The party pulled plenty of shenanigans to stop Sanders from getting the nomination. The US has overthrown governments for less. They aren’t accountable processes.
Can you acknowledge that this hypothetical problem has never come up as progressive candidates have never won the majority of votes? (Because, yup, the progressive youth vote doesn’t show up.)
Do you apply that standard consistently? If Kim Jong Un announces his party got 100% of the vote, are you going to say that’s on his opponents for not showing up?
Also, I never said “we shouldn’t vote.” What I said is that the process isn’t legitimate. As I mentioned, there were plenty of shenanigans that the democratic establishment used to ensure that Sanders wouldn’t get the nomination, so this isn’t just a hypothetical about what I can imagine or what might happen.
What makes it incompatible? You’re dismissing questions of legitimacy and looking only at the results. The results of the 2016 democratic primaries were that Hillary won, and you say regardless of how legitimate or illegitimate the process may be, that happened because not enough Bernie supporters showed up. How is that different from looking at the North Korean elections and putting aside any questions of legitimacy or fairness and just looking at the results and saying the same thing? It’s the exact same logic.
If you do vote in them it may not matter.
The party pulled plenty of shenanigans to stop Sanders from getting the nomination. The US has overthrown governments for less. They aren’t accountable processes.
And at the end of the day, young progressive voters didn’t show up.
Before whining that everything is rigged, maybe show up in the numbers required to win?
Do you acknowledge that the primary processes are not legally required to be fair? Yes or no.
Sure, there’s no legal requirement.
Can you acknowledge that this hypothetical problem has never come up as progressive candidates have never won the majority of votes? (Because, yup, the progressive youth vote doesn’t show up.)
Yes or no.
No. What meaning is there in talking about votes in an election with no guarantee of fairness?
I just held an election where I got 100% of the votes (just one vote, me). If you don’t like it, it’s your fault for not showing up to it.
This is an impressively dumb argument.
“We shouldn’t vote because I can imagine a scenario in which they don’t count the votes!”
“Has that happened?”
“Well, no, but it could!”
I doubt you’re old enough to have seen Billy Maddison but you remind me of the bus driver:
Bus Driver : That Veronica Vaughn is one piece of ass, I know from experience dude. If you know what I mean.
Billy Madison : No, you don’t.
Bus Driver : Well, not me personally but a guy I know. Him and her got it on. Wooo-eee!
Billy Madison : No, they didn’t.
Bus Driver : No, but you can imagine what it’d be like!
Cool.
Do you apply that standard consistently? If Kim Jong Un announces his party got 100% of the vote, are you going to say that’s on his opponents for not showing up?
Also, I never said “we shouldn’t vote.” What I said is that the process isn’t legitimate. As I mentioned, there were plenty of shenanigans that the democratic establishment used to ensure that Sanders wouldn’t get the nomination, so this isn’t just a hypothetical about what I can imagine or what might happen.
“Do you apply this logic cosistently?”
Proceeds to give a wholly incompatible and incosistent example of North Korea.
How anyone could not take you seriously is beyond me.
What makes it incompatible? You’re dismissing questions of legitimacy and looking only at the results. The results of the 2016 democratic primaries were that Hillary won, and you say regardless of how legitimate or illegitimate the process may be, that happened because not enough Bernie supporters showed up. How is that different from looking at the North Korean elections and putting aside any questions of legitimacy or fairness and just looking at the results and saying the same thing? It’s the exact same logic.