Replies

The Founders did not create the parties and their rules. It is healthy for the American public, both parties, to be examining the delegate situation. Bernie’s devotees will be just as mad as Trumpsters if their candidates are rickidooed out of their winnings.

I think we need to go back and look at the original intent. I was wondering today, what the Founders actually intended with respect to how elections should be run, and while they didn’t create the parties, they pretty much appeared on the scene very early on.

Not a historian here, but I’m glad everyone is getting a giant civics lesson this election cycle. The whole delegate/party set-up bears examination and debate.

State representation was much more important to the founders than it is to modern politicians. Senators were not directly elected by the people. States still have some of their own discretion on how they award electoral college votes and party delegates. The delegate process is very similar to the electoral college process, with states picking electors who traditionally follow how their state voted. But the convention delegate process is more democratic in a way. If the electoral college fails to vote a majority for a candidate, a smaller body of state representatives decides on the president. At the convention, the actual delegates continue re-voting until they find a majority consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29

The Twelfth Amendment provides for what happens if the Electoral College fails to elect a president or vice president. If no candidate receives a majority for president, then the House of Representatives will select the president, with each state delegation (instead of each representative) having only one vote.

On four occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election.[6][7]

The Founders did not create the parties and their rules.

Once the voting franchise was expanded past male land-owners, the modern-day dog and pony show became inevitable. The Marxists always want to include more voters because they know that the masses are stupid as hell.

Some of the Founders also warned against political parties including, I believe, Washington himself. It is easy to see why - the dumb masses treat their political parties like NFL teams: my team, yay! And to hell with what is right or just. If I could go back in time and talk with the writers of the Constitution I would advise them of two things: 1) DEFINE ALL YOUR TERMS EXPLICITLY ("natural born citizen", anyone?), and 2) prohibit the labeling of political parties on any ballots or governments documents of any kind.

I certainly agree the Founders did not create parties. Everyone but Madison hated them, but Madison thought they were necessary.

The issue here is not party rules, but whether or not the party is actually a representative of its members. Clearly the GOP is not and is deliberately giving its members the middle finger. It’s one thing if Trump doesn’t come close to 1237 (I call “coming close” anything over 1200). Even 1100 you could argue that the leader should get the nomination-—a recent poll of GOP faithful shows that 51% support this.

But if the party tries to ignore and screw some 10 million voters who have elected rightfully 1237 delegates, there will be absolute hell to pay.

I keep repeating: the worst thing about this is that Cruz cannot win, yet he is the one engaging in the most mischief, leading me to think he is either 100% corrupt, or extremely stupid.