Posted on 04/18/2016 6:45:56 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
(Nick Bernabe via ANTIMEDIA) Denver, CO — The 2016 election has been a wild ride, with two insurgent grassroots campaigns literally giving the political establishment a run for its money. But as the events of this presidential primary season play out, it’s becoming clear the U.S. election — and even more so, the presidential race — is a big scam being perpetrated on the American people.
Events from the last week have exposed the system as an illusion of choice and a farce. They have reinforced at least one study showing the U.S. is an oligarchy rather than a democratic republic.
The Wyoming democratic caucus took place on Saturday, purportedly to allow voters to have their voices heard in the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Sanders lost the Wyoming caucus by winning it with a 12 percent margin.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
He gets the delegates named that he does the work for.
Interesting.
so the way to work for delegates is not to have delegates represent the voters and as you say the voters voted for their delegates, but then the voters were denied to vote as they had their delegates.
OK so how does one work for these delegates.
pay them off, bribe them, wish them things, tell me how does one work for these delegates?
Actually most states are not Winner Take All. Most are a hybrid (I think).
But yes unbound delegates do stink...it sounds a lot like a “super delegate” the rats use.
Issue in Colorado was Trump didn’t do a good job educating the voters. But in reality that’s probably the best way to avoid delegates not voting the way you want...educate the voters on who your delegates are before the election.
I want to be clear -- I do not support all of those things. My suggestions would be:
1) no winner take all primaries;
2) candidates get to put forth their own delegate slates so that their chosen delegate gets the slot if they win that district; 3) delegates at the Convention would be required to vote for the candidate for whom they were chosen as long as that candidate was among the top two vote-getters on the last ballot.
I think that would be the fairest way to ensure that the overall will of the voters is reflected at the Convention.
My comments on the Constitution are simply in response to people who rage that this whole process is contrary to the Constitution, and/or inconsistent with a more direct system of elections supposedly endorsed by the Founders. I'm simply pointing out what the Constitution says on the issue, not arguing that it presents the best framework for modern President primary elections (though I think there are good arguments it was the best system for the time).
Also, while it's pretty clear that my preferred system is not what we have right now, I'm not sympathetic to Trump whining about it. he's already gotten a higher proportion of delegates than votes, and he knew about these rules before the contest started.
The people who should be pissed are voters within their individual states, who hopefully will be more active in future party politics to change the systems.
In a normal year, the voters express their preference in the primaries and caucuses and this gives a nominee the required majority of delegates. So the voters determine.
In this unusual election, with an outsider leading a “we hate our party” faction, the party is not coalescing around the leader.
When no one gets a majority of delegates through the primary process, then the delegates become important.
The principle that the nominee should have a majority of support of the party is sound. Trump does not have that majority.
When did you stop beating your wife?
BTW: in Colorado it’s not “indirect” delegate voting it’s direct delegate voting. Most other states it’s indirect where you vote for the candidate then some delegates are told they have to vote that way for X number of rounds before they can vote as they wish.
Oh, come on. Considering the lockstep ideology of Bernie and Donnie, the idea of a Sanders-Trump ticket is not THAT farfetched. ;-)
Exactly! Why did they give the appearance of voting in FLorida where Trump ends up with 100% of the delegates but less than 50% of the actual vote.
How is that fair?
Are you saying that whoever wins the presidential race, with around 48% is only president of half the country?
Your argument is silly.
Where did I ever say Cruz should get delegates from Florida? All is the vote should be proportional.
so are you happy with the system that delegates get to choose and not the voters, yes or no?
Are you happy with the establishment you said you were against , but now for making the rules to suit who they want in and to deny who they do not want in? yes or no would suffice.
The vote counts when it delvers a majority candidate.
Trump is a noisy minority. All Trump needs to do to win this thing is become attractive to more than half of the party.
Why is this so difficult for him?
Huh? When did we start talking about the general election? This is about delegates and primaries.
so what you are saying in those two first sentences are because it is Trump we ignore the voters as we don’t want him.
Got it.
Now you can repeat it as much as you want, but the fact is more and more are seeing states go to a person where the voters did not have a say and they are getting more and more angry .
Well, considering a majority of the population supported putting a communist in the White House, I’m actually not a big fan of popular majorities.
The problem is the two main parties and politicians have told us we are voting for the nominee, they still try to tell us that.
They did not mean that of course, we were just told that because if we knew the party was choosing the nominee they wanted we would likely form other parties.
Yes. Depending on what he says. To be honest, I think it's pretty odd that anyone would say that they're going to vote for a candidate regardless of what he says.
For example, if he got wishy washy on judges, advocated the defeat of GOP members of Congress, supported women in combat units, etc., I might not vote for him. which is a vote for Hillary!?
No, it isn't. A vote for a third party or write in candidate is a vote for neither of the two major party candidates. It does not add to her vote total.
you keep harping about FL is winner takes all and Trump gets all the delegates, well duh guess what he got 66 out of 67 counties and beat over a half million more votes to second place.
If you keep whining about this talking point you put out thenm surely when FL goes republican with it’s electoral college count then maybe the count should be spread to the other candidate.
Trump for President.
How would you like to share the delegates here in FL when Trump got all but one county and over a half million more votes, should cruz have got some delegates now in your mind.
?
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.