Trump Needs To Enroll In "Delegates 101"

[[Now one could say “hey you should have complained at another time before you ran afoul of the rule”. That may be prudent advice. But it is still avoiding the question of whether rule A is fair.]]

The3 problem is that trump is only complaining about the rule when he loses delegates, never when he gains them- in Missouri the vote was nearly equal with cruz only a few thousand votes behind Trump- however, because of the rule- trump walked away with 70% of the delegates and cruz got only 20% or so- even though the end result of vote count was nearly identical- The voters that brought cruz to within a few thousand votes of trump had their votes essentially taken from them when hte state awarded trump 70%- they could have just stayed home and not vote ,and the results would have been the same- their votes didn’t count- Trump doesn’t mention the rule then- only when he loses delegates in places like Colorado because he didn’t have a ground game to woo the delegates like Ted did-

[[Again this may be a less charitable expression of good advice, but it is still avoiding the question of whether the rule A is fair. ]]

Was it fair when When Ted lost 50% of the delegaTEs in missouri because of the rule? Ted didn’t complain about losing them- He knew the rules and played by them and accepted that that is how the game is played- He did his best in Missouri, and it didn’t pay off- ok on to hte next state- Donald loses delegates in Lousinna and complains about ‘stolen delegate’- He loses in Colorado- apparently not knowing he needed to woo them- and complains about stolen delegates- (and there was some discrepancy about a ballot misprint that screwed up the delegate stuff, as well as some trump applications begin denied because they didn’t pay their $5 fee or something like that-)

[[This however does not make the rule fair and beyond reproach by people making a moral argument that the rule is unjust.]]

Nope it doesn’t but how long have these state delegate rules been inplace? A very long time now- all candidates have had to go by them- and never has there been such whining about it until this election except for Al Gore and ilk-

It’ the system we have- Donald should have been man enough to realize it, and smart enough to work with the rules, and worked later to change them IF he doesn’t feel they are fair- But to constantly charge Ted by saying ‘Lying Ted is stealing delegates from me” during the campaign that he CHOSE to enter is whining- plain and simple- I’ve worked at several places where their rules weren’t very fair to everyone- yet they were the rules- i had two choices- bitch moan and complain about them and quit- or live with them and keep my job- No amount of complaining was going to change them-

[[It is very close to using the principle of “its not the people who vote, but those that count the votes”]]

Hmmm- sounds just like Missouri where donald came away the victor of the spoils and didn’t complain one bit-

“It’s chaos. It’s a cluster #@@#. It’s the ultimate insider’s game,” said Josh Penry, a GOP operative in Denver who chaired Marco Rubio’s campaign in Colorado. “There are so many delegates in play.”......

......roughly 6,000 party activists in Colorado Springs, where 27 of the state’s 34 delegates to the Republican National Convention will be elected.”

So out of a 1,000,000 voters, 6,000 party activists chose 27 PARTY HACKS after viewing each of them for 10 seconds!

.06 % chose the delegates. (Please correct my math if it’s wrong)

SIX-TENTHS OF A PERCENTAGE OF THE COLORADO REPUBLICAN VOTERS CHOSE THE DELEGATES.

Colorado takes the prize for the most corrupt republicans to date.

Colorado GOP=Cook County DNC=Colorado GOP=Cook County DNC

Hmmm- sounds just like Missouri where donald came away the victor of the spoils and didn’t complain one bit-

Winner-take-all can be seen as unfair or seen as fair. Arguments can reasonable be made both ways. It is similar to how many states do the electoral college. The idea of winner-take-all is the state is trying to increase its importance to the candidates. The idea of doing it proportional is to allow the side without a majority to have at least some influence.

Neither alternative is as clearly dishonest and wrong as assigning an unfaithful delegate against the will of the voters.

I can certainly understand that a Cruz supporter wants to change the subject and look for an angle to get around directly saying this is moral or right. I appreciate the awkward situation, and it doesn't mean they are bad people.

[[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-

Noone’s changign the subject- we’re just pointing otu hte glaring hypocrisy

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.

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.