Will Bernie give back delegates to conform to Washington primary vote totals? Clinton 54%

[Bill USA]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/1857/11/washington-primary-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/484313/?preview=Sr5dG80pNO20P61h4ABEZNMQwGo&utm_source=atlfb

Washington voters delivered a bit of bad news for Bernie Sanders’s political revolution on Tuesday. Hillary Clinton won the state’s Democratic primary, symbolically reversing the outcome of the state’s Democratic caucus in March where Sanders prevailed as the victor. The primary result won’t count for much since delegates have already been awarded based on the caucus. (Sanders won 74 delegates, while Clinton won only 27.) But Clinton’s victory nevertheless puts Sanders in an awkward position.

Sanders has styled himself as a populist candidate intent on giving a voice to voters in a political system in which, as he describes it, party elites and wealthy special-interest groups exert too much control. As the primary election nears its end, Sanders has railed against Democratic leaders for unfairly intervening in the process, a claim he made in the aftermath of the contentious Nevada Democratic convention earlier this month. He has also criticized superdelegates—elected officials and party leaders who can support whichever candidate they chose—for effectively coronating Clinton.

As Sanders makes those arguments, he runs up against a few inconvenient realities. He trails Clinton in the popular-vote count and has performed well in caucuses, which consistently witness depressed voter turnout relative to primary elections. What happened in Washington is a painful reminder of this for the campaign: Far more voters took part in Washington’s Democratic primary than its state caucus, preliminary counts indicate. Roughly 230,000 people participated in the Democratic caucus, The Stranger reported in March. In contrast, more than 660,000 Democratic votes had been tallied in the primary as of Tuesday, according to The Seattle Times. That lopsided reality makes it more difficult for Sanders to argue that his candidacy represents the will of the people.

But based on Washington caucuses, Bernie was awarded 74 delegates and Clinton 27. But if you go by the Washington primary popular vote Clinton won 54% to Bernie's 46%. So if you go by the primary popular vote the delegates should be awarded, Clinton: 55, Sanders: 46.


So, will Bernie bow to the voters and give Clinton the delegates she should get based on the vote of the people of Washington?

Ha-ha-HA. DON'T BET ON IT!

[msongs]

1. bernie and his crowd only believe in the will of the people when it benefits THEM nt

[highprincipleswork]

2. Why should he? That wasn't how the Washington vote was set-up.

[mythology]

14. This

The rules were simple. The caucus counted and the primary didn't. Granted having both seems like a giant waste of money, but changing the rules in the middle is stupid and unfair.

Sanders is able to get his supporters to the polls in caucuses much better than Clinton for whatever reason. She also struggled in them against Obama.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Nope, what part of this primary is non binding did you miss

[Skwmom]

4. Clinton and her party machine were the only players in the beauty contest so NO.

[KPN]

5. Lol. ... Ridiculous!

Totally discount that the WA vote was artificial, without meaning and therefore absent incentive to turn out unless you happened to want to register your symbolic protest of the landslide caucus results, why don't you?

[Bill USA]

7. Washington primary votes are 'artificial' ... a new kind of vote suppression? . if they're not 4 our

.. candidate they are fake votes. Wow!

The (Sanders) campaign has not had the same zeal for reforming other elements of the process that might also be described as undemocratic. That would include the caucus system, where it is generally more difficult for people to vote than primaries.

[KPN]

19. Wow???? Really??? Did it count as a primary vote???

No! It didn't count, it wasn't real. It wasn't a real primary vote ... is that better?

You folks are just being absolutely ridiculous in trying to make that case. Sanders won the Washington primary in a landslide. It wasn't even close. If they had held a vote instead of a caucus, Bernie would have won that in the same landslide -- just like he won Oregon.

You have the front-runner, but you're obviously not comfortable with the lead. Why else would you run with idiotic claims like this one?

[Bill USA]

24. You really should read the OP before commenting....see excerpt:

"Washington voters delivered a bit of bad news for Bernie Sanders’s political revolution on Tuesday. Hillary Clinton won the state’s Democratic primary"

Roughly 230,000 people participated in the Democratic caucus, The Stranger reported in March. In contrast, more than 660,000 Democratic votes had been tallied in the primary as of Tuesday, according to The Seattle Times.

[KPN]

30. Lol!!! I did. You really should

look up a couple of basic things: WA State official primary results (Bernie carried 73% of the vote), and #of registered voters in WA (230,000 is a tiny fraction of the nearly 5.4 million registered in 2014).

Bernie supporters didn't waste their time with the symbolic vote that WA held last week to complete the Republican primary.

But go ahead and enjoy the fantasy.

[Tarc]

6. Of course he won't, but remember to cite this the next time a Sandersfan screams about

"the superdelegates should be bound to the state result!"

[Bluenorthwest]

12. The State result is determined by the caucus, that's the case because the Democratic Party

insisted upon that right by suing the State when the State wanted a primary instead. So the Democratic Party allots delegates using the caucus, by their own choice. I thought Team Hillary was never critical of Party choices, that they found the very idea of questioning practices in the States to be an act of wild eyed rebellion.

[Tarc]

15. The point was missed, I believe

Yes, rules are rules, so even though by a fair one-person-one-vote system showing that Washington St. prefers Hillary, they have to abide by the silly & antiquated caucus results. It is what it is.

Rules are also rules for superdelegates, so every time some Berniefan has a hissy fit over, say, Al Franken endorsing Hillary despite Sanders winning Minnesota, they have no leg to stand on. I mean, we already knew they had no leg to stand on, but this reinforces the point.

[woolldog]

9. The rules are rigged against Hillary.

[silvershadow]

16. Um, no. They are just the rules we all agreed to. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

10. The Democratic Party sued the State of Washington to demand they be allowed to use a caucus

to allot their delegates. They made a case in court that they should be allowed to do so. This is why they have a caucus, the Party wanted it that way. How could they then allot delegates according to a Primary outcome they have litigated to make moot?
This is a very strong criticism of the Party you offer here. You accuse them of countering the will of the people when just days ago, in Nevada, Camp Clinton was claiming to BE the Party, loyal to the core. Apparently that is not the case at all.

[BzaDem]

11. If you are going to complain that "the rules are the rules," then you can't really complain when the

super-delegates (who are permitted by the rules to vote for whomever they please) vote for the candidate that won a much higher-turnout primary. Goose, gander, etc.

(Of course, one can complain about anything. But such complaints shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.)

[tritsofme]

13. No, but this incident illustrates perfectly why caucuses should be totally banned starting in 2020.

Caucuses are unrepresentative and undemocratic, they do not allow a secret ballot, and disenfranchise huge numbers especially working people. This is not an acceptable method for choosing a Democratic nominee. All states should hold primary elections.

[Agschmid]

18. Yup.

[R B Garr]

23. Absolutely. It's staggering just looking at the numbers for Washington:

26,000 caucus participation

Over 700,000 in the primary.

As one Washington TV station clip shown on Maddow said last night, obviously more people are comfortable mailing in a ballot than showing up to a caucus.

No one should be subjected to potential hostility and intimidation at a caucus that makes them stay home. And that doesn't even cover those that just can't take time off of work, or any other reasons they can't caucus.

[Commander Keen]

17. No. It's non-binding

You can thank the WA Legislature for overriding the voters' intent for a primary.

You can't exactly make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[Hortensis]

29. Sure. Of course, tho, this is about Bernie's principles!

He cannot give away delegates allocated according to party rules, but he could rage from the stage at the un-democratic "rigging" that handed dozens of Washington's delegates to the wrong candidate--him. Shouldn't he? We won't be holding our breaths, though.

Washington may just switch to a primary system after this, however, and that's good.

[R B Garr]

20. Interesting! He definitely should give them back to conform to the will of the people!

Give them back, Bernie!

More people voted for Hillary, so be good to your word and give up your delegates to reflect the real percentages.

[Time for change]

21. Primaries are a lot easier to rig than caucuses

There are too many witnesses at a caucus. I think that's the reason that Bernie has done so much better in caucuses than in primaries this year. Until we develop a secure system of vote counting, I think all our contests should be caucuses rather than primaries.

[Vattel]

22. You are assuming that the WA primary would have the same results if it was binding.

That assumption is enormous and, of course, self-serving.

[GreatGazoo]

25. so you want to replace counts of actual people with nonbinding numbers from hackable machines?

73% to 27% still seems generous for Hillary considering....

[aspirant]

27. This is old and tired

Hills tried the same nonsense in 2008 with Michigan and Florida by claiming their primary votes counted.

[99Forever]

28. Google "Non-binding primary" there, Einstein.

[ThePhilosopher04]

31. Exhibition games don't count. Only the real ones.

Also further evidence that computer voting is rigged.