The hypocrisy of the Democratic Party

[Judean Zealot]

Alright everybody, pop-quiz.

Q) Which is an example of the undermining of 'the right to vote'?

1) Requiring voters to show proof of identity.
2) Using superdelegates against the popular vote of the State.

The hypocrisy is strong, Hillary.

[phuckphace]

requiring voters to have an ID means fewer votes for the Democrats since apparently IDs are harder to obtain for """""the disadvantaged""""" (a large portion of the Dem electorate)

it's not going to be a concern for too much longer though. she only needs to superdelegate her way into the Oval office in November, and then she'll be able to secure unlimited Democratic votes through amnesty.

(funfact: Reagan's amnesty in the 80s was a huge inducement for more illegal immigration.)

[Vlerchan]

Would someone be able to explain to me what superdelegates are and how they work.

(funfact: Reagan's amnesty in the 80s was a huge inducement for more illegal immigration.)
Funner fact: This effect has never been substantiated. The literature seems to indicate that it had no impact on the actual trend.

---

I'll add though that if this is a repeated game where agents learn then the impact of one iteration might not necessarily follow in the next. I'm sceptical though.

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan

Basically, around 20% of the Democratic delegates are not bound to the vote of the people. Most of them have already pledged to support Hillary over Sanders. As a result, Sanders and Hillary both got an equal amount of delegates from New Hampshire, despite Bernie's blowout win.

[Uniquemind]

Vlerchan

Basically, around 20% of the Democratic delegates are not bound to the vote of the people. Most of them have already pledged to support Hillary over Sanders. As a result, Sanders and Hillary both got an equal amount of delegates from New Hampshire, despite Bernie's blowout win.

You should watch Rachel Maddow of MSNBC she goes into the math of delegates and superdelegates with explanations of what they are very well.

Vlerchan they're basically votes of the electoral college system that ultimately determines the presidency.

They in theory are supposed to guard against mob mentality voting, hence why popular vote can technically be overruled.

As for New Hampshire their are only two undecided delegates. Other than that it is a 50/50 tie.

[Judean Zealot]

Just to clarify, I've got nothing against the principle - anyone who's spent any amount of time here knows how much I dislike democracy in general - but the democratic "outrage" over Republican "voter suppression" just disgusts me.

"Sure, we Democrats let everyone vote, we just don't really care what they say!"

[Uniquemind]

Just to clarify, I've got nothing against the principle - anyone who's spent any amount of time here knows how much I dislike democracy in general - but the democratic "outrage" over Republican "voter suppression" just disgusts me.

"Sure, we Democrats let everyone vote, we just don't really care what they say!"

That's a strawman. But I don't have time to debate it right now.

New Hampshire had a voter ID law and it wasn't a problem, but in other states....well let's just say in the last few elections, there was a problem because every other state legislature has a different state-culture, and party head.

There definitely were older folks who voted in the past who couldn't get their ID in other states.

[Porpoise101]

I'm for voter IDs as long as the government distributes them to every person. Doing that would be possible, but expensive.

As for superdelegates, they are just doing the will of the party, which is to keep a status quo candidate in line.

[phuckphace]

Funner fact: This effect has never been substantiated. The literature seems to indicate that it had no impact on the actual trend.

"ayyy vato, did you hear de gringos are giving away free citizenship?"

the literature also indicates that moving the entire populace of Mexico to the US would be double-plus-bueno, although we here in real life tend to be skeptical of the Taco Coefficient.

[Vlerchan]

"ayyy vato, did you hear de gringos are giving away free citizenship?"
The U.S. is currently seeing a net outflow of illegal immigrants despite Obama calling for amnesty.

the literature also indicates that moving the entire populace of Mexico to the US would be double-plus-bueno, although we here in real life tend to be skeptical of the Taco Coefficient.
Here's a recent paper on genetic distance and intrastate conflict (Arbatli, Ashraf and Galor 2015) (https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079) which would indicate that importing Mexico might be bad idea.

I'm sceptical economists have the tools to tackle these questions substantively but there's definitely no sort of in-built pro-globalisation bias in the profession.

[Porpoise101]

The U.S. is currently seeing a net outflow of illegal immigrants despite Obama calling for amnesty.
That is true. Less Mexicans are coming nowadays; there are more leaving than coming to the US. But more Central Americans are starting to come. For them, there is an amnesty program in place as of a few weeks ago if I'm right.

[Vlerchan]

That is true. Less Mexicans are coming nowadays; there are more leaving than coming to the US. But more Central Americans are starting to come. For them, there is an amnesty program in place as of a few weeks ago if I'm right.
I don't believe that's actually been implemented. I know there's been calls for it but I haven't seen it reported that it's been implemented.

[Porpoise101]

I don't believe that's actually been implemented. I know there's been calls for it but I haven't seen it reported that it's been implemented.
I remember posting it on VT daily chronicle. Here is the story:http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/13/central-america-refugees-united-states-migrants-admission-john-kerry

[DriveAlive]

The reason why I am not entirely opposed to a wall being built is not for the illegals, but rather to stop the drug traffic. I think that is the real problem America faces from having such an unprotected border.

[Vlerchan]

I remember posting it on VT daily chronicle. Here is the story:http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/13/central-america-refugees-united-states-migrants-admission-john-kerry
That's different to what's being offered to Mexicans. The understanding I have is that it's rather granting access to them as refugees [i.e. non-permanent residence].

[Porpoise101]

That's different to what's being offered to Mexicans. The understanding I have is that it's rather granting access to them as refugees [i.e. non-permanent residence].
That is true I suppose. I think the same should be afforded to the Mexicans as many are fleeing war like conditions that in some ways, are as bad as Syria. In terms of mass violence Syria and Mexico, followed by Iraq and China, are on par.