Delegates....a rigged system?

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I DID answer your question. You don't HAVE a vote in the parties. You have an opinion, and no, I'm not the least bit interested in pretending otherwise.

 

[thanatos144]

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?

That isn't up to YOU to decide. No one forced Trump to run as a republican so he and people like you need to stop crying about the rules.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

Ya.. Sumpin like that.

Actually the energized Trump followers are a step up from those bought and paid for by the Koch's and Bennett. AKA the TeaParty. At least these folks know where the money is coming from.

 

[kaz]

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.

OK, let's pursue your lie. What do you agree with Republicans about? No hand waiving

 

[cereal_killer]

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?

You're proving my point. They have no motivation to give us (you and I) what WE want. They are in it for themselves. We want our votes to count...PERIOD. That's it! We don't want to be reimbursed with cash for cripes sake. We want to go to the polls, cast our vote and have that vote count. We're Americans and WE are supposed to elect our leaders NOT the ******* party. Remember "FOR" "BY" and "OF"?

Can't believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow American. Who's team are you on anyway? Don't answer that....it's evident

 

[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.

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?

That's a good question. And believe me I understand cynicism.

But, imo, the reason the gop has failed in 5 of the last 6, and only won the one by scaring the shite outta all of us, is that the party has ceased to support: middle class entitlements with the lowest taxes possible but taxing the broadest amount of econ activity possible so as to benefit no specific group, peace through strength while eschewing foreign wars, pro-growth and pro-legal immigration policies, and limiting the federal govts compulsion of private behavior when the compulsion is not really necessary to do something really important. If the party leaders can't support that, I don't really care to support them.

 

[BluesLegend]

Delegates....a rigged system?

OP you are only scratching at the surface of the rigging. Redistricting to ensure one of the two establishment parties are guaranteed to win that district. Use of taxpayer money to buy up blocks of votes with government handouts, carve outs, contracts. Billions wasted in colossal examples of government incompetency yet nobody gets fired, there is no accountability. Blatant ignoring of the law whenever they feel like it, immigration law for example. Abuse of government agency power to coerce and attack the establishments enemies, individuals, groups, companies, industries. Its a cesspool.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

OK, let's pursue your lie. What do you agree with Republicans about? No hand waiving

Smaller government when possible. I say "when possible" because there are exceptions. Depleting the regulators in advance of the financial melt down at the end of Bush's second term was devastating.

Advancing the rights and conditions that create a stronger small business environment.

Promoting negotiations and fair competition for all government procurement. This includes everything from pharm costs to non secret military purchases.

Strong support of the 2nd amendment. I would go even farther than the constitution currently allows providing citizens a pathway to prove that they are worthy candidates for gun ownership having made poor choices early in life. Some previous felons have turned their lives around and should be able to protect what gains they have made in starting stable families and property.

Strong support of the U S Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I don't consider this "a game" so unless you agree with that list please don't bother me with your nonsense opinions about what you believe my political leanings are.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

I mention projection you mention "butch"

Priceless

 

[kaz]

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.

OK, let's pursue your lie. What do you agree with Republicans about? No hand waiving

Smaller government when possible. I say "when possible" because there are exceptions. Depleting the regulators in advance of the financial melt down at the end of Bush's second term was devastating.

Advancing the rights and conditions that create a stronger small business environment.

Promoting negotiations and fair competition for all government procurement. This includes everything from pharm costs to non secret military purchases.

Strong support of the 2nd amendment. I would go even farther than the constitution currently allows providing citizens a pathway to prove that they are worthy candidates for gun ownership having made poor choices early in life. Some previous felons have turned their lives around and should be able to protect what gains they have made in starting stable families and property.

Strong support of the U S Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I don't consider this "a game" so unless you agree with that list please don't bother me with your nonsense opinions about what you believe my political leanings are.

I said no hand waiving. Members of both parties would agree with your list as you stated it. Saying you are for small business for example is something Obama says all the time. Right before he ***** us in the ass.

Guns are one that many liberals say too. The difference is that liberals always say it in conversations not about guns for cred, they never argue it in an actual gun debate. And this isn't a gun debate ...

Nothing you said here wasn't something either party would say. Which is why I said no hand waiving. The question is what do you support that Republicans support and Democrats would actually disagree with, not just mean something different?

 

[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.

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.

I've said it before. I'm a registered Republican because my state has closed primaries. That's it. I'm a conservative, and right now, there's not another viable way to further my conservative principles. I yield to no one in my consistent anger at GOP politicians for getting into office, and then selling out the people and the country to feather their own nests.

BUT . . . there's a difference between an elected politician who actually IS beholden to the people BECAUSE he's been elected, and a political party deciding who they should present for consideration in an election, or a candidate asking to be considered in an election.

I choose to participate in the system for making those decisions presented by the Republican Party, rather than abdicating the whole thing and being left with whichever candidates others decide to present. In Arizona, that requires me to maintain current registration as a Republican, and to locate the appropriate polling place and determine the necessary dates and deadlines. If I lived in, for example, Colorado, then I would put forth the extra effort to find my caucus date and location, and probably put myself forward as a possible delegate to the next levels of the process. Doubtful I'd go as far as the state convention level, but I might. Because THAT is the system there to accomplish what I want.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 ...

He asked a question, and I answered him. He wants something, and I don't agree. If he didn't want to know whether or not I agreed, he shouldn't have asked.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Quit with the "You're not answering the way I want you to, so I'll pretend you didn't answer at all." You want to set up a straw man and force me to discuss as though people HAVE a vote in primaries, rather than an opinion. Not gonna happen. This type of "when did you stop beating your wife?" misdirection has never worked on me before; I can't imagine why you think it will now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I mention projection you mention "butch"

Priceless

I mention "misogynist *****", and you prove me right.

Priceless.

 

[kaz]

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.

I've said it before. I'm a registered Republican because my state has closed primaries. That's it. I'm a conservative, and right now, there's not another viable way to further my conservative principles. I yield to no one in my consistent anger at GOP politicians for getting into office, and then selling out the people and the country to feather their own nests.

BUT . . . there's a difference between an elected politician who actually IS beholden to the people BECAUSE he's been elected, and a political party deciding who they should present for consideration in an election, or a candidate asking to be considered in an election.

I choose to participate in the system for making those decisions presented by the Republican Party, rather than abdicating the whole thing and being left with whichever candidates others decide to present. In Arizona, that requires me to maintain current registration as a Republican, and to locate the appropriate polling place and determine the necessary dates and deadlines. If I lived in, for example, Colorado, then I would put forth the extra effort to find my caucus date and location, and probably put myself forward as a possible delegate to the next levels of the process. Doubtful I'd go as far as the state convention level, but I might. Because THAT is the system there to accomplish what I want.

I was challenging Huggy, not you Cecile, but thank you for your perspective

 

[kaz]

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 ...

He asked a question, and I answered him. He wants something, and I don't agree. If he didn't want to know whether or not I agreed, he shouldn't have asked.

I was specifically addressing where you said he was "demanding control of someone else's." I didn't see him "demand control" of anything, just offer his opinion that delegates should be awarded by voting

 

[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?

You're proving my point. They have no motivation to give us (you and I) what WE want. They are in it for themselves. We want our votes to count...PERIOD. That's it! We don't want to be reimbursed with cash for cripes sake. We want to go to the polls, cast our vote and have that vote count. We're Americans and WE are supposed to elect our leaders NOT the ******* party. Remember "FOR" "BY" and "OF"?

Can't believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow American. Who's team are you on anyway? Don't answer that....it's evident

Nice try at deflection and conflation, but no.

They have zero reason to change their party in order to let people hostile to their party impose their own desires on it. They don't exist to serve as a "voice of whatever the people want today". They exist to promote a specific set of principles and issues, and they ask the OPINIONS of regular people about candidates and policies to further those goals. We already have official elections to serve as the "voice of the people".

Sadly, I CAN believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow American, because I've been aware for a long while of how dumbed-down and emotion-driven our nation has become. Nevertheless, I have no desire to live in an idiocracy, and I'm not going to buy into your misinformation and propaganda, no matter HOW many charged buzzwords you throw in.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I've said it before. I'm a registered Republican because my state has closed primaries. That's it. I'm a conservative, and right now, there's not another viable way to further my conservative principles. I yield to no one in my consistent anger at GOP politicians for getting into office, and then selling out the people and the country to feather their own nests.

BUT . . . there's a difference between an elected politician who actually IS beholden to the people BECAUSE he's been elected, and a political party deciding who they should present for consideration in an election, or a candidate asking to be considered in an election.

I choose to participate in the system for making those decisions presented by the Republican Party, rather than abdicating the whole thing and being left with whichever candidates others decide to present. In Arizona, that requires me to maintain current registration as a Republican, and to locate the appropriate polling place and determine the necessary dates and deadlines. If I lived in, for example, Colorado, then I would put forth the extra effort to find my caucus date and location, and probably put myself forward as a possible delegate to the next levels of the process. Doubtful I'd go as far as the state convention level, but I might. Because THAT is the system there to accomplish what I want.

I was challenging Huggy, not you Cecile, but thank you for your perspective

I know you weren't talking to me. I just felt the need to comment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 ...

He asked a question, and I answered him. He wants something, and I don't agree. If he didn't want to know whether or not I agreed, he shouldn't have asked.

I was specifically addressing where you said he was "demanding control of someone else's." I didn't see him "demand control" of anything, just offer his opinion that delegates should be awarded by voting

Basically, that's EXACTLY what he's doing. He's insisting that what the parties should do is simply serve as a by-definition-meaningless extension of the ACTUAL elections, and have no structure or guiding principles to their efforts other than "a bunch of people wandered in and decided this whim for today". He doesn't want to put out the effort and involvement to organize and run his own group of like-minded people to put forth THEIR principles and representatives; he wants someone else to do all the work, and then just give him control when he wakes up a couple of days every four years and notices that there's an election happening, "hey this guy has a great slogan guess I'll pick him".

 

[kaz]

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.

I've said it before. I'm a registered Republican because my state has closed primaries. That's it. I'm a conservative, and right now, there's not another viable way to further my conservative principles. I yield to no one in my consistent anger at GOP politicians for getting into office, and then selling out the people and the country to feather their own nests.

BUT . . . there's a difference between an elected politician who actually IS beholden to the people BECAUSE he's been elected, and a political party deciding who they should present for consideration in an election, or a candidate asking to be considered in an election.

I choose to participate in the system for making those decisions presented by the Republican Party, rather than abdicating the whole thing and being left with whichever candidates others decide to present. In Arizona, that requires me to maintain current registration as a Republican, and to locate the appropriate polling place and determine the necessary dates and deadlines. If I lived in, for example, Colorado, then I would put forth the extra effort to find my caucus date and location, and probably put myself forward as a possible delegate to the next levels of the process. Doubtful I'd go as far as the state convention level, but I might. Because THAT is the system there to accomplish what I want.

I was challenging Huggy, not you Cecile, but thank you for your perspective

I know you weren't talking to me. I just felt the need to comment.

Fair enough. I thought you were in the chain or something and thought I directed it at you, just wanted to be sure you knew I didn't. We're good