[Political Junkie Too]

That's why listening to Bob Barr of Georgia last week was so maddening.

Barr made it clear that he intended to represent the wishes of the voters only for as long as he was legally compelled to do so. A delegate who felt a true affinity to the voters would be an advocate for their candidate in later rounds, not flee them at the first opportunity.

-PJ

[jackv]

http://youtu.be/6DUdn1-NUVI

[Cboldt]

-- A delegate who felt a true affinity to the voters would be an advocate for their candidate in later rounds, not flee them at the first opportunity. --

I agree with that, certainly for a delegate. But I also see an alternative, being of mind of how things ran before there were primaries, and being of a mind that the public vote is, on balance, a recipe for disaster.

The delegate needs to make a good argument for his preference. He needs to express WHY the populist sentiment leads to disaster.

The last few generations have missed that boat, and we are at the point where people vote money for themselves (rent seeking in its various forms), without being told "no." The candidates pander to the interests that provide the best financial return for the candidate. That's how the business rent-seekers have managed to get control of the government.

[jackv]

They think they are so much smarter than the rest of us...

[joesbucks]

That's why listening to Bob Barr of Georgia last week was so maddening. Barr made it clear that he intended to represent the wishes of the voters only for as long as he was legally compelled to do so. A delegate who felt a true affinity to the voters would be an advocate for their candidate in later rounds, not flee them at the first opportunity. -PJ

Using that logic, the nomination process would be deadlocked forever if Trump didn't have 1237.