Trump’s ‘voterless’ election myth

Washington Post ^ | April 18, 2016 | Marc A. Thiessen

[reaganaut1]

Donald Trump is complaining that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is racking up “voterless” victories in states such as Colorado and Wyoming, where delegates are chosen by a “small handful of elites” who are “sidelining” Republican voters.

This is dead wrong. In both Colorado and Wyoming, all registered Republican voters in the state had the chance to vote and participate in the delegate selection process.

The Wyoming Republican Party website explains the process clearly: “Delegates to the state convention are elected by the county conventions. Delegates to the county convention are elected by precinct caucuses in their respective counties. Any person registered to vote Republican as of the call for precinct caucuses in a given precinct may vote in that precinct’s caucus” (emphasis added).

In other words, there is a whole lot of voting going on. All Republicans in Wyoming had the chance to go to their precinct and vote for delegates who support their preferred candidate. And they did so in record numbers. In Laramie County, for example, the lines ran out the door on Super Tuesday, and turnout was up almost 400 percent compared with 2012. “The lines outside, they are amazing,” said Glen Chavez, a first-time caucus-goer. “If you’ve never taken part in something like this, get involved. If you want to make the difference, you make the change.”

The same was true for Colorado. Under Article XII of the Colorado Republican Party’s bylaws, any person who is a resident of a precinct for 30 days and is a registered voter “affiliated with the Republican Party” for at least two months can vote in a precinct caucus. Any such person can also run for delegate.

[dsc]

“If you’re going to quote me, kindly do so in full context so that a fair-minded reader is not misled.”

Nothing I wrote in any way misrepresented anything you wrote.

[kabar]

That is just as well because there is nothing wrong with conducting the nominating process for a political party by way of the caucus system.

The caucus system gives the party more control over the process just as a closed primary does vice an open primary. It is just a fact. Now, we can debate the benefits of having a system that responds primarily to the engaged rank and file party members who dedicate their time and energy to the party vice someone who is nominally a member or an independent. I have been personally involved in the process. The party bosses structure the rules to maintain control.

The delegates to the convcntion are predominantly party apparatchiks. It is a reward to go to the national convention. Normally, a convention is a pro-forma exercise just to confirm the results of the primary and unite the party for the General Election. It is a time for the delegates to party and have fun. This year is quite different. If there is a second ballot, most of the delegates will be able to exercise their own preferences bearing in mind that most are part of the GOPe.

Many states are now selecting their delegates. Some are forming slates to let the Rep delegates to their district meetings and state conventions who they are committed to on the second and third ballots, something unusual for the Reps. Whether this means that some "outsiders" will be delegates remains to be seen. The longer the balloting goes on in a contested convention, the more probable someone other than Trump or Cruz will be the nominee. As I said, most of the delegates are GOPe types.

The idea that there is some sort of plot conceived by Trump supporters in May to be executed in April is preposterous unless they had second sight.

I assume you meant Cruz vice Trump. Cruz is the lead actor in the stop Trump movement. Given the natural proclivity of the average GOP delegate, they would happily join forces with Cruz to stop Trump on the first or second ballot. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Hear me now, believe me later. Most of the delegates are supporters of the GOPe. Cruz is delusional if he thinks they owe their allegiance to him. The first test will be the meeting of the rules committee the week before the convention. I will wager that Rule 40b will be the first casualty. The majority of the delegates will vote not to confine the ballot to just two candidates, Trump or Cruz.

[kabar]

Actually in China and the former Soviet Union, the centralized government controlled party would pick the delegates.

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China is a political body that comprises the top leaders of the Communist Party of China. It is currently composed of 205 full members and 171 alternate members (see list). Members are elected once every five years by the National Congress of the Communist Party of China (NCCPC).

The National CPC Congress should not be confused with the National People's Congress (NPC) which is the legislature of the People's Republic of China. Similar to the practice of the NPC, the delegates to the Congress are formally selected from grassroot party organizations, and like the NPC, the system of staggered elections in which one level of the party votes for the delegates to the next higher level allows the party center to control the election of delegates.

How does the Congress work?

Local congresses have been held in each of China's provinces and autonomous regions (such as Tibet and Xinjiang) and have selected representatives to send to Beijing.

No more than 68 per cent of the delegates may hold leadership positions within the party. The remaining 32 per cent should be "grassroots" party members who hold jobs outside of the party apparatus.

In 2007, at the 17th Congress, the Central Committee had 155 members from the provinces, 125 from the central government in Beijing and 64 from the People's Liberation Army.

The Congress will choose who sits on the 200-person Central Committee, and who its 180 or so alternate members will be. It also chooses the 25-man Politburo and the Politburo Standing Committee, which could shrink back to seven men again this year. In practice, all of the decisions are made not by delegates but by the previous generation(s) of leaders and are handed down and rubber-stamped during the meeting.

[BuckeyeTexan]

From Colorado GOP bylaws:

ARTICLE XII: PRECINCT CAUCUSES

Section’A.’ Date and Location.

Precinct caucuses shall be held in even-numbered years at 7:00 p.m. on the date provided for by law or the rules of the Republican National Committee at a private place in each precinct or at a public place in or proximate to each precinct as determined by the county central committee or county executive committee and posted as required by law.

Colorado public notice laws require notices be uploaded to http://publicnoticecolorado.com. Go search “republican precinct caucus” and you will see the notices.

[BuckeyeTexan]

What? We’re talking about delegates at precinct conventions. There are multiple delegates elected at precinct caucuses. Can’t be 50%+1.

[xzins]

Yes it can be. They simply need a series of contests and each time someone goes over 50%+1, then that person is one of the X number each precinct sends.

[BuckeyeTexan]

That’s not how elections for multiple candidates work. When you are electing ten people, 100 are running, and 1000 are voting. The ten people with the most votes win. There just ain’t no 50%+1.

But I encourage you to get involved with your local party to propose a delegate selection system that you think is fair.

[xzins]

I understand that’s not how it works. My point is that it is possible to have a real representative go forward to a state convention rather than a representative put forward by a coalition and victorious because of a relatively limited bloc of supporters playing the system.

[BuckeyeTexan]

You lost me.

Delegates elected at precincts by voters go forward to the district/county caucuses. They elect delegates from among themselves to go to the state convention. The delegates at the state convention elect delegates from among themselves to go to the national convention. By definition, the delegates represent the majority who elected them.

I do not understand your 50%+1 suggestion for precinct caucuses.

[XenaLee]

They are relying on and believing what Trump is telling them. They just can’t conceive of the possibility that Trump, a previously lifelong liberal, could be blowing smoke and lying to them. It’s amazing.

[publana]

Yes he is playing a game. Manipulate the LIV. It’s disgraceful IMO.

[roamer_1]

I am "seriously maintaining" that if there was "hanky-panky" you gotta prove it, it is not up to Cruz or his supporters to disprove it or to prove the negative.

And first in evidence, nathanbedford, is that the fine people of Colorado and Wyoming - The very ones whose votes were supposedly disenfranchised - have not risen up in protest. This manufactured hue and cry has given them no cause, and they remain at peace.

Knowing the Western man as I do... especially Wyoming, the second sister of my own state, if there was indeed a hue and cry, there is no doubt in my mind that Western men would rise to the cause. They take their Liberty neat hereabouts, straight out of the bottle - and they are more than capable of securing it for themselves. To claim them poor and cowardly is an offense of the highest order.

Rather, to say their vote should not count - that they should be disqualified because (according to others) their election system is arcane and antiquated - That is what is the disenfranchisement here.

And to that, the inevitable reply of the Western man remains: "Mind your own damn business."

Trump has been shut out of the Rockies. Only Montana remains, and she will give him no more than her sisters did. I can all but guarantee that. Perhaps that should shed light on why CO and WY voted the way they did.

[fireman15]

So that is how you spin disenfranchising millions of voters? No it wasn’t that Cruz has such a great ground game, it is that he is currently being supported by the insiders. Let’s just be honest here shall we? What you are supporting is disenfranchising the voters by outmaneuvering the Trump campaign so that the insiders get to pick the nominee. You think that Cruz will then get the nomination. But I have a little insider secret to share with you... if the insiders are somehow successful at knocking off Trump... they will turn on Cruz and he will not get the nomination either.

The insiders will nominate Ryan or someone like him. Hillary or whoever the Democrat is will win. They will then get three or four liberal appointments to the Supreme Court, which is the big prize this time around.

The establishment will say they had to dump Cruz because he was caught manipulating the system. When they lose they will shift all the blame to Cruz. Cruz will be the scapegoat for the loss. He will be vilified by every one. Cruz will not be able to hold on to his Senate seat and his career as a politician will be over forever.

[FreeReign]

China is a one centralized party system. The US is 2 (or more) parties competing.

In China, the government makes the rules of the party.

In the US, the parties make their own rules, not the government.

[dsc]

“Colorado public notice laws require notices be uploaded to http://publicnoticecolorado.com. Go search “republican precinct caucus” and you will see the notices.”

My hat’s off to them. I wouldn’t have known how to hide something that well and still leave the illusion that it was public.

[nathanbedford]

Of course eyewitness testimony is admissible in court where it is also subject to cross-examination on issues of competency, bias, self interest, qualification etc. You are suggesting that we accept naked assertions as though they were gospel without cross-examination or any investigation whatsoever.

That is the full context. By quoting the limited portion you made plausible your assertion:

You’ve been on FR for a while, but I’ve never seen you act like this before.

Act like what? Presumably what you allege in the next preceding sentence:

Why would you say such a thing? I ask only that my “naked assertions” be treated as a data point to be confirmed or rebutted, rather than mocked and dismissed.

So presumably I am acting out of character because I "mocked and dismissed" your recital of your personal experience. But your conclusion doesn't fit the full facts as outlined in the full context. The full context reveals that I only suggested that your testimony would be "subject to cross-examination."

I acted responsibly, I did not attack you personally-I went out of my way to point out that I was insulting you personally-but you set up a false situation in which you could accuse me of doing just that. Context is everything.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Newspaper ads well hidden? C’mon!

[nathanbedford]

I await the response of DSC to your important post setting out the legal requirement to publicize a time and place of the meetings.

[Windflier]

Great post, Rita. You deftly explained the reasons why so many Americans are furious at the two parties’ rules and processes. They’re undemocratic at their core, and go against the grain of our nation’s founding principles.

As you said, wars have been fought over exactly that sort of thing, and will be again.

[RitaOK]

Gawd, you’re good. Nice serves.