Rigging The System With Super-Delegates

a reply to: Flatfish

Playing victim, though, will make him look weak.

Pushing ahead, saying the system is rigged, is a good idea.

Pushing ahead, saying he only lost Iowa to coin tosses ( Not technically true.. ) would be bad.

I'd call it a tie in any case - With Bernie as the winner, since this is basically Bobby Fisher against a first-time playing chess player.

a reply to: Flatfish

Well, recognizing its rigged and corrupt is all good and such, but..........there's nothing that can really be done about it because its the rich people's game and you know what they say......."Money talks and BS walks".

a reply to: Flatfish

I agree with you.

Microsoft stole this election, since when does Microsoft gives away a propriety software for free without getting something in return?

Bill Gates is part of the ruling elites and is friends with the Hillary.

Yes, they stole our elections and the proof is, the vote count doesn't match what the poll counts are around the country.

Every American should be outraged, but the fact is, they don't care to do anything about it.

MICROSOFT APP USED TO TALLY VOTES AT IOWA CAUCUS FAILS IN SOME AREAS

In an emailed statement, Microsoft said that the mobile apps for both parties worked without issue.

However national interest in the Iowa Caucuses overwhelmed the Democratic and Republican Party Iowa Caucus websites, which Microsoft was working to resolve, the company said.

Some online charged that Microsoft founder Bill Gates had donated “millions” to the Clinton Foundation, making the company's creation of the apps suspect. However Microsoft created apps for both the Republican and Democratic parties, so others said that seemed unlikely.

Columnist Matt Drudge tweeted, “Watching the Iowa folks put their votes into Microsoft app is terrifying...”

www.blacklistednews.com...

The election is rigged.

Using Bill Gates software is a conflict of interest.

Your title is misleading because superdelegates don't have anything to do with those coin tosses.

Was it actually 5 tosses and not 6? I don't like that the fate of history may be influenced by the flip of a coin, but would be willing to concede that it was at least fair. Except the fact that every coin toss benefited HIllary. I know it can happen, but the odds against it being either 1/32 or 1/64 depending on how many tosses there actually were.... the odds against it deserve suspicion and scrutiny. I'd like to know that it really was all above board.

Did Bernie win any coin tosses anywhere? Maybe some I haven't heard about yet?

a reply to: Flatfish

I agree the system in the USA rigged.

But bernies got to be careful he doesn't come off as a sore looser. Even if what he says is true, the hilderbest could use it against him.

originally posted by: Tearman
Your title is misleading because superdelegates don't have anything to do with those coin tosses.

There are two types of Superdelegates, pledged & unpledged.

Unpledged Superdelegates may not be affected by primary results but it's a different story when it comes to pledged Superdelegates.

Iowa awards their pledged Superdelegates to the winner of the caucus and if a coin toss is used to determine the winner, then they definitely do have something to do with one another.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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?

It's rigged because delegates appointed based on election results should reflect the will of the voters and awarding them all to one side of a tied race is hardly reflective of of that vote.

To do so in that manner kinda negates the whole purpose of the election.

Hell, we could have just skipped the entire campaign and caucus processes, held a single coin toss to determine the winner and ended up with the same results.

Either it's rigged, or it's an awful waste of time & money that in no way reflects the will of the voters.

a reply to: Flatfish

Could Sanders have won using the same system? Yes. Therefore, not rigged.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Flatfish

Could Sanders have won using the same system? Yes. Therefore, not rigged.

OK, maybe "rigged" isn't the best choice of words to describe what we're seeing.

All I can say is that the allotment of pledged delegates is certainly not reflective of the will of the voters that ended in a literal tie.

I mean if that the best we can do, maybe we should just resort to a coin toss or rock, paper, scissors to determine the winner right from the start.

I guess that would be one way of getting the money and corruption out of politics.

originally posted by: Flatfish
All I can say is that the allotment of pledged delegates is certainly not reflective of the will of the voters that ended in a literal tie.

Fair enough, on that I can agree. While I am in no ways a Sanders supporter I would like to see him beat her because it would warm my soulless heart to see her crushed and dispirited.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If all 6 people all called heads and all 6 coins landed on heads I would be skeptical no matter who won, that is about 1 in 4,000 odds.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

1 in 64 is actually the correct statistics. Not highly probable but still better than 1%.