here is my vote for "both quick and fair," mixed equally. Also "fairness" in US elections is hard to measure anyway, since all our processes are designed to undermine the popular vote and give power to appointed delegates
There is already a process, which is what is presumably currently considered fair, and it is being followed. The political effect of a *lot* of key people in key positions in the Democratic Party making political statements of support, effectively cutting off contenders, is certainly allowed and perhaps anticipated by the current process.
If one thinks that process is not fair, one can do the political legwork to get it changed in the long run.
while most outside of the USA can see the system is very rigged towards big donor picked candidates, I chose 'mostly fair' because we have to hope at least the Democrats will apply the veneer of democracy being given a fighting chance
I'm a rank choice voter kind of not quite nauronormal. I'am a strong believer in Both/And rather than either or, or, or. I don't see how quick is exclusive of fair.
You are speaking to the choir. I did control systems too. I'm also familiar with fuzzy.
My life for a long time was feedback and control systems. Motors, Ultrasonic positioning systems, flight systems. Temp controllers... I practiced KM in the auts.
I look at those things as everything can be evrything even to the zeroith extent.
But you may think that fast and fair are two axes of interest, there may be other properties that you didn't think of to control. So, something else, or other may be better to include. There is no NP completer here. Is there?
Anyway, it doesn't much matter now as a lot of dem supporters seem to have coalessed around her, now.
@ipd you asked why fair vs fast were interesting to me. That's why; powerful people were insisting on a slower process to make sure it seemed more fair. I wondered if that was a commonly held belief. Thus the poll.
So, I was going to originally say "mostly quick", since I think that it's been important that Democrats showed unity so quickly and can now execute on the campaign over the next 100 days. A lot of the concerns that Harris getting the nod not seem like a "coronation", and that there be some kind of contest where she has to earn the nomination, seemed kind of empty.
Then I thought about a counterexample -- what if Harris had been passed over quickly and a coterie of donors had instead managed to put forward some pliable, center-right Bob Roberts character? And everyone was expected to rally quickly around him "for the good of the country and the party"? I don't think I'd be enthusiastic about that, no matter how quick it was.
So, I guess I'd say "mostly fair". I can argue for a lot of reasons why VP Harris is a fair choice, and why choosing someone else would feel unfair. The fact that it happened quickly is a relief, but less important.
I agree with your sentiment in the counter example. Personally the “mostly quick” choice included the assumption that the right (for some definition “right”) candidate would be chosen . Basically at this point I’m hoping that the party puts forth a viable candidate that can rally the people around not electing someone who attempted a coup.
I found the replies to this poll frustrating. A lot of people felt like the process could be both quick and fair, which I agree with. But that doesn't mean they're equally important. When you're saving a baby from a burning building, it's more important to be quick than fair. When you're resolving an argument with your romantic partner, it's more important to be fair than quick.
When I explained that the "mostly quick" and "mostly fair" options encompassed that framework -- both are important, but one is more important -- some people dug in their heels and said that both factors were exactly the same level of importance.
This seems really unlikely to me in any situation where two factors have non-negligible importance.
not really related to the original question, but it’s hard to weigh or comparatively assign importance between two equally necessary factors. see also: sophie’s choice.
related to the original question: a fair process is useless if it isn’t quick enough. a quick process is useless if it isn’t fair enough. i find it hard to pick one that is “more” important. maybe someone else can sacrifice a little bit of one or the other, but i dunno. they seem of roughly equal importance.
I think that it's possible to be quick and still come to a reasonable consensus. But the consensus is important. If the party brass picked someone who never could have won a primary, it would be disastrous. That doesn't mean this needed to go to an election though. Biden's word has significant weight here as well, as someone who's had the party consensus before, and has only been better approved of since.
I think our normal processes exist for a reason, but this was handled well enough.
That was the scenario I feared with all the establishment types (corporate media and political power brokers) calling for Biden to step down, and that would be a party in disarray.
With the establishment political types endorsing rapidly and on an ongoing basis, along with an organic groundswell of support presumably due to Harris's inherent positive qualities among other things, I'm not even upset at the charges of it being a politically engineered change.
Annalee Newitz 🍜
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Annalee Newitz 🍜 • • •Annalee Newitz 🍜
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Annalee Newitz 🍜 • • •therieau
in reply to Annalee Newitz 🍜 • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to therieau • • •@therieau @annaleen
There are two options where you can say they're both important.
You can say which is more important to you by saying mostly quick or mostly fair.
Karin!
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •All in 🥥🌴
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Bruce Elrick
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •There is already a process, which is what is presumably currently considered fair, and it is being followed. The political effect of a *lot* of key people in key positions in the Democratic Party making political statements of support, effectively cutting off contenders, is certainly allowed and perhaps anticipated by the current process.
If one thinks that process is not fair, one can do the political legwork to get it changed in the long run.
So I disagree with the premise either/or.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Bruce Elrick • • •Bruce Elrick
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •ragectl
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Edelruth For HARRIS-WALZ 2024
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Edelruth For HARRIS-WALZ 2024 • • •ideaPDish
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •What about quick and fair.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to ideaPDish • • •@ipd that's what "mostly" is for.
Part of the work is thinking hard about which is more important to you.
ideaPDish
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Speaking form myself
YMMV
Evan Prodromou
in reply to ideaPDish • • •ideaPDish
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •ideaPDish
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I don't see how quick is exclusive of fair.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to ideaPDish • • •@ipd it's not, which is why there are "mostly" options.
"mostly quick" means "both are important, but quick is more important than fair."
I used to have a company that implemented fuzzy logic, so I understand stand both-and, and I try to include it in my polls.
4-choice polls only allow so much of a spectrum, however.
ideaPDish
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •You are speaking to the choir. I did control systems too. I'm also familiar with fuzzy.
My life for a long time was feedback and control systems. Motors, Ultrasonic positioning systems, flight systems. Temp controllers...
I practiced KM in the auts.
I look at those things as everything can be evrything even to the zeroith extent.
But you may think that fast and fair are two axes of interest, there may be other properties that you didn't think of to control. So, something else, or other may be better to include. There is no NP completer here. Is there?
Anyway, it doesn't much matter now as a lot of dem supporters seem to have coalessed around her, now.
Why are fast or/and fair interesting to you?
Evan Prodromou
in reply to ideaPDish • • •@ipd Because many Democratic party leaders were holding off their endorsements to make sure the process didn't seem unfair.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kamala-harris-endorsements-schumer-jeffries-obama-1.7271901
Also, some donors who backed other candidates complained about a "coronation".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/22/biden-election-campaign-democrats
Key Democratic donors back Harris but others warn against ‘coronation’
Callum Jones (The Guardian)ideaPDish
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to ideaPDish • • •Evan Prodromou
Unknown parent • • •Dave Neary
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Dave Neary • • •John Francis
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
Unknown parent • • •Matti Järvinen
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •CartyBoston
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Space Catitude 🚀
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I really don't see any conflict here, although I selected "mostly fair".
I expect the delegates know the score. Harris was voted for along with Biden, with it very much in discussion that Biden might have to bow out.
Now that he has, she is the obvious choice. Any other choice invites chaos.
There may be people in this country who want Trump to win, but I don't think any of them are Democratic Party delegates!
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •${jndi:blit32 💻
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •"Bob Roberts" is a really good movie, btw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Roberts
1992 film by Tim Robbins
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •When I explained that the "mostly quick" and "mostly fair" options encompassed that framework -- both are important, but one is more important -- some people dug in their heels and said that both factors were exactly the same level of importance.
This seems really unlikely to me in any situation where two factors have non-negligible importance.
infinite love
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •not really related to the original question, but it’s hard to weigh or comparatively assign importance between two equally necessary factors. see also: sophie’s choice.
related to the original question: a fair process is useless if it isn’t quick enough. a quick process is useless if it isn’t fair enough. i find it hard to pick one that is “more” important. maybe someone else can sacrifice a little bit of one or the other, but i dunno. they seem of roughly equal importance.
Blort™ 🐀Ⓥ🥋☣️
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Jason B
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •The problem with that analogy is that the desired outcome is obvious.
What if there are five babies in the burning building and you can only carry one? Should you be quick or fair?
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Jason B • • •Jason B
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I think I agree. 😀
Where I struggled with the original poll was comparing the ideal state to reality.
In an ideal state, fair would be more important. But being fair is less important (to me) in this election cycle than not losing.
So the more relevant question (to me) is "is being quick or being fair most likely to align the greatest number of voters with the nominee."
I *think* the answer to that question is "mostly quick." It's impossible to know, but that's where I'm l betting.
~
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I think that it's possible to be quick and still come to a reasonable consensus. But the consensus is important. If the party brass picked someone who never could have won a primary, it would be disastrous. That doesn't mean this needed to go to an election though. Biden's word has significant weight here as well, as someone who's had the party consensus before, and has only been better approved of since.
I think our normal processes exist for a reason, but this was handled well enough.
Bruce Elrick
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •That was the scenario I feared with all the establishment types (corporate media and political power brokers) calling for Biden to step down, and that would be a party in disarray.
With the establishment political types endorsing rapidly and on an ongoing basis, along with an organic groundswell of support presumably due to Harris's inherent positive qualities among other things, I'm not even upset at the charges of it being a politically engineered change.
ragectl
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •