I'll just note that this frames the question in terms of "how does Bernie Sanders become President", not in terms of how the population selects a President they actually want.

Under your logic, the Green party is equally is electable as the Democratic party if their candidate has the better views when, in practice, that isn't even remotely the case and the Green (Or libertarian or any other 3rd party) would still lose regardless as too many vote based only on D and R and too many consider anything else to be a spoiler vote.

The Green Party isn't electable because Americans largely won't vote for them.

That's it.

Sure, the concern of spoiling a vote exists, but it comes down to people's choice, again. Which is, to repeat, my entire point; the only thing keeping the Democrats in power is that Americans continue to support them over the alternatives.

And as bad as it is,they are right. If Sanders was to run 3rd party,even if he created a full on party, his party would functionally do nothing but be a spoiler as those who voted for him were votes that aren't counted for anyone else but him and makes the Democrats even worse off against the Republicans and he will get blamed for it.

For what you describe to happen, it would take the entire Democratic party to effectively lose all legitimacy at that point where people won't even come out and vote for them to be against the Republicans.

I'm aware. That's also my point; there's an ongoing effort to try and frame Bernie Sanders as someone the Democrats need to negotiate with. The truth is that Bernie Sanders needs the Democratic Party, they don't need him. He's the one who has to make changes, to work with his new colleagues and within their systems, they should not be expected to change everything to accommodate Sanders. That's ridiculous.

Endus, I like you and I respect you, you are smart as hell and were a great moderator. But I must disagree with you on this.

If Sanders did what you suggest, all it would do is hand the Republicans the win in every general he ran as 3rd party and a bunch of people blaming him for it because "You should have dropped out and stopped being a spoiler vote".

And until we move to ranked choice in the general, that will always be the case.

I'm not saying Sanders should do this. Or that he wants to. I'm taking issue with the claims that the DNC has any real "power" to control the election. They don't. The American people do, fundamentally. They vote for who they want, and a lot of them prefer the Democrats to any alternatives. Bernie Sanders isn't gonna change that. Nor is he going to significantly change the Democratic Party, by his presence. He's already had an outsized effect on the party; expecting more is silly.

And sure; if you want to replace the Democratic Party, you'd have to start way earlier than an election year. You'd have to already have a groundswell of support to have a prayer. Sanders had no interest in doing that. He wanted to take the easy way out, and caucus as a Democrat. That means he gets to accept the rules and procedures of the DNC and suck it up, and his supporters should too. You don't get to enjoy the benefits of running as a Democrat without playing by the DNC's rules and procedures, and whining about those because they're not how you'd like them is pathetic bullshit. Sanders chose this, and he knew what he was getting into, and neither he nor his supporters have grounds for complaint.

But that's what we're getting. Bitching about "unfairness". It's not "unfair" at all. The rules weren't changed solely to be advantageous to Bernie Sanders, but you'd have to be crazy to expect that in the first place.

[Sorshen]

nothing stops a third party from being "viable" except lack of support.

And money. Just look at how much havoc Bloomberg is bringing to Trump's camp by throwing money around. You'd almost think his only goal is to trigger more retarded twitter posts and public statements from Trump. Of course, those won't influence his cult, but the 'swing' voter.

[Endus]

Again, you are vastly underestimating the democratic parties power, in fact you are not even taking any of it into account. It isn't about someones agenda or simply voting one way, The democratic party is a monopoly, they do not topple easily.

The only thing the DNC is a "monopoly" on is the DNC.

Seriously, if every Democratic voter decided "fuck the DNC" and voted McDonalds Party next election, you could have Ronald McDonald as your President in 2020. The only barriers to that are paying the relatively small fees to get Ron and friends on the ballots nationally, and getting everyone to change their votes to your representatives. That's not "power" that's creating difficulty, it's inertia. People don't know you and don't want to support you, so you don't get anywhere.

If anyone can actually drum up the kind of popular support that the Democrats currently enjoy, they could completely replace the entire DNC within 4 years. And it only takes that long because of Senate terms; Congress could be completely replaced in a single election cycle. There's no systemic barrier to that, just voter interest.

The reason third parties can't challenge the DNC (or the Republicans) is because the voters prefer the two current prime parties. Nothing more.

[beanman12345]

Everybody just says fuck amazon, and all retail business would be booming again. it's a great thought, but in reality, it just doesn't work that way.

[Fugus]

SNIP

You are looking at it in the wrong framing. It isn't what Sanders has to do to win, it is what Sanders has to do to get a fair shot. Because the Democratic voters along with the Independent voters will largely not vote for someone who isn't one of the big 2 because of the whole "Spoiler Vote' part and they are correct in that.

Even if the 3rd party is by far the one you want most, the voter won't choose them because that means the other guy you want least is that much closer and because your actual choice isn't "Electable" because of it.

Even if the Green party had the support of 60% of the nation on policies (Not saying they do), they would still be lucky to get 9% of the vote from the population because they are seen as a spoiler vote so most won't take that risk while that also makes them 9% of the votes from the Democrats roughly so the Republicans just won because of it.

This is something I have had to deal with for a while, it sucks but that is the train of logic in the US and how the system is setup.

And again, I am not saying this is about Sanders as the individual. I am saying this about all candidates. Let the voters decide and while the Democrats don't need Sanders, they do need the voters and if they want the voters, they need to give those voters candidates a fair shot and I don't mean shot in the leg.

And if they don't need Sanders, then everyone who supports Sanders as their candidates also needs to stop voting for the Democrats or giving them money by that logic because they don't need us which is objectively false. They just think they have the voters over a barrel.

The party is actively attempting to shut out candidates to keep the voters from having options because our system gives them that level of power.

The DNC has more control over the election than you realize because of HOW it is setup. It effectively makes the Democrat and Republican parties the gatekeepers of our elections whether we like it or not.

And until ranked choice voting becomes an option, things will continue to remain that way.

Sanders could have the majority support among the public with the Democrats being a #2 but without ranked choice all that means is they are both fucked because now the Republicans have more votes. And that is the logic American voters are stuck working with.

Even if the majority supports a candidate or policy, unless they are part of the big 2, the majority won't vote for them regardless and just sees them as a spoiler and effectively, they would be correct in that.

I will give you the same example I gave starlord.

If Sanders has 33% of the vote and the Democrats got 30% of the vote. Even if that 63% of the voters wanted Republicans least of all, they can kick rocks because the Republicans won with 35% of the vote. And that is the logic we are dealing with in action and what the public are working under.

[starlord]

You neglect how the system works entirely for this judgement and neglect the whole reason why the Green and the Libertarian parties aren't seen as actual parties and why all the other parties died.

Without ranked choice, if you split your votes between 2+ groups that actually share overlap, the party that is most dislike them now has a massive advantage because of it allowing them a massive boost where they win even as they least wanted option by the voters.

If 33% of the voters voted the Sanders Party, 30% voted for the Democrat party and none of them wanted the Republicans, that 63% of the votes can kick rocks because the Republicans just destroyed them both with only 34% of the vote.

Until you accept that fact and work it into your logic, you will continue to miss why you are wrong.

i don't see what i'm wrong about? if bernie supporters want to sacrifice appealing to a wide variety of voters for the sake of ideological purity thats on them. if they wanted to form a broader base they would have to... wait for it... compromise on things. and thats one thing bernie takes pride in not doing. thats how democracy works. you don't want to compromise, which is why you want the "ranked choice" - but guess what, those parties still have to compromise and form alliances to get anything done in that system.

remember, you guys are the ones demanding ideological purity tests.
the dems let bernie into their tent, even after his self imposed isolation. he kicked up a fuss because he thinks the tent has too many other kinds of people in it (the ones bernie bros so gracefully refer to as corrupt corporate shills.)

[Endus]

Everybody just says fuck amazon, and all retail business would be booming again. it's a great thought, but in reality, it just doesn't work that way.

Because people still like Amazon and it's services.

There's a reason upstart Facebook kicked Myspace out of relevance. And why Amazon did so much better than Ebay and the like. Customer choice. Not some weird-ass claims of "power". Just being the preferable option.

You are looking at it in the wrong framing. It isn't what Sanders has to do to win, it is what Sanders has to do to get a fair shot.

He's getting a fair shot.

The DNC has more control over the election than you realize because of HOW it is setup. It effectively makes the Democrat and Republican parties the gatekeepers of our elections whether we like it or not.

Do you mean the primaries? Because those are internal; of COURSE the DNC gets the only say.

If you mean the federal election? They really don't have any control at all.

I will give you the same example I gave starlord.

If Sanders has 33% of the vote and the Democrats got 30% of the vote. Even if that 63% of the voters wanted Republicans least of all, they can kick rocks because the Republicans won with 35% of the vote. And that is the logic we are dealing with in action and what the public are working under.

That doesn't speak against anything I've said, so I'm really not sure what you think you're arguing against.

[beanman12345]

Because people still like Amazon and it's services.

There's a reason upstart Facebook kicked Myspace out of relevance. And why Amazon did so much better than Ebay and the like. Customer choice. Not some weird-ass claims of "power". Just being the preferable option.

More like, it's easier to just use amazon, and only becoming more and more easier because of money, making other options less viable.

[starlord]

More like, it's easier to just use amazon, and only becoming more and more easier because of money, making other options less viable.

amazon was laughed at for constantly losing money until pretty recently. bezos just never gave up on it.

[Endus]

More like, it's easier to just use amazon, and only becoming more and more easier because of money, making other options less viable.

Yes? People like it more, so they keep using it.

Provide a better/cheaper service, and you'll pull users away from Amazon. They have no ability to control their users. Same goes for political parties; the only thing keeping the DNC in power is that Americans prefer Democratic representatives (along with Republican) to the alternatives.

You can't seriously point to popular preference and then claim that the popular choice is controlling those who choose them. It's nonsense. Straight up cospiracy woo-woo silly crap.

[Fugus]

He's getting a fair shot.

So far, that seems to be the case and so long as it is, that is good. But I have already linked how they are trying to prevent candidates from running in the party just from 2018.

Do you mean the primaries? Because those are internal; of COURSE the DNC gets the only say.

If you mean the federal election? They really don't have any control at all.

In the General, the system is inherently setup to only allow for 2 viable parties. That is why I have no issues with him, or any candidate, running under either parties tent and should be given a fair and unbiased election process for the voters to decide.

That doesn't speak against anything I've said, so I'm really not sure what you think you're arguing against.

I think we do have a disconnect here.

I personally am saying that the current US system does not allow for more than 2 viable parties during the general election. It sucks but its true. In order for a 3rd party to become viable that takes one of the big 2 to die or shrink to obscurity and in order for that to happen, the voters have to be so disgusted with the other party that they won't even bother to come out to vote otherwise. Before that point, 3rd parties are complete jokes with zero chance no matter how popular the policies of the 3rd party all because that 3rd party will not be seen as "Electable" by the voters or the news due to its place as a 3rd party and all it will be seen as is a spoiler vote and that is effectively all it will be until people completely abandon the other party.

I am not saying the Democrats have direct power over the general in that they call the shots, I am saying that the rules are setup in such a way as to make it where the 2 big parties are the only realistic options regardless of how people feel about the parties or policies until stuff gets to extremes.

And because of that, the DNC and RNC should be required to allow all to try and run within their party and let their voters decide whom they want in a fair election. Once we change it and allow for ranked choice where 3rd parties are now viable instead of just spoilers and people will actually vote for them without fearing of throwing their vote away I can see them being allowed to exclude or play favorites like that, but so long as the system makes the big 2 the gatekeepers, we need to have that enforced to allow the voters actual more control instead of the parties thinking the voters have no choice.

[beanman12345]

Yes? People like it more, so they keep using it.

Provide a better/cheaper service, and you'll pull users away from Amazon. They have no ability to control their users. Same goes for political parties; the only thing keeping the DNC in power is that Americans prefer Democratic representatives (along with Republican) to the alternatives.

You can't seriously point to popular preference and then claim that the popular choice is controlling those who choose them. It's nonsense. Straight up cospiracy woo-woo silly crap.

No, i'm saying, you are not putting any thought into what it would take to make a better/cheaper service, to stop people from using amazon.

[starlord]

So far, that seems to be the case and so long as it is, that is good. But I have already linked how they are trying to prevent candidates from running in the party just from 2018.



In the General, the system is inherently setup to only allow for 2 viable parties. That is why I have no issues with him, or any candidate, running under either parties tent and should be given a fair and unbiased election process for the voters to decide.



I think we do have a disconnect here.

I personally am saying that the current US system does not allow for more than 2 viable parties during the general election. It sucks but its true. In order for a 3rd party to become viable that takes one of the big 2 to die or shrink to obscurity and in order for that to happen, the voters have to be so disgusted with the other party that they won't even bother to come out to vote otherwise. Before that point, 3rd parties are complete jokes with zero chance no matter how popular the policies of the 3rd party all because that 3rd party will not be seen as "Electable" by the voters or the news due to its place as a 3rd party and all it will be seen as is a spoiler vote and that is effectively all it will be until people completely abandon the other party.

I am not saying the Democrats have direct power over the general in that they call the shots, I am saying that the rules are setup in such a way as to make it where the 2 big parties are the only realistic options regardless of how people feel about the parties or policies until stuff gets to extremes.

And because of that, the DNC and RNC should be required to allow all to try and run within their party and let their voters decide whom they want in a fair election. Once we change it and allow for ranked choice where 3rd parties are now viable instead of just spoilers and people will actually vote for them without fearing of throwing their vote away I can see them being allowed to exclude or play favorites like that, but so long as the system makes the big 2 the gatekeepers, we need to have that enforced to allow the voters actual more control instead of the parties thinking the voters have no choice.

thats completely ridiculous and undermines the entire point of political parties.
wouldnt it be stupid to have the "communist party" have a free for all vote, "well looks like the capitalist won the vote so we are abandoning communist ideologies this time around."
the dems and repubs put forth the effort to build a large base of voters, large enough to win.

even ranked choice systems still have to form coalitions if they want any sort of power. otherwise its the exact same situation of 10/20/70 or whatever.

[Fugus]

thats completely ridiculous and undermines the entire point of political parties.
wouldnt it be stupid to have the "communist party" have a free for all vote, "well looks like the capitalist won the vote so we are abandoning communist ideologies this time around."
the dems and repubs put forth the effort to build a large base of voters, large enough to win.

even ranked choice systems still have to form coalitions if they want any sort of power. otherwise its the exact same situation of 10/20/70 or whatever.

If their voters don't agree with it, then the parties have nothing to worry about it, if their own voters choose those people in their primaries, that shows them where their voters actually are. And isn't the point of the party to represent the voters?

And like I said, as soon as ranked choice is implemented and 3rd parties become viable, all those complaints become moot. But under the current system, they need to be open and fair to the candidates.

The voters should be choosing their leaders, the leaders shouldn't be able to choose their voters or only allow the offers pre-chosen options.

I understand your argument about the parties but until the other deficiencies are fixed, the need for the voters to have a fair chance of choosing their candidates Trumps their wish to exclude views they dislike from being represented in their party even if their own voter base wants those views.

[Endus]

No, i'm saying, you are not putting any thought into what it would take to make a better/cheaper service, to stop people from using amazon.

I don't want to "stop people from using amazon". I want people to choose what they want.

Which they are.

If you want to make a better/cheaper service, do so. Don't complaint to me that I'm pointing out that Amazon's what people legitimately prefer and freely choose, right now. And that Amazon has no power to control them choosing differently, were you to provide a new better service.

[starlord]

If their voters don't agree with it, then the parties have nothing to worry about it, if their own voters choose those people in their primaries, that shows them where their voters actually are. And isn't the point of the party to represent the voters?

And like I said, as soon as ranked choice is implemented and 3rd parties become viable, all those complaints become moot. But under the current system, they need to be open and fair to the candidates.

The voters should be choosing their leaders, the leaders shouldn't be able to choose their voters or only allow the offers pre-chosen options.

I understand your argument about the parties but until the other deficiencies are fixed, the need for the voters to have a fair chance of choosing their candidates Trumps their wish to exclude views they dislike from being represented in their party even if their own voter base wants those views.

people are already free to vote for whoever they want in the presidential election. there's no "pre chosen option", you can write in bugs bunny if you want.
parties are just there to help people with like minded ideologies get elected by providing more resources. thats it.
even under a "ranked choice" voting system you would still be a minority party, and still have to work with larger ones to get things done.

[beanman12345]

I don't want to "stop people from using amazon". I want people to choose what they want.

Which they are.

If you want to make a better/cheaper service, do so. Don't complaint to me that I'm pointing out that Amazon's what people legitimately prefer and freely choose, right now. And that Amazon has no power to control them choosing differently, were you to provide a new better service.

I don't care if people use amazon or not, i'm not complaining people vote the way they are, you are just missing my point, maybe i'm not explaining well enough, idk, but it seems It's of no use trying anymore.