60,000 coloradans attended the convention. They were disenfranchised?

[browsing deer]

Trump speaks truth of the sort you find in Pravda

 

[peach174]

View attachment 71477

Trump speaks truth of the sort you find in Pravda

The people of the State did not get to vote.
The Delegates voted for the Delegates and left out the whole State.

 

[browsing deer]

This is how it has been for 240 years. All of the sudden it is unfair? Unfair is changing the rules when you loose

 

[konradv]

The people of the State did not get to vote. The Delegates voted for the Delegates and left out the whole State.

Weren't those delegates chosen at caucuses? How's that any different than Iowa?

 

[bendog]

The people of the State did not get to vote. The Delegates voted for the Delegates and left out the whole State.

Weren't those delegates chosen at caucuses? How's that any different than Iowa?

Substantially is not different. I participated in Wyo caucuses for years. You show up at your precinct (or County in Wyo where sheep outnumber people) you spend the day cajoling, drinking coffee and smoking (perhaps engaging in stronger beverages or herbs) and vote for delegates to go to the state convention, where natl delegates are elected. I thought they were bound, but it appears Wyo's, like Colo's, go to the natl convention unbound. It is essentially representative democracy, where one elects people who will exercise votes at a higher level.

Despite views like Peach's and Jim's, there are two ways to look at it, neither of which is ultimately closer to God's truth than the other.

On the caucus side, there's the Ben Franklin quote, "Mr Franklin what govt have you given us?" "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." Voting is not reality TV. Simplistic appeals to marginally informed yield candidates like Huey Long and Trump. While most American voters only really engage in the last few months of a natl campaign, ever since Jefferson and Adams squared off, the actual securing of a nomination occurred much earlier, and with less direct voter involvement than even the modern caucus systems.

On the primary general vote side, there's the notion that if you give Americans long enough to decide something, they get it right most of the time. Despite partisan protestations from the right, what we're actually seeing is the reality that the dems actually have a more democratic system. Yeah they have superdelgates to prevent a guy like McGovern from hacking the party, but each state, regardless of primary or caucus, awards bound delegate proportionally. An outcome like SC where Donald took all the bound delegates despite winning only a plurality is impossible under the dems system. Bernie's probably gonna lose, but that's because he pizzed off the blacks. On the gop side, we're seeing why the gop's been feeding us supply side taxers who pander on loser issues like gays and abortion. The votes were in on that long ago. We're ok with gays and a large majority of us don't want to go back to when abortion was totally illegal. The guys who actually buy candidates continue to offer up losers, but keep their tax rates where they want them.

If it were up to me, I'd go with primary votes, but regardless, we've changed so much towards more individual participation that we had even a hundred years ago, I'm not losing sleep. LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RNC defense of this is a states rights argument. Let every state make its own rules no matter how weird.

Like most states rights arguments, it's stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trump's people knew what the rules were in Colorado. Or, if they didn't, then Trump is a failure for hiring an incompetent staff.

 

[bendog]

The RNC defense of this is a states rights argument. Let every state make its own rules no matter how weird.

Like most states rights arguments, it's stupid.

I agreed, but I really wonder if in a state with a very small, and geographically spread out, population, like Wyo, whether the caucus system is better. It's more expensive to run a primary election than just a caucus, where you don't need machines, and probably one to five volunteers is enough to run a whole county.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RNC defense of this is a states rights argument. Let every state make its own rules no matter how weird.

Like most states rights arguments, it's stupid.

I agreed, but I really wonder if in a state with a very small, and geographically spread out, population, like Wyo, whether the caucus system is better. It's more expensive to run a primary election than just a caucus, where you don't need machines, and probably one to five volunteers is enough to run a whole county.

Maybe they should do online primaries.

 

[jwoodie]

View attachment 71477

Trump speaks truth of the sort you find in Pravda

I'm sooo impressed by your concern about GOP voters.

 

[browsing deer]

I am a cruz voter. But still, the caucus was done according to rules agreed to last august. 60,000 voted. And the Trumpkins are saying this is unfair because the Trumper lost. what is unfair is changing the rules retroactively, what trump wants to do

 

[TheOldSchool]

I guess Cruz supporters would be okay with the Colorado method being applied to the national level.

Maybe the elites can have a conclave and let us know they've chosen a new President with a puff of white smoke from the roof of the Capitol.

 

[jwoodie]

We already know the Democratic Party is anything but. It is disappointing for many people to learn that the GOP isn't that much better. Rules are rules, but they aren't necessarily democratic.

 

[Avatar4321]

The people of the State did not get to vote. The Delegates voted for the Delegates and left out the whole State.

Weren't those delegates chosen at caucuses? How's that any different than Iowa?

Iowa keeps a tally

 

[Avatar4321]

Btw this doesn't provide Trump with an excuse for why he didn't win. Thus it will be ignored. If people admit that voters did show up for the caucus, then trump can't pretend it is some conspiracy that stopped him and would have to admit ita Cruz's superior organization. That would mean trump is a loser and it hurts the brand

 

[peach174]

Btw this doesn't provide Trump with an excuse for why he didn't win. Thus it will be ignored. If people admit that voters did show up for the caucus, then trump can't pretend it is some conspiracy that stopped him and would have to admit ita Cruz's superior organization. That would mean trump is a loser and it hurts the brand

There is no conspiracy.
The systems of both parties made their own rules and both parties have it set up so that no 3rd party or undesirables (people that each party thinks would not make a good President) so that they can't get elected.
It used to be set up so that a dictator or tyrant could not become President, not to stop an American Citizen or 3rd Parties from running.
We have more registered independents than R or D's, yet the way it has been set up, the majority of voters- independents ,are unable to really get an independent candidate because of this.
It needs to change so that delegates can't vote for delegates and the people of the State can vote. It is not right that the citizens of certain States can't vote for who they want as President.
There are just a few States who do this.
By having it set up by each State, this way the people can see which States need to change, which was partly why we have States rights.

 

[browsing deer]

Trump lies and the truth in a convenient table

 

[peach174]

Trump lies and the truth in a convenient table

View attachment 71587

Yes but only 60,000 votes for Colo..
How can that 60,000 know how to vote for the 2.9 million registered voters without their votes first?
Especially since so many polls this time have been so wrong.

 

[browsing deer]

Read the table. Points one and three answer your objection