[[I can certainly understand that a Cruz supporter wants to change the subject]]
Noone’s changign the subject- we’re just pointing otu hte glaring hypocrisy
[[Winner-take-all can be seen as unfair or seen as fair. Arguments can reasonable be made both ways. ]]
But it’s only unreasonable when Colorado happens? Trump was silent on Missouri, and vocal on Louisianan - why? Yup because Miss he won majority, Louisianan he didn’t
The whole issue is about whether ALL delegate systems from various states are fair or not- noon’s changing the subject-
[[The idea of winner-take-all is the state is trying to increase its importance to the candidates.]]
The idea is to take away votes from those who voted for the one who didn’t get awarded the majority- there’s no getting around this fact- But, it’s how the game is played- Cruz understood that and isn’t complaining about it- Trump however does, but only when He doesn’t get the majority
Colorado issue is no different really- except that voters do not get a chance to even vote- however, again, even if they did, Colorado would likely have some delegate rule similar to Missouri or other states where people’s votes still were not counted for anything in the end-
We’re really comparing apples to apples here- peopel in both situations are losign hteir votes and the majority candidate is gettign htem even if the the peopel voted for the other person
Someone said the other day “Cast your vote, not that it matters, the state will decide who it goes for” or something to that effect- We’re seeing this play out in many states- and covering it under an umbrella of ‘it’s ok because it’;s winner take all’ doesn’t lessen the fact that peopel are still loosing their votes- are still being disenfranchised i n the end- Colorado is just the4 extreme end of this issue- but again, it’s how the game has been played for a very logn time-
There are similarities between the two systems in that a voter might feel rather bummed that their vote was not effective. However, it is fallacious to use this similarity to equate the two ways in which the votes were not effective.
I understand the emotional need to make this comparison though. And it is indeed true Cruz did not make the system and is playing it the way it lies. In a sense I can't blame him, he thinks he is the best for the job, a lot of others do, and he is trying to win. That is why I also can excuse him about not being entirely honest about Trump's positions. Just as I can excuse Trump for his sometimes childish twitter rants.
But putting the emotion arising from a hoping one's candidate who is behind can pull out a victory aside along with that of a candidate who is ahead and is struggling to reach the 1237 and avoid the contested convention, there is no grounds for saying that situations where votes do not end up representing faithful delegates are necessarily equally fair in an objective sense.
Certainly another way to make a vote not end up with a faithful delegate is with vote fraud--the votes are simply changed electronically in some illicit way. Now of course this is not like the other ways in so far that it is against the law, but the effect of a voter not being represented by a faithful delegate is the same. Another difference between this and the winner-take-all rule is that it is clearly not fair as well as illegal. Whereas if there is some kind of rule where a faithful delegate can be replaced by an unfaithful delegate this would be an unfair way to make a vote ineffective that at least was legal.
In sumamry:
Winner-take-all state: Fair, legal, but a bummer
Electronic vote fraud: Unfair, illegal, and a bummer
Betrayal by delegate selection: Unfair, legal, and a bummer
All three have the same bummer effect for the voter. But in only two of the instances is the voter clearly cheated. And in only one is it against the rules.