There is no assurance that any type of more "direct" democracy would be any better or any fairer or less byzantine.
And in some situations Trump benefits from the arcane selection rules. And if he wants to win it's his job to know how to work the system which he apparently is just beginning to learn because he let his ego get in the way otherwise.
That's what happens if you think you are the center of the universe and the lord of all you can see. But that attitude just doesn't work when you are President no matter how much you'd like to believe.
And in some situations Trump benefits from the arcane selection rules. And if he wants to win it's his job to know how to work the system which he apparently is just beginning to learn because he let his ego get in the way otherwise.
That's what happens if you think you are the center of the universe and the lord of all you can see. But that attitude just doesn't work when you are President no matter how much you'd like to believe.
11
As he likes to remind us, Trump is a genius. Such a bountiful brain should have had no trouble mastering the arcane details of Republican primaries and caucuses. As his junior school reports to his parents no doubt endlessly repeated, Donald must talk less and try harder.
8
Parties are and should always be completely independent, with complete freedom to form, disband, and choose nominees however and whenever they see fit. If I were advising one of our two embarassments of a political party, I would tell them to forget the states they have little chance of winning - in our electoral college system that is wasted time (national popular vote would fix that, by the way), and just do extensive polling and analysis (and get out the vote efforts) ONLY in their stronghold and battleground states. Look at the results and select their nominee in a smoke-filled room. They'd save money and get better results.
2
I do wonder if Trump will give 25% of his NY delegates to Kasich because Kasich won 25% of the vote? He has a good lawyer now who can get the rules changed at the convention, so that all delegates can be apportioned by percent of vote received.
Oops, that would mean 60% of Republicans don't want him...
Oops, that would mean 60% of Republicans don't want him...
5
There was huge voter fraud in New York against democratic voters and all you care about this Trump Trump Trump! Why, who cares really. Either he is going to win it "fair and square" or he's not. If he does and they don't give it to him, it's their funeral. You, the NYT and your (thank you Sarah Palin) lamestream media invented Trumpism and now all you can do is promote the brand. BFD. Thanks.
How about splashing the front page with Voter Fraud Toxic To New York Democracy! ?? That's a good start.
How about splashing the front page with Voter Fraud Toxic To New York Democracy! ?? That's a good start.
3
So, our financial system is rigged. Our economy is rigged by the collusion between corporations and monied interests and their bought and paid for government. And here some of us are wringing our hands over how the political parties conduct primaries. It's theirs to conduct. Anyone can run for these parties' nominations. The parties obviously want a winning candidate so they rig their systems to weed out losers. Why is anyone surprised? In the UK, the parties choose the candidates, making it less likely that their leaders will turn out to be deluded lunatics like Trump, Cruz, Mussolini, or Hitler.
4
It doesn't matter what the rules are, a delegate who runs as being a Trump, Cruz, or whatever supporter would be a fool to disobey the wishes of the voters.
That delegate would never work again, and might be open to a law suit of some kind such as fraud.
That delegate would never work again, and might be open to a law suit of some kind such as fraud.
I pray that loophole is a great big black hole that sucks him in like a vacuum never to be seen again. Can you imagine this narcissistic egomaniac with his finger on the button? Does this define Trump? Egomania is also known as an obsessive preoccupation with one's self and applies to someone who follows their own ungoverned impulses and is possessed by delusions of personal greatness and feels a lack of appreciation. Someone suffering from this extreme egocentric focus is an egomaniac.
8
All Americans have left is the judiciary, and that's debatable.
3
"underdog?"
If Pennsylvania's unbound delegates decide to vote against the manifest choice of the voters -- it is the voters who are the real underdogs.
And why is Trump a "loser" if he is getting the most votes, and it is only a bunch of sore losing Lilliputians who are trying to tie him down?
Losing, as in having the insiders cheat the system to rob you of the victory the people gave you -- as in that kind of loser?
That is exactly why so many really identify with Trump-- they've been abused by the upper GOP insiders in exactly the same way.
If Pennsylvania's unbound delegates decide to vote against the manifest choice of the voters -- it is the voters who are the real underdogs.
And why is Trump a "loser" if he is getting the most votes, and it is only a bunch of sore losing Lilliputians who are trying to tie him down?
Losing, as in having the insiders cheat the system to rob you of the victory the people gave you -- as in that kind of loser?
That is exactly why so many really identify with Trump-- they've been abused by the upper GOP insiders in exactly the same way.
4
I'm no fan of Mr. Trump, but I'm even less of a fan of Pennsylvania's primary process where the popular vote for the candidate doesn't really count.
18
This keeps getting better and better - the party of nothing can sink even deeper into the abyss.
15
Better title: "The Loophole That Could Trump The Donald His Nomination."
(takes a bow)
I don't know how you guys missed that one. Mencken spins in his grave.
(takes a bow)
I don't know how you guys missed that one. Mencken spins in his grave.
6
While I'm no Trump fan, I do think its absolutely ridiculous how undemocratic the US primary systems are (especially w/ super delegates on the democratic side). The primary system, as well as the election system in general needs a major overhaul, to bring it into the age of representative democracy.
16
Hey Donald, you want to know a real loophole in the system? You can win the popular vote (see Al Gore) by 540,000 more votes than your opponent, and still lose the presidency.
Some democracy.
Some democracy.
70
It's about time that it became clearly apparent that this is not a democracy. Donald Trump may be reprehensible, but the fact that he's going to get robbed of the nomination by a rigged game that cares nothing for democracy should be a lesson well learned for the people of the United States. Of course, most Americans are more than happy to not live in a democratic nation as long as Donald Trump is not the President. And that surely says something quite disturbing.
19
This is a Republic, interesting distinction but most of us still value its advantages over pure democracy.
3
Nobody who read the Constitution believes this is Democracy. It is more correctly called a Democratic Republic.
4
The founding fathers did not want, indeed they feared democracy. They designed a republic.
There seems to be a lot of talk about how undemocratic the primary process is and how it should be changed, often with implicit or explicit urging that there should be a change in law.
However, as has also been pointed out, these are party primaries, not elections. These "Byzantine" and "rigged" processes are how the respective parties have decided they would like to do things, as is their right, as political parties.
They are entitled to continue they way they have been, go full primary, eliminate delegates, consult an oracle, draw straws, throw a dart blind-folded at a door at party headquarters or just decide they like one candidate's name better than the another's if they wish. ("'Jim', that's a nice name, isn't it!")
If one is appalled by the current process, jockey for change in your party or leave it. A mass exodus from the base would be a very clear and effective message to the party bosses.
Unwavering loyalty to your party irregardless of how that party conducts their business will likely be taken as implicit acceptance and make change unlikely.
If you want to end the Two Party system - leave both of them and join a third.
However, as has also been pointed out, these are party primaries, not elections. These "Byzantine" and "rigged" processes are how the respective parties have decided they would like to do things, as is their right, as political parties.
They are entitled to continue they way they have been, go full primary, eliminate delegates, consult an oracle, draw straws, throw a dart blind-folded at a door at party headquarters or just decide they like one candidate's name better than the another's if they wish. ("'Jim', that's a nice name, isn't it!")
If one is appalled by the current process, jockey for change in your party or leave it. A mass exodus from the base would be a very clear and effective message to the party bosses.
Unwavering loyalty to your party irregardless of how that party conducts their business will likely be taken as implicit acceptance and make change unlikely.
If you want to end the Two Party system - leave both of them and join a third.
48
How about you lobby for change and publicize the problems? If you participate in the party debate on any level of course you have an absolute right to complain and seek redress! A "love it or leave it" approach is unwarranted.
Third parties, while vital to political exchange, have little chance of success in the two party system.
Third parties, while vital to political exchange, have little chance of success in the two party system.
3
As a political science major who graduated college 1984 and having followed politics obsessively ever since, I find it amusing how ignorant more Americans are about the primary process. The rules, the states, the parties, granted, it's a lot, but the Kafkaesque nature of it is something that serves the needs of the party. Washington warned about parties, but we're not that into history or politics in this country.
27
I agree with almost everything you said. However, the Washington/Early Republic reference annoyed me. Do remember, friend, that the era you speak of involved choosing presidential candidates via Congressional Caucus where voters had no role at all. Not to mention the fact that voters were simply white males with a certain amount of property. History is definitely useful when utilized properly. #MartinVanBuren
2
Trump's narcissism never pondered even the possibility he'd be short in the delegate count. He figured he'd "have it in the bag". Alas, his poor ego is stung. Thus, the complaining.
19
This is the first and only time that I agree with Trump about how
the Republican primary is somehow rigged, The lack of transparency
is mind boggling, As for the Republican establishment trying
desperatly to block Trump's nomination claiming that he is not
a true Republican when they gave him a platform since day one,
my advice is to seek the help of a specialist for a group therapy.
Right now they are sinking in a sea of absurdity.
the Republican primary is somehow rigged, The lack of transparency
is mind boggling, As for the Republican establishment trying
desperatly to block Trump's nomination claiming that he is not
a true Republican when they gave him a platform since day one,
my advice is to seek the help of a specialist for a group therapy.
Right now they are sinking in a sea of absurdity.
12
The delegate rules have been known for the last year - what is stunning is that the guy who says he surrounds himself with the best is so ignorant.
3
I think the rules are transparent in that they are known and committed to writing....somewhere. Are they complicated? Yes. Are they tilted toward party insiders? Of course. Do they make sense? That depends on what you expect.
Fact is, Trump and his people made a rookie mistake.....not reading the rule book before the game starts. Maybe Manafort can pull it out, maybe not.
Fact is, Trump and his people made a rookie mistake.....not reading the rule book before the game starts. Maybe Manafort can pull it out, maybe not.
4
It's worse for the Democrats given their large number of Super Delegates.
Now that American Horror Story is over, I look forward to watching an open GOP Convention. Now, THAT'S entertainment!!!
14
the Presidential primary process is undemocratic. There should be one national primary election date--one person, one vote. No Iowa, No New Hampshire. No super delegates. All candidates compete the same day. PAUL FEINER, Greenburgh Town Supervisor
19
Um that is called the general election
4
In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote. The same is true today.
In a moment of extraordinary honesty, a GOP congressman from Wisconsin said a new voter ID law will help the eventual Republican presidential nominee win the state in November.
Grothman told WTMJ-4’s Charles Benson that despite past GOP candidates’ poor showings in the Badger State, this year will be different. “Now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is gonna make a little bit of a difference as well,” he said.
Grothman said something similar in 2012, when he was minority assistant leader in the state Senate. At that time, he said the law, which he helped to pass in 2011, could help GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney if it were in effect for the November election because “people who vote inappropriately are more likely to vote Democrat.” [Huff Post]
Also Must See:
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Voting (HBO) [YouTube]
Suppressing the Vote The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Great Gerrymander of 2012, NY Times
Ohio Legislature Advances Controversial Bill That Could Deter Students From Voting
Nevada GOP Moves To Limit Early Voting On Sundays, Weeknight Evenings
Fox News Host Addresses "Young Women Shouldn't Vote" Controversy
In a moment of extraordinary honesty, a GOP congressman from Wisconsin said a new voter ID law will help the eventual Republican presidential nominee win the state in November.
Grothman told WTMJ-4’s Charles Benson that despite past GOP candidates’ poor showings in the Badger State, this year will be different. “Now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is gonna make a little bit of a difference as well,” he said.
Grothman said something similar in 2012, when he was minority assistant leader in the state Senate. At that time, he said the law, which he helped to pass in 2011, could help GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney if it were in effect for the November election because “people who vote inappropriately are more likely to vote Democrat.” [Huff Post]
Also Must See:
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Voting (HBO) [YouTube]
Suppressing the Vote The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Great Gerrymander of 2012, NY Times
Ohio Legislature Advances Controversial Bill That Could Deter Students From Voting
Nevada GOP Moves To Limit Early Voting On Sundays, Weeknight Evenings
Fox News Host Addresses "Young Women Shouldn't Vote" Controversy
13
These deceptive primary practices need to end – on both sides of the aisle. And they all need to be open, otherwise the vast number of independents are shut out entirely. Yes, it's all way less crooked than in the past, but that's a pretty low bar to set.
9
If you live in a state with a closed primary system then register for a party if you want to participate in the primary process. You can always change your party affiliation (see 1st Amendment and free association), but beware of deadlines.
1
Borrowed this:
"The Constitution says nothing about political parties, much less about how they should go about picking their candidates for an election. The primaries are not truly elections. They are part of what the Democrats and Republicans have established as to how they will select candidates (other political parties do not conduct primary "elections," but their slates of candidates are chosen by the party's leadership). If you are a democrat or a republican and do not like the way the party has set up its nomination process, then you have three legitimate options and one illegitimate choice. The 3 options are (1) work within the party to change the procedure, (2) accept the rules as they are, grin and bear it or (3) quit and join a different party or become independent of any party. The fourth and illegitimate choice is to continue whining about the rules and demanding that they be changed in the middle of the game."
"The Constitution says nothing about political parties, much less about how they should go about picking their candidates for an election. The primaries are not truly elections. They are part of what the Democrats and Republicans have established as to how they will select candidates (other political parties do not conduct primary "elections," but their slates of candidates are chosen by the party's leadership). If you are a democrat or a republican and do not like the way the party has set up its nomination process, then you have three legitimate options and one illegitimate choice. The 3 options are (1) work within the party to change the procedure, (2) accept the rules as they are, grin and bear it or (3) quit and join a different party or become independent of any party. The fourth and illegitimate choice is to continue whining about the rules and demanding that they be changed in the middle of the game."
27
There are several problems:
1. For a nation that calls itself a Democracy, it makes it hard to register, and, in some cases, hard to vote. This needs to be fixed. Any citizen, 18 and over, should be registered as a voter and should be allowed to vote. Even if that means they have to sign a document at the polling place to prove their identity. Considering all 18 year old are required to register for the draft; voter registration can be done at the same time. Those moving, over 18, etc., can go to the localpost office to register to vote
2. All elections are publicly funded. Eliminate all PACs and private contributions. At all office levels.
3. The campaign season is ridiculously long. So, "campaign season", fro all offices should not exceed any longer than 4 months.
4. Elimination of the Electoral College. Direct election fro all offices. If no one gets over 50.1% of the vote; a run off is held, for the top two candidates; this applies for all offices.
5. Encourage the creation of more parties, and eliminate the failed two-party system.
6. For presidential elections, there will be a three moth "primary" season to campaign for a national primary. This national primary will determine the candidate for each party. Thus, combined primary and campaign for election, shall not exceed 7 months.
All voters will be required to vote. If not, they are assessed a fine of $20. These fines will be used to help offset the cost of registration for those who cannot afford to register.
1. For a nation that calls itself a Democracy, it makes it hard to register, and, in some cases, hard to vote. This needs to be fixed. Any citizen, 18 and over, should be registered as a voter and should be allowed to vote. Even if that means they have to sign a document at the polling place to prove their identity. Considering all 18 year old are required to register for the draft; voter registration can be done at the same time. Those moving, over 18, etc., can go to the localpost office to register to vote
2. All elections are publicly funded. Eliminate all PACs and private contributions. At all office levels.
3. The campaign season is ridiculously long. So, "campaign season", fro all offices should not exceed any longer than 4 months.
4. Elimination of the Electoral College. Direct election fro all offices. If no one gets over 50.1% of the vote; a run off is held, for the top two candidates; this applies for all offices.
5. Encourage the creation of more parties, and eliminate the failed two-party system.
6. For presidential elections, there will be a three moth "primary" season to campaign for a national primary. This national primary will determine the candidate for each party. Thus, combined primary and campaign for election, shall not exceed 7 months.
All voters will be required to vote. If not, they are assessed a fine of $20. These fines will be used to help offset the cost of registration for those who cannot afford to register.
29
Interesting, but I'm pretty sure much of what you list here (points 2, 3, 4, and 6 at least) would require a Constitutional amendment or some other major legal wrangling. Points 2, 3, 6 all violate the First Amendment (even before Citizens United). The electoral college is in the Constitution. So, you'll probably need two Amendments. Good luck.
Currently, there is no legal mechanism by which state political parties can be forced to participate in a single national primary. Other than an amendment, the only way is for the existing parties to sit down and agree to it. Fat chance!
Currently, there is no legal mechanism by which state political parties can be forced to participate in a single national primary. Other than an amendment, the only way is for the existing parties to sit down and agree to it. Fat chance!
5
7 months is still way too long! Three-four months tops. And fining people who don't vote? That's just a terrible idea.
Only citizens interested and informed on the issues should participate. Eeny meeny miny moe votes are dangerous ones.
Only citizens interested and informed on the issues should participate. Eeny meeny miny moe votes are dangerous ones.
2
Sorry look it up we are a constitutional republic.
It's interesting and it also makes no difference that I can see. Trump as a candidate or an open brawl in Cleveland both spell mayhem for the GOP. I could take a vacation and come back in November and see the same thing in any conceivable scenario. And that's the smoldering ruins of a political party that went too far.
14
Before this election cycle, very few realized what a bizarre stacked deck primaries and caucuses were. Now people know that they are anything but democratic.
We may not be able to do anything about them in this election cycle, but perhaps, with all this publicity, change may be in the wind.
The other tragic possibility is that after the kerfuffle of this cycle, apathy will trump enthusiasm and we will quietly drop back into status quo.
After all, those who most want change are likely going to see their enthusiasm and their candidates defeated and those who have vested interests in keeping things the same, will still hold the reins of power.
We may not be able to do anything about them in this election cycle, but perhaps, with all this publicity, change may be in the wind.
The other tragic possibility is that after the kerfuffle of this cycle, apathy will trump enthusiasm and we will quietly drop back into status quo.
After all, those who most want change are likely going to see their enthusiasm and their candidates defeated and those who have vested interests in keeping things the same, will still hold the reins of power.
5
Particularly, as the article pointed out, the undemocratic quirks have bolstered the support of Trump's insurgency. Tis unlikely however, as you suggest, that such facts will affect the emotional and reactive tendencies of Trump's supporters.
As with the electoral college, originally implemented as a hedge against the majority running off to do folly, so, too the arcane systems of local politics. The details of the primary process remind me that each party is an enterprise designed to win contests by whatever means it deems effective. Voters clearly matter in those contests, but how to woo them to the polls and vote for their candidate may be earned by many ways of which test marketing through primary voting may not seem to be (and maybe isn't) always the best approach.
The Democratic Party has their superdelegate nonsense. The Republican Party has their byzantine, esoteric every-state-is-absurdly-different, what-the-voters-want-can-be-completely-ignored nonsense. And, at the end of the day, both parties are dominated by hacks who are bought-and-paid-for tools of the status quo.
It's time for a new political party. One that has the explicit mission to reform our political and economic system, and that is founded on the principles of fairness, equity and transparency.
It's time for a new political party. One that has the explicit mission to reform our political and economic system, and that is founded on the principles of fairness, equity and transparency.
36
Truly, that is the only way to achieve the change many folks want, but be warned: if you welcome absolutely everyone into your tent at primary time then your party is fair game for the mischief makers. There are actually some pretty good, valid reasons why some states have weird rules. Many learned through experience what can happen if you leave yourself vulnerable to other parties' operatives.
4
trumps forest of moronic, school-yard-bully statements, has obscured the trees...the individual statements
i keep trying to imagine another US presidential election where a candidate blurted out even one of the hundreds trump has emitted:
i would punch him in the face
i have a large sex organ
don't let anyone but Christians in the country
etc etc etc
i keep trying to imagine another US presidential election where a candidate blurted out even one of the hundreds trump has emitted:
i would punch him in the face
i have a large sex organ
don't let anyone but Christians in the country
etc etc etc
11
Yes, he is a clown. But when you have a democratic party which supports and encourages illegal immigration into the US, which objects to tougher background checks on immigrants from Syria and Iraq, which supported the overthrow of the stable regimes of Egypt, Syria and Libya and their replacement by radical muslim movements, then Trumps follies pale in comparison.
2
Attention:Wisconsin Unofficial but accurate Pro Trump delegate list for Pennsylvania! http://www.kellerfordelegate.com/#!know-your-delegates/s4vv7
I am running for the Presidency. ..but you just did not know it. You vote for my delegates who can vote for another candidate, but that candidate himself or herself can vote for me. According to the rules I, the Candidate, can vote for other Candidates, and their delegates can vote for each other and their own great great grandfather only if he lives in an adjoining State, but can be buried anywhere west of Mississippi, with a wife buried East of Missouri. If you don't like these rules you can change them once every century if you are poor and a commoner, but you can change them everyday if you are White and a millionaire. I am for Democracy , and I endorse this transparent message. I will appear on the ballot in invisible ink.
11
That's as good as anything else I've heard from the current candidate slates. You got my vote.
the usa seems determined to achieve banana republic status....
15
It's always amusing to me how all the Trump supporters that are concerned that they won't get their way this election were nowhere to be found when George Bush was handed an election he really didn't win by the Supreme Court.
I guess truth only matters when one isn't getting their way.
I guess truth only matters when one isn't getting their way.
21
The NYT conducted a recount and determined that Bush won, fair and square.
What the SCOTUS shut down was Gore's attempt to create a new standard for evaluating voter wishes. He wanted to conduct a recount in which ballots in which voters had voted for both Bush and Gore, and had been therefore not counted, be reevaluated. Those ballots that showed a straight D vote should be counted for him. The ballots were designed by Democrats and used in Democrat precincts. He also wanted ballots with "hanging chads" counted in his favor despite the fact that on a second time around, the mechanical counting devices loosened enough chads that the count became very variable.
A large proportion of Trump supporters are Democrats, who did object to the SCOTUS decision.
And keep in mind that the voters spoke a second time, in 2004, hat they wanted Bush.
What the SCOTUS shut down was Gore's attempt to create a new standard for evaluating voter wishes. He wanted to conduct a recount in which ballots in which voters had voted for both Bush and Gore, and had been therefore not counted, be reevaluated. Those ballots that showed a straight D vote should be counted for him. The ballots were designed by Democrats and used in Democrat precincts. He also wanted ballots with "hanging chads" counted in his favor despite the fact that on a second time around, the mechanical counting devices loosened enough chads that the count became very variable.
A large proportion of Trump supporters are Democrats, who did object to the SCOTUS decision.
And keep in mind that the voters spoke a second time, in 2004, hat they wanted Bush.
3
I think the better comparison is what the RNC keeps saying which is that Gore won the popular vote but George Bush won the electoral college. Surprise, we don't have direct democracy in this country. But the rules are transparent and everybody knew them going in. There is no point crying foul over it just because it may not be going the Trump supporters way this time.
Fair and square? You forget about the voters who were taken off the rolls for no reason?
A loophole that may cause the nomination? How about total insanity ? Would that be something that may sway the electorate?
3
If Trump and Sanders each leave their party, and run on the same independent ticket...which one would be the presidential candidate, and which the vice-presidential candidate?
C'mon, am I the only one who stays awake late at night thinking up questions like this?
C'mon, am I the only one who stays awake late at night thinking up questions like this?
7
They would win. Two NY Democrats. Fortunately, Sanders is a resident of Vermont. Otherwise, they wouldn't be allowed to run on the same ticket. What difference would it make who was at the top of the ticket.
The funny thing about it, is that for the first time in history, the President would be impeached, followed by the newly elevated former vice president.
The impeachment process is not a law enforcement exercise, it is a political exercise. Every President in the history of the union has committed some offense that is illegal. But most of those offenses have the support of at least some of the population. And even for the opposition party, few are sufficiently egregious that the opposition wants to expend the political capital that would be required to impeach. And there is the nasty issue that you have to get 67 votes to convict in the Senate. So although the President is not technically above the law, in fact he has nearly absolute power, unless the overwhelming majority of the public turn against him.
The Democrats and Republicans would join forces to dethrone Trump/Sanders or Sanders/Trump.
The funny thing about it, is that for the first time in history, the President would be impeached, followed by the newly elevated former vice president.
The impeachment process is not a law enforcement exercise, it is a political exercise. Every President in the history of the union has committed some offense that is illegal. But most of those offenses have the support of at least some of the population. And even for the opposition party, few are sufficiently egregious that the opposition wants to expend the political capital that would be required to impeach. And there is the nasty issue that you have to get 67 votes to convict in the Senate. So although the President is not technically above the law, in fact he has nearly absolute power, unless the overwhelming majority of the public turn against him.
The Democrats and Republicans would join forces to dethrone Trump/Sanders or Sanders/Trump.
2
@anthony2816:
Since they 'think outside the box', maybe they would be co-presidents :)
Seriously, with their egos, no way either one of them would accept VP.
Since they 'think outside the box', maybe they would be co-presidents :)
Seriously, with their egos, no way either one of them would accept VP.
1
If I were the gnop, and I'm not, I would warn of trying anything to take away the nomination from trump, it would make 1968 Chicago look like tea party (no pun intended).
2
I don't like Trump, but I loathe Cruz.
12
No fan of the GOP or Trump in Particular, but this is the first time I've really become familiar with the intricacies of the primary process and I think it stinks.
I'm also shocked by the number of "well, those ARE the rules" apologists out there. That's the same kind of ridiculous Washington-think that gives us a 1040EZ form with a SIXTY-FOUR page instruction booklet!
I'm also shocked by the number of "well, those ARE the rules" apologists out there. That's the same kind of ridiculous Washington-think that gives us a 1040EZ form with a SIXTY-FOUR page instruction booklet!
10
It's actually just one rule: the First Amendment. That's what protects a state political party's right to make up just about any rules it wants in the primary process. Every state is different because every state has a right to be different. The national Dem party really has no legal say in anything state affiliates do, although it certainly has plenty of influence thanks to the nature of politics in our peculiar republic.
12
Have you noticed that the Democrat nomination process is even less democratic than that of the Republicans'?
In the Democrat party, an insurgent has to get 70% of the popular vote to overcome the 30% necessary to be nominated that has been retained by the establishment. Let's say credible evidence became public that Hillary is a criminal before the nomination and public opinion makes it clear she cannot be elected. All the Democrat establishment has to do is move the super delegates to a new candidate and deny Sanders and Hillary the nomination on the first vote. On the second vote, the Hillary supporters plus the super delegates vote for the newly appointed one, Warren or Biden or anyone else, and you have the Democrat nominee. They'd probably go through a few rounds to create the illusion that the establishment wasn't just anointing a candidate, but at the end, they would.
My guess is that Hillary's frenemy, Obama, is holding off until just before the convention to allow the indictment so that he can pick his successor.
In the Democrat party, an insurgent has to get 70% of the popular vote to overcome the 30% necessary to be nominated that has been retained by the establishment. Let's say credible evidence became public that Hillary is a criminal before the nomination and public opinion makes it clear she cannot be elected. All the Democrat establishment has to do is move the super delegates to a new candidate and deny Sanders and Hillary the nomination on the first vote. On the second vote, the Hillary supporters plus the super delegates vote for the newly appointed one, Warren or Biden or anyone else, and you have the Democrat nominee. They'd probably go through a few rounds to create the illusion that the establishment wasn't just anointing a candidate, but at the end, they would.
My guess is that Hillary's frenemy, Obama, is holding off until just before the convention to allow the indictment so that he can pick his successor.
6
Bernie's platform is in direct response to the state of our country's government. We have never had a government that acts effectively and efficiently, intelligently with empathy, to actually govern a population in the healthiest way possible. Usually the government and big money give enough of the people of this country just enough of life that the populous doesn't get too riled up to riot...well...that controlled balance is gone. The Republicans intentional destruction of our country with the sole goal of undermining the First Black President (D) is at the core of our present dilemma. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are the result of this intentional destruction. Both represent incoherent responses to a radical change in the stasis of our country. Both give opposite but equally "emotionally" reactive responses to this change in our country's badly conceived, "virtual" happiness. The emotional reaction has not been tempered with thinking because there has been so much lack of truth in our information process. This lack of truth is not a new phenomenon but the information being disseminated has now become so distorted that our emotional response has been equally distorted. If each person in this country is seen as being a single cell of the country's body, our country's once flu like symptoms have now become cancerous. Oddly enough though, in this case, the white blood count is at the core of the disease...this country has an autoimmune disease.
4
I think we need to go back to the guys with the cigars in the back room. At least we will know that we're not in control.
3
Just wondering why no one in the press seems to be mentioning a third party run by the Donald if the convention is brokered and the nomination goes to someone else...should that come to pass I think this is highly likely scenario though not one his campaign would care to talk about right now; after all, there are those party establishment super delegates to think about and grease and a third party run is probably a threat that would not make them very happy. I really can't see DT as president and think that he would be overwhelmingly rejected in a national election but at this point who knows what foolishness will follow.
2
Both sides are rigged to make sure We The People don't have a choice that actually represents We The People...
The two party system is not working...
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
What more proof do you need?
Please! These are not the simpletons and "bought and paid for" candidates the founders of this great nation had in mind!
The two party system is not working...
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
What more proof do you need?
Please! These are not the simpletons and "bought and paid for" candidates the founders of this great nation had in mind!
6
Still no editorial or commentary about the restrictive voting laws in New York? Having seen the NYT editors criticize the "vote suppression" in Ohio - which has MUCH more liberal voting laws than NY - I was sure there would be an editorial about the disenfranchised voters of NY.
11
Had it not been for Donald Trump this byzantine primary process would probably remain an unspoken secret -- much like the secret societies of the Ivy League schools and various fraternities. To quote a previous comment "Go Donald go!" Despite the outcome the election, the United States' political landscape will be significantly changed by Mr. Trump's outspoken criticism of our supposedly open process. I am also glad to see that Mr. Trump is now adopting the tenor that is appropriate for a President.
8
Many of Trump's supporters haven't even bothered to voter before, so it's natural they'd be completely oblivious about political party delegate selection processes.
4
So Trump has a legitimate argument and point: News Flash!! The Republican Party is rigged. He chose to run as a Republican, not as a populist conservative Democrat or as an Independent. No do-overs, dude. Your bed. Your mattress. Your pillow. Your sheets. Your alarm clock. Ring-a-ding-ding.
It really is irrelevant under which label Trump campaigns. He is neither intelligent enough nor competent to be President of the United States.
It really is irrelevant under which label Trump campaigns. He is neither intelligent enough nor competent to be President of the United States.
19
The question is who is more likely to start a new war? Trump or Clinton.
I HOPE Sanders is the other choice.
I HOPE Sanders is the other choice.
5
Love it, though by his own penchant for sound effects, Donald's alarm clock seems to go, "bing-bing, bong-bing."
Anuhoe, same goes for Bernie. Both men are trying to use major political parties' power while claiming not to represent them. They should know the parties' rules going in -- as a POTUS would -- or run as Independents. It's not Presidential to cry foul because you were ignorant of how things work.
Anuhoe, same goes for Bernie. Both men are trying to use major political parties' power while claiming not to represent them. They should know the parties' rules going in -- as a POTUS would -- or run as Independents. It's not Presidential to cry foul because you were ignorant of how things work.
6
The nomination process in the Democrat party is even more rigged. Dems have been laughing all along at the 20 member "clown car", now winnowed to three, but at least the Republicans gave outsiders the opportunity to voice their opinions and get national exposure.
The Democrat establishment super delegates retain 30% of the votes necessary to determine the nominee. Their debates were few and at low viewership times to prevent the, now forgotten plus Sanders, non favored candidates from airing their views or getting any national exposure. They briefly denied Sanders access to the Democrat National Party database of Democrat voters until they realized how bad that looked to the voters.
News Flash! Vote for Cruz, the only one hated by the establishment rulers of both parties. He threatens to disrupt the socialist cronyism of both parties. Where will they get the money to finance their re-elections?
The Democrat establishment super delegates retain 30% of the votes necessary to determine the nominee. Their debates were few and at low viewership times to prevent the, now forgotten plus Sanders, non favored candidates from airing their views or getting any national exposure. They briefly denied Sanders access to the Democrat National Party database of Democrat voters until they realized how bad that looked to the voters.
News Flash! Vote for Cruz, the only one hated by the establishment rulers of both parties. He threatens to disrupt the socialist cronyism of both parties. Where will they get the money to finance their re-elections?
2
Nate, I think this is a futile effort on your part.
Trump has it in the bag.
Trump has it in the bag.
10
Does he have to check that bag or can he carry it on his unregistered airplane?
5
Everybody's an outsider in the race. The billionaire who insists he plays the game better than anyone, the governor and former congressman who knew Nixon and Reagan, and the Senator who actually plays the game better than anyone else and whose wife worked for the financial institution with more ties.
Few people know the rules. We are all generally learning them as we go along. The truth is, despite my kidding above, Trump really is an outsider, not because he isn't connected (the Clintons went to his wedding). But he's one who seems ignorant about most everything except his business and how to be an egoist and celebrity. But,
Few people know the rules. We are all generally learning them as we go along. The truth is, despite my kidding above, Trump really is an outsider, not because he isn't connected (the Clintons went to his wedding). But he's one who seems ignorant about most everything except his business and how to be an egoist and celebrity. But,
4
He paid them to attend his wedding. He also contributed to their campaigns. He voted for Obama. He launched his campaign as a publicity stunt and to make Republicans look bad and was shocked when he discovered he had a shot at being elected.
Hillary has gotten far more money from the big banks than Cruz.
Hillary is not an outsider, she is the ultimate insider. Those super delegates? She bought their support.
Hillary has gotten far more money from the big banks than Cruz.
Hillary is not an outsider, she is the ultimate insider. Those super delegates? She bought their support.
Trump has 45% of the Republican delegates with 37% of the primary vote.
Compare and contrast with the Democrat nominating process in which 30% of the delegates necessary to get the nomination, which means that the non establishment pick has to get 70% of the popular vote in order to overcome the anointed one. That Bernie is still running is a measure of how unpopular Hillary is, except with the moneyed class financing her run.
Compare and contrast with the Democrat nominating process in which 30% of the delegates necessary to get the nomination, which means that the non establishment pick has to get 70% of the popular vote in order to overcome the anointed one. That Bernie is still running is a measure of how unpopular Hillary is, except with the moneyed class financing her run.
8
Wrong. You are soaking in the Bernie "kool aid". Hillary has solid credentials and viewpoints to be the Democratic Nominee. She isn't much different from Obama in most of her policies (not all). She will fight for all civil rights, she will fight to keep abortion legal, she will fight for equal pay, for middle class values (read her biography to see how middle class she was and how difficult her mother's life was). She is not a pawn of big business or wall street no matter what Bernie would have us all believe. And she is far superior to Cruz, Trump Kasich or whomever the GOP hopes to trot out at the convention. They all will get rid of abortion for all for all reasons, will intertwine Church and State will privatize Medicare for the elderly (good luck having Grandma cost compare health insurance)!!!
14
No, it's a testament to how well the GOP propaganda machine has destroyed her reputation. Fortunately, she is not even close to the evil witch they make her out to be.
7
Reread Hillary's narrative. That was her grandmother who had a difficult young life, followed by marrying well. No middle class woman went to Wellesley in 1965 followed by Yale Law four years later. She comes from money. Even though college was less expensive back them, working people couldn't afford it.
She is the ultimate corrupt politician. How do you suppose she went from dead broke in 2001 to controlling a couple of hundred million dollars twelve years later. Do you believe that Bill's speeches in Russia would have been worth $1.3 million if Hillary were not approving decisions in favor of the Russian oligarchs?
You have to be willfully blind to see her as anything other than a woman who is trading on her husband's popularity to increase her own power and wealth.
If middle class values and civil rights are so important to her, why did she say nothing to the Saudis and Chinese about their oppressive suppression? Could it be that it would have diminished her cash flow?
Her middle class values include lambasting the "bimbos" (her choice of word) who her husband was raping or harassing or using his official position to exploit. Feminist to the core. Hates men unless they are giving her money.
She is the ultimate corrupt politician. How do you suppose she went from dead broke in 2001 to controlling a couple of hundred million dollars twelve years later. Do you believe that Bill's speeches in Russia would have been worth $1.3 million if Hillary were not approving decisions in favor of the Russian oligarchs?
You have to be willfully blind to see her as anything other than a woman who is trading on her husband's popularity to increase her own power and wealth.
If middle class values and civil rights are so important to her, why did she say nothing to the Saudis and Chinese about their oppressive suppression? Could it be that it would have diminished her cash flow?
Her middle class values include lambasting the "bimbos" (her choice of word) who her husband was raping or harassing or using his official position to exploit. Feminist to the core. Hates men unless they are giving her money.
3
Our current political system is America is not democratic yes, but the solution is not to make bold promises and outlandish remarks. We need achievable progress that will help the struggling middle class, not open ended and unfeasible plans that Sen. Sanders in suggesting. We also need extreme gun reform and a massive foreign policy overhaul. I believe that the only candidate who can do all these things is Hillary Clinton.
15
I haven't been able to share the outrage of people who think the system is rigged. What is a party for, after all? You have a continuing organization that includes activists, elected officials, people who take politics seriously every day, and have come together because their views on issues have at least a family resemblance and they feel they can work together. Part of what they do in the candidate selection process is sort out the noise and apply some experience and judment. Maybe you don't believe in those things as appropriate and normal leadership functions, but then we have a debate over sociology rather than a basis for indignation or entitlement.
Why should someone be able to walk off the street, register as a member that day (or not commit to membership at all), and have an equal voice in deciding the complexion of a party whose operations they never gave a thought to before that particular primary? Why should the results of a primary open to newcomers or even outsiders be binding on the continuing party establishment?
Democratic power is exercised in the process of choosing between candidates, and should be absolutely defended -- total inclusiveness, no barriers, ease of access to elections, one-person-one-vote, no election rule games. But within this system, it seems to me that the party itself is a brand, and is entitled to maintain its own identity and continuity across time. If you don't like the brand, pick a different one or set up your own.
Why should someone be able to walk off the street, register as a member that day (or not commit to membership at all), and have an equal voice in deciding the complexion of a party whose operations they never gave a thought to before that particular primary? Why should the results of a primary open to newcomers or even outsiders be binding on the continuing party establishment?
Democratic power is exercised in the process of choosing between candidates, and should be absolutely defended -- total inclusiveness, no barriers, ease of access to elections, one-person-one-vote, no election rule games. But within this system, it seems to me that the party itself is a brand, and is entitled to maintain its own identity and continuity across time. If you don't like the brand, pick a different one or set up your own.
18
Congrats to Mr and Mrs one percent. This is one of the few times in our history when we have a generation who's expected to do worse than the previous one, in a number of modalities.
This country desperately needs to break away from the 'two party system' and the Electoral College for the sake of true democracy (whatever that means).
I am sure that the pressures from the bottom will result in nothing short of a revolution.
Hillary will be a wonderful advocate for political correctness and other smokescreen diversions while the status quo is secured for eight more years.
This country desperately needs to break away from the 'two party system' and the Electoral College for the sake of true democracy (whatever that means).
I am sure that the pressures from the bottom will result in nothing short of a revolution.
Hillary will be a wonderful advocate for political correctness and other smokescreen diversions while the status quo is secured for eight more years.
11
The rich will get richer under Hillary as they have under Obama.
6
In four to eight more years we'll be right back here where we left off. Only we won't have the option of a decent candidate like Bernie Sanders again, trying his mightiest to do the right thing by our country. In four to eight years, the One Percenters, their politician allies, and the corporate-owned mainstream media will have the entire country locked down, if the U.S. doesn't go belly-up in a depression first. The Dems blew it big this year, although the "Party" insiders will walk away rich and happy. Good luck to the rest of you, you'll need it with "Madame President" or the Donald. Both will take you down the same road.
3
The more stories I read about persons not able to vote because they are not registered as a Republican or Democrat (New York); delegates not listed according to the candidate they support (Pennsylvania); or state parties choosing delegates who have no loyalty to the candidate who wins the primary vote (Tennessee and other states), the more I am convinced that on this matter, Donald Trump is right. The system is rigged, and violates multiple principles that Americans should expect to govern elections. Why have there been no lawsuits from voting rights organizations or private citizens challenging the constitutionality of these sham elections? And if the two parties are setting the rules, let them pay for the elections, not the taxpayers. This is ridiculous and must be halted.
12
And yet, Trump has 45% of the delegates with 37% of the primary voters.
Just keep in mind that these are policies in effect for years, not just "rigged" against a Trump or Sanders.
3
Does that make these policies right?
There's plenty that's been going on for years, and lots of it is just plain wrong.
There's plenty that's been going on for years, and lots of it is just plain wrong.
3
We here in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have always been confounded and abused by our politicians, and this sort of thing is a perfect example of their chicanery.
It is sad, disheartening, and terrifying at the same time.
It is sad, disheartening, and terrifying at the same time.
9
leviticus 4.20
" ... and he who liveth by th loophole, in th end shall he perish by th loophole "
" ... and he who liveth by th loophole, in th end shall he perish by th loophole "
9
Gosh, and that's right from one of both favorite parts of the Bible for Trump. Might even be a New Testament quote that applies too, something in five Corinthians maybe.
1
2 Corinthians go into a bar...
2
Make no mistake: this is Trump gearing up for a third-party run at the presidency. If he decides to abandon the GOP, he takes with him the "silent majority" of America who want a(ny) non-political outsider. Meanwhile, he has begun drawing parallels to Bernie Sanders, so he may very well pull huge numbers of "disenfranchised" independents and the far-Left and anti-Clinton Democrats away from their party.
If Trump manages to avoid implosion between now and November, and assuming his supporters remain loyal even in the face of his obvious ineptitude, he will have a strong chance of victory. Basically The Donald been playing the curves while the rest of us were walking straight lines. Very intelligent, and extremely troubling.
If Trump manages to avoid implosion between now and November, and assuming his supporters remain loyal even in the face of his obvious ineptitude, he will have a strong chance of victory. Basically The Donald been playing the curves while the rest of us were walking straight lines. Very intelligent, and extremely troubling.
11
AJ,
In the last 24 hrs, since his NY near sweep, he has restarted the Mussolini channel again.
He is the most disturbing candidate in my life, with the possible exception of Cruz.
If either of the two actually gain the White House they will be COMPELLED by their own rhetoric and their own base to make actual gestures of carrying out several or all their threats. They won't be able to get away with getting wobbly in any form. They have campaigned in absolute terms and will be held to absolute fidelity by their base.
This is an exceptionally dangerous situation.
In the last 24 hrs, since his NY near sweep, he has restarted the Mussolini channel again.
He is the most disturbing candidate in my life, with the possible exception of Cruz.
If either of the two actually gain the White House they will be COMPELLED by their own rhetoric and their own base to make actual gestures of carrying out several or all their threats. They won't be able to get away with getting wobbly in any form. They have campaigned in absolute terms and will be held to absolute fidelity by their base.
This is an exceptionally dangerous situation.
5
You're giving him way too much credit. Nothing Donald Trump stands for is compatible with the "far-left" and there are just as many anti-Trump voters, maybe even more, than anti-Clinton supporters.
I just don't see that scenario happening.
I just don't see that scenario happening.
4
I hope you're right, DBL, but the current state of affairs in the GOP is evidence enough for me that Trump should not be underestimated. From day one it was apparent that he'd never receive majority support. Instead, he used the cluttered field to his advantage, picking off his strongest opponents (in descending order) before they could consolidate a broad base of support. It worked on Jeb, then it worked on Marco, and it's continuing to work on Ted and Kasich. It's a simple divide & conquer principle: you're at your strongest when your opponents are at their weakest. His best chance in the GE is to make sure there is at least 1 Republican and 1 Democrat in the race with him; they'll fight for the middle while he cleans up on the fringes.
One poll last month reported that a full third of Sanders supporters say they will never support Clinton. Here's a gem of a quote from one genius:
“I would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat,” said Patt Coltem, 60, of St. Paul. “She’s just too shady. She’s a pathological liar. He’s the only other person in this race who doesn’t have someone backing him. Trump is crazy; he does a lot of weird stuff. I would prefer not to vote for him for president, but that’s how much I dislike Hillary Clinton.”
Even if many don't actually vote for Trump, there are Sanders write-in campaigns already in the works that will siphon support away from the eventual Democratic nominee (assuming it's not Sanders himself). Freaky stuff.
One poll last month reported that a full third of Sanders supporters say they will never support Clinton. Here's a gem of a quote from one genius:
“I would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat,” said Patt Coltem, 60, of St. Paul. “She’s just too shady. She’s a pathological liar. He’s the only other person in this race who doesn’t have someone backing him. Trump is crazy; he does a lot of weird stuff. I would prefer not to vote for him for president, but that’s how much I dislike Hillary Clinton.”
Even if many don't actually vote for Trump, there are Sanders write-in campaigns already in the works that will siphon support away from the eventual Democratic nominee (assuming it's not Sanders himself). Freaky stuff.
It's completely clear the whole system is rigged to favor whomever the Establishment/Oligarchs want.
Thank you, Donald Trump, for highlighting this rat's nest of voter suppression.
It makes me wonder how many other elections were herded in a similar fashion.
Thank you, Donald Trump, for highlighting this rat's nest of voter suppression.
It makes me wonder how many other elections were herded in a similar fashion.
26
Ummm, probably all of them?!
Without rigging, the Ship-of-State would have been on the rocks long ago.
2
Essentially, all.
1
Go Donald go. Mr. Trump is going to be ok.
14
I am sure he will, it's the rest of us I am not so sure of
3
I hope and urge that the entire process - for the primaries to the ridiculous 'electoral college' - be given a thorough overhaul. For one thing, I'm tired of New Hampshire and Iowa always having out sized significance - and conversely, later states seeming to be after thoughts. If we can't establish a single, national primary voting day - or at LEAST combine more into fewer days total - then the least that could be done is to rotate the states that go first. The whole thing lasts too Godawful long! It's a burn-out process.
And the 'electoral college' out to be done away with completely, by constitutional amendment if necessary.
And the 'electoral college' out to be done away with completely, by constitutional amendment if necessary.
16
A constitutional amendment is necessary. It is designed to prevent the most populous state from bullying the less populous states. It is the reason for the Civil War: the Southern states were more populous than the Northern states and therefore had a majority of congressional seats and electoral seats. The industrialized North, with their lessor control of the government but greater wealth had to defeat the South.
3
Never gonna happen. As in, never. Reason: Name one person, entity, group, collective, government, or gaggle of geese that has ever given up power voluntarily. There might be one or two, in or about 12th century Abyssinia, or in a druidic conclave, but more than that, I doubt. And the forces necessary to resolve our myriad voting imbalances, immaturities, and corruption, are legally stymied by the nature of the system itself. Under what conditions would North Dakota voluntarily relinquish its two Senators (by way of example), which give it grossly disproportionate power in Congress? Now translate that to a constitutional amendment, or convention, where you'd need all those smaller states, (ok, some of them to make a 2/3rds majority) whereby they'd give up their clout, and power, in the name of true representational government. Sure. Along with porcine aerodynamics being actualized. But perhaps my cynicism is exaggerated, and underestimates the principled nature of our citizens.
Nah.
Nah.
There is a way to essentially elect the President by national popular vote without amending the Constitution:
http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popul...
http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popul...
1
If Mr Trump is very close, but denied the nomination due to procedural or other manipulations backstage he should run as a third party candidate and ruin the Republican chances before a vote is cast.
Both Mr Trump and Mr Sanders are showing we are ready for a third party.
Socialism has lost its' horror and whatever Mr Trump's affiliation, it is no worse than our present herd of circus elephants.
Both Mr Trump and Mr Sanders are showing we are ready for a third party.
Socialism has lost its' horror and whatever Mr Trump's affiliation, it is no worse than our present herd of circus elephants.
18
In a three way race between Hillary, Cruz and Trump, nobody gets a majority of the electoral college, and the election is decided by the House of Representatives in January 2017. Or Trump wins.
Establishment Democrats have been supporting Trump in the hopes of a repeat of 1992, and the Democrats supported Perot in Republican strongholds. (Why do you think the mainstream progressive media has given Trump so much publicity?)
1992: Clinton 43%, Bush 37, Perot 19. But Perot's support was spread throughout the country, so he got no electoral votes. And his voters were primarily disaffected Republicans who abandoned Bush for violating his "no new taxes" campaign which gave Republican states to Clinton.
In a Clinton/Cruz/Trump election, Trump would pull a significant number of anti establishment Sanders fans as well as a significant number of disaffected anti establishment Republicans. In NY, for example, 58% of Republicans plus 40% of Democrats gives NY to Trump. Independents in NY, who didn't vote in the primary, are going to split three ways.
Look at all of the open primary states. The high Republican turnout and low Democrat turnout means that Democrats have been voting for Trump.
Either Trump wins outright, or he gets the plurality in enough states that he denies either of the other candidates an electoral majority. So the House decides from the top three vote getters.
Establishment Democrats have been supporting Trump in the hopes of a repeat of 1992, and the Democrats supported Perot in Republican strongholds. (Why do you think the mainstream progressive media has given Trump so much publicity?)
1992: Clinton 43%, Bush 37, Perot 19. But Perot's support was spread throughout the country, so he got no electoral votes. And his voters were primarily disaffected Republicans who abandoned Bush for violating his "no new taxes" campaign which gave Republican states to Clinton.
In a Clinton/Cruz/Trump election, Trump would pull a significant number of anti establishment Sanders fans as well as a significant number of disaffected anti establishment Republicans. In NY, for example, 58% of Republicans plus 40% of Democrats gives NY to Trump. Independents in NY, who didn't vote in the primary, are going to split three ways.
Look at all of the open primary states. The high Republican turnout and low Democrat turnout means that Democrats have been voting for Trump.
Either Trump wins outright, or he gets the plurality in enough states that he denies either of the other candidates an electoral majority. So the House decides from the top three vote getters.
1
My kids are grown now, but I wonder what the Trump supporters tell their kids about him. It's hard to sugar coat it. He's obviously a big bully. He's a spoiled brat. He's very insecure. He's a braggart. He's a liar. He calls people names. He treats women like property, and has no qualms of saying he would date his daughter if she weren't his daughter. What kind of father says that? He's an egoist. He likes to step on vulnerable people for money he doesn't need. He says he enjoys firing people. He claims he's a Christian, but he's never asked God for forgiveness. Because he's never done anything wrong in his mind. Just what every father wants his child to grow up to be.
35
And Cruz is the Second Coming.
9
What would you tell your children about Hillary?
That she is such an excellent investor that she was able to convert a $1000 loan into $100000 in nine months trading pork bellies?
That she is a brilliant business woman because her family went from "dead broke" in 2001 to having hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth in 2012, selling government influence in exchange for six figure speaking fees for her husband?
That she controls a similar amount, in perpetuity, in the Clinton Foundation that has spent almost nothing on philanthropic activities, but used foreign funds to employ her political operatives while planning her run for the Presidency?
That she has taken millions from the financial mega wealthy in exchange for a promise to write regulations that will favor big banks over their smaller competitors?
You don’t have to like Ted Cruz’s looks, his personality, his religion, his position on social issues or every one of his specific policy recommendations in order to vote for him. The reason you should support him is that he is the only one of the remaining candidates who will do everything in his power to move the country away from the corporate welfare and government control that is destroying the underpinnings of the economy. The Republicans in Iowa and Texas voted for him even though he advocated for the elimination of the ethanol and fossil fuel subsidies. Backing away from crony capitalism is the reason why establishment R’s and D’s hate him equally.
That she is such an excellent investor that she was able to convert a $1000 loan into $100000 in nine months trading pork bellies?
That she is a brilliant business woman because her family went from "dead broke" in 2001 to having hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth in 2012, selling government influence in exchange for six figure speaking fees for her husband?
That she controls a similar amount, in perpetuity, in the Clinton Foundation that has spent almost nothing on philanthropic activities, but used foreign funds to employ her political operatives while planning her run for the Presidency?
That she has taken millions from the financial mega wealthy in exchange for a promise to write regulations that will favor big banks over their smaller competitors?
You don’t have to like Ted Cruz’s looks, his personality, his religion, his position on social issues or every one of his specific policy recommendations in order to vote for him. The reason you should support him is that he is the only one of the remaining candidates who will do everything in his power to move the country away from the corporate welfare and government control that is destroying the underpinnings of the economy. The Republicans in Iowa and Texas voted for him even though he advocated for the elimination of the ethanol and fossil fuel subsidies. Backing away from crony capitalism is the reason why establishment R’s and D’s hate him equally.
1
Good words on Hillary. You've got her number for sure.
2
One day we'll have secure online voting and candidates will be elected by a simple majority. Is that an impossible dream?
13
yes
or you could go retro like australia and have paper ballots
and a parliamentary govt, which does use th simple majority, and many more parties as well
or you could go retro like australia and have paper ballots
and a parliamentary govt, which does use th simple majority, and many more parties as well
1
I'll take paper ballots. I simply do not trust anyone handling electronic votes.
Primaries are not necessarily direct democracy. Each one is the system a particular political party in a given state uses to narrow down the selections for nomination, not to put someone in office to serve the people. They could pick names from a hat or throw nerf balls at Velcro if they so chose.
You can be knowlegable and use that system to your advantage, work with the party apparatus in your state or nationally to change it, or start your own party. No one can stop you from doing any of that, so that's the democracy part.
For me it's interesting to learn about each one. Not nearly so interesting, though, as checking facts and discovering how Ted Cruz can hardly utter a sentence without twisting facts. No, make that ignoring facts. Would someone please explain to him that a president can't "abolish the IRS."
You can be knowlegable and use that system to your advantage, work with the party apparatus in your state or nationally to change it, or start your own party. No one can stop you from doing any of that, so that's the democracy part.
For me it's interesting to learn about each one. Not nearly so interesting, though, as checking facts and discovering how Ted Cruz can hardly utter a sentence without twisting facts. No, make that ignoring facts. Would someone please explain to him that a president can't "abolish the IRS."
11
No explanation is needed. Mr. Cruz is not ignorant of that fact (and others). What he's doing is called "lying"
4
Godzilla versus The Python. A DJT presidency would be a catastrophe, although less so than a slithering TrusTed in the White House.
That said, I understand Godzilla's frustration with a selection process that awards more delegates to election losers than winners. OK, The snake is craftier with delegate seduction (ask Eve about that!), but the process makes a mockery of popular will, and Godzilla is angry.
Never, ever make Godzilla angry! But watch out for that TrusTed Python insinuating his sinewy way through the marshy grass.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
That said, I understand Godzilla's frustration with a selection process that awards more delegates to election losers than winners. OK, The snake is craftier with delegate seduction (ask Eve about that!), but the process makes a mockery of popular will, and Godzilla is angry.
Never, ever make Godzilla angry! But watch out for that TrusTed Python insinuating his sinewy way through the marshy grass.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
8
Incumbent office holders, party apparatchiks, and BIG money men will defend their political advantage by all sorts of obscure, byzantine rules and processes. Is it any wonder voter turnout is so low?
11
I'm just wondering if the reason behind Kasick still in the race is to stop Trump getting to 1,237? Someone please explain. Thanks
1
@Fi:
In a word : yes.
In a word : yes.
3
Yes. And also to win the nomination if Trump fails to win on the first round of voting at the convention, after which delegates will be free to vote for whom they choose. Most delegates chosen in the primary election process are only committed to the candidate who won the primary for the first round of voting at the convention. So if Trump fails to win on the first round of voting, the convention thereafter becomes "contested" -- and its up for grabs who wins the contest.
2
Explanation...
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
As much as I dislike Trump, it would be a travesty if he won the primary but was deprived by hostile delegates.
12
Whoever wins is irrelevant, Trump's surprising success and the Establishment's reaction has laid bare for the world to see what a hoax American "democracy" is.
And we wonder why some hate us for our heavy-handed hypocrisy. Has anyone, in all of history, ever had been able to stuff the genie back into the bottle? I hope not.
And we wonder why some hate us for our heavy-handed hypocrisy. Has anyone, in all of history, ever had been able to stuff the genie back into the bottle? I hope not.
17
America is a republic. Not a democracy. BIG difference that everyone seems not to understand.
4
Please, feel free to explain.
No, it's a oligarchy. For more than 20 year's now Joe Public's opinion has had no effect whatever. Read the Princeton study. (Strong stomach or xanax required)
A candidate who clearly does not understands the issues and who is surprised by how far he is gotten into the race is able to question the electoral process by just repeating the same phrase over and over (rigged)? Wow….
11
I don't see a problem.
Each state's political parties are free to create any rules and loopholes as they see fit.
It's called "democracy."
Each state's political parties are free to create any rules and loopholes as they see fit.
It's called "democracy."
5
@Jon
No. It's not. It's called corruption. And if there is one silver lining to this fiasco of an election, the voters have received a much needed dose of reality.
No. It's not. It's called corruption. And if there is one silver lining to this fiasco of an election, the voters have received a much needed dose of reality.
12
It is also shameful that it has taken this long for them to finally catch on. There is really no excuse for it, and I can't help wondering how that many ignorant people are going to make it better.
1
"A voter will just see a list of names — some of whom might be recognizable, but others might as well be Joe Schmo."
NOT! As it happens, Joe is my brother-in-law, and he withdrew his name from the delegate list in February. Nate Cohn guessed wrong on this one; there will no Joe Schmo.
NOT! As it happens, Joe is my brother-in-law, and he withdrew his name from the delegate list in February. Nate Cohn guessed wrong on this one; there will no Joe Schmo.
3
Wait! I thought he was MY brother-in-law. I really need to attend more family gatherings.
We missed you at the last one.
Clear as mud....
2
Trump, the outsider, has put many of our arcane systems under the spotlight. Turns out a real outsider winds up exposing an awful lot.
Could the system survive a Trump presidency? All that exposure. All those power centers disrupted. All those livelihoods threatened.
No wonder he's a threat.
Could the system survive a Trump presidency? All that exposure. All those power centers disrupted. All those livelihoods threatened.
No wonder he's a threat.
26
The photo of Trump in front of the American flag, as if he embodied even one scintilla of American political values, makes me feel like vomiting.
12
You like "mission accomplished" better?
1
Nationwide: same day registration, uniform voting machines/methods, early voting, Election Day on a weekend and finally, elimination of the electoral college. Use the RNC and DNC conventions to announce VP candidates.
Most primary votes, majority or plurality, = winner. No arcane, hyperlocal rules. No super delegates. No caucuses. No party micro-fiefdoms.
Most primary votes, majority or plurality, = winner. No arcane, hyperlocal rules. No super delegates. No caucuses. No party micro-fiefdoms.
8
In other words, no politics
I will say that Trump has opened the eyes of millions of American voters who have never given much thought or questioned the electoral process. As crazy as this primary campaign has been, it has also been an informative expose on the wealthy, elitist power brokers who have been holding the cards and pulling the strings all this time. Because of Trump- they are finally being called out for it- For that alone, I will more than likely vote for him.
35
Trump stumbled into this out of ignorance, hubris and inexperience. If he'd known the rules ahead of time he would have tried to game them like everyone else.
My worry: If Trump loses, who will represent the concerns of all his supporters? I may oppose Trump but his supporters should be part of the Democratic process.
20
"My worry: If Trump loses, who will represent the concerns of all his supporters? I may oppose Trump but his supporters should be part of the Democratic process."
Isn't this the case with any candidate who loses an election? For example, here in Arizona, it's clear that the current Governor doesn't represent the concerns of those who voted for his opponent, especially those of us who live in the southern half of the state. And since the Republicans have majorities in both of the legislative houses as well as the governor's office, our concerns are not being addressed. They're not even being ignored. They are being trampled upon with great glee.
Isn't this the case with any candidate who loses an election? For example, here in Arizona, it's clear that the current Governor doesn't represent the concerns of those who voted for his opponent, especially those of us who live in the southern half of the state. And since the Republicans have majorities in both of the legislative houses as well as the governor's office, our concerns are not being addressed. They're not even being ignored. They are being trampled upon with great glee.
6
Interesting. Ironically, it's the same on the other side. Who will represent the interests of the Sanders supporters?
3
No one worried about me when Al Gore lost
5
William Penn must be spinning in his grave to see what's happening in the territory he settled.
5
I always liked the part of the Pennsylvania primary that lets voters in both parties directly choose many of the delegates. (Dem delegates can declare for candidates, and that declaration is on the ballot.)We offer a little bit of everything in the presidential primary. Best part— you have to be a member of the party whose primary you vote in, which is only fair. Party members show up to vote year in and year out, and the cost of membership is merely registration 30 days before the election.
2
anything that prevents Trump from winning is, by definition, good....
7
Especially if that anything is named Clinton or Sanders.
2
Okay, but their intention is to choose Cruz. If you learn about him, you will not think it is good. The pundits and publications supporting Cruz are the most overtly racist, right wing, pro Koch brothers, pro big oil, anti environment, pro big money people out there.
4
The primary system, the electoral college are examples of the negation of the value of the people's vote. The electoral college is definitely NO LONGER NEEDED! The primary system must be overhauled to represent the voters and honor their votes.
Now voting and the voice of the people seems to be a farce. The votes of the people should count now one wonders do they count at all?
Now voting and the voice of the people seems to be a farce. The votes of the people should count now one wonders do they count at all?
9
I may dislike Trump like no other. But even the Devil has to be given his due. Fair is fair. The forerunner should win, not someone who uses tricks and loopholes under his sleeve.
14
Sorry, but what is fair is following the rules as they have been written. The rules state you must get a majority of delegates, not a plurality. This has been the rules of the Republican party for many elections. The next set of rules is the delegate elections. Each state party can pick how individual delegates are selected and how voters select which delegates are bound on the first ballot. These rules have not changed since August. If a campaign does not know or understand these rules, that it their fault.
At the end of the day, the Republican Party is a private organization, free to select their nominee in any manner they see fit. They could flip a coin, compare shoe sizes, or as they currently do, provide a means for the voters to have significant input on the first ballot and for those dedicated to the grassroots cause to have input should a nominee not be chosen on a first ballot.
At the end of the day, the Republican Party is a private organization, free to select their nominee in any manner they see fit. They could flip a coin, compare shoe sizes, or as they currently do, provide a means for the voters to have significant input on the first ballot and for those dedicated to the grassroots cause to have input should a nominee not be chosen on a first ballot.
2
That's correct, they are a private organization owned by the wealthy elite. Glad the people are realizing that now. Otherwise, the proles would be laboring under the delusion that the GOP was representing the average Joe/Jane and their petty biases and concerns.
The people should find another party that gives them real choice instead of giving them a mere illusion of choice.
The people should find another party that gives them real choice instead of giving them a mere illusion of choice.
3
Yes, and the members of the party have the right to throw out all the bums who wrote the lousy rules. If Trump supporters stay engaged woe be to those in power in Pennsylvania if they are the reason Trump doesn't win.
2
Trump manages to string together a few sentences without a racist or vulgar comment and all of a sudden he's `presidential'. This country better start raising the bar, not lowering it into the gutter.
22
Vulgar, I'll give you! But, would you please illustrate the racist comments. Illegal immigrant does not constitute a racial category. Nor, does wanting a temporary ban on Muslim immigration pending improved vetting.
If Trump is ousted for the Republican nomination, not by the will of the voters, but by the arcane, non-uniform byzantine rules that pass for an electoral system in this country; similarly if Sanders is ousted in the same way, due to Clintonian "dirty tricks" and the "superdelegate" mess: they should BOTH join forces on a 3rd party and put a pox on BOTH the Democrats and Republicans alike.
23
Indeed, the unstoppable Trump - Sanders Presidential dream team. Thank you, I didn't think my mind could bend any further.
9
I will vote for them
2
Which is president which is vice president? And would they win?
This phase of our 2016 Presidential election is, obviously, not THE election though so many are moaning about the lack of "democracy". This is the nominee selection phase, conducted by the political parties which are private groups not mentioned in the US Constitution and not bound by any of its restrictions or requirements. As independent, private organizations the parties make their own rules and conduct their selection process as they see fit. They are bound by the rules each state sets for its own individual selection process be it caucus, primary, or convention and which delegates may be bound to a particular candidate and, if so, through how many ballots at the party convention. There is absolutely no requirement that any of this nominee selection process be "democratic". Each party selects its nominee by way of the states, each of which determines how it will participate in that selection process. Each candidate has the responsibility to learn the selection rules and procedure for each state in which he or she wishes to participate. I believe each party has the perfect right to determine who is to be the nominee that party will support in the General Election. If the voters are dissatisfied in the selection process, they should get involved in the party of their choice in their state and work to change it. Frankly, I am much more concerned about the ways in which the states' governments are seeking to curtail voter participation; now that's not democratic!
7
There is sound logic here. However, if the political parties are independent, private organizations free to set their own rules, why are most states conducting elections at state expense for their benefit?
Perhaps it would be better for the states to sell voter lists to the parties at nominal cost, and then let the parties conduct their own elections by mail, internet, or outright purchase of votes (one dollar, one vote).
But if parties wish the states to be involved with the selection process, then they need to abide by reasonable democratic (small D) rules.
Perhaps it would be better for the states to sell voter lists to the parties at nominal cost, and then let the parties conduct their own elections by mail, internet, or outright purchase of votes (one dollar, one vote).
But if parties wish the states to be involved with the selection process, then they need to abide by reasonable democratic (small D) rules.
3
@CarolineCJohnson:
It's got to change because Americans' choices for President are limited to who THEY (the Republicans & Dems) choose.
According to Gallup, 42% of the electorate is Independent. Yet an independent has no electable path to the White House with the current electoral college math. Just Google it. Several articles have been written on this subject over the years.
Partisan Primaries & conventions should NOT be taxpayer-funded or allowed to be bankrolled by special interests. The system is corrupt & needs an overhaul.
It's got to change because Americans' choices for President are limited to who THEY (the Republicans & Dems) choose.
According to Gallup, 42% of the electorate is Independent. Yet an independent has no electable path to the White House with the current electoral college math. Just Google it. Several articles have been written on this subject over the years.
Partisan Primaries & conventions should NOT be taxpayer-funded or allowed to be bankrolled by special interests. The system is corrupt & needs an overhaul.
3
By the way, in the Times today, an article pointed out that Trump's Cessna jet is not registered. Fine, that can happen to anyone. What's appalling is that apparently, according to the Times, it only costs $5 to register a multi-million dollar aircraft with the FAA. I pay $75 to register a motorcycle and $150 for a car and it's only $5 for a jet?
is anyone else outraged by that?
is anyone else outraged by that?
79
Michael you also pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes than that jet owner pays on his or her "carried interest". Call Warren Buffet's secretary and she'll explain it all to you.
1
For better or worse, Mr. Trump has generated unprecedented interest (and scrutiny) in the political primary process. Much like the unusual mysteries surrounding the Freemasons and our fledgling nation, the secretive and bizarre methodology for selecting and awarding delegates to the respective political parties' conventions is now in the revealing spotlight. As such, it's looking pretty undemocratic.
After all, why should we be surprised given our nation's genesis as a slave owning republic which drafts a document purporting that "all men are created equal". I guess it was so, if you were a white property owning "male".
Now, over 200 years later, we debate the founding fathers' intents questioning their vagary as wisdom, distrust, or arrogance.
After all, why should we be surprised given our nation's genesis as a slave owning republic which drafts a document purporting that "all men are created equal". I guess it was so, if you were a white property owning "male".
Now, over 200 years later, we debate the founding fathers' intents questioning their vagary as wisdom, distrust, or arrogance.
7
Most of the commenters think that the primary elections are somehow developed and maintained by state governments. They are not. In each state, the Democratic and Republican parties (non-governmental organizations) separately determine whether they want a caucus or a primary; how delegates will be distributed among those competing; whether the delegates are bound to a candidate or not; and etc.
From there it seems to be a short hop to advocating the wholesale restructuring of the final elections, which are indeed part of the Constitution and developed as a series of compromises, at the time the Constitution was being invented and debated, between those favoring direct and immediate representation and those fearing emotional mob rule.
That is a large distinction between candidate-selecting processes and election of president, senators, and representatives.
From there it seems to be a short hop to advocating the wholesale restructuring of the final elections, which are indeed part of the Constitution and developed as a series of compromises, at the time the Constitution was being invented and debated, between those favoring direct and immediate representation and those fearing emotional mob rule.
That is a large distinction between candidate-selecting processes and election of president, senators, and representatives.
5
I've never seen such a convoluted, drawn-out, expensive and essentially senseless system. Why can't Americans simply respect the principle of one person one vote that counts the same as any other vote, and the candidate that gets the most number of votes nationally wins?
24
Complexity is how you make something opaque and manipulate it to your benefit. It has worked for the elites for such a long time. Hopefully this all gets simplified and transparent now that people can see how complexity is used to rig the process and system.
6
Go back to the beginning; read the Federalist Papers. The conflict between the low population agricultural states and the high population trade, later industrial states, has shaped this nation from the onset.
Blue vs Red,forever ! :-)
Blue vs Red,forever ! :-)
In previous years, the nomination had been decided by the time the Pennsylvania primary rolled around, so nobody cared who the delegates were. They would all go to the convention, party up a storm, and vote for the winner. It was little more than a junket for the loyal local workers and supporters.
But this is not an ordinary year. It is highly likely that there will be intense scrutiny of the proposed delegates, and they will be called upon to say who they support. Newspapers will publish cheat sheets, and voters will study them carefully. Only motivated voters will be going to the polls, and it is highly likely they will have a good idea of who each candidate delegate is supporting.
But this is not an ordinary year. It is highly likely that there will be intense scrutiny of the proposed delegates, and they will be called upon to say who they support. Newspapers will publish cheat sheets, and voters will study them carefully. Only motivated voters will be going to the polls, and it is highly likely they will have a good idea of who each candidate delegate is supporting.
3
@Jonathan
You have a lot more faith in the current political process than I do.
You have a lot more faith in the current political process than I do.
1
Yes, correct, we may be making a mountain out of a mole hill. The delegates are supposed to publicise who they support. In past years, the people who bothered to vote likely knew the delegates, likely personally. Because as you said, it never mattered and maybe the process was designed for an earlier era where people knew each other.
This year, I imagine, with all this scrutiny, the delegates will make an extra effort to get that message out to _everybody_. And everybody will make an effort to learn it.
I can hardly imagine Pennsylvania will stick with an agenda of, oh, no, we don't let people know this.
This year, I imagine, with all this scrutiny, the delegates will make an extra effort to get that message out to _everybody_. And everybody will make an effort to learn it.
I can hardly imagine Pennsylvania will stick with an agenda of, oh, no, we don't let people know this.
By what stretch of the imagination is the process to elect a president in any way democratic? "Loophole" primaries, "superdelegates," states which give the winner all the delegates, states that apportion delegates among the candidates, and other shenanigans, deprive the individual voter any options until the last possible moment. Then we have the option of voting for the candidate chosen by this vastly complicated and entrenched machine,of throwing away a vote on an impossible third-party candidate, or of not voting. Not voting isn't a real option because it deprives one of the right to object to this nonsense.
11
You didn't mention the elephant in the room -- a candidate like Bush Jr. won in the electoral college even though he lost the popular vote. It is also the case that states like Texas and California don't even matter in a the general election because they are already very likely to go red or blue, so the voters who really select the President come from purple states.
So do we fix this first, or do we fix a system that
-makes voter registration difficult,
-allows widespread gerrymandering to create safe seats for most incumbents,
- embraces the idea that buying elections is free speech and can't be limited,
- gives tiny (red) states 2 senators and also gives them disproportionate House representation?
There is much that is wrong with the electoral system. A year like this one bring out many issues.
So do we fix this first, or do we fix a system that
-makes voter registration difficult,
-allows widespread gerrymandering to create safe seats for most incumbents,
- embraces the idea that buying elections is free speech and can't be limited,
- gives tiny (red) states 2 senators and also gives them disproportionate House representation?
There is much that is wrong with the electoral system. A year like this one bring out many issues.
16
My goodness folks, if we had democratic national elections instead of a states' rights and highly partisan political party approach, the South, the rural and low-population states, and the establishment/corporatized/1% political parties would lose power and control.
While we are at it, let's limit the time and money allowed to run for political office like real advanced nations do. Maybe the Times would like to run a series telling us the various ways other countries handle their elections in a rational, fair way.
While we are at it, let's limit the time and money allowed to run for political office like real advanced nations do. Maybe the Times would like to run a series telling us the various ways other countries handle their elections in a rational, fair way.
24
" the South, the rural and low-population states, ...would lose power and control."
Erm, is institutionally muting a region or area based on population density a good idea?
This is the United States of America - a collection of states united as a nation, Intentionally marginalizing some states over others seems a form of chauvinism, and gives the "fly over" states, like the one I live in, little reason to stay in the Union.
Guess that looks OK from your window?
PS - I used to live in a small town in southern France that was forced to put up with terrible pollution from a constant stream of trucks going through to the tunnel at the end of the valley, but received no revenue from all the traffic, despite the fact that local opposition was overwhelming because Paris liked it that way and refused to listen to any alternative that would effect the French Government's bottom line. As France is very centralized in its power arrangement, a small "state", or departement, like the Haute Savoie has pretty much no say in anything, even how their own land is used. How very "advanced", "rational". and "fair".
Erm, is institutionally muting a region or area based on population density a good idea?
This is the United States of America - a collection of states united as a nation, Intentionally marginalizing some states over others seems a form of chauvinism, and gives the "fly over" states, like the one I live in, little reason to stay in the Union.
Guess that looks OK from your window?
PS - I used to live in a small town in southern France that was forced to put up with terrible pollution from a constant stream of trucks going through to the tunnel at the end of the valley, but received no revenue from all the traffic, despite the fact that local opposition was overwhelming because Paris liked it that way and refused to listen to any alternative that would effect the French Government's bottom line. As France is very centralized in its power arrangement, a small "state", or departement, like the Haute Savoie has pretty much no say in anything, even how their own land is used. How very "advanced", "rational". and "fair".
This may be the first election where the crazy, patchwork nature of the nominating process, primaries and caucuses, is truly begun to be understood by the electorate. Even the primaries have many variations on rules, and the caucuses are sometimes not well understood even by those attending them.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, and whether there is a silver lining in Donald Trump's candidacy, namely, a push for more democracy.
We are not even talking about the Electoral College yet.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, and whether there is a silver lining in Donald Trump's candidacy, namely, a push for more democracy.
We are not even talking about the Electoral College yet.
16
It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
Hubert H. Humphrey
Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
Thomas Jefferson
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson
The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.
Woodrow Wilson
The government is us; we are the government, you and I.
Theodore Roosevelt
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes.
Andrew Jackson
If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' what is the opposite of 'progress'?
Paul Harvey
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
Donald Trump
Trump, presidential material in a Hitlerian, Idi Amin kind of way.
Hubert H. Humphrey
Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
Thomas Jefferson
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson
The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.
Woodrow Wilson
The government is us; we are the government, you and I.
Theodore Roosevelt
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes.
Andrew Jackson
If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' what is the opposite of 'progress'?
Paul Harvey
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
Donald Trump
Trump, presidential material in a Hitlerian, Idi Amin kind of way.
10
I'm a Pennsylvania ex-pat and I maintain a rooting interest in the state. But to be honest, Pennsylvania has been a disappointment as a state. A state that has so much going for it has consistently underperformed. New York, just a little bit colder is such a vibrant and creative place and an economic powerhouse. Pennsylvania is an exemplar of deterioration. To avoid partisan sniping, I won't list examples of where the state comes up short; the failures belong to not just one party.
I keep hoping Pennsylvania will get its act in gear; I keep hoping Santa will visit me, too.
I keep hoping Pennsylvania will get its act in gear; I keep hoping Santa will visit me, too.
3
Their drivers are more polite than NJ drivers.
It's shameful that Trump has even reached the point where he is a serious Presidential candidate. He's probably a sign of worse yet to come. Rather than bemoan his promise of an idiocracy it would be worthwhile investigating the root issues that have allowed this circumstance to flourish at this time.
14
That being said, then maybe he's the perfect candidate for the times.
1
Not just Trump. The same applies to Cruz and many other crazies who routinely partake in the primaries for national office.
2
I'm beyond tired of the loud, blaring egomaniac. Back to Xanadu, Mira Lago, wherever. Leave us alone!
14
Understood, but afraid that ain't gonna happen, as much as we might want it to. In a democracy, the ignorant, prejudiced and small-minded get a vote and, apparently, they represent a big enough percentage of the voting public to keep Mr. T around and viable. Even if he did go back to Xanadu, there are plenty more like him, or worse, waiting in the wings.
4
i wonder how often donald watches citizen kane
does he have a rosebud in his past ?
does he have a rosebud in his past ?
AT least the primary system is determined by each party and the rules can be changed by that party. The rules governing the electoral college are in the constitution, along with 2 senators from each state (regardless of greater than 30:1 population differences among states), Citizens United, no equality between the sexes (amendment failed in Illinois legislature), lifetime supreme court appointments, etc. We need a constitutional convention.
1
Sounds good --except I can't imagine how we could find agreement on any of those issues nowadays. Our forefathers were deeply divided on many issues, yet they had the lure of creating a new and original form of government along with the stick of British Imperialism as motivation. Now, we have neither.
2
How true, Paul. California and New York have more people than all the states below the Manson-Nixon line put together but only four senators between them. How is that fair? So the tail is always wagging the dog.
yes, 2 senators from each state, and also a proportional amount of congressional representatives. The senators give each state equal weight, the congressional reps give weight proportional to their populations. Just didn't want to let this fact go unmentioned. I agree with a lot of the other complaints here, but when we rail against something, lets be fair and not leave other facts out.
1
If Pensylvania or any other state pulls a fast one and where Trump is the popular vote leader, and Trump subsequently does not win the Republican nomination, then I and millions of other Republican voters will either not vote at all, or as in my case I will vote Democrat from White House to Court House. If the RNC is going to allow Trump's legitimate bid for the nomination to be flushed down the toilet of excreted politics, then for my money every Republican in the country can just get flushed down there as well. However, all that having been said, this article is making much ado about nothing. Trump will win the nomination on the first ballot. Hillary will be forced to drop out, and Trump will mop the floor with that communist in a cheap socialist suit from Vermont. Trump will win the November election by a landslide and go on to become one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the United States. Trump has exactly the right stuff to make this country great again. God Bless Donald Trump, and God Bless the United States of America.
8
Please dont Hurrah!
Trump is all talk no walk
Trump would be THE worst thing to ever happen to the American Presidency. His tenure (a single term, at best) would mark an all time low in the standing of this country in the estimation of the rest of the world. He's already been the single least presidential candidate to run for the office in the modern era; from the inciting of violence among his supporters during several campaign events, to the mocking of disabled journalists, the misogynistic comments, the borderline and outright racist tone of his language, and the promises of attempted abrogation of first amendment rights and the negation of the freedom of the press. If you're looking for true third-world level diplomacy and the dictatorial leadership style of the leaders of those nations, then obviously, Donald Trump is your man, if not, then I suggest that you pray to whichever Gods you believe in that Trump doesn't get the nomination. #NeverTrump
1
The U. S. used to have senators chosen (I prefer not to say "elected") bu state legislatures, until the original Muckraker, journalist David Graham Phillips, exposed the corruption involved in his book "The Treason of the Senate." The outcry produced the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.
Meanwhile, in 2000 we had the Electoral College and a disputed count in Florida deny the popular-vote winner the presidency. We need another outcry. The Pennsylvania rules for delegates are just one example of how the will expressed by voters at the polls gets diluted by a set of rules, different in each state, different often for each party, that clever people can use to thwart the wishes of the majority of voters.
Maybe a presidential commission should study this and recommend a set of changes. Lots of good ideas in the Comments section here, but we need a plan to make some of this happen.
Meanwhile, in 2000 we had the Electoral College and a disputed count in Florida deny the popular-vote winner the presidency. We need another outcry. The Pennsylvania rules for delegates are just one example of how the will expressed by voters at the polls gets diluted by a set of rules, different in each state, different often for each party, that clever people can use to thwart the wishes of the majority of voters.
Maybe a presidential commission should study this and recommend a set of changes. Lots of good ideas in the Comments section here, but we need a plan to make some of this happen.
3
This is a binary choice for the Republicans.
1. Allow Trump the nomination and take a good shellacking that Mrs. Clinton will administer.
2. Deny Trump the nomination. Then watch as Trump rips the GOP asunder, and gives the Democrats an even bigger win in November. More than that, Trump could determine the end of the Republican Party.
1. Allow Trump the nomination and take a good shellacking that Mrs. Clinton will administer.
2. Deny Trump the nomination. Then watch as Trump rips the GOP asunder, and gives the Democrats an even bigger win in November. More than that, Trump could determine the end of the Republican Party.
34
not a moment too soon either way
1
#2 From your words to God's ears.
1
Trump is preparing for a third party run if he doesn't get the nomination. That is what all his talk about unfairness and the nomination being rigged is about. If he feels cheated due to the Pennsylvania rules be ready for the third rail.
6
No doubt it will be called the Trump Party. What else would he call it?
1
I would like it if the financial billing system worked the same way. Like, I was required to pay my subscriptions to "Hot Rod Digest" and "Stamp Collectors Monthly", but paying my utilities bill and property taxes was optional
5
We lecture countries around the world about the benefits of a democratic system of government, in which the people elect their leaders in free and fair elections. The natural assumption is that our own nation abides by these ideas. In fact it doesn't and never has. Even the person elected in the general presidential election could walk away without ever once being saluted by a rendition of 'Hail to the Chief'. The framers of the constitution put the Electoral College system in place as an eject seat for when our democracy becomes just a bit too democratic-- the Electors have no constitutional obligation to vote for whomever the people have actually chosen. The party primaries similarly promote a 'democracy when convenient' methodology.
18
I want to hear what President Carter (who dedicates time to international voting) says about this,
14
I will never support Donald Trump--and yet, I say let the poor guy win the nomination.
He certainly has a better head on his shoulders than the Christianist theocrat Ted Cruz and the boring/amoral John Kasich.
He certainly has a better head on his shoulders than the Christianist theocrat Ted Cruz and the boring/amoral John Kasich.
16
I imagine why the disfunction is so apparent this year, is that in the past, the RNC likely supported the favorite, who emerged as the winner of the popular vote.
Thus, the PA delegates went ahead and selected the candidate that the voters has preferred. The voters didn't worry so much because they assumed that's what would happen and it would be fair.
What is unusual this year, is that there is some sign that the delegates will not do that. They seem to be indicating they will go against the popular choice because they do not like the popular choice and that is unusual.
I think this is because, as David Frum, Laura Ingraham and the NYT have indicated, the Republican base does not like the Republican platform (cut taxes for wealthy, trickle down, globalism, more immigration, many foreign wars, cut social security), and the Republican leadership does is not willing to do what the base wishes (the opposite of above).
Thus, the PA delegates went ahead and selected the candidate that the voters has preferred. The voters didn't worry so much because they assumed that's what would happen and it would be fair.
What is unusual this year, is that there is some sign that the delegates will not do that. They seem to be indicating they will go against the popular choice because they do not like the popular choice and that is unusual.
I think this is because, as David Frum, Laura Ingraham and the NYT have indicated, the Republican base does not like the Republican platform (cut taxes for wealthy, trickle down, globalism, more immigration, many foreign wars, cut social security), and the Republican leadership does is not willing to do what the base wishes (the opposite of above).
7
A trump presidency would be entertaining, he's too inept and unliked to actually get anything done. A cruz presidency, on the other hand, would be disastrous for America and Americans. It would be great for Wall Street, but not for you and me. So as far as I am concerned, I hope trump stays in the race because he'll beat cruz and go up against Hillary or Bernie.
8
I said the same thing when GWBush was elected. "What could happen?", I said. "It will be good for a laugh" I said. The election is serious business. We can't put the presidency in the hands of amateurs.
Our primary system is archaic and needs an overhaul. Why should power be concentrated in the hands of a few delegates or superdelegates for that matter. What happens to the will of the people when someone has gained the popular vote, yet it means nothing because of unpledged delegates, superdelegates, swing states, and other mechanisms at the conventions and on the national election level? Oh I know, instead of Al Gore we got George W. Bush.
24
Inept? How many inept people do you know who build multi-billion dollar companies that employ 1000s of people? Inept people don't do. Trump has done more than 99 percent of the people in the world. I wish you would be a bit more unbiased.
2
sorry, I sometimes hate autocorrect. eliminate the electoral college. not emanate. we'll do some emanating all sorts of things later - after we've seen the results of this election, I am sure. ;)
4
Don't apologize, we all do too,
2
Gaalee...how much more complicated, convoluted and crazy can the electoral process become? You need three PhDs to figure this out. We need students in social work, political science and sociology to be researching this issue, and find out how helpful and relevant is this process, or how much hurdle it poses to true participation and inclusion, in the 21st century. Crazy system. How did it exist for so long?
5
as a keen watcher of us politics i notice the people are now controlled by government , not the people who control the government .i suggest a law made where no member of government was allowed to be sponsored by any oil company or conglomerate and the voice of the people( eg. we the people ) be heard not a bunch of highly paid public servants. thankyou
2
Dear Les,
I'd just like to point out that so far in history, people have always been controlled by the government. Closest we probably ever came to having a government controlled by the people was in ancient Athens, and then it was just controlled by the male, landowning citizens. Even then I bet there was some bronze age equivalent of the electoral college.
I'd just like to point out that so far in history, people have always been controlled by the government. Closest we probably ever came to having a government controlled by the people was in ancient Athens, and then it was just controlled by the male, landowning citizens. Even then I bet there was some bronze age equivalent of the electoral college.
Dear Dan,
Citizenship in Athens didn't apply to most of the male residents, including many propertied people. Depending on the time frame, the people running the state were the richest and most powerful. We idealize the Greeks. Rome did a much better job of granting citizenship, though its voting was always rigged in favor of the leading citizens.
Citizenship in Athens didn't apply to most of the male residents, including many propertied people. Depending on the time frame, the people running the state were the richest and most powerful. We idealize the Greeks. Rome did a much better job of granting citizenship, though its voting was always rigged in favor of the leading citizens.
Heh thanks Doug for clarifying, that was part of my point. Athens might have been giving the vote to 15% of the population, at a really high estimate. We're doing a little better than they are I'd say.
Widespread corruption in state government, abetting child abuse at Penn State, the large number of errant priests passed along to other congregations, the recent conviction of a judge for 'selling' juvenile offenders, and now this.
What is it about Pennsylvania that lends itself to an old boy network, where you let your buddies get away with anything, turn a blind eye on everything from payoffs to child rape, and generally run things like a private club?
What is it about Pennsylvania that lends itself to an old boy network, where you let your buddies get away with anything, turn a blind eye on everything from payoffs to child rape, and generally run things like a private club?
8
I don't agree with Mr. Trump on a lot of things, but he's right - this is Rigged.
14
Trump is right, it IS RIGGED!! Can someone explain the organizational rules and legal foundation that a political party (whatever that actually means) is based upon? The General Election becomes meaningless if the parties that put forth the candidates are able to distort the will of the public in favor of the "leaderships" choices. If there is a revolution coming, this is where it will begin. Occupy political parties!
13
Funny!
however much people gripe about this whole system it does sift through the candidates with a variety of demanding tests all over the country. in a country this big and this diverse, that's a pretty good thing, actually.
2
I've always felt that there's something wrong with our electoral process. This particular election season makes clear that it remains pretty much an 18th Century contraption, with a couple of modern updates like superdelegates tossed in, all together calculated to placate the masses while keeping the establishment firmly in the driver's seat. And don't even get me started on the Electoral College.
14
What we have seen in this Presidential "election" season is that not only would Donald Trump make a terrible President, he is a disgraceful individual. He has to be stopped however it can be done. The entire "Trump" name and brand is based on high style and quality. What you find out is that is behind the curtain is more like Bernie Madoff. Many of Trump's schemes fall apart, investors and condo purchasers lose money, Trump blames everybody else, sues everybody, he doesn't pay contractors, insults people who disagree with him, won't answer questions, etc., etc. He is a narcissistic disaster of a person who has gotten away with pushing people around for a long time.
When he fails to become President, be sure that everybody except Trump will be at fault, and there will be plenty of lawsuits. He will lose the lawsuits and claim that the system was rigged against him. That is because the alternative is to admit that he just plain lost. He does not have the ability to do that. Narcissists never do. Rather than admit he lost anything, he would start a nuclear war. Whatever the cost, Trump has to be stopped.
When he fails to become President, be sure that everybody except Trump will be at fault, and there will be plenty of lawsuits. He will lose the lawsuits and claim that the system was rigged against him. That is because the alternative is to admit that he just plain lost. He does not have the ability to do that. Narcissists never do. Rather than admit he lost anything, he would start a nuclear war. Whatever the cost, Trump has to be stopped.
18
I've lived in Pennsylvania almost all my life. Leave it to this state to have the most complicated and convoluted voting system in the country.
I love the fact, however, that it might keep the nomination from Trump. It's just what he deserves.
I love the fact, however, that it might keep the nomination from Trump. It's just what he deserves.
4
What has struck me from watching the 2016 election campaign so far, is how the two political parties are both determined to control the nominating process in favor of one candidate or another. Without going into the specific issues involved, a very large part of the voting public, both conservative and liberal, is thoroughly disgusted with today's political status quo. In response, both parties have done everything they could to forward establishment politicians to maintain the status quo.
These political parties are immensely powerful, yet are extra-constitutional, private entities that rarely answer to anybody and derive their position and power from tradition more than anything else. They no longer serve the function of mediating between the people and their government, as they used to do. Now, it's almost always top-down, with the party leadership trying to shape the opinions of its members, or constrain them politically, in order to keep the establishment intact.
These political parties are immensely powerful, yet are extra-constitutional, private entities that rarely answer to anybody and derive their position and power from tradition more than anything else. They no longer serve the function of mediating between the people and their government, as they used to do. Now, it's almost always top-down, with the party leadership trying to shape the opinions of its members, or constrain them politically, in order to keep the establishment intact.
6
Look, whatever system you use is going to fail with the right set of circumstances, thus making a case for Super Delegates etc. That said we should be able to do better than what we are.
My question is why are the states paying for these primaries when they do not get to set the rules? It seems to me that whoever sets the rules should be paying. If the states are setting the rules, why are the rules different for the parties?
My question is why are the states paying for these primaries when they do not get to set the rules? It seems to me that whoever sets the rules should be paying. If the states are setting the rules, why are the rules different for the parties?
2
I hope he wins! And if not, decides to run as an Independent, if it is possible for him to. That's our best hope to keep a repug out of the President's office.
2
The United States of America is NOT a democracy. It is a Democratic Republic. There is a big difference.
A democratic republic is, strictly speaking, a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens, and the government itself is run through elected officials (or elected officials who represent the citizens and SHOULD vote for the best interests of its citizens).
Democracy, on the other hand, is "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
If the US acted as a democracy, minorities would have NEVER gotten any rights in this country. The changing of the minds of representatives who represented constituents who had no intention of recognizing equal rights for minorities, was the key to the change in this country.
People who throw around that word, 'democracy', should study more closely American history. It is a myth that our forefathers believed in a national democracy. They did not trust the people to have all that power.
A democratic republic is, strictly speaking, a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens, and the government itself is run through elected officials (or elected officials who represent the citizens and SHOULD vote for the best interests of its citizens).
Democracy, on the other hand, is "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
If the US acted as a democracy, minorities would have NEVER gotten any rights in this country. The changing of the minds of representatives who represented constituents who had no intention of recognizing equal rights for minorities, was the key to the change in this country.
People who throw around that word, 'democracy', should study more closely American history. It is a myth that our forefathers believed in a national democracy. They did not trust the people to have all that power.
1
The more delegates Trump loses to the idiosyncratic delegate-allocation rules of each state, the more likely it is that he will be denied the GOP nomination and the more likely it is he will mount an independent bid for the White House. The Donald will not be denied.
3
All this about Trump not getting the delegates is not going to happen simple because PA has few conservative Republicans. They are moderate Republicans that will not vote for Cruz. Cruz is working to get a second vote at the convention. But, if that happens who knows who would get the nomination. It mostly like will not be Cruz even if he thinks he might. We all have to remember that in the background there a number of lawsuits contesting whether Cruz is actually a U.S. citizen, and these, hopefully, will be settled in a court of law before the election and, we hope, before the convention. Republicans can't simply make up interpretations of the law and say is Cruz is an American. We don't want a Canadian president.
3
Detest Cruz, think he is the most illiberal and dangerous of the 2016 crowd. But he is unquestionably a citizen of the United States. We don't need the same nonsense that has plagued President Obama to be brought up again. I believe Cruz would lose because the majority of Americans will reject his sanctimony and bigotry; failing that, we won't vote for someone that we would most definitely not want to have a beer with.
1
All this is really silly. Can we not have a nationwide primary in June/July followed by the election in November without the electoral college? And while we are at it, can elections be held on a Sunday like most of the world so that more people (particularly low income and minorities) can vote?
27
An outstanding and practical idea. It would save millions of $$$ that could be spent on something more meaningful---education etc. There is no need for the electoral college! The peoples votes should count. Sunday is perfect as is an alternate day so more people could vote--they might have to change the gerrymandering maps to reasonable access for these voters. Oh, there is no need for the electoral college.
You got it right!!
You got it right!!
1
Some religious people would be excluded from voting on a Sunday, others would be excluded on a Saturday. Having both days with the polls open would solve the problem you state, allow people of all faiths to vote, and allow the talking-head networks to sell twice as many commercial slots.
Trump is proof positive that rank and file Republicans are flipping the bird to the Social Christian Conservative movement within the Republican party. And I love it.
7
Loophole primary, eh? I remember in High School the election process was explained to us, and everyone in class kinda of perked up, you know, when the "this will never happen in your lifetime, I hope" things came up. Watching this election thingy go on I'm watching Chekhov's gun.
2
I'm sorry, did you say they are voting in Shanghai or Pennsylvania? For a moment I thought we were talking about China.
I'm no fan of Trump, but that is ridiculous and unfair to the voters. Whatever happened to democratic voting?
I'm no fan of Trump, but that is ridiculous and unfair to the voters. Whatever happened to democratic voting?
12
Ah, yes, the voters. What Trump has exposed is how little they actually matter.
1
If the political parties want to run these types of anti-democratic nominating contests they need to foot the entire bill for doing so. If taxpayers are paying for these primary elections then the process needs to be open and simplified.
13
How do you all feel about the dangers (or may not so dangerous) idea of allowing popular vote decide both the nomination process as well as the national election (in the sense that we also emanate the electoral college)? I wonder how quickly the the two party system would or could be dismantled and what the results would be? Would we have hundreds of political parties with different agendas and special interests all duking it out for the popular vote? Would an environment like this make it possible for a fellow like Trump to work his way to the White House?
1
On or about July 1st of each general election year, prospective presidential candidates send out petitioners to gather signatures of registered voters. On or about August 1, the signatures are counted, and the top 10 signature-getters, regardless of party, become the presidential candidates. Starting the second Monday after August 1, the campaign starts in earnest, with a total of five debates between the candidates, campaign stops, town hall meetings, etc. On the first Sunday after October 1, a first primary is held, with any candidates not receiving at least 20% of the popular vote being eliminated. Such elections will subsequently be held every second Sunday thereafter until one candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, thereby winning the presidency for the next four years.
3
It is is baffling to me as to why people think that the process of nominating a candidate for a party is required to be done through a democratic election. It is certainly legitimate to argue that the system is convoluted and unfair and try to change it. A democratic election to nominate a party's candidate is not an individual right. In fact, with the electoral college, the actual election of a President is not strictly democratic. Something that is rarely talked about.
6
How in the world do some state likes Pennsylvania come up with these 'hair brained' delegate allocation schemes? In a million years, I couldn't think up such a convoluted system. It must be the same person who designed the IRS tax code!
There really is a need for Congress to impose a uniform election system on states including standardized rules for running primaries. No wonder so many voters are disillusioned with our political system.
There really is a need for Congress to impose a uniform election system on states including standardized rules for running primaries. No wonder so many voters are disillusioned with our political system.
11
Seriously. You want Congress to "fix" this? You mean the Congress now in Wanshington, DC? The one holding this country hostage? That Congress? That is truly one of the most hysterically funny remarks of the day.
6
But all of the rules, by state, are available. Except for states that have been adding Voter ID voting)laws (despite there being little to no fraudulent voting), most states haven't changed any of the process. It's a civic responsibility to know your state's laws. It helps when candidates point out peculiarities, but the obligation rests with the voter.
1
@mvt2216:
RE the analogy with the IRS, I was thinking the same thing! :))
As for the uniform national elections with standardized rules, better to propose a few models and let the voters choose one via a referendum. The Congress is inept & self-serving. They muck up anything they get their hands on
RE the analogy with the IRS, I was thinking the same thing! :))
As for the uniform national elections with standardized rules, better to propose a few models and let the voters choose one via a referendum. The Congress is inept & self-serving. They muck up anything they get their hands on
1
Though Trump would make a terrible president, he has done us the service of showing just how corrupt and unfair our political parties have become.
92
a, like you didnt know that long before now
and
b, now what are you going to do about it beside blog your outrage
and
b, now what are you going to do about it beside blog your outrage
2
How can these loophole delegates even be legal?
The primary/caucus process state by state is byzantine and totally lacking in transparency. The choice of candidates & the elections should be decided by the voters...time to take that power away from the political parties.
The primaries, the delegates, the conventions all exist to serve the parties, not the people. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Sign me up for the voter revolution.
The primary/caucus process state by state is byzantine and totally lacking in transparency. The choice of candidates & the elections should be decided by the voters...time to take that power away from the political parties.
The primaries, the delegates, the conventions all exist to serve the parties, not the people. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Sign me up for the voter revolution.
8
They are legal because the party decides the rules. Don't like it, don't run.
@JeffP
Time for the electorate to join together to change those rules. It wouldn't be easy but it is not impossible. An amendment to the Constitution could be proposed to reflect a unified, non-partisan voting system for national elections. The voters could propose a referendum on the ballot to vote it into law.
Time for the electorate to join together to change those rules. It wouldn't be easy but it is not impossible. An amendment to the Constitution could be proposed to reflect a unified, non-partisan voting system for national elections. The voters could propose a referendum on the ballot to vote it into law.
2
What is amazing is that so many people, and a certain candidate, have no clue how the party electoral system in this country actually works. That's what happens when you listen to rightwing media like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity, mindlessly follow their directions on who to vote for, and vote in Republicans who do not represent their own best interests or the interests of our democracy. Why bother to actually understand the crazy way our system works when it's so much easier to vote how they are told, and then complain and whine about the system when they realize it's rigged against them!
How ironic that the voters who have supported the party which opposes the Voting Rights Act and does everything it can to make it difficult for the poor, elderly and minorities to actually cast their ballots have now woken up to the fact that those for whom they have voted for decades are betraying them and their demagogic candidate.
How ironic that the voters who have supported the party which opposes the Voting Rights Act and does everything it can to make it difficult for the poor, elderly and minorities to actually cast their ballots have now woken up to the fact that those for whom they have voted for decades are betraying them and their demagogic candidate.
42
Jerry
It doesn't sound like you've been paying much attention. For months, Bernie Sanders has been railing about how the Democratic primary procedures, rules & delegate allocation are unfair. Are the problems in the Dem primary process also the result of people listening to "rightwing media like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity" and "voting in Republicans" who "don't represent their interests"?
It doesn't sound like you've been paying much attention. For months, Bernie Sanders has been railing about how the Democratic primary procedures, rules & delegate allocation are unfair. Are the problems in the Dem primary process also the result of people listening to "rightwing media like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity" and "voting in Republicans" who "don't represent their interests"?
4
"What is amazing is that so many people, and a certain candidate, have no clue how the party electoral system in this country actually works."
Also interesting, Jerry I., that perhaps only specialized PhD candidate in Political Science might be well-informed of the byzantine mechanics of the PA GOP primary process. In what context would any citizens ever see fit to inform themselves of the intricacies of this system UNLESS intending to engineer that process to someone's advantage? One may decry voter ignorance, but within which cult-within-a-cult must one serve in order to have an effective working knowledge of such convolutions?
Also interesting, Jerry I., that perhaps only specialized PhD candidate in Political Science might be well-informed of the byzantine mechanics of the PA GOP primary process. In what context would any citizens ever see fit to inform themselves of the intricacies of this system UNLESS intending to engineer that process to someone's advantage? One may decry voter ignorance, but within which cult-within-a-cult must one serve in order to have an effective working knowledge of such convolutions?
3
With all this talk about breaking up the banks, how about breaking up the Republican and Democratic parties?
They are private organizations that decide which candidate they're going to support. But unfortunately, they've become too big to fail. When was the last time we had a president that wasn't a Republican or Democrat?
We need more parties, more options, and less restrictive laws that make it too difficult for alternative parties to succeed.
They are private organizations that decide which candidate they're going to support. But unfortunately, they've become too big to fail. When was the last time we had a president that wasn't a Republican or Democrat?
We need more parties, more options, and less restrictive laws that make it too difficult for alternative parties to succeed.
20
For all the hand-wringing, it looks more and more likely that Donald Trump will in fact be the Republican nominee. While there are still many scenarios floated whereby he could somehow be denied, that argument is quickly losing steam. The question now is more likely to hinge on whether or not he self-destructs before November - or he leaves Hillary Clinton in a whimpering heap by unleashing an unrelenting torrent she's neither expecting nor capable of withstanding.
2
@MichaelZimmerman:
...Many of us are rooting for the second scenario :))
...Many of us are rooting for the second scenario :))
Prediction: he will take a dive. Anything to get out of actually serving as President, as long as he can milk it for as long as possible. Maybe he'll leave of his own accord if he gets the Marine honor guard and the Dolly Madison dishes or something.
4
Michael, who in their right mind would vote (as in the majority of Americans) for the guy? There are not enough emotionally stunted, postadolescent males (you know the kind that fantasizes about such behavior) to help him win.
That said, I do so hope he wins the nomination.
That said, I do so hope he wins the nomination.
3
It is baffling to me as to why people think that the process of nominating a candidate for a party requires that it be done through a democratic election. If one wants to argue that the system is convoluted that is certainly a legitimate argument. Of course with the electoral college the election of the President of our nation is not strictly democratic either. Something you rarely hear spoken about.
8
The electoral college is the least of our problems. Let's not forget Citizens United, gerrymandering and voter suppression legislation. no-one is the slightest bit interested in democracy - just winning.
7
What's fascinating/frightening about the Republicans is their blatant undemocratic bias. If they don't like who's getting the votes to be the candidate, they find ways to neutralize those votes. Don't like that the President gets to put another justice on the Court? Then don't allow Congress to fulfill its constitutional mandate. Don't like the way vote will likely go (not for them)? Then reduce the number of polling places or find ways to challenge voters at the polls. They're shameless tools of plutocrats, should be recognized as such, and denied political power.
31
Agreed. It's hard to understand how this party has continued to exist these past few decades. But now only do they exist, they keep winning elections. Now in control of Congress, most statehouses, more and more courthouses. But they have wildcards: talk radio and Rupert Murdock and the Kochs promoting them, and big big money...which must somehow win the day despite what the party truly represents.
1980 all over again. Bush won the popular vote, Reagan got all the delegates. The Republican process was managed by Drew Lewis, who was rewarded by Reagan by making Lewis Secretary of Transportation.
5
Yay. Husband and I are GOP, new to PA, and oppose Trump. This system sounds good to me!
2
No democracy for you right?
3
I suppose you are certain that the other candidates on the Republican bill are very different from Trump
2
I wonder if it will sound as good when your "wildcard" delegates all vote for Cruz.
1
If you lived in PA, especially NEPA, as I do you would understand it completely. Politics here is corrupt. Period.
I live in a small lake community/borough. The powers that be got there by rigging elections, people who don't actually live here voted absentee or "drove two hours to get here". Their former mayor ran when his address was in SE PA. Now he heads the planning commission where his goal is to transfer the power to the hands of elected officials, read, the council president who makes all decisions now.
As for Cruz, Pennsylvanians should vote for a candidate only, no delegates. Then the will of the people would be evident.
And I keep wondering why do they think all the people who voted for Trump are going to mindlessly vote for their chosen candidate when they pulled tricks like this to get him there? I guess that shows how stupid they think voters really are.
I live in a small lake community/borough. The powers that be got there by rigging elections, people who don't actually live here voted absentee or "drove two hours to get here". Their former mayor ran when his address was in SE PA. Now he heads the planning commission where his goal is to transfer the power to the hands of elected officials, read, the council president who makes all decisions now.
As for Cruz, Pennsylvanians should vote for a candidate only, no delegates. Then the will of the people would be evident.
And I keep wondering why do they think all the people who voted for Trump are going to mindlessly vote for their chosen candidate when they pulled tricks like this to get him there? I guess that shows how stupid they think voters really are.
4
Well, to be fair, the GOP leadership has been conning their supporters for quite some time. Why wouldn't they think it'll work again? Maybe they'll call it Tea Party II, The Retribution and kill Planned Parenthood and reduce Social Security benefits as a present to the proles.
I hope the NYT or some other serious news organization will put together a rigorous, side-by-side comparison of the 50 states' systems (if we can call such chaotic things systems). Maybe then ordinary votes can start to organize to promote changes in the primary systems before 2020
11
Why are the concepts of one-person-one-vote and simple majority so difficult for the American political system to implement? There is a difference between a rigged system (hidden rules, lack of transparency etc) versus a stupid system (let's make it as complicated and senseless as possible). Me thinks this PA rule is just plain stupid.
8
Listen to a few episodes of John Dickerson's podcast, Whistlestop, to gain new appreciation of the Primary process, the roles of different states' processes, and convention fights.
These seemingly arcane procedures actually have a basis in past experience which is pays not to forget. We want everything simple and straightforward, but that would mean ignoring the experiences and battles of our forebears.
We ignore history at our peril.
These seemingly arcane procedures actually have a basis in past experience which is pays not to forget. We want everything simple and straightforward, but that would mean ignoring the experiences and battles of our forebears.
We ignore history at our peril.
17
@Greg:
I can't agree. Our country is very different today & these cryptic rules only serve to cover up the corruption of the political parties.
Federal elections should have 1 set of rules. And the state primaries should all be held on the same day. For example, all primaries decided by popular vote on Sept. 15th, with general (national) election to take place 2 months later.
I can't agree. Our country is very different today & these cryptic rules only serve to cover up the corruption of the political parties.
Federal elections should have 1 set of rules. And the state primaries should all be held on the same day. For example, all primaries decided by popular vote on Sept. 15th, with general (national) election to take place 2 months later.
3
But then the small states won't matter anymore. Their issues and concerns will be ignored by the candidates. We'd have candidates pandering solely to CA, NY, FL, TX...and on in descending order of population.
Iowa has the early caucus for a reason. The citizens of the state see themselves as causing meaningful discussion of issues where candidates have to prove themselves worthy of moving forward to the later primaries. (Whether Iowans are successful at that goal is another thing...but I don't think we want to deny them the right to try).
Iowa has the early caucus for a reason. The citizens of the state see themselves as causing meaningful discussion of issues where candidates have to prove themselves worthy of moving forward to the later primaries. (Whether Iowans are successful at that goal is another thing...but I don't think we want to deny them the right to try).
Unintended consequences matter. If we all vote on one day, only established candidates would win -- there would be no space for an outsider to get traction. I'm a Clinton supporter, but I think that Sanders deserves/deserved the chance to make a pitch, build momentum, and have the chance to win the primary. I think the GOP needed the option of throwing Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio out and picking Cruz or Trump if that is who they want. While we could envision some kind of rotating primary process so that different states have more impact on different elections, and perhaps compressing the cycle, there is some value in vetting candidates and allowing viewpoints to develop -- I say this as a Californian whose vote has not meant anything for decades in either a primary or general Presidential election.
2
I wonder why so many American "peoples representatives" and our supreme justices are so fond of supporting our Constitution left in it's historical form. Clearly the current Constitution is the fundamental reason and gateway as to why our once fair Nation has evolved unchecked into our present unintended and unjust Plutocracy.
It is definitely time for a rethink.
It is definitely time for a rethink.
12
Political parties and conventions and delegates are not in the constitution. These things evolved over time in the 1800s and 1900s. The electoral college is in the constitution though.
But maybe the system isn't so bad the way it is. It protects the country from fringe figures, keeping them far away from the Oval Office. Most Republicans do not support Trump. The convention then picks a more reasonable person--whom no regular voter voted for. Not very democratic but designed to keep the country safe from extremists.
The whole system only broke down once, 16 years ago, when the Supreme Court installed the president.
But maybe the system isn't so bad the way it is. It protects the country from fringe figures, keeping them far away from the Oval Office. Most Republicans do not support Trump. The convention then picks a more reasonable person--whom no regular voter voted for. Not very democratic but designed to keep the country safe from extremists.
The whole system only broke down once, 16 years ago, when the Supreme Court installed the president.
Delegate allocation rules are absolutely baffling. I live in PA, read this article twice and am still confused. What is the point of the primary if most of your delegates are being distributed in this way?
I'm not a republican, so I don't have to pay particular attention to the party's process for my state, but how is any everyday person expected to make sense of the state's delegate allocation? What is a Republican voter actually voting for next week?
I'm not a republican, so I don't have to pay particular attention to the party's process for my state, but how is any everyday person expected to make sense of the state's delegate allocation? What is a Republican voter actually voting for next week?
15
That's just it, the delegate list on the ballot doesn't tie any potential delegate to any candidate. Unless the voter has personal knowledge, there is no way he knows who the delegate will vote for. Baffeling
2
We can only hope that the attention brought to the sham elections in each party will result in positive changes that will allow the voter to decide the winners. The best outcome would be for thousands of registered dems and republicans to leave their respective paries and become independents. Any change that weakens the power to party politics would be a step in the direction of making our votes actually count.
14
It there no end? And here I thought Republican's had pulled every dirty trick in their book. Republicans have changed the rules to favor candidates, gerrymandered districts, have or are trying to restrict voting in most of States they control, directed PAC money to opposition candidates of candidates the establishment opposes. But there is no end to Republicans gaming the system, changing the rules or tactics, now they've come up with the cynical old diabolical, loophole primary, in Pennsylvania. The "loophole" 54 delegates unpledged, just in case the establishment needs them, like to stop Trump? Too late my Republican establishment friends, Trump has called your undemocratic tactics and history out. You may change the rules and tactics to game the system, lie, cheat, steal, restrict voting, gerrymander, and even pull the ole loophole trick but now everybody is watching. Republicans employed their contemptuous "Southern Strategy" for over 40 years, now their recruits have become the majority and the inmates have taken over the Republican asylum and Republican's are reaping the whirlwind success of what they sowed.
16
I think most of us voters were very ignorant of the differences in primary election/delegates rules before this year. Credit to Donald Trump for bringing these discrepancies to light. My belief: 1) all primaries should be held on the same day and 2) at the delegate rules should be uniform throughout. That is the only fair way. As is, the primaries are about meaningless because the party does whatever it wants -- Super Delegates or uncommitted delegates -- the same thing. We the people lose our vote.
47
A tip of the hat to Bernie also. Rules should be uniform across the country, not sure how well a one day vote would work with a few dozen candidates (runoffs?).
2
The parties should be free to choose their nominee in any way they see fit. If the delegates from Pennsylvania don't like Trump, then so be it. It's not as though he is the clear choice of a majority of Republicans. Fewer than 25% of registered voters (much fewer eligible voters) even showed up in New York yesterday. In Alaska, where Sanders was proclaimed to have won by a landslide, his tally was 300 votes. That's right: 300. The do-nothings and know-nothings vastly outnumber those who actually participate. Given the general ignorance of our population, we are getting what we deserve.
20
For the parties to choose their nominees in any way they see fit would be okay if the primaries/caucuses were not publicly funded.
2
Then don't bother with the costly and show of a primary. Put up a candidate and go from there. Smoke filled rooms and all.
1
It's ironic that Republican voters are discovering (this year, possibly for the first time in history) that their party doesn't actually practice democracy. The candidate favored by most voters will almost certainly not get the nomination. Many democratic countries deal with pluralities by holding runoffs where only the top two vote-getters are on the ballot. But not the Republicans.
From the arcane convention rules that can ultimately allow a candidate who was never even in the primaries to be nominated, to shenanigans like Pennsylvania's system, to the shady tactics of the Cruz campaign machine (was it illegal what they did to Carson in Iowa? no, but it was shady and cynical).
The Republican nominating process - indeed, the entire electoral process with gerrymandered districts, voter suppression, and other dirty-but-legal tricks - is as far from democracy as you can get and stay out or prison in the United States.
Sadly, the Democrats aren't much better. Except that this year, it won't be a problem for them.
From the arcane convention rules that can ultimately allow a candidate who was never even in the primaries to be nominated, to shenanigans like Pennsylvania's system, to the shady tactics of the Cruz campaign machine (was it illegal what they did to Carson in Iowa? no, but it was shady and cynical).
The Republican nominating process - indeed, the entire electoral process with gerrymandered districts, voter suppression, and other dirty-but-legal tricks - is as far from democracy as you can get and stay out or prison in the United States.
Sadly, the Democrats aren't much better. Except that this year, it won't be a problem for them.
33
It's a case of the GOP trying to be clever in past years; attempting to block the non 'favored' candidate.
Now, we see the so called "great deal maker" unable to even read much less understand) the current GOP rules....which is, actually, quite ironic.
Now, we see the so called "great deal maker" unable to even read much less understand) the current GOP rules....which is, actually, quite ironic.
2
If Trump is denied the candidacy despite garnering majority votes, I hope he tells all his followers to vote for Clinton out of spite.
47
I hope he runs third party.
@jules:
Dream on...
Dream on...
1
that would require spending his own money. not gonna happen. it might, if he can get donations and supporters to find some way (if even possible) to get signatures and put him on the ballot. He would know he'd lose, but it would be good for the brand, so, hey! why not?
Just out of curiosity, does anyone want to talk about the Electoral College? Now there is a place to start reform, and it matters even more.
33
I agree. The electoral college is regressive, its benefit based on a time when communication and voting was much different. We do not need it now. It is very unfair and the entire delegate nonsense could be done away with w/o the Electoral College votes. My belief is that ALL primaries throughout the U.S. should be held on the same day and the winner should be the candidate who wins the most states. That way we do not need delegates who are prone to corruption and can be "persuaded" and the people really do chose their candidate and leaders.
13
The winner should be elected by the popular vote period!
3
I think you meant the candidate who wins the most votes, not the most states. If states are the criteria, then smaller states have a disproportionate effect with respect to their popoulation--- something like the US Senate. True democracy would be the most votes.
Another outcome of states rights ideology, let the states decide on how presidential candidates are determined: caucuses, open or closed primaries, delegate selection either committed or open and selected by voters or candidate influence. Lets them decide on resources to conduct primaries and general election and what forms of id to participate in voting for president.
If anything cries for reform is the need to create a standard method for presidential elections.
If anything cries for reform is the need to create a standard method for presidential elections.
7
Agreed. Federalism made more sense when it took several days for any type of communication to get from, say, Savannah to New York. Now that everything basically happens everywhere at once, not so much.
If Trump is the GOP nominee, polls seem to indicate that nearly 70% of the electorate would never cast a vote for him. If Trump is not the nominee, then the GOP is in free-fall and whoever is the nominee will have little support within the party; and Trump's bedrock supporters will likely sit out the election or write-in Trump where permitted. Trump puts the party is a "tails you win, heads I lose" conundrum. And if Trump were to run as a third party candidate, he'd have to be able to move with lightening speed to get on the ballots in every state with a campaign organization that has shown little organizational capacity.
The question is by how much will the Republican nominee lose and will that nominee drag down Republican candidates for the Senate and Congress as well.
The Republican leadership has no doubt brought on this crises with their do nothing, anti-everything agenda. Can they adjust their orientation and behavior to retain their leadership and, more important, to retain a viable party?
The question is by how much will the Republican nominee lose and will that nominee drag down Republican candidates for the Senate and Congress as well.
The Republican leadership has no doubt brought on this crises with their do nothing, anti-everything agenda. Can they adjust their orientation and behavior to retain their leadership and, more important, to retain a viable party?
7
If the Republican party elites would get behind Trump and support him against Hillary we may not have to listen to her shrieking for at least 4 years. That will be Hell. I blame the party, not Trump, for the fix they are in and if they pull the candidacy from him, I will no longer support any of the party. I agree with the pundits who forecast that the party will go down if they do such to Trump (or any other candidate who wins legitimately, not through brokered delegates.) My only hope is for Hillary to be indicted and gone. The Republican party must remain loyal to its candidate and support him for all they're worth to beat Hillary or the party is null and void and has NO future. The "leadership" is even now considering Obama's SCOTUS nomination after saying they would not consider it. They are useless, proven in the last 2 years, so there is really no Republican Party anymore anyway.
4
We can only hope the crash and burn is the most spectacular in American History.
1
The Pennsylvania "system" doesn't necessarily favor or disfavor Trump so much as it favors chaos. We (I live in Pittsburgh) won't have any idea who we're voting for unless we scrutinize recommended lists of delegates before going in to the voting booth. Most people will not know they have to do that, so there will be a huge number of voters making decisions based on name familiarity, position on the ballot, and so on.
12
We need to do away with delegate selection and vote for a candidate via popular vote. The candidate with the most state wins. Delegates are prone to "persuasion" and not trustworthy to do their honest duty. The entire system is backwards and not representative of a democracy, or as the elites are fond of saying, a republic, either. I also believe that all primaries should be held on the same day...why are they so spread out? Unnecessary and expensive as well.
1
Why would anybody go through the trouble of voting if you don't know who you are voting for?
I am ashamed of our political system here in good ol' PA.
Here is another peculiarity that is even worse: We have the most bloated House of Representatives in the country.
"The house is the largest full-time state legislature in the United States"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_House_of_Representatives
I am ashamed of our political system here in good ol' PA.
Here is another peculiarity that is even worse: We have the most bloated House of Representatives in the country.
"The house is the largest full-time state legislature in the United States"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_House_of_Representatives
24
Yes and overstocked with Republicans. Time for a "fire" sale.
1
It's probably getting through to a lot of Americans by now, that the "elections" are for the "Show" government.
The real government is going along behind the scenes just fine, still unhindered by democracy, as it always has.
The real government is going along behind the scenes just fine, still unhindered by democracy, as it always has.
71
The FBI - CIA - Pentagon and Defense Contractors?
I agree. I don't recall any other election cycle that has revealed so much of how the parties function. Trump has raised it to a national level simply by being the ignorant person that he is but he's also done us all a service. Sadly, there is nothing that we the people can do about any of it.
5
How true! Thanks for writing.
If nothing else Trump's candidacy has exposed the sham that America is a democracy. It is more like a democrazy!
57
No, chicken it's not.
Arcane? Yes. But it's there in plain language. One just has to read the rules, and then follow them to their best advantage.
Arcane? Yes. But it's there in plain language. One just has to read the rules, and then follow them to their best advantage.
1
What a surprise that the self described political genius, Donald J Trump, fails to understand a fundamental political fact that a party selects its nominee and not the other way around.
Trump had the option to run as an independent and write his own party's rules. Instead he choose an easier path.
If he is not capable of understanding the complexities of how to run for president how can he expect voters to believe that he can understand the complexities of actually being president.
Trump had the option to run as an independent and write his own party's rules. Instead he choose an easier path.
If he is not capable of understanding the complexities of how to run for president how can he expect voters to believe that he can understand the complexities of actually being president.
83
This is one of those arguments that just repeated without any basic understanding of the political system nor the nature of Trumps complaints and for sure is kind of being a bit disingenuous about the whole thing.
For one: Trump understands the rules. The party is bent on denying him the nomination straight out and they have been actively campaigning against him.
For the rest, it is not so much the party picks the nominee but the party supports more or less the person chosen by the people in the voting system. If the party picks the nominee is the ultimate truth then, why bother and did not ask Jeb to stay on so they could pick him at the end?
At the end of day, Trump accomplished one thing. The party chooses who they want regardless of people voting. So in essence, the times we living show that there is no true transparency.
He will get the nomination even when all the odds of the party is against him.
For one: Trump understands the rules. The party is bent on denying him the nomination straight out and they have been actively campaigning against him.
For the rest, it is not so much the party picks the nominee but the party supports more or less the person chosen by the people in the voting system. If the party picks the nominee is the ultimate truth then, why bother and did not ask Jeb to stay on so they could pick him at the end?
At the end of day, Trump accomplished one thing. The party chooses who they want regardless of people voting. So in essence, the times we living show that there is no true transparency.
He will get the nomination even when all the odds of the party is against him.
3
I think Donald Trump will still win the nomination. He should be able to finagle a deficit of 50 to 100 delegates through bargaining with the unbound group of delegates prior to the convention. In any event, why is the media proclaiming DTs massive victory in New York? He only received 69,000 votes in New York City. There are 4.5 million registered voters in NYC. So DT carried 1.5 percent of the registered electorate. Include all eligible voters and his percentage nudges towards 1 percent. As far as his election precinct containing 9 large city blocks in Midtown South, DT garnered 23 votes. How many of those from Trump Tower? I know of 2.
5
But that would require someone who knows how to bargan!
Maybe 69,000 is all the Republicans there are in NYC. My God, it was a landslide!!
Early reader edition of Trump's response: "Rage. Rage. Rage."
Third Grade reader edition: "Whine. Whine. Whine"
There is no adult edition. (Not that could printed in this newspaper.)
Third Grade reader edition: "Whine. Whine. Whine"
There is no adult edition. (Not that could printed in this newspaper.)
10
Those who say all is fine because the "rules of the game" apply, and each political party defines its own rules, and you can start your own political party if you don't like the two big ones... well, those folks are deluding themselves. Elections have become Big Business and the Repubs and Dems have a lock on the electoral process and know it. Just as we all know it. We have a two-party monopoly (duopoly?), with the tail wagging the dog, which seems to be how the US functions nowadays in almost all its institutions, both public and private.
40
If the political parties are private organizations that are free to make their own rules, why do tax payers have to foot the bill for the elections? No wonder sports franchises expect cities to build them stadiums.
52
In general, parties pay for their candidate-nominating processes. In de fact single-party states (e.g., TX), there may be some transfer of costs from the party to the state government.
The Republican primaries have made one thing clear above all. Trump is far and away the number one vote getter. If the Republicans use a technicality to deny him the nomination, there will be serious adverse consequences. Most likely he would run as a third party candidate to the great disadvantage of the Republican party nominee. The mistake in this piece is that it forgets Trump's leverage and overlooks the fact that his losing on a technicality would have substantial adverse consequences for the Party.
15
Also, since Trump is the number one vote-getter, it demonstrates that the majority of Republican primary voters are incredibly easy to fool, due to ignorance, racism, lack of education, or possibly genetic deficiencies.
Anyway I do hope he runs independently and pulls votes out of the GOP, and it'll highlight a bit more whom we should be on the look out for in the future, the violent ignoramus class as it were.
Anyway I do hope he runs independently and pulls votes out of the GOP, and it'll highlight a bit more whom we should be on the look out for in the future, the violent ignoramus class as it were.
10
By the same token, letting Trump run as the GOP nominee if he cant gather 50% of the delegates will divide the party and damage the GOP brand in ways that might threaten their hold on Congress. Trump is massively unpopular even within the Republican Party. The Republican Party may have to choose between ditching Trump and having him run as a 3rd Party Candidate which would cost them the election and keeping Trump and losing the election and the Senate (or even the House).
Trump's biggest win so far has been his home state of New York -- a state that he has no chance of winning in the general election. Most Republican's still vote against him. How can he hope to win the general election?
The Republican Party must nominate some one else or lose much more than one Presidential election.
Trump's biggest win so far has been his home state of New York -- a state that he has no chance of winning in the general election. Most Republican's still vote against him. How can he hope to win the general election?
The Republican Party must nominate some one else or lose much more than one Presidential election.
2
Cruz is also unpopular. He's a close your eyes, hold your nose, second choice.
1
More GOP games. Even among their own voters its the only way thery know to govern. The American [public of all parties need to remember just how dishonest the party of the oligarchs is.
9
Every foreigner I know is totally bewildered, bemused, confused, and astonished by the American primary labyrinth. I advise them to just think of it all as a maze in a forest overgrown with weeds. You go in one side of the forest and eventually come out the other side. You can complain or just enjoy the hike.
116
Well, many European countries (UK for example) don't get to elect their "prime" leader/executive directly, and in many other countries, voters are given a smorgasbord of choices that requires runoff(s). I'm glad these are foreign concepts here in the US.
We do get to elect our representatives directly, including our federal CEO. As for nominating the representative candidate for each party, it is complicated, but I think it reflects the true nature of party politics in a representative democracy. And although political parties aren't mentioned in the Constitution, they've been present in our system since day 1 and overall it has worked out pretty well thus far, all things considered.
We do get to elect our representatives directly, including our federal CEO. As for nominating the representative candidate for each party, it is complicated, but I think it reflects the true nature of party politics in a representative democracy. And although political parties aren't mentioned in the Constitution, they've been present in our system since day 1 and overall it has worked out pretty well thus far, all things considered.
4
Every American I know is totally bewildered, bemused, confused and astonished at the profusion of maniacal, murderous dictators abroad. From Mao to Pinochet to Amin to Mussolini to Franco to Napoleon to Hitler to Stalin (let's not even begin to talk about the Middle East!), it's a terrifying spectacle. And no American I know thinks that it's just a coincidence that none of those foreign states have anything like the system of checks and balances, including primary elections, that America does.
1
Or do the work of building an efficient and accommodating new path as we walk it, which is what the Sanders campaign is all about: Bernie 2016!
We can have a Government by, for and of the people.
Until then, nobody can truly "enjoy the hike".
We can have a Government by, for and of the people.
Until then, nobody can truly "enjoy the hike".
Whether it's background checks, Supreme Court nominees, expanding medicaid benefits or, now, nominating a presidential candidate, the Republican party just, at some point, stopped listening to the electorate. It's probably because they have felt no ill effects from doing this in the past. Unless you consider having Trump beat up on the establishment candidates an ill effect.
16
Ours is a system of checks and balances against the concentration of too much power in one place. Even straightforward majority rule represents power that must be checked. Without that, members of any given minority are in peril of oppression.
In this case, the mechanics of the nomination process are also an effective test of a candidate 's ability to understand and effectively navigate through complex systems. Mr. Trump is a showman who claims to be a master of the 'art of the deal.' He has proven effective at getting attention, but inept at working the deals needed to get the delegates. He's all show and riding a populist wave of shallow support. His ineptitude now only saves those supporters from disappointment at his ineptitude later.
In this case, the mechanics of the nomination process are also an effective test of a candidate 's ability to understand and effectively navigate through complex systems. Mr. Trump is a showman who claims to be a master of the 'art of the deal.' He has proven effective at getting attention, but inept at working the deals needed to get the delegates. He's all show and riding a populist wave of shallow support. His ineptitude now only saves those supporters from disappointment at his ineptitude later.
13
The US presidential election process is the worlds worst voting system. Does the experts even understand it?
It is made for lawyers and consultants. And news people to fill columns and airtime.
Horrible.
It is made for lawyers and consultants. And news people to fill columns and airtime.
Horrible.
5
Please, please, dear Zeus and all the other gods of Mount Olympus, I pray to you to give the primary election of the Republicans to Il Tumpolini.
With him as the nominee of the Republicans, whose canons have been stuck in the mud ever since President Obama was elected the first time around, they will finally suffer their well deserved Waterloo.
With him as the nominee of the Republicans, whose canons have been stuck in the mud ever since President Obama was elected the first time around, they will finally suffer their well deserved Waterloo.
23
This is an example of the parties, both of them, using undemocratic rules for delegate voting to ensure that they remain in power, and that any insurgents are defeated. What form of democracy is this? What form of corporate governance is this? We hold dear our beliefs in democracy, yet the parties do what they can to thwart it when it comes to nominations. Is this all that different than Soviet elections? It's a fundamental act of disrespect to the voters. No wonder they're angry.
4
The Party Nomination process is not an election. Our elections -- which take place in November -- are democratic. If people are angry it is because they havent been paying attention to the details. The system hasnt really changed.
2
OK, so it’s news and thus, I suppose, it has to be reported and parsed. But my fascination with how the candidates' deck chairs in this Titanic of an election is growing really thin. That said, I will allow that the single redeeming (well, partially redeeming) aspect of this mess is that it has ripped away any pretense of obscuring just how convoluted a disaster our democracy's hallowed democratic election system is. But then again, the 2000 “election” didn’t seem to have much effect on voting irregularities or the fiasco of the Electoral College did it?
12
So why bother with a primary?
1
I am learning more every day what a mess our electoral process is. The gall of the United States to lecture any other country about the merits of a truly "democratic" system. What an eye opener...
4
I agree. Our electoral system has been designed by the Banana Republic of RepubDemocracy. It`s designed to keep those in power wealthy, active and in the drivers seat.
There is hardly a democrat or republican who has not financially benefited from this corruption. They are the 1%
Contrary to popular belief, the founding fathers would be proud. They had their slaves and made sure that their vast estates were protected.
This crowd - Hillary and Trump/Cruz - are well entrenched and their turf is well protected.
Outsiders are not permitted. Jill Stein - you probably never heard of her. Yet, she is the Green Party candidate. Why aren`t other parties in these debates.
Whether Trump or Hillary is elected, it really won`t matter.
Bernie dared to attack them. In NY they made sure that the system was rigged. Even Trump knew that.
There is hardly a democrat or republican who has not financially benefited from this corruption. They are the 1%
Contrary to popular belief, the founding fathers would be proud. They had their slaves and made sure that their vast estates were protected.
This crowd - Hillary and Trump/Cruz - are well entrenched and their turf is well protected.
Outsiders are not permitted. Jill Stein - you probably never heard of her. Yet, she is the Green Party candidate. Why aren`t other parties in these debates.
Whether Trump or Hillary is elected, it really won`t matter.
Bernie dared to attack them. In NY they made sure that the system was rigged. Even Trump knew that.
1
The pundits can criticize Trump for pointing it out, but parts of our primary system are rigged and an affront to democratic principles.
7
So we've got Loophole, Born-in-Canada, and Unpopular.
Do they have anyone waiting in the wings?
Do they have anyone waiting in the wings?
7
Oh what the heck, I'll do it. I guess somebody's got to be president, and mine would be an interesting and wildly original administration.
5
@Dan Stackhouse: I believe it was H.L. Mencken who said" Democracy is the concept that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it.....good and hard!"
2
I believe I understand the Republicans' concerns but after George W. it was hard to believe they had any standards; for that matter, what is the difference between Ted and Donald? And Kasich is so much better?
Won't they so damage whoever they deign to be their chosen candidate, it would be impossible to beat either Hillary or Bernie?
Won't they so damage whoever they deign to be their chosen candidate, it would be impossible to beat either Hillary or Bernie?
4
On behalf of all rationale Pennsylvanians, I apologize for bringing you both Rick Santorum and this cockeyed Republican nominate process.
10
>>>>
>>
Until Trump is actually declared the GOP nominee, I'll never believe that the GOP will allow Trump to be their nominee. And if he does not get 1237 he will not be.
>>
Until Trump is actually declared the GOP nominee, I'll never believe that the GOP will allow Trump to be their nominee. And if he does not get 1237 he will not be.
3
The Pennsylvania Republican Party created 54 superdelagates just for their own state alone.
They are worse than the Democrats.
They are worse than the Democrats.
1
Dear GOP, go ahead and job Trump out of this nomination. I'll be watching the Cleveland convention from the comfort and safety of my home with a big bowl of popcorn.
Don't forget your gas masks when you go to Cleveland this summer.
Don't forget your gas masks when you go to Cleveland this summer.
5
This all goes to show us how utterly dishonest the elections are. If the party doesn't like the candidate, they change the rules. Makes one wonder if "one person one vote" really holds water. This is all such a morass.
1
There were no rules changed because as candidate wasn't "liked". Foolish notion. The rules were in place before candidates declared. One of the candidates being a buffoon is simply a happy coincidence.
one person one vote, unless that does not coincide with the Corporations are people and the Super Pac and the super delegate concept....
2
No rules are being changed. It's been this way for a long time and the candidates know this - or should know it - when they enter the nominating process. Then at the conventions each state has their own rules for how their delegates can act. This is a great demonstration of how the states matter when electing who our chief executive will be.
5
For the first time in my entire life, I did not vote yesterday. I cannot stand Clinton, and the same goes for Senator Sanders. Trump, and the people who voted for him are a joke, and that is putting it mildly. Have the voters in the United States taken leave of their senses? You bet they have. Where were you when we needed you, Michael Bloomberg.? I could say more, but I am disgusted and thinking of leaving the United States. With this bunch, it is not
hard to do.
hard to do.
5
None of the above is certainly my choice, and it seems to be the choice of most people. But choose I must, the least of many "evils", else I be stick with the worst of all possible worlds as opposed to simply a bad one.
And just remember the only way a democracy to remain is for its citizens to participate.
Finally, you can no longer gripe about anything since you chose to remain on the sidelines.
And just remember the only way a democracy to remain is for its citizens to participate.
Finally, you can no longer gripe about anything since you chose to remain on the sidelines.
4
cynicism masquerading as intelligence...by all means, go already.
8
Is rudy giuliani a joke? Is mark cuban a joke? is tom brady a joke?
But --- there will be some "existential number" (for lack of a better description) after which Trump will be able to get enough of the 200 or so unpledged delegates, to cobble together 1,237. Is it 1,200? 1,150? Nobody really knows yet. But it's likely too presumptive, right now, to assume Pennsylvania's 54 will be the ultimate difference-maker.
If nothing else, how remarkable this election cycle has been at revealing that not only does our electoral process wear no clothes, but it also appears to have a rather repugnant body in desperate need of a make-over.
3
I heard The Donald try to claim that he is one of the top geniuses of all time, but his inability to negotiate the "not that complicated" political system puts a lie to that claim too.
3
Well Iggy, The Donald claims lots of things, like the Bible is the best book in history followed closely by his ghostwritten "Art of Deal". Claims he's in good health despite his face and weight. Claims he's a success despite all his failures. Basically he just lies constantly, so I wouldn't accept anything he says at this point.
3
If the Republican party supported him this would be easy. They don't so it is going to be hard for him. Unfortunately they prefer Cruz, and we should not be so happy about that.
1
The crazy-quilt of primary and caucus rules makes a mockery of the principle of one-person one-vote which (supposedly) is the foundation of our democracy.
4
Nevertheless, who is the busiest person in America right now?
Answer: the intern for the Democratic Party who has been assigned to round up damaging footage, quotes, tweets, and news stories from the past regarding Donald Trump.
Answer: the intern for the Democratic Party who has been assigned to round up damaging footage, quotes, tweets, and news stories from the past regarding Donald Trump.
1
Volume 65
I've never understood the reluctance (obstinate as a mule?!) of the American public to change of any kind.
It's either because of the deficiency or dearth in leadership that is unable to convince the ignorant, or the people themselves who are just frozen stiff in fear of change or just too lazy just to do any thing. No matter. They just continue doing the same thing even if the world falls apart around them.
Change to Metric system.. unthinkable. Health care for everyone.. How can we afford it? Climate change.. how come it is snowing in my front yard?
If an independent election monitor were to observe the US system, I doubt it would pass muster an unbiased democratic balloting system.
This is a Luny bin Demo-crazy.. But we are perfectly... ZZZZZ..GRRR.. what?! did you say something..
It's either because of the deficiency or dearth in leadership that is unable to convince the ignorant, or the people themselves who are just frozen stiff in fear of change or just too lazy just to do any thing. No matter. They just continue doing the same thing even if the world falls apart around them.
Change to Metric system.. unthinkable. Health care for everyone.. How can we afford it? Climate change.. how come it is snowing in my front yard?
If an independent election monitor were to observe the US system, I doubt it would pass muster an unbiased democratic balloting system.
This is a Luny bin Demo-crazy.. But we are perfectly... ZZZZZ..GRRR.. what?! did you say something..
3
In light of Xwordgirl's statement, shouldn't the Times correct the Upshot's statement that the Pennsylvania ballot "includes no guidance on whom a delegate will support at the national convention"? Or is the absentee ballot that Xwordgirl received an aberration?
1
What will the Koch Brothers and their colleagues do? Likely spend more money to promote Cruz and plan to sow discord and pick off the Trump delegates. As libertarians, they believe they have the right to impede democracy.
5
To be clear, on the Democratic side in PA the delegates are "attached" to a candidate. You vote not only for the candidate, but you can then vote for the delegates supporting that candidate. That was the case in 2012, anyway.
Please, God, make it happen.
4
Thank God for the delegate rules, they were designed to keep out precisely the sort of candidates like Donald Trump. Those who think delegate rules are undemocratic should imagine how undemocratic the country would be under President Trump -- just about as democratic as a country under President Putin.
7
Walla Walla's comment is quite extraordinary. "Those who think delegate rules are undemocratic"... is linked not to how GOP (in this instance) caucus/primary rules can disenfranchise rank-and-file Republicans by preventing them voting for a candidate they support for their parties presidential nominee but instead jumps into the presidential election itself. In a democracy, something both major parties shun whenever possible, rank-and-file party voters should start the process of nomination by voting for whoever has qualified to run, ideally in a primary or less ideally in a caucus, continue by their parties delegates obeying their wishes and voting the memberships choice at the nominating convention and then finish the process by voting for their parties presidential nominee in the general November election. I hope WW adds a mental highlight to the word 'voting', by god.
1
Please Pennsylvania do it. Let the people vote for Trump and the operatives vote for Cruz. Then the people will know for sure that the system is rigged beyond redemption.
44
You should understand that the polls clearly show that in the general election Trump is the most likely of the Republican candidates to lose. Trump loses to either Democratic nominee by pretty wide margins. The Republican Party now controls both houses of Congress, but if Trump is at the head of the ticket there is a very substantial risk of Democrats controlling the Senate and even a possibility of Democrats controlling the House. The Republican Party has done pretty well for its brand when it controls Congress, even when a Democrat occupies the White House. It's really not all that uncomfortable for them. But if Trump loses not just the presidency, but also loses Congress it's a disaster the G.O.P. regulars desperately wants to avoid. They are only acting in what they believe is the best long-term interests of the party, and it is their party--they pay for it, they devote long hours to it, and they believe in it. Trump could be twice as...non-presidential, let's say---as he is now, and were he leading in the the general election polls, the party would support him. It's simply a matter of the party defending itself from what appears to be an embarassing loss in November.
Now that his election is increasingly likely, Mr Trump should be given the opportunity to serve as President Obama's apprentice.
3
Its important to note that the Republican Primary isn't just making things up as they go along. None of this information was hidden from campaigns when they decided to enter the race.
If it gets down to razor-thin margins and every delegate being precious, that would seem more to be a result of divisive candidates and a broken party rather than the supposed "gotcha" mechanics of the primary itself.
If it gets down to razor-thin margins and every delegate being precious, that would seem more to be a result of divisive candidates and a broken party rather than the supposed "gotcha" mechanics of the primary itself.
6
This was brought up last night. Someone (a party leader, a delegate?) had said most delegates would probably vote for whoever wins the state. At least on the first ballot. If there is some feeling of wanting to honor the will of the people, maybe Trump can get to 1237.
The convention will be must see TV. btw, Trump is on the tube now. He uses a lot of words, mostly about himself. No policy details, just blather. Hard to believe this guy is leading in a major party.
The convention will be must see TV. btw, Trump is on the tube now. He uses a lot of words, mostly about himself. No policy details, just blather. Hard to believe this guy is leading in a major party.
16
Know this: Hillary Clinton is a compromise and a compromised candidate. She is the greatest PR politic stunt to grace this great nation.
Our great nation, cherry picking the most powerful leader of the free world via contributions from the top 0.1% and the most privileged individuals in this universe. How freeing it is to be an American today
Our great nation, cherry picking the most powerful leader of the free world via contributions from the top 0.1% and the most privileged individuals in this universe. How freeing it is to be an American today
9
Have you actually heard her speak? Listened to what she stands for? She has actual ideas. Goals and solutions that will help all Americans. I am not one of the .1% and I have donated to her campaign. She is the only candidate who says anything of substance. The rest have slogans and buzzwords and easily repeatable tropes that do not mean anything and are impossible to achieve.
10
Thanks to the horrible-ness of the Republican Party potential nominees, we are getting a good lesson in how our democratic system (it's your democratic duty to vote) actually works and it is amazingly bad. One person, one vote is a complete fraud, or non-working concept. But, it's what we have lived with for a very long time. Maybe it's time to regroup, maybe someone---not Congress---should create a more reasonable approach and we could find an effective way to implement it.
1
I am very distempered that "Lying Ted" got a whopping 14% of the vote in the NYS primary but no delegates at all. I am thinking of exiling myself to his home State of Canada. Hope the unbound delegates of Pennsylvania can help correct this injustice.
1
I don't understand why the state election apparatuses are involved in the parties' nominating processes at all. Do the parties reimburse the states for this? And to call a party nominating contest an election is terribly misleading. There's a process for getting on the presidential ballot, and to my knowledge it does not include any primary process. I believe the media is remiss in creating and reinforcing the misconception that primary "elections" are a part of our system of government - they are not.
14
I think Trump has cost Trump the nomination.
39
You said it!
1
The GOP has so many obstacles . Delegates are chooses almost harshly. How the candidates held on with their tireless energy is a miracle. How to hold your head high when all those around you loose theirs. Is the reward a bitter pill or a piece of cake?
How else are the real players, the job creators, with real skin in the game, going to get their way?
1
Thanks to Trump, we learned all these quirky, undemocratic rules in republican primary.
10
The crazy-quilt of primary and caucus rules makes a mockery of the principle of one-person one-vote which is (supposedly) the foundation of our democracy.
87
Except that we are a republic ...
This is a primary process, not a general election.
People are free to run as independents (as did Ross Perot).
No-one is forced to use the path of the two major established parties too get on the presidential election ballot paper.
There were 5 tickets (President/VP) on the 2012 ballot apart from the republican and the Democratic Party nominees.
That is where democracy is effective.
People are free to run as independents (as did Ross Perot).
No-one is forced to use the path of the two major established parties too get on the presidential election ballot paper.
There were 5 tickets (President/VP) on the 2012 ballot apart from the republican and the Democratic Party nominees.
That is where democracy is effective.
Thank you for covering this. It is an insane system that would be widely criticized and ridiculed if it were happening in any other country. Can we get some of the great minds - google engineers etc - to propose a couple systems that make some *&%# sense?! And while they're at it, they can figure out secure online voting.
68
It's actually not that complicated. Fairvote.org explains several good options.
2
If you want to vote, then show up, for god's sake.
3
How much money (and time) would tax payers save if we moved to a simple system:
* Nationwide primary on June 15th where registered voters elect a Presidential nominee for each party
* Presidential election on first Tuesday of November, where the President is elected by simple majority
The current complex system is designed to serve delegates and political operatives, not the taxpaying citizens who bear the costs
* Nationwide primary on June 15th where registered voters elect a Presidential nominee for each party
* Presidential election on first Tuesday of November, where the President is elected by simple majority
The current complex system is designed to serve delegates and political operatives, not the taxpaying citizens who bear the costs
460
Open to ALL, repubs, dems, and indies.
American's like to be with the popular folk. If not for early primaries - most American's wouldn't know for whom they are 'supposed' to vote.
1
Although the cost would be even greater if a demagogue like Trump were able to bamboozle enough suckers to vote for him.
As a Pennsylvania voter who already submitted an absentee ballot, at least as far as the Democrats go, the delegates each had who they were pledged to printed underneath their names. Perhaps it is different for the Republicans, but for thr Democrats, voters can see who the delegates plan on supporting at the convention, so this article may be incorrect when it states "the ballot includes no guidance on whom a delegate will support at the national convention. A voter will just see a list of names — some of whom might be recognizable, but others might as well be Joe Schmo."
NYT editor: Right, the Democrats do it differently. We adjusted the article to make that more clear. Thanks.
NYT editor: Right, the Democrats do it differently. We adjusted the article to make that more clear. Thanks.
13
As stated in the article in the case of the GOP primary. You have correctly restated the Democratic Party's approach in the primary.
The three branches of government routinely override the popular will. Our whole system is one giant check on democracy. Therefore, the popular vote should always rule when it has the chance to be expressed.
22
I absolutely loathe Trump, and honestly the loophole I'm holding out hope for to deny him the nomination would be one in a noose. OK it's not too likely but a guy can dream.
But this election the anti-democratic weirdness of the voting system has been highlighted and I think we need to do something about this. No more electoral college, no more delegates, no more gerrymandering, no more caucuses. We need to move toward the ideal of having candidates elected by a majority of the voters without all these systems in the way to prevent the voters having their say.
Of course, the counter-argument is, on the evidence of all these Trump supporters, too many voters are ignorant and racist and their decisions should not be respected. And while that's valid, I think either we should just admit to being a capitalistic oligarchy and dispense with voting entirely, or we should let people vote and let the chips fall where they will. If Americans are boneheaded enough to elect a fascist, racist, sexist ignoramus, then America should suffer total failure and make way for a nation with a better concept. Rome had its heyday and failed, if we need to fail too by being powerfully stupid, so be it.
But this election the anti-democratic weirdness of the voting system has been highlighted and I think we need to do something about this. No more electoral college, no more delegates, no more gerrymandering, no more caucuses. We need to move toward the ideal of having candidates elected by a majority of the voters without all these systems in the way to prevent the voters having their say.
Of course, the counter-argument is, on the evidence of all these Trump supporters, too many voters are ignorant and racist and their decisions should not be respected. And while that's valid, I think either we should just admit to being a capitalistic oligarchy and dispense with voting entirely, or we should let people vote and let the chips fall where they will. If Americans are boneheaded enough to elect a fascist, racist, sexist ignoramus, then America should suffer total failure and make way for a nation with a better concept. Rome had its heyday and failed, if we need to fail too by being powerfully stupid, so be it.
168
In the Trump vs. Cruz beauty contest, I prefer Trump's unpredictable, but predictably uneven, horrors to Cruz's certain and uniform set of horrors, FWIW.
5
Fortunately, there is another Republican in the running.
Dear BlueWaterSong,
Well sure, I loathe Trump but I despise the theocratic would-be war criminal Cruz too. Trump is just an idiot who would blunder into nuclear war, but Cruz desperately wants to bring about nuclear war for his beloved Armageddon. Still, I can't see Cruz as having any chance of getting elected so I'm not as worried about him.
Also if I may say, that's a beautiful icon by your name there, nice choice.
Well sure, I loathe Trump but I despise the theocratic would-be war criminal Cruz too. Trump is just an idiot who would blunder into nuclear war, but Cruz desperately wants to bring about nuclear war for his beloved Armageddon. Still, I can't see Cruz as having any chance of getting elected so I'm not as worried about him.
Also if I may say, that's a beautiful icon by your name there, nice choice.
2
Colorado did not need to waste time with elections, to crown Cruz the winner and gift him 30 points.
Sounds like 54 of the delegates in PA also do not need to waste time with voters to decide.
That's 84 sell outs that will gift themselves to Cruz in lock step with the GOP core.
That is about 1/6th of the 502 sell outs that the Democratic Party is gifting Clinton.
Yes, Trump might need those 54 to turn his way, or the popular vote will be worth nothing.
But Hillary has nothing to worry, after all, Sanders could catch up by miracle, and the loose by 502 points anyway.
Sounds like 54 of the delegates in PA also do not need to waste time with voters to decide.
That's 84 sell outs that will gift themselves to Cruz in lock step with the GOP core.
That is about 1/6th of the 502 sell outs that the Democratic Party is gifting Clinton.
Yes, Trump might need those 54 to turn his way, or the popular vote will be worth nothing.
But Hillary has nothing to worry, after all, Sanders could catch up by miracle, and the loose by 502 points anyway.
8
The political parties are private organizations that are free to create their own rules. This is not the presidential election, this is a group of private individuals getting together to decide who they want to support and run for president. Trump doesn't need the Republican Party to run for president Their rules and policies may seem silly and arcane, but no more so than the parliamentary procedures that our legislators use to filibuster or prevent action from being taken such as the consideration of the Supreme Court nominee. Shame on any player who does not know the rules of the game.
109
Wow...the insider elites have got it all locked up, don't they? We don't need no stinkin' voters!
10
Political parties receive tax exempt status and government funding for conventions. Although they may be private in name, the support from the state should allow the public the right for an honest contest.
4
'Shame on any player who does not know the rules of the game" before she/he gets into the primaries. It's kind of like reading the job description carefully before applying. If you don't like the job description, or the company rules, don't apply.
1
That we are having this conversation is a start. The country as a whole needs to get involved and fix the broken system. Amend the Constitution? Maybe, however I believe the mid-term elections should get Presidential race attention. It is not just Presidential Primaries that are the problem, it's the voter restrictions and hidden money that erodes the election process on a whole.
6
You would put the federal government in charge of dictating the rules by which a political party chooses its candidates? That's a terrible idea -- what chance would an opposition party ever have if there was a Constitutional Amendment that allowed to governing party to set the rules? The parties *must* be independent and they *must* have authority over their process.
44
The only rule that should matter is the will of the voters. That this isn't the case is the biggest problem, and makes possible these "private party rules" shenanigans.
Trump will run as the GOP nominee or as an independent. Either way, HRC wins. All the scenarios at this point are nauseating.
Trump will run as the GOP nominee or as an independent. Either way, HRC wins. All the scenarios at this point are nauseating.
1
Whaddya talking about? The "opposition" party has NO CHANCE as it is, and never will so long as arcane, nonsensical, voter-disenfranchising "Ruuuules!" are in place.
1
Nate. Who will be the first in the media to recognize and discuss that we are entering in to a Presidential election in which the popular vote may be more clearly delineated as men vs women than republican vs democrat?
What do the statistics say about that?
What do the statistics say about that?
5
Pardon me, but I don't get why Donald Trump who boasts about his use of bankruptcy, tax, and immigration laws and loopholes has failed to master the rules of the nominating process. Sure, to outsiders they are complex and arcane, but it's really a finite set of rules, in quite predictable circumstances. A good candidate and staff should figure it out and get going, particularly if you're claiming to be a presidential candidate. Candidates from George McGovern to President Obama and Ted Cruz have all managed to "work" the nominating process successfully. I finally found something to agree with Ted Cruz on: Trump's complaints about this are silly, and they raise questions (if more were needed) about his qualifications for the office.
158
Dear James,
I'd guess it's because he's nowhere near as intelligent as he claims he is. Also he's been a business failure overall, as he now is worth half of what his daddy gave him 25 years ago, adjusting for inflation.
I'd guess it's because he's nowhere near as intelligent as he claims he is. Also he's been a business failure overall, as he now is worth half of what his daddy gave him 25 years ago, adjusting for inflation.
5
A failure by what measure? Profit? Let's remember that he did help create "wealth" for others through jobs, property taxes, infrastructure enhancements, and probably a few more channels - rather than just finding ways of putting money in his own pockets. A true measure would be his overall impact on our economy. Has it been good or bad?
3
Dear Volunteer Firefighter,
Seems that my initial response was so insanely venomous that it can't be posted. So in brief, Trump has been bad for the economy I think, because he's sold a lot of inherently worthless or even damaging products and surely never produced useful infrastructure. His failure to pay contractors and his bankruptcies wipe out any jobs he created, and he's sent jobs overseas too. Things like Trump casinos (stealing money from gambling addicts), Trump glitzy hotels (stealing money from magpies), Trump Useless University (stealing money from the unwise), Trump ugly ties, Trump tasteless steaks, and so on, have not helped our economy at all.
On top of all that, pretty much every economist agrees that Trump's bizarre and thoughtless economic policy proposals would wreck our economy.
Seems that my initial response was so insanely venomous that it can't be posted. So in brief, Trump has been bad for the economy I think, because he's sold a lot of inherently worthless or even damaging products and surely never produced useful infrastructure. His failure to pay contractors and his bankruptcies wipe out any jobs he created, and he's sent jobs overseas too. Things like Trump casinos (stealing money from gambling addicts), Trump glitzy hotels (stealing money from magpies), Trump Useless University (stealing money from the unwise), Trump ugly ties, Trump tasteless steaks, and so on, have not helped our economy at all.
On top of all that, pretty much every economist agrees that Trump's bizarre and thoughtless economic policy proposals would wreck our economy.
2
That PA system is an absolutely insane idea, and is my new personal poster child of how dysfunctional the US Presidential electoral system is.
I was a little nervous yesterday before voting in New York. I knew that as a Democrat, I'd also get to vote for seven delegates. But I didn't know any of their names, and didn't know how I could be sure those delegates would eventually vote for my candidate. In the event, there was nothing to worry about and the ballot made clear which delegates were aligned with which candidate. But I spent perhaps twenty four hours imagininig a worst case scenario where I'd vote for Candidate A, and unknowingly, vote for seven delegates who'd then vote for Candidate B. The unfairness of that would be infuriating, and it seems that's what the voters of Pennsylvania are facing.
I despise Donald Trump, and part of me would applaud anything that would just get him out of the race. But this is not the way to do it. If I'm a Trump-supporting Pennsylvanian (God forbid), I absolutely want to walk into that booth knowing that my intended vote will be reflected in the delegate votes at the Convention.
I was a little nervous yesterday before voting in New York. I knew that as a Democrat, I'd also get to vote for seven delegates. But I didn't know any of their names, and didn't know how I could be sure those delegates would eventually vote for my candidate. In the event, there was nothing to worry about and the ballot made clear which delegates were aligned with which candidate. But I spent perhaps twenty four hours imagininig a worst case scenario where I'd vote for Candidate A, and unknowingly, vote for seven delegates who'd then vote for Candidate B. The unfairness of that would be infuriating, and it seems that's what the voters of Pennsylvania are facing.
I despise Donald Trump, and part of me would applaud anything that would just get him out of the race. But this is not the way to do it. If I'm a Trump-supporting Pennsylvanian (God forbid), I absolutely want to walk into that booth knowing that my intended vote will be reflected in the delegate votes at the Convention.
71
You describe a process that should be followed in every state. It reflects the will of the voters to select a candidate, not a wild card delegate.
It looks to me that no matter what the Republicans do, they have little chance of having "their" candidate win in November.
It has been 160 years (40 elections) since we had back-to-back Democratic Presidents, where the second won the election not as an incumbent who became president after the death of the first. In 1856, James Buchanan succeeded Franklin Pierce.
It has been 160 years (40 elections) since we had back-to-back Democratic Presidents, where the second won the election not as an incumbent who became president after the death of the first. In 1856, James Buchanan succeeded Franklin Pierce.
1
"Our model gives him an edge in 16 of the state’s 19 congressional districts." - The Keystone State has only 18 CDs.
NYT editor: Thanks, we've corrected it.
NYT editor: Thanks, we've corrected it.
8
When one looks at all of the details and intricacies of America's electoral and Congressional voting practices, it's clear that the country's claim to 'democracy' is a form of perjury.
While technically a 'republic', America's Great Wall of voter suppression and repression embedded in 50 separate sets of arbitrary and archaic voter and party registration rules, 'delegate' elections, superdelegate nonsense, duopilistic closed primary system, black-box voting machines, SuperPAC and 0.1% campaign bribery, Electoral College dinosaur, House gerrymander and Senate filibuster all conspires to block almost any average voter sunlight from making it into the electoral system.
The country needs a new Constitution and international election monitoring in order to reinvent a semblance of democracy out of the current disgraceful and dystopian patchwork of electoral misrepresentation.
While technically a 'republic', America's Great Wall of voter suppression and repression embedded in 50 separate sets of arbitrary and archaic voter and party registration rules, 'delegate' elections, superdelegate nonsense, duopilistic closed primary system, black-box voting machines, SuperPAC and 0.1% campaign bribery, Electoral College dinosaur, House gerrymander and Senate filibuster all conspires to block almost any average voter sunlight from making it into the electoral system.
The country needs a new Constitution and international election monitoring in order to reinvent a semblance of democracy out of the current disgraceful and dystopian patchwork of electoral misrepresentation.
542
The general election is pretty straight forward, as congressional elections. The electoral college may give presidency to someone who received less popular vote and it has advantages to let candidates focus their campaign on battleground state and limit any re-counts at local level.
No voting rules are perfect, there was actual mathematical theorem to prove it. But the rules laid out by our founding fathers are much better than you give them credit for.
No voting rules are perfect, there was actual mathematical theorem to prove it. But the rules laid out by our founding fathers are much better than you give them credit for.
14
It is time to get the political parties out of the system. It limits our choice too much. We should:
1. Let anyone run for president.
2. Have them put up a website in which they have to detail their positions.
3. Allow no money to be spent on advertising.
4. Use an Instant Runoff system, in which each voter lists all the candidates in preference order. After the voting, you count everyone's #1 choice. If you don't have a majority, you eliminate the lowest vote getter, and reassign those votes to the next choice on each voter's ballot. You repeat several rounds of this process until someone has a majority of the votes. This allows people to vote for a third party, knowing they may not win, but allowing their vote not to be wasted if their third party candidate eventually gets eliminated.
You would need some enforcement of policy implementation to prevent people lying about their true intentions. Impeachment could probably handle this possibility. You would also need to have some sanction (such as disqualification) if someone violated the no advertising ban.
All of this would require modifying our aging constitution, which never envisioned media megaconglomerates, billionaires floating their preferred candidates, and two political parties duopolizing the system with archaic rules to keep the power brokers at the top dictating who the voters are allowed to choose from.
1. Let anyone run for president.
2. Have them put up a website in which they have to detail their positions.
3. Allow no money to be spent on advertising.
4. Use an Instant Runoff system, in which each voter lists all the candidates in preference order. After the voting, you count everyone's #1 choice. If you don't have a majority, you eliminate the lowest vote getter, and reassign those votes to the next choice on each voter's ballot. You repeat several rounds of this process until someone has a majority of the votes. This allows people to vote for a third party, knowing they may not win, but allowing their vote not to be wasted if their third party candidate eventually gets eliminated.
You would need some enforcement of policy implementation to prevent people lying about their true intentions. Impeachment could probably handle this possibility. You would also need to have some sanction (such as disqualification) if someone violated the no advertising ban.
All of this would require modifying our aging constitution, which never envisioned media megaconglomerates, billionaires floating their preferred candidates, and two political parties duopolizing the system with archaic rules to keep the power brokers at the top dictating who the voters are allowed to choose from.
3
The Constitution calls for "one person one vote." Period. End of story. There's nothing in the Constitution about these unconstitutional primaries that have run amok.
2
I marvel at the complexity of the US presidential electoral system. Do most Americans even understand the Primary/caucus system of elections? It seems every state's and territory's primary or caucus elections requires numerous footnotes to understand including caveats as to how the rules will or will not operate.
200
It would surprise me if any one individual actually understood all the ins and outs of every state's process.
2
Not only do most Americans NOT understand this byzantine system, but the candidates themselves don't either as evidenced by the scramble in the Trump campaign.
We get it: Parties are not government entities. But gee, this isn't the Moose Lodge! We're trying to elect a nominee to run for President of the United States of America!
My most recent take on this is that the entire primary season is simply running a flag up a pole to see how the wind is blowing before the conventions finalize their selections. Sadly, people here actually thought the process meant something real. Factor in the $130 MILLION (give or take) that Jeb Bush spent before he dropped out (as an example) and it simply takes your breath away. Such a complete waste.
And people wonder why voters are so apathetic. If they weren't before, they surely will be after this business is over. Only the media conglomerates are profiting.
We get it: Parties are not government entities. But gee, this isn't the Moose Lodge! We're trying to elect a nominee to run for President of the United States of America!
My most recent take on this is that the entire primary season is simply running a flag up a pole to see how the wind is blowing before the conventions finalize their selections. Sadly, people here actually thought the process meant something real. Factor in the $130 MILLION (give or take) that Jeb Bush spent before he dropped out (as an example) and it simply takes your breath away. Such a complete waste.
And people wonder why voters are so apathetic. If they weren't before, they surely will be after this business is over. Only the media conglomerates are profiting.
3
When my husband and I moved to the US over forty years, as conscientious residents we determined to understand the voting regulations. However, we finally had to admit ourselves stymied, but were comforted by the fact that no American friends we spoke to could explain them either.
1
For the most part, Mr. Trump's whining about rigged systems sounds like just that - the whining of a deal-maker who didn't understand the deal he was signing on to. This is probably an exception. I'm actually surprised that any major statewide political party has so completely resisted the very idea of a free and open primary election. Quite without wishing to see Mr. Trump as my nation's next president, I am even more loath to consider the prospect of a president whose chief qualification is his capacity for an endless stream of clever dirty tricks.
199
I agree -- how is it that a great democracy like the US ends up giving the last call to a few while purportedly and supposedly saying it's the voice of the people? It's misleading to criticize Donald Trump and not recognize the validity of some of his points? What would Americans say to a comparable system outside the US?
1
No, Trump's the ONLY ONE who has the guts to expose the corrupt system put in place by party operatives to disenfranchise the American voter when the votes don't go their way. Stop hatin' on the messenger.
4
Regardless of anyone's opinion of the Donald, he has a point about the election being rigged. I think Nicole Wallace pointed this out first and certainly more articulately than any of the Republicans.
3
I just filled out my PA absentee ballot. Each listed delegate was identified as "committed to" a candidate. I assumed that meant for the first ballot at least.
NYT editor: Yes, Republicans do it differently than Democrats. We adjusted the article to make that more clear.
NYT editor: Yes, Republicans do it differently than Democrats. We adjusted the article to make that more clear.
53
My assumption is that those are party rules, but are not legally binding. And the party can change the rules for the first ballot, or any other part of their process, any time they want.
1
Perhaps yours is a special case? Looking at many sample ballots for several different PA counties (I searched on "Pennsylvania 2016 republican primary sample ballot"), the norm I'm seeing is a list of names for delegate slate (pick 3) and alternate, with no candidate commitments in sight apart from the "beauty contest" which is at the top of the ballot.
I'm wondering how many PA voters will understand the need to vote twice, vs just selecting Trump, Kasich or Cruz on the first line and ignoring the unfamiliar delegate names down-ballot.
I'm wondering how many PA voters will understand the need to vote twice, vs just selecting Trump, Kasich or Cruz on the first line and ignoring the unfamiliar delegate names down-ballot.
1
Mr Smith, who is a very rich real estate salesman, notices however that the club is located on a prime piece of real estate, high on the cliff tops overlooking the Pacific, which he thinks would provide an ideal setting for a new international 5-star hotel, casino and golf course.
Mr Smith joins the club which initially welcomes him as a member. Mr Smith then runs for President of the club at the next AGM. To ensure he has the numbers, he persuades a large number of his employees to join the club beforehand.
Mr Jones is a lifelong member of the club. He played football at a high level when he was young, and has devoted his life to the club, raising funds to buy the land on which the club sits, building the clubhouse, painting and decorating it over many decades.
Mr Jones is suspicious of Mr Smith's motives, and because he knows the rule book backwards, having helped to write it, he succeeds in having the votes of Mr Smith's supporters declared invalid, on the grounds that they joined the club too late in the club's electoral cycle to be able to vote.
The Republican Party and the Democrats are political clubs. Don't like them? Then work to change them from the inside, join another club, or start your own.