Posted on 05/02/2016 10:54:58 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
“I got cheated!”
After Donald Trump received nearly twice the votes of Ted Cruz at Saturday’s Arizona Republican convention, the Texas senator walked away with a significant majority of the delegates from that state, KTAR reported.
Cruz took nearly all the state’s 28 at-large delegates and basically split the 27 selected by congressional district.
Former Gov. Jan Brewer, a Trump supporter, was livid as the results were announced, indicating that she’d lost her first election in 35 years.
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/05/01/gov-jan-brewer-furious-after-what-cruz-is-able-to-pull-off-in-arizona-a-state-he-lost-to-trump-335367#ixzz47WOcx8ME
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
Her name was on the ballot; she got 93 votes, but she was not listed on the Trump slate. People were able to hit the button for slates. There were 4: Trump, Cruz, Kasich, and Unity.
“why on earth is the delegate system a surprise to people?”
It’s not that the system is a surprise, it is that in 2016, the system is at odds with the best interest of the people - selecting a nominee with the strongest possible popular consensus, the strongest mandate.
Remember, the whole reason for requiring a majority of 1237 delegates, rather than a mere plurality, is that a plurality is a minority, and is not perceived as a consensus, and does not carry a mandate.
An anonymous vote would clearly carry the strongest mandate, but it is obviously not possible to achieve that ideal. The next best mandate would be a super majority, say two thirds, but again this is too difficult to achieve. A simple majority is therefore a compromise - it is considered the strongest consensus that can be reasonably achieved in a presidential election context.
That, dear FRiends, is why ‘the system’ is set up with delegates who can change their vote in subsequent ballots. If they were never released from their initial pledge, then a plurality could never be resolved into a majority.
What is ironic, and even perverse, is when the system is abused - used at odds with its purpose of achieving the strongest reasonable mandate - which is what is happening in 2016.
Trump will probably exceed the 1237 majority on the first ballot, making all of this moot, but if he were to fall short by, say, 50 delegates, and a losing candidate like Cruz or Kasich, were to achieve the nomination in subsequent ballots in smoked filled rooms, or worse yet, a candidate that did not even participate in the primary process, like Ryan or Romney - would that be perceived as a consensus decision - a mandate? Certainly not. It would be a perceived as highway robbery!
If any Republican has a mandate in 2016, it is Donald Trump and no one else. If ‘the system’ produces a nominee other than Trump, that system is surely broken. I don’t think it will happen, but if it does, I think the voters will detach from the Republican Party, and rightly so.
Not true. See post 61.
You were also able to choose not to vote for a slate, and to vote for 56 individually.
<><> people who have had lobotomies;
<><> people in padded cells;
<><> Maple Leaf hockey players;
<><> Canadian Mounted Police;
<><> Canadian Mounted Police horses;
<><> people on Dexedrin;
<><> people invested in Goldman Sachs;
<><> Hillary rejects.
Oh, so Brewer is a liar. I guess that should have gone without saying; she’s for Trump, right?
/S
Not true. See post 61.
Wonder how much money is being wasted on this. Trump has the nomination locked up.
You make some good points, but I must point out - Trump will get around 11 million votes in the primary...and a candidate in the general election will need around 55-60 million votes. This makes the notion of a ‘popular mandate’ unrealistic. Rather, the primaries include the most dedicated voters, most likely the most ideological voters. Its usually not the place to ferret out the most populist candidate (this is an odd year).
And I stand by my statement - many people seem completely thrown off kilter by the delegate system, and in their minds they believed the primary system to be similar to a slow motion version of the electoral college. And it isn’t. They’re angry because they are surprised by the system...but its a little late to change it now, 2016 or not.
I do agree that Trump will win on first ballot. Between Indiana and California, I think he’s about there.
And, I agree that if he came close, within 50-100 delegates, the voters would revolt and stay home if somebody else ended up with the nomination.
https://neverhillary.simplyvoting.com/index.php?mode=results&election=43455
She got 93 votes. Not a liar; just confused.
Was just pointing out what was reported regarding Cruz and Kaisch slates
Very well stated!
You’re right that Trump’s record primary votes don’t constitute anything close to mandate in a bipartisan general election sense.
I was just saying that there is no way a brokered convention is going to produce an alternative nominee with MORE of a mandate than Trump’s.
Any other possible nominee will either have lost to Trump by big margins, or will not even have participated in the primary contests. Either way, totally lacking in voter mandate.
That is one of the most succinct, and accurate descriptions of Ted Cruz I have ever read.
Very well stated.
So wouldn’t Trump people, who tout anti-establishment, want someone who has been to 5 conventions and obviously an insider to be voted out?... Appears Trumpeteers like establishment when it suit them.
Wrong way to look at it. People don’t like party elitists disenfranchising them. That’s what happened with Brewer - she supported Trump - she got knocked out by the establishment elitists.
I don’t think people fully understood the system until Trump brought it up and people started to take notice.
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.