Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bushwon
This is what really disturbs me about the process. I voted for Trump. Trump won my state. Why is it fair or reasonable in any world that a delegate can turn around and vote against the people’s choice for the state? Why should their votes be more important than those of the state they represent?

Here's the issue -- I think most of us agree that a rule requiring the nominee to gain a majority of votes is reasonable - that's sort of the basis of any democratic system. And given the very real possibility that a convention could begin with no candidate having a majority, the rules must permit delegates, at some point, to vote for someone other than the person to whom they were pledged. Otherwise, every ballot would have the exact same candidates getting the exact same votes, and nobody would ever get a majority.

I personally think the best rule is that delegates pledged to a candidate must continue to vote for that candidate on subsequent ballots as long as that candidate is one of the top two vote getters. There may even be states that have such a rule because those rules are set by each state's own party.

Best thing I could say is that if you want to have more of a voice in the delegate rules for your state, be more active in the party, and pay more attention to who gets appointed to the party's central committee. I'm not sure any other solution is really possible.

237 posted on 04/07/2016 9:15:52 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies ]


To: Bruce Campbells Chin

Well, seems to me there are 2 sets of rules...First, the pre-convention shenanigans...

What is being done prior to the convention—where Kasich and Cruz surrogates are revisiting states won by Trump to “wrangle” (to use word of another poster - I prefer “pilfer”) delegates. I see it as theft...I really do.

Second, then there are the ballot votes at the convention where the pilfered delegates can be “released” as early as second vote...or perhaps worse, the GOPe can insert a new candidate for nomination such as Paul Ryan...Again, so much for representative government.

So I don’t like both situations...

I don’t like the pilfering of delegates at the state level—if the state went for Trump the delegates should vote Trump and not be schmoozed before the convention to change their vote on second ballot. I think negotiating should be done at the convention should a situation such as you described occur where there is not a clear majority winner. Frankly, I would like to see these votes and negotiations televised—then perhaps I and other concerned citizens could better understand this mysterious process...

I also don’t like the convention rules whereby the GOPe can insert an new candidate who was not even running in the primary such as Paul Ryan.

Actually, I did look into becoming a delegate this fall, but the deadline had passed. Given the way the GOP party is moving, I am not sure that I would be comfortable there anymore.


252 posted on 04/07/2016 9:55:03 AM PDT by Freedom56v2 (Election is about Liberty versus Tyranny and National Sovereignty versus Globalism!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

Oh, and I want to make clear I agree with your idea!

I personally think the best rule is that delegates pledged to a candidate must continue to vote for that candidate on subsequent ballots as long as that candidate is one of the top two vote getters. There may even be states that have such a rule because those rules are set by each state’s own p


253 posted on 04/07/2016 9:56:23 AM PDT by Freedom56v2 (Election is about Liberty versus Tyranny and National Sovereignty versus Globalism!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson