Progressive Politics

3134 readers

924 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

806

Democrat reformists finding out that Democrats will only play dirty against the left. (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 days ago by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

361 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I would recommend you actually do some research before you try typing a long post trying to explain to people what's going on.

From my understanding, this is not the fault of Fateh, but of the Democratic Party themselves, screwing up the excel sheet of one guy who probably didn't even matter.

Claiming this is a valid reason to throw the entire victory of the democratic socialists overboard seems outrageous.

The entire election process was already set up, super confusing, which seems to be done on purpose to prevent less wealthy candidates from running.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

From my understanding, this is not the fault of Fateh, but of the Democratic Party themselves

Oopsie.

They get no benefit of the doubt. This was on purpose.

[–] illustriousPark265@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

From my understanding, this is not the fault of Fateh, but of the Democratic Party themselves [...]

This is what I said.

Claiming this is a valid reason to throw the entire victory of the democratic socialists overboard seems outrageous.

The reason it matters is because of the nature of successive rounds of voting. When the missing (~175 / 1000) votes got counted (in retrospect), it showed an additional candidate should have been included in the second round of voting. And the democratic leadership pushed ahead with the flawed second round of voting without addressing the problem. I don't remember all the details, but I believe the final vote also broke their own procedural requirements (in addition to Frey's delegates having already walked out in protest).

I don't know their procedures (and welcome a source/explanation), but clearly the absence of an endorsement since 2009 indicates it's not easy to get the endorsement, and having an additional candidate in the second round of voting certainly seems like it has the potential to reduce the chances of a candidate securing the endorsement. I think it's entirely reasonable, particularly in that context, to withdraw the endorsement.

Edit to add: I also agree that the primary/convention system, procedures, etc, probably do favor candidates supported by "the establishment".

[–] bananaa@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

I can provide additional context as a convention attendee.

After the first round of voting, it was clear that Omar would have a majority. He earned 43% of the vote and other non-Frey voters were expected to vote Omar after seeing the results and knowing that 60% was needed for an endorsement.

At this point, Frey’s campaign started shenanigans that drew boos from the crowd. They called many times for rule changes and stall for time to prevent a second vote. Late into the night, Frey’s campaign went so far as to ask their delegates to go home to prevent a quorum.

Every deviation from convention rules was voted on and approved using procedure. Was it a shitshow? Yes. But in my view, it was done within the rules.