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”.
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.
This is what I said.
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”.
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.