Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

drokhole

(1,230 posts)
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 03:33 PM Mar 2016

The "Bandwagon Effect": or, The Southern-fried primary is unfair

In a recent USA Today article, David V. Johnson writes:

The Southern-fried primary is unfair: Column
David V. Johnson

(snip)

The effect of the Southern-leaning calendar is far more profound than the straight delegate numbers, because of what psychologists and political scientists call the bandwagon effect the proven tendency individuals have to follow the beliefs and behaviors of what is seen as popular. The more the voting public appears to favor Clinton, the more voters will tend to do so in the future.

This effect is likely even more pronounced due to the influence of superdelegates, the 712 party leaders who will join the 4,051 pledged delegates in selecting a nominee. Clinton leads Sanders in superdelegates 467 to 26, according to AP, unsurprising given her and her husband’s standing in the party. Although superdelegates have only promised to vote along these lines at the convention, are unconstrained by primary results and can change their minds, media organizations often report these delegates as “won” by Clinton, giving her an overwhelming overall lead of 1,630 to 870.

---

This year’s Southern-fried scheduling is profoundly undemocratic. No one region of the country should have more of a say than any other in selecting our presidential candidates. Yet if Southern states — a quarter of the country — allot all their delegates in the first half of the primary season, they will inevitably have more say. They will end the hopes of most candidates, and if they coalesce behind a single candidate, they will inevitably influence the rest of the country to do the same.

---

As for the Democratic Party’s superdelegates, let them hold off on voicing their preferences until after the primary season is over, so that they do not unduly influence the vote. As political leaders, they should be responsive to the voters — the opposite of the role they have now.


Before anyone accuses the author of suggesting that southern states don't count, or should be dismissed, or are less informed - he isn't. He's merely suggesting that primaries and caucuses be interregion and more evenly spaced/stacked/spread throughout the primary season (and states as much in the article, but I reached the paragraph excerpt limit), rather than having the southern bloc front-loaded. I recommend reading the article in its entirety.

Another essay worth reading, one that also has aspects of the bandwagon effect (and "herd mentality," where people do what they see others doing) - along with other forms of subtle yet powerful perception management and manufacturing consent - is over at Aeon:

The new mind control
The internet has spawned subtle forms of influence that can flip elections and manipulate everything we say, think and do

(snip)

Looking ahead to the November 2016 US presidential election, I see clear signs that Google is backing Hillary Clinton. In April 2015, Clinton hired Stephanie Hannon away from Google to be her chief technology officer and, a few months ago, Eric Schmidt, chairman of the holding company that controls Google, set up a semi-secret company – The Groundwork – for the specific purpose of putting Clinton in office. The formation of The Groundwork prompted Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, to dub Google Clinton’s ‘secret weapon’ in her quest for the US presidency.

We now estimate that Hannon’s old friends have the power to drive between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Clinton on election day with no one knowing that this is occurring and without leaving a paper trail. They can also help her win the nomination, of course, by influencing undecided voters during the primaries. Swing voters have always been the key to winning elections, and there has never been a more powerful, efficient or inexpensive way to sway them than SEME ('Search Engine Manipulation Effect').

(snip)

more at the link


(another essay whose excerpt doesn't do it complete justice)

I'd also suggest that the way Google displays its delegate count can have influencial psychological impacts. If you check the primary results on Google (type in "primaries" or "presidential election"...and it's not just Google, but most any media outlet), you're met with a chart showing Hilary with a commanding and seemingly insurmountable lead over Bernie. Truly, her tower of delegates is staggering and casts a looming and ominous shadow over Bernie's. But, that's only because they have defaulted the chart to include superdelegates (and there is no way to switch/change it...that I know of, at least). The raw pledged delegate count - 1222 to 918 (as of this writing) - is listed underneath Hill's tower of power, but it's almost as an afterthought (and doesn't really draw the eyes). And it doesn't have nearly the same visceral and immediate impact as if seeing the raw counts in graphic form.

I'm glad to see most on here only strengthen their resolve to fight for Bernie (and, more importantly, the movement he represents) - but, for plenty of others, it could be incredibly deflating and further the impression/narrative that Hilary is "inevitable"...and cause some people on the fence, or even Bernie supporters, to "accept" that narrative.

But, I know Hillary supporters, I'm just .

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The "Bandwagon Effect": or, The Southern-fried primary is unfair (Original Post) drokhole Mar 2016 OP
Yeah but Iowa and New Hampshire usually pick the prez MattP Mar 2016 #1
The voters in the Sourh who put Hillary in the lead are Democrats upaloopa Mar 2016 #2
Wrong. Yuugal Mar 2016 #3
The problem is not the race of a person but who they prefer in your eyes. upaloopa Mar 2016 #4
I should have said voting block in the South you are right the way I put it was wrong upaloopa Mar 2016 #5

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
2. The voters in the Sourh who put Hillary in the lead are Democrats
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 03:44 PM
Mar 2016

who voted in a Democratic primary for the nominee of the Democratic Party.

To say what they did was unfair is to say we should not have let them have a say in who our nominee is.

Hillary's opponent is a Democrat of convienience. He said so himself. He wins in open primaries and caucuses because independents are permitted to vote in Democratic primaries.

This OP says that it is unfair that Dems should elect our nominee rather than letting independents run an independent as our nominee.

I disagree. Minorities are now the largest voting block in the Democratic Party. That they should pic their nominee is only right.

 

Yuugal

(2,281 posts)
3. Wrong.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 04:10 PM
Mar 2016

A quick google says 60% are non-hispanic white.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

Your statement: "Minorities are now the largest voting block in the Democratic Party. That they should pic their nominee is only right."

Should now be changed to: "Whites are the largest voting block in the Democratic Party. That they should pic their nominee is only right."

See how racist that sounds? Why not have 2 states from each part of the country go, 8 at a time, each Tues until we have a winner? Even if the data from 4 years ago has changed, that would mean whites are fleeing the party in droves. Hardly a reason to make blacks in the south able to pick our nominee every time.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The "Bandwagon Effect": o...