Trump’s ‘voterless’ election myth

Washington Post ^ | April 18, 2016 | Marc A. Thiessen

[reaganaut1]

Donald Trump is complaining that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is racking up “voterless” victories in states such as Colorado and Wyoming, where delegates are chosen by a “small handful of elites” who are “sidelining” Republican voters.

This is dead wrong. In both Colorado and Wyoming, all registered Republican voters in the state had the chance to vote and participate in the delegate selection process.

The Wyoming Republican Party website explains the process clearly: “Delegates to the state convention are elected by the county conventions. Delegates to the county convention are elected by precinct caucuses in their respective counties. Any person registered to vote Republican as of the call for precinct caucuses in a given precinct may vote in that precinct’s caucus” (emphasis added).

In other words, there is a whole lot of voting going on. All Republicans in Wyoming had the chance to go to their precinct and vote for delegates who support their preferred candidate. And they did so in record numbers. In Laramie County, for example, the lines ran out the door on Super Tuesday, and turnout was up almost 400 percent compared with 2012. “The lines outside, they are amazing,” said Glen Chavez, a first-time caucus-goer. “If you’ve never taken part in something like this, get involved. If you want to make the difference, you make the change.”

The same was true for Colorado. Under Article XII of the Colorado Republican Party’s bylaws, any person who is a resident of a precinct for 30 days and is a registered voter “affiliated with the Republican Party” for at least two months can vote in a precinct caucus. Any such person can also run for delegate.

[nathanbedford]

Of course eyewitness testimony is admissible in court where it is also subject to cross-examination on issues of competency, bias, self interest, qualification etc. You are suggesting that we accept naked assertions as though they were gospel without cross-examination or any investigation whatsoever.

Documentary evidence is available concerning whether the meetings were publicized or not, whether records of telephone inquiries were kept, whether everyone was given the documented chance to vote? And many more kinds of documents would no doubt be available including correspondence e-mails etc.

A court proceeding also has the duty of meeting a burden and it is the burden of someone seeking relief to prove his case. In order to prove your case you have to bring it and Donald Trump despite his blustering, despite his history of using lawsuits as bullying tactics, has declined so far to bring a suit just as he has declined to participate in the contest.

[LS]

Nope. Politically perceptions are reality. You GOPers might not have figured that out with Mittens so I guess you want to try again with St. Ted.

[dsc]

“You are suggesting that we accept naked assertions as though they were gospel”

Why would you say such a thing? I ask only that my “naked assertions” be treated as a data point to be confirmed or rebutted, rather than mocked and dismissed. You’ve been on FR for a while, but I’ve never seen you act like this before.

“Documentary evidence is available concerning whether the meetings were publicized or not”

Not if the meetings weren’t publicized. What evidence of “no publication” would you expect? Smoking gun e-mails?

“whether records of telephone inquiries were kept”

And if not kept, what then?

“whether everyone was given the documented chance to vote”

No one was given a chance to vote who wasn’t there; that much is clear. It comes down to whether people were given the chance to be there.

The CO GOPe can show evidence that they did publicize if they did, and they can show false evidence that they publicized if they didn’t. In the absence of smoking gun communications, one would have to take a poll of every CO Republican to find out that they didn’t. Oh, well, maybe someone will have an attack of conscience and come forward.

“And many more kinds of documents would no doubt be available including correspondence e-mails etc.”

I would bet against that, especially given the prominence of Hillarius Rodina Clintesterone’s e-mail scandal in the news. Surely they wouldn’t be so stupid.

“despite his history of using lawsuits as bullying tactics, has declined so far to bring a suit just as he has declined to participate in the contest.”

Come on, a child could see how that would blow up in his face. No matter how much you hate him, he’s not stupid.

When I was a kid, people used to say, “Yeah? Well, if you’re so smart, how come you ain’t rich?” If someone were to ask that of me today, I could only drool a little and mumble unintelligibly. If someone were to ask Trump, he could point to billions in assets.

[xzins]

If there can be hundreds running per precinct, it divides and divides again and again. Without a runoff and a majority requirement, it’s too easy to be a manipulated result.

[glennaro]

I have only commented on what I observed in the video -- Point being that if you're running for president you need to at least be familiar with the people who support you or who you associate with, or who introduce you at a newsworthy event. That's all.

The voters won't take time to research Cruz's relationship -- or, as you presume -- the absence of his relationship with this nutcase of a "preacher".

My FRiend, you must be wearing an expensive pair of rose-colored glasses if you think a video like this wouldn't have a significant negative impact on Cruz's chances -- slim as they may be -- to ever being elected president. Your boy messed up big-time with this one.

[Pollster1]

The GOP would have kicked most of them out or played games taking away their votes just like they did in Colorado. The game is rigged and we know it.

If we really believed that, the second Civil War would already have started. The news on a Trump supporter being shut out in Colorado turned out to be what a charitable person would call "misrepresented". It makes no sense to pretend Trump is running for the republican nomination and then for his people not to show up because they wouldn't have counted. If that was true, 1,000 Trump supporters could have come out of WY with lots of video of cheating. That would be a whole lot more effective than claims of "we knew they would cheat, so we didn't show up."

In the absence of contrary evidence, I'm attributing that state's lopsided outcome to incompetence on Trump's part (failing to show up), rather than malice on the part of those who organized and voted at the caucuses. It's a shame too. We'd both rather have Trump with those delegates to improve the odds of a first ballot victory for Trump.

[mak5]

It is only “rigged” because Trump neglected to organize properly. You will probably see a similar result in Pennsylvania because of the way delegates are elected. Trump will win the 17 delegates in the beauty contest and Cruz will win many of the 54 district delegates because his campaign is informing people which delegates support him. The Trump supporters, they’ll have to guess because the campaign is again dropping the ball.

[RedWulf]

And you don’t find the intentionally hiding of what people are voting for to be corupt? It’s like having a store with no prices and you don’t know how much you paid until you get the credit card bill. Worse some of the items have prices but the price is lie. America is founded on being open and honest in our dealings and the deligate system is desinged to hide the Truth.

[FreeReign]

If there can be hundreds running per precinct, it divides and divides again and again. Without a runoff and a majority requirement, it’s too easy to be a manipulated result.

As I said, it's up to the candidate's organization to tell the caucus goers which delegate to vote for. The only thing better than that would be the candidates directly picking their delegates.

And it's actually a more representative system then say NY where the NY State Republican Committee picks the delegates.

[mak5]

It isn’t intentional hiding. It is voting for each delegate. If voters don’t care to find out who they are voting for and the campaigns don’t care to tell them, it isn’t the system’s fault, particularly a system that has been in place for at least decades.

[AndyJackson]

That is just as well because there is nothing wrong with conducting the nominating process for a political party by way of the caucus system.

There is a log wrong with it.

[RedWulf]

It is and always has been a corupt system desinged to give the party bosses all the power.

[RedWulf]

Romney lost the straw poll in CO and got 90% of the delegates in 2012. It has a long history of being corrupt.

[nathanbedford]

If you're going to quote me, kindly do so in full context so that a fair-minded reader is not misled.

[Robert DeLong]

And he is winning, I love it. Cruzers are too blind to see the realities.

[BuckeyeTexan]

However, it is not the case that any person registered to vote Republican as of the call for precinct caucuses in a given precinct is able to determine the time and location of a precinct’s caucus. That is often a closely guarded secret.

If by closely guarded secret you mean published in a newspaper for anyone to read, then, yes, it's a closely guarded secret.

Wyoming Bylaws:
The County Chairman shall issue the call for the Precinct Caucuses by publishing a notice of the number of Delegates to be selected from each precinct, the date, time, and place for each caucus in a newspaper(s) of general circulation in the County not less than ten (10) days prior to the Precinct Caucuses.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Even Trump now concedes that he opted out.

“We didn’t play in Colorado because I heard that it was going to be for the bosses, for the RNC,” he said. “I don’t want to play that game. I’m winning with the voters and we’re winning big.”

[BuckeyeTexan]

It’s like student council elections in high school. You put your name on the lists of candidates for delegates and you rally the caucus attendees to vote for you with a speech or whatever method the party mandates.

[dsc]

“If by closely guarded secret you mean published in a newspaper for anyone to read, then, yes, it’s a closely guarded secret.”

For one thing, I’m in CO, not WY. For another, quoting a rule doesn’t mean it was followed.

[xzins]

without runoffs until one candidate gets 50%+1, these are fully subject to organizational manipulation