Rigging The System With Super-Delegates

Bernie's campaign is founded on the idea that Americans are sick & tired of a political system that's "rigged" to insure that the elites maintain control over the masses and the "official results" of last night's caucus is a perfect example of what he's talking about.

After sitting up all night watching the caucus coverage unfold, one thing became very clear. Among the "masses," the Democrats were split right down the middle between Hillary and Bernie.

The final state delegate equivalency numbers were Hillary 699 to Bernie's 695. Problem is, according to news reports 5 of those in Hillary's column were won by the toss of a coin.

If you were to take those 5 coin toss votes and split them evenly between the two candidates, it would have been Hillary 696 1/2 to Bernie's 697 1/2.

So, by the "people's vote," it wasn't just a virtual tie like Bernie said during his speech last night, it was a literal tie!

YET, when it's all said & done and despite the obvious tie, Hillary ends up getting awarded with 9 delegates more than Bernie.

Talk about a rigged system!

The issue of Super-delegates lies at the core of how our system has been rigged to insure establishment control over the masses and it couldn't have been highlighted in any better fashion than it was last night.

IMO, Bernie needs to speak about what happened last night and use it as a prime example of how the system is rigged, capitalizing on that fact to build even more support for his movement.

I'm hoping that last night's caucus results turn the term "Superdelegates" into Google's most searched "word of the month."

If Bernie is smart, he can use what happened last night to show precisely how a rigged system is robbing the people of their will and utilize that fact to build and re-energize the movement to demand systematic, institutional reform of our political system.

If anyone can turn last night's caucus returns into a victory, it's Bernie Sanders.

a reply to: Flatfish

For arguments sakes let us say Sanders won the tosses. Would Hilldog then be justified in claiming the system was rigged against her?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Flatfish

For arguments sakes let us say Sanders won the tosses. Would Hilldog then be justified in claiming the system was rigged against her?

I would say that any system that awards any kind of advantage to either side of a tied race is rigged and either side would be justified in objecting to such a policy.

a reply to: Flatfish

Well, those are the rules they both agreed to prior to participating in the caucus so crying about it afterwards is just sour grapes.

I wouldn't worry to much, I consider it a win despite the results. In the beginning, Hillary knew she was going to be president. Now near the middle of campaigning Bernie is a real threat and his numbers continue to surge.

Let's just hope he slams her in NH delegates and continues his trend of popularity. If all that happens, Bernie has a real shot at POTUS.

a reply to: Flatfish

I have no idea what age you are, but.....I'd guess you're relatively young.

What you are learning by observation and the exercise of due diligence, (which I applaud), is that elections in the US are routinely stolen by one artifice or another. And no one on the face of the earth knows more about how to steal an election than does Hillary Clinton and Bill. They are the absolute masters of manipulating the various systems and as the Democrat party "establishment" insider couple, they have all of the dirty tricks in the Democrat party bag of dirty tricks at their disposal.

a reply to: TonyS
Not disagreeing with your overall point but I find it disingenuous to limit your soapbox discourse to those evil Democrats. Are you implying that the Republicans are all sweetness and light? Are you old enough to remember Watergate? hanging chads? GMAFB

originally posted by: amicktd
I wouldn't worry to much, I consider it a win despite the results. In the beginning, Hillary knew she was going to be president. Now near the middle of campaigning Bernie is a real threat and his numbers continue to surge.

Let's just hope he slams her in NH delegates and continues his trend of popularity. If all that happens, Bernie has a real shot at POTUS.

I couldn't agree more.

This can't really be viewed as anything other than a win for Bernie and I actually think last night's results could be used to build on his momentum.

I just wanted to point out the fact that super-delegates are one of the "primary" tools used by the establishment to rig the system and maintain control over their minions.

Any time a "system" can turn a literal tie into a 9 point advantage for one side, the "system" is clearly rigged and the Bernie revolution needs to stay alert, recognize it for what it is and make it an issue.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: amicktd
I wouldn't worry to much, I consider it a win despite the results. In the beginning, Hillary knew she was going to be president. Now near the middle of campaigning Bernie is a real threat and his numbers continue to surge.

Let's just hope he slams her in NH delegates and continues his trend of popularity. If all that happens, Bernie has a real shot at POTUS.

I couldn't agree more.

This can't really be viewed as anything other than a win for Bernie and I actually think last night's results could be used to build on his momentum.

I just wanted to point out the fact that super-delegates are one of the "primary" tools used by the establishment to rig the system and maintain control over their minions.

Any time a "system" can turn a literal tie into a 9 point advantage for one side, the "system" is clearly rigged and the Bernie revolution needs to stay alert, recognize it for what it is and make it an issue.

Well, from what I've heard Bernie agreed to a coin toss. What I'm taking away from it is the fact that nobody can ignore Bernie anymore. He will most likely start getting more coverage from the media, Hillary still has an investigation going on, and if Bernie can stick to talking policy, I honestly think he should have it in the bag.

There are still a lot of people that don't know Bernie is even in the race. So let's continue to get his name out to friends and family at a minimum.

a reply to: Flatfish

I almost posted on the superdelegate system. There is nothing less democratic than that. The DNC Establishment chooses their own nominee.

a reply to: jtma508

No, I haven't forgotten the Republican issues although the hanging chads was somewhat offset by the Democrat burying of the votes of US Service people serving overseas. The Republicans aren't Saints by any means, but what I see them more doing is skillfully manipulating the Gerrymandering process.

However, its been my observation that the Democrats have it all over the Republicans in two regards. One, they have incredibly complex and arcane "party" rules concerning election, selection and voting of Delegates at their conventions. Second, its widely accepted that vote fraud is rampant in many of the Democrat controlled urban precincts. Remember ACORN registering Mickey Mouse to vote? I didn't call the Democrats evil.........what I'm saying is that by virtue of their control of the Urban areas, they just have a lot more to work with in terms of rigging elections. They've been successfully doing that since LBJ helped JFK carry Texas by counting the votes of dead people from rural Texas counties.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Flatfish

I have no idea what age you are, but.....I'd guess you're relatively young.

What you are learning by observation and the exercise of due diligence, (which I applaud), is that elections in the US are routinely stolen by one artifice or another. And no one on the face of the earth knows more about how to steal an election than does Hillary Clinton and Bill. They are the absolute masters of manipulating the various systems and as the Democrat party "establishment" insider couple, they have all of the dirty tricks in the Democrat party bag of dirty tricks at their disposal.

If they were such "masters" of manipulation as you state, we would not have had Obama the last seven years.

Every candidate knows the rules before they play the game. Ignorant new voters are like ignorant card players who get taken for all their money at a poker table the first time, and it always makes for great entertainment.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Flatfish

Well, those are the rules they both agreed to prior to participating in the caucus so crying about it afterwards is just sour grapes.

Who's crying? I'm certainly not!

I already knew that Hillary had a bunch of "unpledged Super-delegates" committed to support her campaign. (As if it's not ironic enough that, "unpledged" delegates go around endorsing candidates prior to the primaries)

The fact that they would award ALL of their "pledged" super-delegates to one side of a tied race based on a coin toss is beyond being rigged, it more like a slap in the face.

It's my understanding that Obama used the same tactic with the "unpledged super-delegates" when he beat Hillary in 08. I didn't know it at the time he did it, but it was wrong then and it's wrong now.

It's one of those things that's needs to be fixed if we want our government back and in order to fix it, first we have to wake up and recognize it for what it is.

I'm hoping that what happened last night can serve as the "slap in the face" that's needed to bring this issue into the light of day.

Everything has it's time.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Flatfish

I have no idea what age you are, but.....I'd guess you're relatively young.

What you are learning by observation and the exercise of due diligence, (which I applaud), is that elections in the US are routinely stolen by one artifice or another. And no one on the face of the earth knows more about how to steal an election than does Hillary Clinton and Bill. They are the absolute masters of manipulating the various systems and as the Democrat party "establishment" insider couple, they have all of the dirty tricks in the Democrat party bag of dirty tricks at their disposal.

I'm almost 60, (it's the new young) and I'm well aware of the Clinton machine.

Also, there ARE indeed people who know more about winning elections than the Clintons and we know this to be a fact, because Obama beat the pants off of them in 08.

I don't know if Obama would have won or not without capturing super-delegate commitments prior to the primaries in 08, but any system that allows for individual delegates to vote in opposition to the will of their voters is rigged and needs to be fixed.

Much less, a system that awards ALL of it's pledged super-delegates to one side of a tied race.

a reply to: Flatfish

I don't know if Obama would have won or not without capturing super-delegate commitments prior to the primaries in 08, but any system that allows for individual delegates to vote in opposition to the will of their voters is rigged and needs to be fixed.

Analysts, pundits and I believe Hilary herself has noted that her BIG mistake in '08 was that she focused on the primary delegates, not the Super Delegates. She did that because she underestimated Obama's appeal.

This time around, she's focused like a laser beam on the Super Delegates and has tied up well over 50% of them as I understand it, thanks in no small part to Debbie Washerman-Schultz, (the all time hottest babe in politics!). So, Hilary has upped her game big time.

a reply to: Flatfish

I actually don't think Bernie should talk about the system being rigged.

He is becoming huge, due to the PEOPLE.

Not the media.
Not some dumb-ass hip hop star.
Not from SUPER-PACS.

Look at his twitter, look at every poll after democratic debates, look at his numbers in Iowa - I really think people seeing that he is a viable candidate will have him winning by landslides in other places - Especially NH, which is next.

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: TonyS
Not disagreeing with your overall point but I find it disingenuous to limit your soapbox discourse to those evil Democrats. Are you implying that the Republicans are all sweetness and light? Are you old enough to remember Watergate? hanging chads? GMAFB

You don't have to go back that far. Just look at last night. Cruz stole some of Ben Carson's voters by falsely claiming Carson had suspended his campaign so therefore they should vote for Cruz.

"Carson Accuses Cruz Camp of FOUL PLAY – Told Voters Carson Was Dropping Out — WITH PROOF!"
www.thegatewaypundit.com...

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Flatfish

I actually don't think Bernie should talk about the system being rigged.

He is becoming huge, due to the PEOPLE.

Not the media.
Not some dumb-ass hip hop star.
Not from SUPER-PACS.

Look at his twitter, look at every poll after democratic debates, look at his numbers in Iowa - I really think people seeing that he is a viable candidate will have him winning by landslides in other places - Especially NH, which is next.

His entire campaign is based on the fact that our political system is "rigged" and needs fixing.

Hell, he even said so again during his speech last night.

That IS the issue!

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Flatfish

I don't know if Obama would have won or not without capturing super-delegate commitments prior to the primaries in 08, but any system that allows for individual delegates to vote in opposition to the will of their voters is rigged and needs to be fixed.

Analysts, pundits and I believe Hilary herself has noted that her BIG mistake in '08 was that she focused on the primary delegates, not the Super Delegates. She did that because she underestimated Obama's appeal.

This time around, she's focused like a laser beam on the Super Delegates and has tied up well over 50% of them as I understand it, thanks in no small part to Debbie Washerman-Schultz, (the all time hottest babe in politics!). So, Hilary has upped her game big time.

I'm not arguing about the fact that Obama did it, or that Hillary is doing it.

What I'm saying is that it's wrong, it's one of the many ways our system is rigged to insure that establishment, special interest politicians remain in control.

The first step to ending a corruptive policy is to recognize it for what it is and that's the purpose of this thread.

originally posted by: Flatfish
Who's crying? I'm certainly not!

It is a euphemism.

The fact that they would award ALL of their "pledged" super-delegates to one side of a tied race based on a coin toss is beyond being rigged, it more like a slap in the face.

How is it rigged? Rigged implies only one person could win and Sanders could have gotten all the coin tosses instead. Would that have been rigged?