No, The Primary System Is Not Rigged

American Thinker ^ | 04/26/2016 | George W. Ford

[SeekAndFind]

For the past month, a media narrative has taken hold that something must be done to reform, simplify, streamline, and democratize the delegate selection system of the Republican presidential nomination process.

Is our GOP presidential primary system rigged, meaning it is corrupt because it favors the establishment? Is it convoluted, arbitrary, arcane...and too often "voteless"? Is it wrong to allow "Trojan horse" delegates to change their vote on the second ballot of the national convention? Why do we have a separate election for delegates after we vote for candidates?

The system is not rigged, convoluted, arbitrary, arcane, or voteless. It is a system that encourages the grassroots to participate in party platform issues, the selection of candidates, the choosing of a candidate winner, and the allocation of party resources. The system is designed to keep the party alive and well by allowing current ideas and candidates to be tested and new ideas and candidates to be heard.

Here is what I mean. If you think the primary system we have now is no good, try imagining this: each state and territory holds an open election, the delegates are assigned proportionally to reflect the vote, and those delegates are committed to hold to that candidate for, say, the first 10 ballots. That way you have a pure vote, a fairly precise correlation between how the people vote and how the delegates vote, and no double-crossing on the subsequent ballots. Simple, clean, and easily explained to the voters by the news media.

Under this imagined Pure-Vote system, you would have chaos. In this 2016 cycle, Trump would have 20% fewer delegates as of today, with little chance of getting a majority, ever – unless he were to negotiate for Kasich's and Rubio's delegates before the convention.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

I’m only a few years behind you on age, agree with you that our republic is going down the toilet, but think the delegate selection process is the least of our worries. Fact is, Trump has benefited from the system garnering more delegates than his popular vote totals warrant. This is as it should be. He will be the GP nominee.

I worry about how he will govern. Mr. Trump is a blank slate. He says he will hire great people, but Manafort seems like a knucklehead to me. He wants to expand ethanol subsidies. Really? A fat crony-capitalist taxpayer funded giveaway to campaign donors? Will he stand up to Schuemer and the other vermin to build a wall AND shut down the corrupt VISA entry/exit system? Enforce e-Verify? I could go on, but won’t.

Never Hillary!

[newgeezer]

Too much logic and reasoning in that article. Thanks for posting it.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

plu·ral·i·ty

The number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

And don't run 17 people who have zero chance of winning for president next time like a bunch of friggin' idiots.

Agree 100%.

[taxcontrol]

Back in 2004 Colorado voted to go to the closed caucus system. Delegates to the State convention (representatives) meet at the state party convention (3,900+ delegates) and vote on a wide range of issues, one of which is which slate of delegates will represent the party (37 delegates) at the National convention.

In 2016, ANY REGISTERED REPUBLICAN could go to their precinct and run for: Precinct Captain, State Delegate or Alternate. These people are the true grass roots and to represent their precinct, all they have to do is get a majority of their neighbors in the precinct to vote for them. That is how Colorado voted.

[erkelly]

Anyone who wishes to change their party registration can do so if they wish to vote in the opposite party’s primary, this has always been the case. They can then change it back, if they want. So this state law is not really changing anything at all. People have always been free to do this, if they want to, and a few thoughtful people do so every election.

My gripe is with open primaries, where it makes it very easy for the people who do not think much about politics or do not agree with a party’s beliefs to vote in the party primary, without going to the trouble of switching their party registration.

An honest closed primary is about the best choice there is, a vote free from the control of party hacks who are hell-bent to keep their own in power.

[taxcontrol]

Some states (ex. Colorado) didn’t allow voters to vote.

Please don't repeat the lies of the mainstream media. Colorado's GOP did vote. They voted DIRECTLY for the delegate to represent that precinct at the state party convention. This is how we have held our election for delegates since 2004.

[Balding_Eagle]

Yep, just leave the damn thing alone.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

We should just let Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Reinse Priebus decide what’s best for each State. Local party grass roots officials aren’t smart enough to figure out a fair system. All the really smart people are in Washington DC.

That’s what a free republic means. Total control by the central government elites.

[Donglalinger]

ma·jor·i·ty
noun, 1.the greater number.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Majority

: a number that is greater than half of a total
: a number of votes that is more than half of the total number
: the group or party that is the greater part of a large group

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority

[chris37]

Frankly, I am not concerned with Colorado. Maybe there is going to be a redo, maybe not.

But more importantly, I am not even remotely interested in you trying to justify this person who is mathematically eliminated continuing to run.

All I am going to tell you is that if you want to support someone intentionally bringing us to a contested convention, you are going to be supporting that person all by yourself and his party too.

Ted Cruz is not worth putting the future of America in the hands of GOP party bosses.

Screw that.

[TontoKowalski]

Your post needs to be put on the Home Page.

Perfectly stated.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Some states (ex. Colorado) didn’t allow voters to vote.
Please don't repeat the lies of the mainstream media. Colorado's GOP did vote. They voted DIRECTLY for the delegate to represent that precinct at the state party convention. This is how we have held our election for delegates since 2004.

---

Time Traveling Ted went back to 2004 to rig it. /sarc

[chris37]

Thank you kindly.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Colorado?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/434023/donald-trump-colorado-primary-process-not-rigged-against-him

[Boogieman]

Luckily, I waited until 10th grade before I started getting stoned :)

[DoughtyOne]

I’m only a few years behind you on age, agree with you that our republic is going down the toilet, but think the delegate selection process is the least of our worries.

Let's look back at our nomination process clear back to Reagan's day.  I remember Reagan having to get indignant at the prospect of his microphone being cut off, him reacting angrily about it, and that one thing sparking folks to understand he was not the same ole same ole.  He was a refreshing change back to someone who respected the nation, wanted it to be turned back toward the right path, and wound up doing so.  We changed from the nation of Carter's malaise to one of a Golden House on a hill, a beacon to other nations.

Reagan was not supposed to be the nominee.  The RNC/GOPe had Bush in their sights.  They were apoplectic about Reagan just like the powers that be are of Trump today.  So what did they do?  They tightened up their nomination process to make sure an outsider like Reagan could never again surprise them and abscond with the nomination.

This year they encouraged as many people as they could to run.  Why?  They did so because they figured this would prevent anyone from winning eight states by a majority and obtaining 1237 delegates prior to the convention.  Thus they could tightly control who became the nominee.  That's it in a nutshell.

Not being able to control how the populace in states would vote, they took to the caucus states to do their best to block Trump.  I've read too many stores of what took place in caucus states to let someone tell me the processes were not corrupted, and an agenda not clearly in play.  You don't get most states voting for Trump in primaries, and caucus states only voting for Ted.  A consensus may not be uniform in all states, but some semblence of public sentiment has to rule.  We saw a complete lack of cohesion, the public sentiment.  If there was a caucus, Cruz won.  If there was a clear will of the people, Trump did.  We can find very few examples of this not holding true.

Nevada for instance, is the only caucus Trump won.  Cruz only won 4 primaries.  That is not normal?  Something in the caucus system wasn't above board.  Primaries are.  They are open election processes where the clear will of the people is expressed.  In general terms, there isn't a clear cut way to rig those elections, unless you think the Republican party rigged them for Trump.  We know that is not true.  So how did the caucuses come up with completely different outcomes?

Which was your favorite candidate in each of the general election fields Reagan to now?  You don't probably remember each one.  What you do remember is good people being eliminated and one of the most Leftist Republicans getting the nomination.  You probably remember being upset about it, frustrated, wanting the process to more reflect your views and goals.  What you don't seem to have put together for yourself, is that the nomination process has not been your friend.  It was the sole reason for your discontent.  And now Trump an outsider vying for the nomination, you tell me that the delegate selection process is the least of our worries.

Then you sure don't have the same worries I do.  I don't want another career politician, a Washington insider, as the nominee.  Trump may not be perfect, but by heaven he's the first non-GOPe ordained person to get the nod since Reagan.  What is not to like about that?  Will he or his minions get us angry at times?  Yes.  He's human.  Tell me, are you happy about everything Bush did?  I'm not.

It's time to give someone outside the system a chance.  Trump is very qualified to hold a top chief executive postion.  That's just what he will be.

Cruz doesn't have a clue about leadership.  He's one of those people who knows darn well they can do better than the current boss, even though they have no management experience whatsoever.

Ted is a GOPe/RNC insider, with a law degree, and no business acumen at all.  This means GOPe/RNC appointees would be helping him come up with policy.  Excuse me for thinking that's the absolute last dynamic I want in the White House right now.  

Fact is, Trump has benefited from the system garnering more delegates than his popular vote totals warrant. This is as it should be. He will be the GP nominee.

I agree that it is as it should be.  Someone has to be selected, and who better than the person who gets the most votes?  For the record, folks haven't seen me complain when Ted won state primaries and recieved a majority or all the delegates.  That's how it should work IMO.  

I worry about how he will govern.

I worried how Bush would govern.  What did that save me from?  He wound up being just who I thought he was, a GOPe/RNC insider who screwed the nation royally.

We tried the GOPe/RNC way.  It's our turn.   

Mr. Trump is a blank slate.

Only if you think he is a total liar.  If you do, nothing I can say will move you.  If you don't think he is a liar, his stated platform has plenty of Conservative Meat on those bones.  If he does 25% of what he said he would, he will have done far more than Bush did for the nation.

He says he will hire great people, but Manafort seems like a knucklehead to me.

I'm sorry you think along those lines.  Something you saw made you think that.  I haven't seen anything he's done to warrant that assessment.  He participated in an interview on Sunday (last) with Chris Wallace.  Wallace proceeded to try to destroy him and Trump.  Manafort rebuffed every one of his attacks.  He did so in ways we prayed for under Bush.  He was absolutely masterful.  What he pushed was right on target.  I couldn't have asked for a better ombudsman for our desires.     

He wants to expand ethanol subsidies.

I want you to think of all the absolutely critical things we need to address right now.  We're talking $20 trillion dollars worth and many policies.  I don't agree with increasing ethanol subsidies, but for crying out loud, that is about 50th on my list.  You would toss 49 items we desparately need because of something this petty?

Really?

Really?

A fat crony-capitalist taxpayer funded giveaway to campaign donors?

I'm so sick and tired of hearing the crony-Capitalist label pulled out for any old disagreement.  What campaign donors?

Will he stand up to Schuemer and the other vermin to build a wall AND shut down the corrupt VISA entry/exit system?

Has anyone so far?  I think he will.  What's the worst that can happen if he doesn't?  We remain screwed like we have been.  I don't believe he'll cave, but you should know the worst case scenario.  This is it.  If you think Cruz was solid on this, you're wrong.  He said he wasn't going to round up folks and deport like Trump, at one point.  He defended it saying we didn't need to do that.  Yes, Ted, we do need to do that.  Otherwise you don't get the criminal element out of our nation.  You don't block MS-13 from returning.  They remain here.  So do the murderers, the rapists, the pedofiles, the robbers...  We need to thin the herd.  Trump will.

Enforce e-Verify?

Has anyone so far?  Would Ted?  The GOPe/RNC doesn't want that and by now it's crystal clear Ted is a GOPe/RNC insider.

I could go on, but won’t.

You could sit there and write the same type of things about Ted too, but it wouldn't make you feel better.  So you do it about Trump.  He is going to do things you want.  He is also going to do some things you don't want.  I think his does that you want will outweight his does that you don't want.  That will undoubted be better than Bush.  I believe it will be better than Cruz too.

Never Hillary!

Never Never-Trump!

[taxcontrol]

We don’t have primaries in Colorado, we have caucuses.

[taxcontrol]

Sorry but you are incorrect and since it is obvious you do not know the Colorado rules and processes or why this particular caucus system was put in place, you may want to educate yourself before you spout off.

The fact is, DESPITE what you may have heard from the mainstream media, the precinct delegates to the state convention are elected by the grass roots members of that precinct. If you do not believe me, look up the rules for yourself.