Delegates....a rigged system?

[Iceweasel]

It's sort of joke that Ted Cruz is the establishment candidate. The natl gop HATES the guy. LOL And I literally mean hate. So, imo all this discussion being aimed at one or another candidate, seems foolish to me.

And, we are never going to have "one primary day for all states to vote at one time." It might work if we had a system more like the Brits, when a new election can be forced whenever a nation realizes it's leader ain't up to the job. But, the US has the constitution, and the nomination process evolved to sort of vet out candidates.

I'd be ok with natl party rules requiring states to allocate bound delegates by % of the vote, either caucus or primary. But, they'd have to unbound after the first ballot, otherwise there'd never be a nominee.

Cruz is all they can get their meathooks into at this point. He was not their pick to be sure. But yes, a one day primary would make sense with delegates being chosen by the voters. I don't know how it got so bastardized. Probably because each state wanted to say how they would elect delegates but it's gotten out of hand with big corporations being so involved in government.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It is not rigged nor does it need to be fixed. Donald Trump and his advisors knew about the rule changes in every caucus and primary, so he need to just accept it and move on.

The Republican Party, Democratic Party, and every third Political Party have safeguards in place and it is the state political party leaders choice to use them or not, and Colorado decided to use them and I have no issue with it at all.

Also remember even in the general election the American voter popular vote might ( key word is might ) guide the Electoral College voter to vote accordingly to the state rules about popular vote, but in some states the Electoral College voter can override the state popular vote, and you know what I am fine with that too.

The reason why is because our founding fathers put safeguards in place to protect ourselves from us and they were smart men even back then.

Donald Trump and his voters need to learn that sometimes safeguards are in place for a reason and you might not agree now but down the road you will want them to do it again...

I think some states have torturously complex delegate apportionment systems, but I do understand that those systems exist for many reasons, and only one of them is to maintain control of the party against hostile takeovers.

Exactly right. It's a firewall. That's exactly what the supers in the DNC are there for.

 

[bendog]

Here's just a small taste of the delegate system in action. Rigged cluster **** or perfectly normal?

Delegate Deception - Linkis.com

So, are you saying the really fair way would be to have a primary in each state, and allocate bound delegates by % of popular vote? Assuming no candidate reached the number to win the nomination, would delegates then be unbound to vote for any candidate in later rounds of voting?

I'll try to make this simple. First off, unbound delegates should be tossed in the trash. So lets get that out of the way. There are only pledged delegates.

The state can opt for a caucus or primary--whatever they choose. They also can set it up as WTA (winner take all) or % of the popular vote. Doesn't matter.

After every American has cast their vote in the primaries/caucuses, whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. If Candidate A has 1,000 delegates and Candidate B has 999 delegates at the finish line, Candidate A gets the nomination. Boom! Done! Everyone moves on.

I'd be ok with that, other than the possibility that a plurality candidate be the nominee. Like McGovern showed in 72, and the disaster the dems had in 68 with Bobby Kennedy being murdered. The nominee has to be the guy (or gal) with more than 50% or a party can never unite. Ford and Carter could probably blame Reagan or Ted for their losses, their parties were more united than a plurality situation would create.

 

[thanatos144]

Why should a party that rigs its primary get taxpayer funding in the general?

Because Democrats are afraid they wont be able to raise the money needed.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is not nearly as rigged as it is blind support by voters.
Both sides are thoroughly corrupt by corporations and special interest and they will continue to stay that way because constituents will not hold their own accountable...and everyone always believes everything is the other guys fault.

WE - allowed the system to get this corrupt. WE DID THIS.
With our complacency, our "go team" mentality that excuses/ignores the problems within "our" party - too busy throwing rocks at the other guy.

ONLY WE CAN CHANGE IT. But I do not see this happening in my generation, perhaps the millennials will change something...not holding my breath.

 

[HUGGY]

Here's just a small taste of the delegate system in action. Rigged cluster **** or perfectly normal?

Delegate Deception - Linkis.com

So, are you saying the really fair way would be to have a primary in each state, and allocate bound delegates by % of popular vote? Assuming no candidate reached the number to win the nomination, would delegates then be unbound to vote for any candidate in later rounds of voting?

I'll try to make this simple. First off, unbound delegates should be tossed in the trash. So lets get that out of the way. There are only pledged delegates.

The state can opt for a caucus or primary--whatever they choose. They also can set it up as WTA (winner take all) or % of the popular vote. Doesn't matter.

After every American has cast their vote in the primaries/caucuses, whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. If Candidate A has 1,000 delegates and Candidate B has 999 delegates at the finish line, Candidate A gets the nomination. Boom! Done! Everyone moves on.

That helps, thank you, but a couple of questions:

Why should "every American" decide, shouldn't it be actual party members?

It is a political party, why shouldn't the party itself and key elected members of the party have more say in the future of their party than random people who just self identify as a member of the party?

It seems to me that the inherent downgrading of the "others" including street level republicans has been part of the steady demise of the GOP. The leadership of just about every facet of the republican party demands too much from those that are not insiders. I for one share many of the "traditional" values of smaller government with fewer regulations aimed towards business but because I don't care that much about the so called "morals" agenda I have been kicked to the curb as to ever taking an active interest in participating in what used to be my party.

There are a lot more people like myself blowing in the wind than the religists care to acknowledge. Someone like Trump that rejects the death grip the christian fascists have on fiscal conservatism is real and it is refreshing.

I agree with CK that the rules should have been constructed more simple with less value weighted towards giving the insiders move clout and majorities less.

 

[thanatos144]

Here's just a small taste of the delegate system in action. Rigged cluster **** or perfectly normal?

Delegate Deception - Linkis.com

So, are you saying the really fair way would be to have a primary in each state, and allocate bound delegates by % of popular vote? Assuming no candidate reached the number to win the nomination, would delegates then be unbound to vote for any candidate in later rounds of voting?

I think he just wants parties to be forced to field seriously flawed candidates who can't generate sufficient support.

**** the parties, they don't represent the American people. They represent their own interests. Our Government is supposed to be "FOR" "BY" and "OF"...not this circus of greedy power hungry clowns who give ZERO ***** about you and I.

Wake up Cecilie, you're being used as a pawn in their game.

We are talking about primaries.... They are nothing but ABOUT the parties...

 

[Liminal]

The premise is faulty. The people of Colorado? No, Republican primary voters in Colorado.

Conflating an abstract 'system' with a political party selection process?

and " officials can simply cancel elections in America" - What they did was cancel a party election. they have that right. Trump wants to challenge the rules or change the rules? Trump brags he himself to be unpredictable and break rules. The party broke no rules. The people of Colorado will get to vote for President in November. Parties own their own names, and they make their own rules.

I would say they have more than a "right" to, but a responsibility to do so.

Funny thing is, Trump himself mentioned 'responsible' leaders

The whole Trump thing is the closest we'll see to a real populist movement in the US, thankfully.

It's the only advantage our demented two-party system has over a parliament.

Trump's following being a cult of personality, it is a hybrid populist thing. Of course he stepped in front of a few issues, but his style and cause has been himself

Almost every populist movement in history has coalesced alongside a cult of personality for it's leaders.

Let's not forget the importance of stupid people in the Trump movement........also an important factor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your super delegates agree with you.

Seriously though, you are a fool if you believe there is much difference between the party elites of both parties.
Either way your status as a party hack is secure

So people who do the day to day work of a party are elites and hacks? What do you do, show up on election day with a whine and a prayer?

Or get his panties in a ruffle the day AFTER because some propagandist told him he should.

Funny neither of you dumbfucks noticed I don't participate in the "stolen" election threads.
Course it didn't stop either of you from posting irrelevant nonsense.
Cecile I expect to act like a clueless ***** just because. But the other tool doesn't know any of us or our posting history.

Really doesn't matter what type of threads you do or don't participate in. I'm just looking at the stuff you ARE posting.

You act like a complete cvnt in EVERY THREAD you participate in. Perhaps you should do a bit of reflection instead of projection.

You act like a ***** who hates women who don't "know their place" in every thread you participate in. Perhaps you should butch the **** up, or go find a nice knitting circle to join.

 

[bendog]

I would say they have more than a "right" to, but a responsibility to do so.

Funny thing is, Trump himself mentioned 'responsible' leaders

The whole Trump thing is the closest we'll see to a real populist movement in the US, thankfully.

It's the only advantage our demented two-party system has over a parliament.

Trump's following being a cult of personality, it is a hybrid populist thing. Of course he stepped in front of a few issues, but his style and cause has been himself

Almost every populist movement in history has coalesced alongside a cult of personality for it's leaders.

Let's not forget the importance of stupid people in the Trump movement........also an important factor.

I don't see the evidence that Trump supporters are stupid. The Donald seems to have a way of starting off with fairly rational statements like 'we need to control the border" or "wait a minute, lets figure out what immigrants we're taking in so we aren't like Europe." He gets some voter support. But then he ramps it up to say really offensive things, which of course gets the media to plaster him all over the media.......

I think he's really a charlatan, but that really is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the primary systems of both parties are designed to measure popular support, or whether they are more set up to protect the power of the individual state parties.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Some of us know more about local and state party stuff than others. But what is funny, is that sometimes people put their feet in their mouths

"In 40 percent of the contests, Trump did at least 10 percentage points better in the delegate race than in the actual voting." -

Trump’s Right That The GOP Primary Is Unfair — It Favors Him​

Sure it's rigged. That's why Trump is in the lead.

So? Does it, or should it, be fixed?

Define "fixed".

You're kidding right? What do you not understand about states disenfranchising voters?

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

Maybe you could clarify your yes or no question. Are you arguing that voting should determine all the delegates or just that it's wrong not to have voting determine a portion of them?

The state can set it up however they want. Winner Take All, Portion of Delegates are divided up, Caucus, Straight Primary, Open Primary...whatever. It's not a difficult question. Should Americans be allowed to vote for a candidate and have their vote counted? Yes of no?

People should be asked their opinions. Organizations should be allowed to listen to them or not as it applies to their private goals. People who don't like the rules of the organization in question should go form their own damned organization instead of demanding control of someone else's.

 

[kaz]

Here's just a small taste of the delegate system in action. Rigged cluster **** or perfectly normal?

Delegate Deception - Linkis.com

So, are you saying the really fair way would be to have a primary in each state, and allocate bound delegates by % of popular vote? Assuming no candidate reached the number to win the nomination, would delegates then be unbound to vote for any candidate in later rounds of voting?

I'll try to make this simple. First off, unbound delegates should be tossed in the trash. So lets get that out of the way. There are only pledged delegates.

The state can opt for a caucus or primary--whatever they choose. They also can set it up as WTA (winner take all) or % of the popular vote. Doesn't matter.

After every American has cast their vote in the primaries/caucuses, whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. If Candidate A has 1,000 delegates and Candidate B has 999 delegates at the finish line, Candidate A gets the nomination. Boom! Done! Everyone moves on.

That helps, thank you, but a couple of questions:

Why should "every American" decide, shouldn't it be actual party members?

It is a political party, why shouldn't the party itself and key elected members of the party have more say in the future of their party than random people who just self identify as a member of the party?

I pretty much answered that question above ^^^^^^^^^

People need to vote better, it's not just the parties' fault. And we need to stop letting people vote themselves other people's money, that's the biggest issue. Politicians in both parties ask their voters what they can give them that they didn't earn

 

[kaz]

Here's just a small taste of the delegate system in action. Rigged cluster **** or perfectly normal?

Delegate Deception - Linkis.com

So, are you saying the really fair way would be to have a primary in each state, and allocate bound delegates by % of popular vote? Assuming no candidate reached the number to win the nomination, would delegates then be unbound to vote for any candidate in later rounds of voting?

I'll try to make this simple. First off, unbound delegates should be tossed in the trash. So lets get that out of the way. There are only pledged delegates.

The state can opt for a caucus or primary--whatever they choose. They also can set it up as WTA (winner take all) or % of the popular vote. Doesn't matter.

After every American has cast their vote in the primaries/caucuses, whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. If Candidate A has 1,000 delegates and Candidate B has 999 delegates at the finish line, Candidate A gets the nomination. Boom! Done! Everyone moves on.

That helps, thank you, but a couple of questions:

Why should "every American" decide, shouldn't it be actual party members?

It is a political party, why shouldn't the party itself and key elected members of the party have more say in the future of their party than random people who just self identify as a member of the party?

It seems to me that the inherent downgrading of the "others" including street level republicans has been part of the steady demise of the GOP. The leadership of just about every facet of the republican party demands too much from those that are not insiders. I for one share many of the "traditional" values of smaller government with fewer regulations aimed towards business but because I don't care that much about the so called "morals" agenda I have been kicked to the curb as to ever taking an active interest in participating in what used to be my party.

There are a lot more people like myself blowing in the wind than the religists care to acknowledge. Someone like Trump that rejects the death grip the christian fascists have on fiscal conservatism is real and it is refreshing.

I agree with CK that the rules should have been constructed more simple with less value weighted towards giving the insiders move clout and majorities less.

Gawd, another leftist who used to be a Republican. I don't get it, what is the attraction in that lie? I actually did used to be a Republican. But obviously I hate the Democrat party, it makes sense. Just I realized Republicans suck too, almost as bad.

What was this epiphany that the Democrats are right on every issue for you? Was it W like most of the rest of you? You know, before W, there was no Democrat party. That's why he was elected unanimously in 2000, you know, when he stole the election. LOL. That lie is so shallow.

 

[HUGGY]

I would say they have more than a "right" to, but a responsibility to do so.

Funny thing is, Trump himself mentioned 'responsible' leaders

The whole Trump thing is the closest we'll see to a real populist movement in the US, thankfully.

It's the only advantage our demented two-party system has over a parliament.

Trump's following being a cult of personality, it is a hybrid populist thing. Of course he stepped in front of a few issues, but his style and cause has been himself

Almost every populist movement in history has coalesced alongside a cult of personality for it's leaders.

Let's not forget the importance of stupid people in the Trump movement........also an important factor.

There are stupid people in all aspects of politics. Trump has no more idjits in his camp than Cruz. The difference, as I see it, is that Trump's followers are more energized which makes them seem to stand out more.

 

[bendog]

Funny thing is, Trump himself mentioned 'responsible' leaders

The whole Trump thing is the closest we'll see to a real populist movement in the US, thankfully.

It's the only advantage our demented two-party system has over a parliament.

Trump's following being a cult of personality, it is a hybrid populist thing. Of course he stepped in front of a few issues, but his style and cause has been himself

Almost every populist movement in history has coalesced alongside a cult of personality for it's leaders.

Let's not forget the importance of stupid people in the Trump movement........also an important factor.

There are stupid people in all aspects of politics. Trump has no more idjits in his camp than Cruz. The difference, as I see it, is that Trump's followers are more energized which makes them seem to stand out more.

Like comparing regular pinto beans to them Mexiken Jumpin' kind.

 

[kaz]

So? Does it, or should it, be fixed?

Define "fixed".

You're kidding right? What do you not understand about states disenfranchising voters?

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

Maybe you could clarify your yes or no question. Are you arguing that voting should determine all the delegates or just that it's wrong not to have voting determine a portion of them?

The state can set it up however they want. Winner Take All, Portion of Delegates are divided up, Caucus, Straight Primary, Open Primary...whatever. It's not a difficult question. Should Americans be allowed to vote for a candidate and have their vote counted? Yes of no?

People should be asked their opinions. Organizations should be allowed to listen to them or not as it applies to their private goals. People who don't like the rules of the organization in question should go form their own damned organization instead of demanding control of someone else's.

If cereal said that laws should be passed and the government should force that on the Republican party, then I'd see your point. But I didn't see him say that, I saw him say how he thinks it should work. So how was he not doing what you said? Saying how he thinks it should work?

I agree with him largely, not entirely. But he has a right to say his view, you just said so too ...

 

[Kosh]

If they don't lie, cheat and steal, Republicans can't get elected.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatal

Says the irony impaired far left drone that will vote for Hilary..

 

[cereal_killer]

So? Does it, or should it, be fixed?

Define "fixed".

You're kidding right? What do you not understand about states disenfranchising voters?

Maybe you could clarify your yes or no question. Are you arguing that voting should determine all the delegates or just that it's wrong not to have voting determine a portion of them?

The state can set it up however they want. Winner Take All, Portion of Delegates are divided up, Caucus, Straight Primary, Open Primary...whatever. It's not a difficult question. Should Americans be allowed to vote for a candidate and have their vote counted? Yes of no?

People should be asked their opinions. Organizations should be allowed to listen to them or not as it applies to their private goals. People who don't like the rules of the organization in question should go form their own damned organization instead of demanding control of someone else's.

You didn't answer the question. Quit with the straw man.

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's just a small taste of the delegate system in action. Rigged cluster **** or perfectly normal?

Delegate Deception - Linkis.com

So, are you saying the really fair way would be to have a primary in each state, and allocate bound delegates by % of popular vote? Assuming no candidate reached the number to win the nomination, would delegates then be unbound to vote for any candidate in later rounds of voting?

I'll try to make this simple. First off, unbound delegates should be tossed in the trash. So lets get that out of the way. There are only pledged delegates.

The state can opt for a caucus or primary--whatever they choose. They also can set it up as WTA (winner take all) or % of the popular vote. Doesn't matter.

After every American has cast their vote in the primaries/caucuses, whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. If Candidate A has 1,000 delegates and Candidate B has 999 delegates at the finish line, Candidate A gets the nomination. Boom! Done! Everyone moves on.

And why should the parties do it that way? I understand why YOU want it, but what possible motivation do THEY have for giving you what you want, or even bothering to have a party at all under that system?

 

[HUGGY]

Here's just a small taste of the delegate system in action. Rigged cluster **** or perfectly normal?

Delegate Deception - Linkis.com

So, are you saying the really fair way would be to have a primary in each state, and allocate bound delegates by % of popular vote? Assuming no candidate reached the number to win the nomination, would delegates then be unbound to vote for any candidate in later rounds of voting?

I'll try to make this simple. First off, unbound delegates should be tossed in the trash. So lets get that out of the way. There are only pledged delegates.

The state can opt for a caucus or primary--whatever they choose. They also can set it up as WTA (winner take all) or % of the popular vote. Doesn't matter.

After every American has cast their vote in the primaries/caucuses, whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. If Candidate A has 1,000 delegates and Candidate B has 999 delegates at the finish line, Candidate A gets the nomination. Boom! Done! Everyone moves on.

That helps, thank you, but a couple of questions:

Why should "every American" decide, shouldn't it be actual party members?

It is a political party, why shouldn't the party itself and key elected members of the party have more say in the future of their party than random people who just self identify as a member of the party?

It seems to me that the inherent downgrading of the "others" including street level republicans has been part of the steady demise of the GOP. The leadership of just about every facet of the republican party demands too much from those that are not insiders. I for one share many of the "traditional" values of smaller government with fewer regulations aimed towards business but because I don't care that much about the so called "morals" agenda I have been kicked to the curb as to ever taking an active interest in participating in what used to be my party.

There are a lot more people like myself blowing in the wind than the religists care to acknowledge. Someone like Trump that rejects the death grip the christian fascists have on fiscal conservatism is real and it is refreshing.

I agree with CK that the rules should have been constructed more simple with less value weighted towards giving the insiders move clout and majorities less.

Gawd, another leftist who used to be a Republican. I don't get it, what is the attraction in that lie? I actually did used to be a Republican. But obviously I hate the Democrat party, it makes sense. Just I realized Republicans suck too, almost as bad.

What was this epiphany that the Democrats are right on every issue for you? Was it W like most of the rest of you? You know, before W, there was no Democrat party. That's why he was elected unanimously in 2000, you know, when he stole the election. LOL. That lie is so shallow.

Thank you for offering such an ignorant post. I have never voted democrat. I voted for Bush twice. I am a results kind of a person so the complaints I bring up regarding what occurred during Bush's incompetency are personal. I have the right to be disgusted with Dubya. He let me and the country down.

You obviously have been living in a cave during Cheney and Roves presidency. It was no picnic.

You can choose to abstain from affiliating yourself with a party. That is your right. Maybe you would seem more intelligent if you concentrated on YOUR political wants and needs and mind your own damned business as it applies to mine.