RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

[candycorn]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yup why do they even bother holding a primary? Just pick someone already. They think their supporters are a bunch of morons anyways.

 

[candycorn]

Yup why do they even bother holding a primary? Just pick someone already. They think their supporters are a bunch of morons anyways.

There is that. And that is the main thing; why have primaries???

From a purely political standpoint, the only republican that scares me is Kasich at this point. Anything that retards the possibility of him becoming the nominee is a plus.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Why? There is the standing committee that meets a few times every year. They meet about rules before the other committee even comes into existence. Do you know that the rules committee (regular) meet at the start of each convention in order to iron out the rules? That committee does not exist in between conventions, only the standing committee does.

So you are wrong in your assumptions. "The national convention leadership" does NOT have the power to do what you suggest. It would be illegal. The delegates get to vote on rules changes at the start of every convention. Those delegates come to the national convention after being selected at state conventions. The state delegates can be REFUSED if they are NOT credentialed.

Think of Robert's Rules for politics and political conventions. There are even state laws on state elections. Too bad it isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

TheOldSchool

Yup why do they even bother holding a primary? Just pick someone already. They think their supporters are a bunch of morons anyways.

Simple. To allow the base to have a voice. They vote for a preference. And actually, this is more democratic of conventions than from previous from the last century (first half)

Simple, eh?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Yup why do they even bother holding a primary? Just pick someone already. They think their supporters are a bunch of morons anyways.

There is that. And that is the main thing; why have primaries???

Parties have primaries in order to get input from the base of voters. There is little direct democracy in party primaries and caucuses and conventions. Why should there be?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Yeah, and I could make the argument that casinos should set the odds to favor the house and the players equally. But it's not going to happen.

 

[S.J.]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yup why do they even bother holding a primary? Just pick someone already. They think their supporters are a bunch of morons anyways.

They hold primaries for three reasons. The first is to gauge the amount of support a candidate has or can generate. The second is to gin up recognition, familiarity, and a sense of investment in a candidate prior to the general election. And the third is to gauge the quality of a candidate, and whether he can stick it out through a grueling election.

Doesn't mean they feel any particular need to commit political suicide by abiding by the voters' opinions if they go seriously wacko.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yup why do they even bother holding a primary? Just pick someone already. They think their supporters are a bunch of morons anyways.

There is that. And that is the main thing; why have primaries???

Parties have primaries in order to get input from the base of voters. There is little direct democracy in party primaries and caucuses and conventions. Why should there be?

It's not like America has ever been especially interested in direct democracy, anyway. Nor, frankly, should it be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Yes, and I'm sure you've given this as much in-depth, experienced thought as the people who run the political parties and do this for a living. They actually have reasons for doing the things they do that I sincerely doubt you've ever considered.

This is not to say I don't have problems with the things they do. I just don't think breezily throwing out simplistic mandates after two seconds' thought is any better.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Nope dopey. That would be the will of a group of people who decided to vote in a Republican party primary.

Will of the people, is usually reserved for the American public. Still struggling to figure it out?

 

[S.J.]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Yes, and I'm sure you've given this as much in-depth, experienced thought as the people who run the political parties and do this for a living. They actually have reasons for doing the things they do that I sincerely doubt you've ever considered.

This is not to say I don't have problems with the things they do. I just don't think breezily throwing out simplistic mandates after two seconds' thought is any better.

Do what for a living, figure out ways to deny people the candidate of their choice?

 

[S.J.]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Nope dopey. That would be the will of a group of people who decided to vote in a Republican party primary.

Will of the people, is usually reserved for the American public. Still struggling to figure it out?

No, but you're struggling to justify political corruption.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Nope dopey. That would be the will of a group of people who decided to vote in a Republican party primary.

Will of the people, is usually reserved for the American public. Still struggling to figure it out?

Trumpettes have come to the bizarre conclusion that they are the entirety of "the people", "the voters", etc. and are therefore entitled to have their way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Yes, and I'm sure you've given this as much in-depth, experienced thought as the people who run the political parties and do this for a living. They actually have reasons for doing the things they do that I sincerely doubt you've ever considered.

This is not to say I don't have problems with the things they do. I just don't think breezily throwing out simplistic mandates after two seconds' thought is any better.

Do what for a living, figure out ways to deny people the candidate of their choice?

Run political parties and operate in political circles. What are YOUR expert credentials in the field, Bubba, other than shouting campaign slogans for your Orange Jesus?

 

[S.J.]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Nope dopey. That would be the will of a group of people who decided to vote in a Republican party primary.

Will of the people, is usually reserved for the American public. Still struggling to figure it out?

Trumpettes have come to the bizarre conclusion that they are the entirety of "the people", "the voters", etc. and are therefore entitled to have their way.

If he gets the most votes, he should win. You, on the other hand, feel he should not, because you don't want him to. You think you're "entitled to have your way"?

 

[S.J.]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Yes, and I'm sure you've given this as much in-depth, experienced thought as the people who run the political parties and do this for a living. They actually have reasons for doing the things they do that I sincerely doubt you've ever considered.

This is not to say I don't have problems with the things they do. I just don't think breezily throwing out simplistic mandates after two seconds' thought is any better.

Do what for a living, figure out ways to deny people the candidate of their choice?

Run political parties and operate in political circles. What are YOUR expert credentials in the field, Bubba, other than shouting campaign slogans for your Orange Jesus?

I wasn't aware I was required to have "credentials" in the field of political corruption in order to have an opinion. And what are your credentials, asswipe, other than shouting your anti-Trump slogans?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whoever gets the most votes (legitimately) in the combined primaries should get the nomination. Anything other than that is denying the will of the people. And all primaries should be closed.

Nope dopey. That would be the will of a group of people who decided to vote in a Republican party primary.

Will of the people, is usually reserved for the American public. Still struggling to figure it out?

Trumpettes have come to the bizarre conclusion that they are the entirety of "the people", "the voters", etc. and are therefore entitled to have their way.

If he gets the most votes, he should win. You, on the other hand, feel he should not, because you don't want him to. You think you're "entitled to have your way"?

Yeah, yeah, you and the left, always blathering on about "should". Somehow, the way things "should" be always mysteriously favoring everyone else just giving up and letting you droolers have your way.

I feel he wins if he achieves the goal according to the rules. That's how games are played. I don't know of any game where you win because you declare, loudly and often, that you're entitled to, and demanding that the rules be changed mid-game to suit you.

 

[candycorn]

RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Why? There is the standing committee that meets a few times every year. They meet about rules before the other committee even comes into existence. Do you know that the rules committee (regular) meet at the start of each convention in order to iron out the rules? That committee does not exist in between conventions, only the standing committee does.

So you are wrong in your assumptions. "The national convention leadership" does NOT have the power to do what you suggest. It would be illegal. The delegates get to vote on rules changes at the start of every convention. Those delegates come to the national convention after being selected at state conventions. The state delegates can be REFUSED if they are NOT credentialed.

Think of Robert's Rules for politics and political conventions. There are even state laws on state elections. Too bad it isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

Okay…

But if the rules were good enough for 2012, why would they not be good enough for 2016? I understand there is a need for evolution. At one time, as I remember my grandpa saying, states used to vote in the order of their inclusion to the Union; that was changed to let a politically important state put a nominee “over the top”. Procedural rules change all the time. Platform planks change regularly. There is a difference between evolution and revolution with rules designed to deny a particular candidate the Presidency.