THE RULES - "Fair Reflection of Presidential Preferences" - Purpose of VOTES is to select DELEGATES

[phrigndumass]

From the DNC Rulebook:

<snip>

Clause 13.A. - Fair Reflection of Presidential Preferences

"Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants."

<end snip>

(emphasis mine)

The purpose of votes in a primary or caucus is
TO SELECT DELEGATES.

(I made it big so you won't skip over that part.)

Superdelegates may use whatever method they wish to make their endorsement. If a superdelegate uses a hybrid "popular" vote count total, however, doing so does not justify the existence of a uniform popular vote tally as we would see in a general election.

So to summarize, 80% of the delegates chosen during the whole primary race will be from each state or territory's primary or caucus, and the only role of votes in a primary or caucus is to select delegates. The other 20% of the delegates are allowed to make their candidate selection however they wish, but the method they use does not justify a universal existence of their own method.

These are the rules, and sometimes it takes a phrigndumass to point them out.

:dunce:

Know the DNC Party Rules: http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

.

(p.s. I dare you to rec this one!)

[Adelante]

1. Recommended

:kick:

[tekisui]

2. Clear cut.

And the Superdelegates are not stupid.

[phrigndumass]

3. Some are arguing that the "popular" vote determines the will of the people

... when the only purpose of a "popular" vote count is to determine the selection of delegates. In turn, the sum of all the delegates determines the will of the people, according to DNC rules.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

4. If you don't quit with the rules stuff....someone will call you a party loyalist.

I got called that and much worse yesterday.

:eyes:

Rules, rules, rules. :evilgrin:

[phrigndumass]

6. LOL! What a horrible thing to be called!

They must think we're posting on a board called "Bipartisan Underground" instead of Democratic Underground.

:rofl:

[bigbrother05]

5. Rec. number 5

for the reading impaired

[phrigndumass]

8. And for the thinking impaired!

:evilgrin:

[Scurrilous]

7. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[mmonk]

9. I took up your dare.

[phrigndumass]

10. LOL ... what would you do if I double-dog dared you?

:hi:

[mmonk]

16. Log in on someone else's account and recommend again?

:hi:

[question everything]

11. "in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference "

allocating delegated based on how districts voted in the past, so that the ones that were always Democrats (mostly inner cities) get more delegates per voter than the ones who decided to join us now (rural area) is not fair. Far from fair. Pretty much disenfranchising.

[phrigndumass]

12. I do agree, but those are the rules

If we were to have a truly democratic system for selecting a nominee, I agree it would be by using a vote total for the entire nation. But those aren't the rules for this primary race. The party sets guidelines and the states must comply with them, but within the guidelines each state has room to move. Ultimately the changes to the delegate system that each state makes must be reviewed by the DNC to determine compliance.

The timeline for setting the rules is usually a couple years in advance of a national primary. If we believe the party methods of choosing a nominee are unfair and disenfranchising, we need to impress that upon the DNC members before they sit down to set the rules.

Once the rules are set, the campaigns lay out their strategies. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have campaigned knowing full well that the party's delegate system will be the method that the party uses to choose a nominee. If the party chose to use a "popular" vote as the method for choosing a nominee, they would have put it in the rules and each campaign would have strategized based on that.

Elections would be so much easier if we had one nation and zero states. :crazy:

[question everything]

14. Or, at least, rotating regional primaries (nt)

[phrigndumass]

13. Shameless self-kick sub-thread =)

:kick:

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. So Nevada, and Texas broke the rules? Is that what you're saying? n/t

[grantcart]

17. tks