Posted on 04/26/2016 2:24:16 AM PDT by CutePuppy
"It's not fair!" may be the most pitiful lament in the English language, but Donald Trump seems intent upon adopting it as his battle cry heading into this summer's Republican convention. The GOP's poorly designed nominating process includes more than its share of problems, but is it really unfair to Trump? ..... < snip >
..... open primaries invite abuse from voters whose goals may not involve selecting the party's strongest representative. Those with deep ties to the party deserve greater input than those with tenuous or nonexistent connections. Yet Democrats and Republicans alike have chosen to pretend otherwise. ..... < snip >
..... While some might see this deception as unfair, however, it has hardly worked against Trump. Trump's connection to the Republican Party is weak and of recent vintage, and he often boasts that many of his supporters are new to the Republican Party. ..... If anything then, Trump is a beneficiary of this misrepresentation rather than its victim. ..... < snip >
..... In a reasonable system, each state would allocate delegates proportionately. ..... Still, the big losers in this arena have been Marco Rubio and John Kasich; Trump has leveraged about 40 percent of the vote into about 49 percent of the delegates. ..... < snip >
..... Few consider it unfair to award the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, or World Series title to a team that failed to boast the best record in regular season play. Here, too, the rules have been clear for decades: ..... < snip >
..... Regardless, the tactical politicking pales in comparison to the unique advantages Trump's campaign has exploited with his enormous wealth and celebrity-driven free media coverage. Our political system hasn't been fair to Trump? Really? ..... < snip >
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
"Open" primaries that allow "Operation Chaos" subterfuge in many states is not a new subject and should have been dealt with by national and states' party leaderships long time ago.
Getting 95% of the delegates while getting 60% of the vote in a large state like NY and then complaining about "rigged" and "unfair" system may be considered "good politics" or strategy in the primary (like Charlie Sheen's "Winning!!" refrain), but it should not confuse anybody but low-information voters or be tolerated by anyone but the audiences of Comedy Channel and late-night "comedy news" shows.
Today's celebrity-driven culture (particularly of younger generations, like Millennials or younger Gen-Xers) favour those with name recognition (see Eddie Murphy's "The Distinguished Gentleman" (1992)) — whether in politics or "entertainment" — and/or those who mass media wants to elevate and make the "king" or the "queen" (if only temporarily, for "15 minutes" or only to set up an easier "kill" later.)
Current election rules and limits on personal donations give enormous advantage in primaries to ego-driven super-rich with little or no ideology or attachment to the constituents of the party, but who don't need to spend tremendous amount of time and money on fund-raising efforts just to be able to stay in the race, e.g., Perot, Romney, Trump. These rules also need to be changed and simplified, or we will keep getting the "lesser of the evils" candidates who represent, at best, a small fraction of what "we" [want to] believe in.
40% in a large field should be enough. Most contests should be popular vote and winner takes most.
This unity ticket is bad for the independent nature of the general campaign.
Trump shouldnt be forced to cut a deal with Jeb just because he needs another 5 to 9% somewhere. It’s better that the dominant 40% candidate gets in alone.
Trump should not be forced to cut deals with Jeb or Rubio just to get 50% of the vote.
All the congress primaries should have runoffs.
Why should Jeb get any delegates because a voter ticked the OTHER box and he ends up with 5 or 10% of the vote in a state.
To equate delegate wrangling and party insider candidate selection with the equivalent of awarding delegates based on voter preference is patently laughable.
Further, to continue to dismiss common voter preference with American Idol fantasia or voter vacuity/gullibility or the like is absurd.
It is true that the Constitution leaves voting up to the states because of division of powers - Federalism, but the intent was based on a fundamental understanding that somewhere, somehow, voter preferences would be at least considered. Even in “open primaries,” there are still choices for the common voter.
To translate that ideal to a place like Colorado where no statewide voter preference referendum was held at all and call that tit-for-tat with states that award winner-take-all delegates or any variations thereof reeks of “by any means necessary.”
Rules may be on Cruz’ side, but the voters are not. We are going to see a tsunami today, and in the primaries where voters can make there wishes known thereafter. Stand by your rules, and you will be standing on the side watching the opponents victory speech. You can take that to the bank.
What the author fails to grasp is that the “context” from which the claim “It’s not fair!” originates informs people’s reactions. If the person saying “It’s not fair!” is losing then the public thinks it’s just sour grapes. Now if someone is beating the competition like a drum and says “It’s not fair!” people will give them the benefit of the doubt.
‘America deserves a president who can master the complex rules of world leadership and play to win.’
complaining about a system that he didnt bother to participate in is an act. he didnt get a political analyst on board until a couple weeks ago when he realized his personality wasnt enough to sway delegates.
this is not a democracy where majority rules. sheeple flocking to vote wont always make you the winner. and a man who prolly knows the zoning laws of every state in the union knows exactly what he is doing.
he’s hoping cult of personality will get him elected the same as obama.
These Cruz supporters have a very hard time dealing with context.
Or the public will think they are a spoiled brat.
Yes. It’s rigged against Donald.
After all, the GOPe can’t have anybody upsetting their gravy train.
What is missed in all the “reporting” on this delegate issue is that it is not specifically targeted at anyone other than We the People. That is what the media and the establishment are trying desperately to gloss over to protect their Ruling Party Club.
Not only has Trump not played their game, he has pulled the curtain aside from the Wizards of Smart to expose them and their desperate attempt to keep the Serfs right where they are.
Ted wants a selection, not an election.
These authors are wrong on just about every point.
No one has complained about primaries, whether they are “winner takes all” or proportional allocations of delegates. Trump and his supporters complained about “caucuses” in which delegates were assigned to the less popular candidate through a complicated application of “rules” that only a lawyer could love.
In addition, these authors’ complaint about the “celebrity-driven culture” are misguided. If only we knew all of the candidates for all offices as well as we do Trump! Then we wouldn’t have situations where a candidate goes home and campaigns on a fairly conservative, pro-America agenda and then heads back to Washington where he supports and promotes socialist, anti-freedom policies and laws. People are not voting for Trump simply because of celebrity worship—I do not think Justin Bieber or Katy Perry would get even 5% of the vote, despite the fact that these are the two most tweeted celebrities right now, each having tens of millions of followers. People support Trump because they know who he is and judge him capable. I, for one, am looking forward to his leveraging his executive level business experience into the executive requirements of the office of the president.
Last, the authors’ complaint that Trump can afford his own campaign is completely off the mark. Trump, by not taking big money donors, is beholden to no one once he gets into office—well, no one except the ordinary voters who put him there. Can the same be said about any politician who funnels in money from giant special interests—who give the money with the tacit understanding that the politician taking it will support legislation and programs designed to give that interest special advantages and influence that ordinary voters do not have? What about the Clintons and their multi-billion dollar money-laundering operation (aka “foundation”)? Does anyone think for a minute that Hillary will represent the people?
It seems to be working with quite a few. There have been many comments made here which are quite similar to those made by Obama supporters.
Yep.you must break the system first.
Some here will see your point, others will not. Thank you for posting this.
True, that.
the cult of personality has gotten the worst president in history elected twice!!!
people are willing to overlook anything, squelch dissent, ruin reputations to get their candidate elected.
scary.
Dear Lord, this guy knows how to pitch a fit
People on both sides of the spectrum are clamoring to throw the “system” away because it’s broke.
Cult of personality is a great way of putting it. It’s worked for certain types throughout history.
Yes they’re rigged. Colorado was just the most blatant. Trump even said that Florida changed their system originally to help Rubio/Bush, but it ended up helping him instead with Winner Take All
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.