Delegate system gives Trump a 22 percent bonus, despite complaint

It shows the system is rigged. They put all these archaic rules and processes in place to protect themselves from challenges. It is like this all the way down to the local level. This is why congressmen and senators remain unchallenged for decades.

The average joe who does not live and breathe politics and kisses the ring finger of whoever controls the electorate process stands no chance.

a reply to: introvert

Trump has advertised himself as a victim to the GOP and media since before his campaign really even got started. I don't know why his supporters are upset by anything he, the media, or the GOP does that HELPS him advertise himself that way.

It's what he wants and they are HELPING him with his marketing strategy.

Geez, he once tweeted a sample ballot that didn't have his name on it like he was left off the official ballot (can't recall the state, ATM). He LOVES playing the victim and does so every chance he gets.

a reply to: UKTruth

I understand full well. The party did what it decided to do well within it's right to do so. Trump knew, or so he should have, what the rules of the game were and he has no reason to cry when he got out-played by a campaign that knew what the hell they were doing.

If him and his supporters didn't like the rules of the game, and wanted their individual votes to count, why did he decide to run with a party that has such rules?

It seems that many people, such as yourself, cannot stomach the fact that you got schooled by a better campaign and Trump dropped the ball in epic style.

a reply to: introvert

His entire candidacy has been a series of implausible circumstances. In the beginning, the pros didn't think he had a chance. Since he's been the front runner, no one on in the GOP wanted to rock his boat. If he looks like he's going to falter, the blood in the water will generate a feeding frenzy I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Politics is the ultimate bandwagon sport. If the wheels start to wobble...

Polls don't indicate anything about the depth of support. Each candidate will have a core of true believers, but most support is superficial, if not ephemeral.

Hell, Trump's own kids didn't give enough of a damn to beat the registration deadline to vote in their own primary.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

I understand full well. The party did what it decided to do well within it's right to do so. Trump knew, or so he should have, what the rules of the game were and he has no reason to cry when he got out-played by a campaign that knew what the hell they were doing.

If him and his supporters didn't like the rules of the game, and wanted their individual votes to count, why did he decide to run with a party that has such rules?

It seems that many people, such as yourself, cannot stomach the fact that you got schooled by a better campaign and Trump dropped the ball in epic style.

The anger is about people not getting to vote for the candidate they wanted.
What has Trump's inability to understand the rules got to do with the basic complaint that people were not allowed to vote for their preference?

Have you still not understood the basic argument?

originally posted by: Edumakated
It shows the system is rigged. They put all these archaic rules and processes in place to protect themselves from challenges. It is like this all the way down to the local level. This is why congressmen and senators remain unchallenged for decades.

The average joe who does not live and breathe politics and kisses the ring finger of whoever controls the electorate process stands no chance.

it has been this way for years! Why are people complaining now?

Why aren't they pissed that their candidate didn't know how to play the game he willfully joined?

Too much emphasis is given to primaries. understand that a primary is only an intelligence and information gathering tool. They are not run by the government, and have essentially nothing to do with the presidential election.

Each party wants to win the presidency, so accordingly, run state by state "polls" to see which candidate would do the best in a general election. The primaries are only to reveal this data to the party.

They may do with that data whatever they wish, and may write or change rules to establish the interepetation of that data.

Then they will put forth a candidate to represent their party in the general election.

a reply to: UKTruth

Do you not understand that the party did what it wanted based on their own rules? If people wanted their vote to count, why vote in a primary for a party with such rules?

Can you not understand that simple argument?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Edumakated
It shows the system is rigged. They put all these archaic rules and processes in place to protect themselves from challenges. It is like this all the way down to the local level. This is why congressmen and senators remain unchallenged for decades.

The average joe who does not live and breathe politics and kisses the ring finger of whoever controls the electorate process stands no chance.

it has been this way for years! Why are people complaining now?

Why aren't they pissed that their candidate didn't know how to play the game he willfully joined?

You are missing the point entirely

Everyone understands there are rules. No one is denying this aspect of it.

However, people don't believe the rules serve any purpose but as a way to protect incumbents and keep outsiders from mounting a challenge. The rules are archaic and complex, so unless you spend a ton of time prior to figuring out how to play the game, you will have no chance. This prevents our average joe from being a contender.

Both Sanders and Trump have exposed the game to the average voter who really believed their vote meant something.

a reply to: Edumakated

If you didn't like the rules of the game to begin with, why did they decide to play?

Why is it only now that we are hearing about these ridiculous rules? Well, that's because the Trump campaign got schooled on the party process and lost his ass. Now his supporters want to cry about how the system is rigged.

Ok, it was the same last election, for the most part. Why didn't the voters force a change in the party before this election?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Do you not understand that the party did what it wanted based on their own rules? If people wanted their vote to count, why vote in a primary for a party with such rules?

Can you not understand that simple argument?

Your OP was about the +22% delegate allocation for Trump vs his vote percentage. I already gave you the reason above as to why that is an invalid comparison to what happened in Colorado.

The anger is about the fact the people did not get to vote. The complaint by Trumps campaign is therefore a direct challenge to the way the rules are set up. Whether he knew about them or simply messed up (which is highly probable) is not the tenet of what the campaign is complaining about. I think that is pretty easy to understand. It's more fundamental than reading a rule book.

Do you think it is right that people's votes do not count in a party nomination? That requires a simple yes or no answer.

a reply to: UKTruth

Your OP was about the +22% delegate allocation for Trump vs his vote percentage. I already gave you the reason above as to why that is an invalid comparison to what happened in Colorado.

Ok. I believe your reason was inadequate and misses the point.

At the most basic level on this issue, people are complaining and disgruntled about the party process, yet he is benefiting from the party process. I can't make it any simpler and if you wish to continue to obfuscate to satisfy your infatuation with Trump, I can step aside and find better things to do with my time.

I don;t get in the middle on bro-mances.

The anger is about the fact the people did not get to vote. The complaint by Trumps campaign is therefore a direct challenge to the way the rules are set up. Whether he knew about them or simply messed up (which is highly probable) is not the tenet of what the campaign is complaining about. I think that is pretty easy to understand. It's more fundamental than reading a rule book.

If you don't like the rules, you may want to address that before you enter the game.

Common sense, is it not?

Do you think it is right that people's votes do not count in a party nomination? That requires a simple yes or no answer.

First off, you do not get to set the rules on how we converse. I will answer in any way I so desire.

Second, I don't care, nor do I feel sorry, for those that willfully participate in a party in which they vote is so easily discarded in certain circumstances.

That's what they get for being part of a corrupt party.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Your OP was about the +22% delegate allocation for Trump vs his vote percentage. I already gave you the reason above as to why that is an invalid comparison to what happened in Colorado.

Ok. I believe your reason was inadequate and misses the point.

At the most basic level on this issue, people are complaining and disgruntled about the party process, yet he is benefiting from the party process. I can't make it any simpler and if you wish to continue to obfuscate to satisfy your infatuation with Trump, I can step aside and find better things to do with my time.

I don;t get in the middle on bro-mances.

The anger is about the fact the people did not get to vote. The complaint by Trumps campaign is therefore a direct challenge to the way the rules are set up. Whether he knew about them or simply messed up (which is highly probable) is not the tenet of what the campaign is complaining about. I think that is pretty easy to understand. It's more fundamental than reading a rule book.

If you don't like the rules, you may want to address that before you enter the game.

Common sense, is it not?

Do you think it is right that people's votes do not count in a party nomination? That requires a simple yes or no answer.

First off, you do not get to set the rules on how we converse. I will answer in any way I so desire.

Second, I don't care, nor do I feel sorry, for those that willfully participate in a party in which they vote is so easily discarded in certain circumstances.

That's what they get for being part of a corrupt party.

It was a simple question - I understand why you won't answer it directly. It undermines your entire position and gets to the point of the anger. Something you are clearly keen to avoid.

I am sorry you do not have the capacity to understand the difference between a winner takes all state and not allowing people to vote. I think it's very clear, but I get why you feel backed into a corner.

a reply to: UKTruth

It was a simple question - I understand why you won't answer it directly. It undermines your entire position and gets to the point of the anger. Something you are clearly keen to avoid.

Yes, I think the votes of the people should matter in the nomination process. That in no way undermines my position. In fact, it strengthens it because I practice what I preach. I know the rules of the nomination process for the parties in my state and I don't participate if I don't like the rules.

See how simple that is? Being educated on such things ensures that I have nothing to whine and complain about after the fact.

Apparently, Trump and his supporters were not educated enough or prepared enough to live with the outcome of a game they should have known the rules of.

I am sorry you do not have the capacity to understand the difference between a winner takes all state and not allowing people to vote.

I understand the difference. What some people don't seem to grasp is that if you don't like your vote not counting, don't participate in a nomination process in which the vote is irrelevant. If they do participate, don't bitch and complain.

They should have known what they were getting in to.

I think it's very clear, but I get why you feel backed into a corner.

Why do you resort to comments like these? If you can't stand on your arguments and have to say such teenage-like things, perhaps you should revisit your argument.

a reply to: UKTruth

Colorado GOP announced last August that they weren't participating and were opting out of the process.

The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote.

The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule.

"It takes Colorado completely off the map" in the primary season, said Ryan Call, a former state GOP chairman.

Republicans still will hold precinct caucus meetings in early 2016 to begin the process of selecting delegates for the national convention — but the 37 delegates are not pledged to any specific candidate.
LINK

The party makes the rules. If you don't like the party's rules, work to change them before the fact, or find another party. Crying about it later seems a bit ridiculous.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

It was a simple question - I understand why you won't answer it directly. It undermines your entire position and gets to the point of the anger. Something you are clearly keen to avoid.

Yes, I think the votes of the people should matter in the nomination process. That in no way undermines my position. In fact, it strengthens it because I practice what I preach. I know the rules of the nomination process for the parties in my state and I don't participate if I don't like the rules.

See how simple that is? Being educated on such things ensures that I have nothing to whine and complain about after the fact.

Apparently, Trump and his supporters were not educated enough or prepared enough to live with the outcome of a game they should have known the rules of.

I am sorry you do not have the capacity to understand the difference between a winner takes all state and not allowing people to vote.

I understand the difference. What some people don't seem to grasp is that if you don't like your vote not counting, don't participate in a nomination process in which the vote is irrelevant. If they do participate, don't bitch and complain.

They should have known what they were getting in to.

I think it's very clear, but I get why you feel backed into a corner.

Why do you resort to comments like these? If you can't stand on your arguments and have to say such teenage-like things, perhaps you should revisit your argument.

OK, so i think you finally got it.

We agree that the votes of people should matter in the nomination process. That is the only point of anger or protest I am hearing from Trump or his campaign. The rules are just the mechanic to create a process neither of us agree with and he is complaining about.

I think being educated and making a decision to vote or not vote is quite a weak position to take. Trump's approach is more courageous in speaking out so that more Americans can see the issue and hopefully at some point force change. If everyone just accepted rules and went home if they didn't suit, hardly any progress would ever be made.

Thanks heavens for men like Trump.

originally posted by: yeahright
a reply to: UKTruth

If you don't like the party's rules, work to change them before the fact, or find another party. Crying about it later seems a bit ridiculous.

This is the most valid point. Work to change them, I totally agree.
Trump is late for his own benefit (and that is his fault) , but I think he is doing a great service to the American people by bringing this to the fore now. Hopefully it will help force change in future elections.

a reply to: UKTruth

I think being educated and making a decision to vote or not vote is quite a weak position to take.

That is at the heart of the political process. We have to educate ourselves on politicians and policies to make an informed decision. I cannot help you if you think being educated is "weak".

Trump's approach is more courageous in speaking out so that more Americans can see the issue and hopefully at some point force change. If everyone just accepted rules and went home if they didn't suit, hardly any progress would ever be made.

Thanks heavens for men like Trump.

Yes, thank heavens for men who are uneducated about the process and whine like a sissy when they are outplayed.

In my view, that is not a man at all.

a reply to: UKTruth

Maybe.

It's a lot more complex than it appears on the surface.

The US has never been a direct democracy, we've always been a representative republic. The two major parties pretty much mirror that philosophy.

There's method to that madness. We don't have a national Primary Day. Each state does that separately, under different rules by party, and staggered dates. Some people in the early primaries have their candidate drop out. Are they disenfranchised because they can't re-vote for someone still in the race? You can't vote first and second choice.

We're still the United STATES, as much as some would like to blur those lines between states even further and make us all one big giant Country ruled entirely by Washington DC. I'm dead set against anything that erodes the rights of the states any further.

Colorado does their thing, New York does theirs, etc. The process rolls on, and a winner comes out the other end. Maybe it'll be a contested convention and if neither Cruz or Trump get the GOP nomination, I'm fine with that.

And if Hillary gets indicted (I can dream, right?) and the Dems come out of their convention with someone other than Bernie, I'm ok with that too.

We have no idea what the GOP race would look like now if it would've been Trump, Cruz, and Kasich as the only three from the beginning.

I'm encouraged that 'outsiders' are doing as well as they are. Things are so screwed up, it's going to take a lot longer than an election cycle to fix them, even though as Americans we're typically too impatient for microwave popcorn.

The best news IMO is that the parties see the handwriting on the wall. They'll either change, or rapidly become an afterthought. My fondest hope is that some new blood will be encouraged and injected into the process and maybe in a few years, we can see a marked improvement.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

I think being educated and making a decision to vote or not vote is quite a weak position to take.

That is at the heart of the political process. We have to educate ourselves on politicians and policies to make an informed decision. I cannot help you if you think being educated is "weak".

Trump's approach is more courageous in speaking out so that more Americans can see the issue and hopefully at some point force change. If everyone just accepted rules and went home if they didn't suit, hardly any progress would ever be made.

Thanks heavens for men like Trump.

Yes, thank heavens for men who are uneducated about the process and whine like a sissy when they are outplayed.

In my view, that is not a man at all.

I think knowing something is wrong and doing nothing about it is very much a sign weakness, cowardice actually.
Ignorance is at least a defence.

Trump, whilst admittedly late for his own benefit, is showing courage because he is prepared to speak out and try to effect change. great men have done the same in the past and I am thankful they did.

But not everyone is endowed with courage, which is why leaders are required in society.