Ahmed Bin S wrote:I think whether Sanders is or isn't a Democrat is a bit more nuanced.
I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent, but I caucus with the Democrats
[OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
fred rosenberger wrote:Superdelegate for all future elections while he/she is still alive or the DNC charter is amended.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:
To me, that seems like you are voting for A and B at the same time. And in this case, that B is a subset of A.
Let's take a non-political example. Suppose we run a binding poll on the ranch and the choices are:
Jeanne should remain a Marshall at the Ranch Jeanne should remain as a non-moderator member of the Ranch Jeanne should be banned from the Ranch
Since a Marshall is a moderator plus some of other stuff, that makes being a moderator a subset. And something that is implicitly being voted on.
[OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Ahmed Bin S wrote:I am voting for Jeanne to be the owner, the fact she will also get the super-voter role by virtue of becoming the owner is something that is beyond my control and something I did not vote for.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Winston Gutkowski wrote:just as the Veep (if memory serves) has a casting vote in the Senate.
[OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:Ahmed,
You did though. You didn't like the rules of the game. You might not be aware of the rules of the game in the hypothetical scenario. But you did vote for me as the lesser of two evils including all the responsibilities and benefits that come with it.
Winston Gutkowski wrote: But if, when you voted, you knew she would be given that power, it can be argued that you voted for it "by proxy".
[OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Ahmed Bin S wrote:And the same is true of superdelegates. In the very strict formal sense, you can argue they were "elected" to that position "by proxy". In the context of what being elected to a position means, no one can reasonably argue that superdelegates were elected to that position.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Winston Gutkowski wrote: You can't claim afterwards that you don't like it
[OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Erm, sorry. Either you accept my definition of "by proxy" or you don't. And TBH, I don't follow the "taxi driver" analogy at all.
Either the power - superdelegate, C-in-C, or otherwise - was part of the office you voted them for or not. You can't claim afterwards that you don't like it
Not that being unlelected is necessarily a bad thing, but that's another debate...![]()
Winston
Jeanna Boyarsky wrote:
Our social and fiscal contract is that we can't cherry pick what we pay taxes on or support everything our leaders do. And as you noted, we can't be for everything a candidate does.
Ahmed Bin S wrote:I don't think you understood my post at how natural language differs from formal language - I think I'm just too wordy and not good at explaining myself
![]()
Paul Clapham wrote:
Ahmed Bin S wrote:I don't think you understood my post at how natural language differs from formal language - I think I'm just too wordy and not good at explaining myself
![]()
It's true that there are different registers of language. There's formal language and then there's informal language, in various degrees. But I don't think there's a dichotomy between natural language and formal language. So let me assume that you were contrasting formal and informal language. But when I look back, you're just quibbling about various definitions of "elected". There's no formal/informal difference here, there's just a difference between what people will accept as somebody's being "elected".
So yeah, superdelegates weren't elected directly to the position of superdelegate by the rank and file of the Democratic party. They may however have been elected to some other position, maybe by some other Democratic Party-associated organization. So there's a lack of information there, maybe a bit of sloppiness. (One might suggest that sloppiness implies informality, though.) But I don't see that the ambiguity merits a full-scale rant.
And then there's the word "democratic". It isn't a word like "virgin" or "perfect" which requires an all-or-nothing process to determine whether it can modify what comes next. All kinds of things can be called "democratic" even if there's a whiff of autocracy, or even a stink of autocracy. So again I don't understand why the rant.
Ahmed Bin S wrote:Similarly, the process where being elected as President in 1996 automatically gives you the position of a superdelegate is, to most people, undemocratic.
Paul Clapham wrote:
Ahmed Bin S wrote:Similarly, the process where being elected as President in 1996 automatically gives you the position of a superdelegate is, to most people, undemocratic.
Sure. But on a scale of undemocraticness it's a lot lower than the elections in Iran and infinitely lower than those in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (a.k.a. North Korea).
Stevens Miller wrote:This year, we are seeing what it means when a party's leadership lacks the control necessary to fulfill that duty. We are seeing the nomination of Donald Trump.
I don't get it. A whale wearing overalls? How does that even work? It's like a tiny ad wearing overalls.
Free, earth friendly heat - from the CodeRanch trailboss
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/free-heat
|