If Democrat Elections Aren't Rigged, Then Why Can Dem Superdelegates Vote However They Want?

<INSERT PARTY NAME HERE> does not trust it's voters to make the right decision, hence the existence of autonomous superdelegates.

By contrast, the GOP superdelegates DO NOT have the freedom to vote however they please. In 2012 the RNC mandated that GOP superdelegates MUST reflect the will of the people in their states.

There is no doubt which party respects, honors, and reflects the will of their voters. Originally Posted by HoHound

The reality is that all states outside these two, throw 100% of their votes after the majority district winners: As of 2022, Nebraska and Maine are the only states using the District Method of distributing electoral votes.

I would say that any state that throws 100% of their "real" votes for the presidential race are disenfranchising voters. How the fuck does voting become so weighted that all politicians have to do, is to be popular in the largest districts, and then the others are told to fuck-off? While the electoral college used to be a good idea, as representatives were thought to have more/ better knowledge than an uneducated lay-person, NONE of those assholes who are electoral voters should be allowed to vote anyway than which way their constituents voted.

That along with Gerrymandering should have been thrown out of every election process. It's crazy that new districts get drawn up everytime a new majority is formed. If you were to look at out-right cheating,- that's right out in the open. In some cases both Dems and Gops, have been told that their redistricting have been done illegally and courts have intervened.

Politics has become more of an alley-fight where anything goes, damn the rules. Especially in the last 8 yrs. It's an absolute perversion of what the founders had in mind. Whether it's scheming behind the scenes to eliminate voters by questioning their rights, or by allowing non-residents / citizens to vote, there needs to be an overhaul in what happens in the process. Till that time, the tyrants who control the reigns of power, will never be held accountable, nor will they step aside to let others have a chance to participate in the process which could upset the apple cart of entitlements.

I must not quite understand something:

So, the majority does not "win"? Lets look at it another way. If a sporting event closes with one team scoring 40% fewer points, goals, runs or whatever, and the other team manages to rack up 60% of the relevant scoring . . .they split the win 40/60 and share the championship proportionately?

Does winner-take-all disenfranchise one set of fans over those who support what has been traditionally viewed as the winner?

This sort of political vote splitting seems more like everyone-gets-a trophy kid soccer to me.

How are the elections rigged? Trumpys talk about that all the time but they never show any evidence. They just reuse the same previous debunked claims over and over.
At this point there aren't any election issues that haven't been dealt with or explained.
What true right wing denial info has only been reported in bitchute, rumble,or redstate?
It must be nice to have that fallback position that you can claim the media is ignoring trumpy "truth".

The primaries and the elections are rigged. But if the approved propagandist outets don't report it, then the libtards and commies can keep their heads in the sand. Originally Posted by texassapper

Disregarding Trump and the 2020 elections for a moment:

Here in the Houston area including the surrounding Harris County, the 2022 midterms were absolutely manipulated to ensure Democrsts won big at every level The County is dominated by liberal Democrts at every elected position and as might be properly expected, they have appointed Democrats to every apointed position possible.

In 2022, over a hundred voting places were not issued enough ballots to match their previous number of voters. State law requires that sufficient ballots to match the precious election's turnout a polling place . . .plus 20% . . .be provided prior to the election. When the poll workers called in for more balots none were sent out. Polls closed hours early with long lines waiting to vote.

Oddly, only a few of these voting stations that were starved of ballots were in areas that historically vote Democrat . . .nearly all of them were in Republican leaning areas.

If that is not a rigged election, I don;t know what would be.

Almost sounds like closing polling places frequented by minorities and democrats. Or providing fewer machines at minority polling places causing long lines and other issues vs having very short lines in majority areas. Really odd complaint coming from someone that denies voter suppression by republicans across the country.

Its time we began using popular vote Originally Posted by DNinja69

States are allowed to run their own elections but to prevent fraud in presidential elections they only get their electoral votes based on population. All the crying about Hillary winning the popular vote came from her 3 million "extra votes" in California. Nobody wants that cesspool of crime being exported nation wide
https://www.investors.com/politics/c...om-california/

States are allowed to run their own elections but to prevent fraud in presidential elections they only get their electoral votes based on population. [/URL] Originally Posted by LayingPipe

well, this was done in all the states that the GOPhers were questioning, like PA, WI, NV, AZ, GA, and yet all those were run by states and approved by the secretary of those states as valid; Yet here we are with the GOP still moaning and groaning that there is fraud.

Essentially- GOP says
"lets let more power get back to the states", (unless the outcome isn't what we want as a party, then we'll flame the state, their processes, accuse them of being RINO's and then condemn the entire outcome as a fraud!)

Sound about right?!

I must not quite understand something:

So, the majority does not "win"? Lets look at it another way. If a sporting event closes with one team scoring 40% fewer points, goals, runs or whatever, and the other team manages to rack up 60% of the relevant scoring . . .they split the win 40/60 and share the championship proportionately?

Does winner-take-all disenfranchise one set of fans over those who support what has been traditionally viewed as the winner?

This sort of political vote splitting seems more like everyone-gets-a trophy kid soccer to me. Originally Posted by ICU 812

We are talking about apples and oranges. Sorry that you aren't able to keep up. Winner takes all, is fine; as long as you are talking about representative votes. The facts remain that voters in a general election are NOT represented by ANY process that voids their vote by a susbset majority.

Think of it this way, if you did 90% of your job well, and got a bonus based on how you did your job, and 10% of that job was done at a lesser standard; should you get zero bonus, and would that 10% negate the rest of the performance. NOPE. That's why most companies with bonus structures have pro-rated concentrations for bonuses etc. and you can not lose a bonus entirely if you fail to meet anything but 100% of all objectives. Those types of structures last about a year in most places I've worked at cause nobody is going to agree to a subjective/ and possible loss of credit for the good work done/ or in this case the votes cast were tossed out accordingly.

The winner takes all mindset, in electoral votes, is a primitive one in politics, and is DEFINITELY one that leaves disenfranchised voters; If you think that the electoral college process is a fair one; I'd argue that it was really to ensure that smaller states still had a vote in the process of elections vs. being fair. More-so, why do larger populus states continue to gain more electoral votes if that is truely fair. This old mindset has really run it's course and EV's should be more representative of how the population has voted overall. How many ppl bemoan the outcomes based on exactly this inaccurate reflection of voters intent. Hell, it's likely why most people stay home instead of voting, cause they really feel like their vote doesn't count. And to some extent, they are right. Especially in states where a super delegate etc., can really vote anyway they want. That's fucking horsecrap.

Republicans have on several occasions suggested that electoral votes be determined by congressional district. In fact in some states it works exactly that way. However, with population being mobile and an inability to control the census as they’d hoped, they’ve given up that idea.

I’ve never seen a republican proposal regarding voting that would better represent the will of the people. Likely because they realize that except for in the stix and backwoods, they are the minority and most of their thinking and values are not representative of the majority of Americans

Republicans can make whatever claims about democrats they want, but it’s difficult to say with a straight face that they try to minimize Republican votes. Democrats actually believe that if everyone gets to vote (every citizen that’s eligible) democrats win. Republicans want to limit the votes because ultimately they’ll lose when more votes are cast. This has been consistently the way things have worked.

What republicans seem to forget is that initially this was never about parties (those didn’t really form fully until the Jefferson/Hamilton split). In fact the president and VP were the 1st and 2nd vote getters. This was about states and protecting the small farm states of the south and “west” from the more populous industrial states of the NE. Nothing to do with liberal v conservative.

Currently, every county official, elected and appointed, with anything to do with administering or implementing
the 2022 elections in Harris County are under criminal felony indictment.

The efforts to rig the midterm election was that blatant.

Oh the irony of your position. So is the Texas AG. And the US president and his cronies in GA and Michigan . Not at all surprising.

What about the Republican, democracy vote however that want. Vote Republican than..

Oh the irony of your position. So is the Texas AG. And the US president and his cronies in GA and Michigan . Not at all surprising. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I am sorry, but your post is not clear to me ("its not you its me). Please rephrase and expand what you have said.

Do you mean that just the fact that one has been indicted is not poof of of wrong doing? If so, I woud agree with that.

I was attempting to emphasize the scale of the systematic "irregularities that skewed the midterm result in Harris County.

How about this. Trump and the republicans have been indicted for a multi state scheme to try and overturn an election, which you have no issue with but you can somehow see and complain about some local folks doing something that you’re ok with the president and his cronies doing.

Almost sounds like closing polling places frequented by minorities and democrats. Or providing fewer machines at minority polling places causing long lines and other issues vs having very short lines in majority areas. Really odd complaint coming from someone that denies voter suppression by republicans across the country. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I don't believe this happens very often. To the extent that it does, it would be backfiring on Republicans now. Historically Republicans were more fired up to go vote than Democrats, particularly for midterm elections. And Republicans outperformed pre-election polls. Now, since the 2020 election it's swung the other way. Democrats are mad as hell, and are more willing to go out of their way to vote than Republicans. Look at the Georgia Senate runoffs. Or the 2022 midterms. This will persist as long as Trump is the figurehead of the Republican Party.

Again, I believe you're bringing up a non-issue. But if you are right, it may very well turn out like the Citizens United Ruling. Republicans figured it would give them an edge in getting dark money contributions, but it ended up helping Democrats more.

Finally, if Republicans are gaming the system by making voting more difficult in blue precincts, Democrats probably are doing the same in red precincts.

I’ve never seen a republican proposal regarding voting that would better represent the will of the people. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Well, in many states, it's the will of the majority of the people that strong safeguards against voter fraud exist. They may include photo Voter ID (favored by 80% of Americans) and restrictions on mail in voting.

I don't have a problem with this. First, it gives the paranoid among us more confidence in elections. And, the Republicans may have a minor point. I've been through the Heritage database of recent voting fraud violations a couple of times, and from memory, about 70% of the violators are Democrats, where party affiliation is indicated. In most instances the violations aren't significant enough to overturn an election, and the couple of instances I remember where they did make a difference, it was for a podunk local office. Admittedly the database may have a pro-Republican bias.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Likely because they realize that except for in the stix and backwoods, they are the minority and most of their thinking and values are not representative of the majority of Americans....Republicans want to limit the votes because ultimately they’ll lose when more votes are cast. This has been consistently the way things have worked. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

America is a lot more closely divided than you think. The last election where the winner received over 54% of the popular vote was in 1984.

The "thinking and values" of the increasingly Progressive Democratic Party are in no way representative of the views of the vast majority in my community. Undoubtedly people in San Francisco and Boston don't want to be governed by policies passed by a bunch of Southerners either. The solution: more power should be ceded to the states and, better yet, communities.