The Iowa caucus convener flipped a coin. Bernie Sanders supporters called "heads" and it landed on tails.
The Iowa caucus was neck-and-neck on the Democratic side. With Hillary Clinton leading Bernie Sanders by less than a single percentage across the state, it was nearly a coin toss as to who would win the state. In fact, in one district, it literally came down to a coin toss to determine who would win the…
I wanted to coment, until i realized that i complety agree with Mr wayne...
I would like to know how many Delegate each GOP candidate got ? why should we have to wait and see later at the convention. and these
There were six coin tosses, and somehow Bernie managed to lose ALL of them. What are the odds on that? This primary was a tie, and the delegates should be divided equally, not one candidate getting super-delegates, which should be eliminated from the system anyway. But the system will do anything to maintain the status quo, which means keeping Hillary.
In my view, the Iowa primary was NOT a tie. The purpose of any primary should be to establish, in that state, the actual voting consensus within that party that supports a particular candidate. We all agree this can only be determined by a vote. That said, a coin toss has been inserted into the process as a way to settle a tie vote in any particular district. This all sounds legitimate at first notice but when the coin tosses are multiplied beyond a single toss, then the 'luck of the draw' becomes more determinative of the outcome than does consensus.
Obviously, there were six separate coin tosses in Iowa that night. They represented six tie votes. Of course, honest voter demographics in the Democratic caucus in Iowa could have been reflected by allocating 3 of these ties to each candidate. This did not happen. If it had happened, the result of that primary would have been the opposite of what actually happened: do the math.
In my mind, Democracy is about consensus. Ironically, these six coin tosses seem to have served to undermine the very concept of consensus by adding an inordinate amouint of chance to the equation. Settling a vote by a coin toss does seem legit when the whole vote comes down to a tie and we are left with no other way to break said tie. That said, a coin toss acctually does seem to support consensus whenever one, or all, districts are tied. In those cases, only a coin toss can decide where that 'last' vote will go.
In cases where there are multiple ties, demographics are suppported when the multiple ties are evenly apportioned between candidates. If the number of ties are odd, rather than even, the remaining district could legitamately flip a coin as a necessary means to settle the matter.
So, we went to a lot of effort to have a meaningful Iowa democratic caucus. Much money and time was spent and many citizens were encouraged to participate in a process that was - at least seemingly - ruined by six bull-shit coin tosses that rendered the whole process invalid as it reversed the outcome to the opposite of what it would have been if undertaken with more than just a nod toward legitimacy.
Iowa's caucus was, therefore, invalid as a means of showing an actual consensus within the Democratic party. The delegates assigned to each candidate as a result of this fake consensus have actually caused the outcome to be reversed. This makes it hard for me to vote as a 'Democrat' in an election, since the Democratic party seems to have sneaky crap like this built into its own electoral process. I expect this kind of crap from Republicans only because I don't seee them as a legitimate governing philosophy in the first place; it is why I don't vote for them, among other things.
So, I'm a Bernie fan. I'm watching this process and I've never voted before. I'm seeing him lose delegates in Iowa over a coin toss that overrules consensus and I'm also watching him having to suffer a 50/50 delegate appropriation after actually winning another caucus's vote. This is causing me to view the entire Democratic party's process for determining whom they (we) will put up for election as possibly subverted. It now seems an "insiders only" function; as if it were merely a sub-set of the opposition.
As a member of the voting public, I feel used. I'll vote for Sanders because I feel he has a consistant record and his position is clearly stated. He seems to represent the concept of 'truth in packaging' in a political leader, his intentions appear to be sincere and history agrees with him. Since he had to run on the Democratic ticket I'll vote Democrat. If he is not on the ticket I won't vote. I don't want Hillary in the White House again and the simple fact that someone is a Democrat will never be the reason I vote.
The Democratic party needs to clean up its act if it wants my vote. I won't vote for Clinton just because I'm (rightfully) afraid of a Trump in office. Trump may very well throw us all into a geopolitical tailspin immediately upon election and maybe that will be required in order for the american people to take back the reigns of power. That would be a shame but at least everyone could rapidly see the problem for what it really is and use that clarity in the search for a proper solution. Clinton could sell us out to the banksters (again) in another series of "private" meetings while going about her 'stated' goals in a manner calculated not to succeed: thus preserving the status quo but still maintaining her image as a progressive 'fighting for change'. I don't trust her.
As a citizen who feels appalled by the lack of social equality and justice in my country, I badly need a Bernie Sanders, or someone like him, high up in government where he may be able to guard our liberty and promote fairness in governance. Hillary Clinton, in my view, will continue to promote whatever image the Clinton political machine determines will make her the most appealing to the public, while privately meeting with 'big money' power brokers in closed sessions to discuss matters she refuses to disclose to the very public she claims to serve..... and gets paid sums that far outweigh the government salary we are paying her at the same time. Her only excuse seems to be that 'everyone does it', with respect to these kinds of 'speaking engagements', and we're all just expected to accept that on its face. She can accept more money for an afternoon of talking to a bunch of corrupt banksters than most citizens here earn in their adult life and if we ask her to explain what this was all about, she pretends the question is unfair. I am personally not that naive. At every turn, Ms. Clinton seems to benefit, not from the vote or an actual consensus, but from the internal machinery of the political process within her party and via her insider connections. I see that crap as the actual problem.
The fact that the Democratic primary has been subverted by multiple coin tosses and independant superdelegates to the point that the outcome does not reflect the popular vote is more than just embarassing. It paints a picture of 'old boy' politicians in the ranks who need a quietly rigged game that only allows real democracy to prevail as long as the winner is one of their own..... "outsiders" are 'adjusted out' of the electoral process.
We badly need to elect a good person to our highest office. He or she can call themselves a Democrat, Republican, Socialist or independant - for all I care. There is much talk on "The Big Picture" and elsewhere about how folks will support Hillary if Bernie is not chosen by the party..... Democratic solidarity? It almost seems as if the Dems are merely using Sanders to increase voter turn-out while certain insiders are simply growing those voters like a 'crop' they can turn over to Hillary once they've eased Sanders out of the picture. In my opinion, this whole mess has made me view Hillary Clinton much like a Trojan horse. My vote lives - or dies - with Bernie Sanders.