Thus far, in Iowa, although Bernie Sanders may have (arguably) received more actual votes than Hillary Clinton, Hillary won all six of the coin tosses that gave Hillary a win. Today, although the news is correctly telling us that Bernie beat Hillary by a wide margin in New Hampshire, very few are reporting the inconvenient truth, which is that Hillary has been awarded more delegates from New Hampshire than Bernie. Sanders won sixty percent of the vote, but Clinton is walking away with fifteen delegates from New Hampshire, while Bernie is left with thirteen. That's because, under Democratic National Committee rules, New Hampshire is also given eight superdelegates, who are people committed to the party elite, and they are all pledged to Hillary. The Republican National Committee doesn't use superdelegates; instead, as we learned in 2012, the RNC will simply replace delegates committed to a candidate they don't want. When it comes down to it, whichever political party we align ourselves with, our votes don't really matter.
Hmmmm.... I am so *not* politically motivated... but I have something I want to say here. That coin toss for one thing... ever stop to consider what the odds of that are? Yeah... the DNC is definitely trying to put her majesty on the throne and they don't *care* if their ways are crooked... or detected. Pretty obvious. But votes mattering... yes. I think they do. I've been mad as the next person when I know that my candidate has gotten the popular vote a number of times but wasn't given the win. Does the system need to change? Sure... but if we start thinking our vote doesn't matter, won't it soon come down to not bothering to vote? And wouldn't that be giving the lousy system even more power? I'm sure there are many aspects I'm not realizing since this is so far from a topic I can comfortably discuss... so I'll keep reading answers here to get some new perspective.
This isn't the same thing as the electoral college. There are good reasons for an electoral college. Political parties are not constrained by our laws regarding the conducting of an election. Yet, we have come to a place where the political parties determine our choices in the general election. There is also the fact that our tax dollars finance party primaries and caucuses, yet the political parties are treated as social clubs, as far as the law is concerned. But that's another matter. What I am talking about is the fact that these political parties decide who is going to be on the general election ballot, and if they can decide who is going to be on the ballot, there is little difference between our election system than that which existed in the former Soviet Union. They had elections too, although they didn't have choices. Neither do we. It would be perfectly legal for a political party to decide to set up a nominating committee of two or three people who would determine the party's nominees in a closed meeting. Previously, this was known as the smoke-filled room. That would still be legal. Parties quit doing it because party members were becoming increasingly unwilling to participate in a system where their votes or their choices didn't matter. So, while they did away with making these choices in a smoke-filled room, they didn't give the power to their membership. Oh, party members are allowed to participate in primaries and caucuses, but only so long as their choice doesn't differ from the choice of the party elite. In other words, as a party member, you are free to choose your candidate, but only if it is someone who the party elite approve of. The media doesn't talk about it much because the knowledge of this would obviously lead to people realizing that they only have a voice in the matter if it is the same voice as that of the folks in the smoke-filled room. Because both major political parties and the media are controlled by the same corporate interests, the media and the political party elite need people to continue to trust the system that they have set up, to pay their dues, to contribute to the parties and the candidates, and to otherwise participate. Consequently, they try to keep these things quiet. The media will report on the number of delegates that each candidate receives, but they won't question the way in which these delegates were accumulated. At the 2012 Republican National Convention, a small group of Republican National Committee members, none of whom were from Maine, replaced half of Maine's elected delegates with delegates who were willing to nominate Mitt Romney. There was a loud and very noticeable protest made by several delegations, including a loud walk-out. Rachel Maddow mentioned it on her show once, then never brought it up again. Fox News reported that the Convention had gone off without a glitch. The only way for Donald Trump to become the Republican nominee, or for Bernie Sanders to become the Democrat nominee, will be if their respective political parties become afraid to deny them the place, and then they will work against them from the sidelines. The Republican party elite would rather have Hillary Clinton as the next president than Donald Trump, and it may be that the Democrat elite would prefer Marco Rubio to Bernie Sanders.
The fact that Hillary has 8(?) more delegates at this point than Bernie is in inconsequential at this point because they each need 2,500 delegates to run for President. At least that's what Bernie said when asked if he thought the Iowa Caucus should recount.
Thank you for explaining all this, @Ken Anderson . My nephew is a Professor of Political Science and very interested in politics for himself, as well. He would be appalled at what Auntie *doesn't* know about the process. But I'm learning, I'm learning!
That's interesting to know about it for it seems like Bernie Sanders won when actually Hillary Clinton got more delegates than Sanders did. I believe though voting is important and every vote counts. In the news it is reported that Bernie Sanders has won New Hampshire in a landslide. Today Bernie Sander's was on The View and it was exciting to see him speak there. I liked his New Hampshire speech a whole lot.
Politics in America sounds complicated particularly the party selection of their standard bearer. I have no clear idea of the so called primaries and the delegates. Who chooses the delegates to vote on the nomination? But anyway, from my standpoint, it is still Hillary that is on top of the Democratic selection although Bernie Sanders had inched a little of Hillary's wide lead before. All my relatives in the US have that same consensus that Hillary will be it although not all of my relatives go for Hillary.
Impressive meme there Ken. The whole delegate things irks me. Do the Republicans have less of a chance of getting the required number of delegates for the nomination since there are so many candidates? Why did only 2 democrats enter the race and the Republicans had 17 entered…and still have too many. What happens if no republican gets enough delegates to win a nomination? Anyone watch the Democratic debate tonight? I did. They both launched into their Pro-Abortion stand. Why in the world do they think that's going to win them many votes? There are a lot of people who are Pro-life that will be turned off by their fever-pitch enthusiasm for abortion.
I may not be voting for Sanders but I do admire his staying power. The News a few minutes ago was saying how Hillary is saying Sanders is done and should do what is best and bow out now. I actually believe Sanders is doing what is best by staying in and doing all he can to not let Hillary have the nomination. The way this Election year is going just about anytning can and might happen and I am proud of Sanders not letting big bad Hillary and her cronies scare him away.
I think Trump will get the nomination. What's going to happen is that Hillary Clinton will get the nomination and Sanders will not because of the many delegates pledged to the Clintons. Sanders might be the better candidate but that has nothing to do with it. It's the super delegates already pledged. In my option Clinton will be the better in November and will claim the presidency. Trump is good at one thing, Real Estate. Nothing else. Hillary will beat him. Many people don't believe that, but that's why we have elections. Both Clinton and Trump have high negatives but in politics Hillary has the advantage
The thought of Hillary as president, after leaving our people in Benghazi to be tortured and killed makes me literally sick to my stomach. Not to mention the other bodies left in the wake of her and Bill. I've never fallen for the women have to stick together line, nor the others based on race, ethnicity, etc., and I'm certainly not going to start now. I'd probably vote for Condoleeza Rice if she ever ran, but I don't see that happening.