Posted on 04/11/2016 8:11:07 PM PDT by snarkpup
[Colorado Republican Party Chairman Steve] House acknowledged that there are a lot of deeply entrenched players within the party who think the system works well and believe that those who are the most politically engaged should determine who becomes the party’s presidential nominee.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Very astute observation. Thank you.
I attended the state convention you are speaking of. The attendees were such low information voters that they selected a con man to head the gubernatorial primary ballot. This set off a chain of disasters which resulted in the Republican Party having to "borrow" the Constitution Party in order to have an "actual" Republican candidate (Tancredo) in the race.
Just finished emailing mine too. They need to know that the voters will be heard, and their seats are not safe.
Well, I’m not going there because up until very recently I thought Cruz was a pretty good guy. This is a pretty brutal campaign and the evidence has to be rock solid before I get critical of *any* GOP candidate. The prime focus is, beat Hillary. Glad you wrote, By
Logical Fallacy: Changing the subject.
You seem quite happy for an oligarchical government as long as YOUR guy is the one who benefits.
And here I thought we were a republic.
It’s amazing, AMAZING how many people on FR are in favor of a totalitarian overriding of the will of the voters, even just ignoring the votes cast, just because their guy gets in.
I thought we were a republic.
Have I got a story for you!
Several years and two county Executive Boards ago, the county chairman called a meeting. He didn't bother to read the bylaws and didn't give the proper amount of legal notice ahead of time. The meeting was challenged and had to be re-announced (with proper notice) and re-held.
Now comes the fun part. They tried to cover up the fact they they screwed up and didn't read the bylaws by claiming the bylaws were uncleeeeeaaaar (pronounce this like Michael Savage). So they called yet another meeting to amend and fix the bylaws. In the process of "fixing" the bylaws, which were already crystal clear, the people who prepared the amendment apparently failed to read what they were amending and actually introduced an ambiguity.
You wrote:
“As I posted in my duplicate thread:
I’m sure the average voter was paying attention a year ago when the GOPe decided to change the rules.
Arrogant elitism in action in USA elections.
There is only one party, The Establishment.”
I agree:
I’ve also got to admit I was wrong on the date they changed the rules. I was under the mistaken impression that it occurred the day before the convention
HOWEVER, the state of Colorado was told by the GOP that they could not have a straw vote and then not apportion delegates by the vote using the goofy convention system. I would read that admonition to say that the state needs to have either a caucus or primary and to abolish the fraudulent convention system that disenfranchises the Republican rank and file.
Rather than doing that the Colorado GOP abolished the vote altogether. They had a year to setup the mechanics of a primary. They didn’t do it.
They abused the system as evidenced by the state party chairman’s “#NeverTrump” tweet just a few minutes after the convention ended. They went into the day with intention to deny anyone but Cruz delegates come Hell or high water and they did it.
So, even though I was wrong on the mechanics I was right on the motives and outcomes. This was sleazy, unethical politics at their best (worst?) on display.
The statement “Trump should have known the rules is idiotic. The State chairman was going to find a way to give all the delegates to Cruz. That act alone should be enough to remove him from office. Indeed, he should tarred and feathered and run out of the state on a rail.
“There were votes all along the way.
It’s a caucus/convention state and started with 60,000 registered republicans caucusing.”
And none of those votes mattered
But both candidates, including Trumps campaign knew Colorado’s convention was when they determine delegates.....the people aren’t prevented from voting for President in the general ....the two are independent of the other.
Further your wrong to tell a state how or not they should conduct their system as a Republican Party..... ‘every state has the right’ to make their own rules....People who are complaining need then to get involved and change their rules....otherwise those who ARE involved with their states election get to set those rules....
....just because your state, or you yourself think they should do it differently it is still their choice...their state their Republican Party.
Understand that Trumps had a lousy ground game if any at all in many states.......put the blame where it belongs....
Look, in Indiana his own people are complaining they got nothing to work with...
(In Indiana volunteer leader complained regarding Trump....)
“There’s no ground game in Indiana,” .... “I’ve got state team leaders in Indiana who’ve been furious for months … they’ve had.. no campaign material,.. no ground game,.. no nothing... and they’re going into these states 15, 20 days before the primary and it’s just too late.”
Good example, thanks.
All the fixing does is add more complexity to rules, laws and other bureaucratic adjustments.
That is why we can’t have simple ethics rules anymore.
>There actually were Trump supporters in Colorado??
Not ones that were allowed to vote.
Not the same in this case. It should be obvious to anyone that the State chairman went into the day with the intention giving Cruz all the delegates. He even used Twitter with a #NeverTrump hash tag just a few minutes after the convention that said something to the effect of “We did it”. In doing that he was ignoring the members of his party who support different candidates. He had also moved from being a State chairman to being an activist.
The main GOP told Colorado a year ago that they could not have a straw poll at the convention and then ignore the results of the poll. I would assume if I read that that the party needed to have a final caucus or primary vote or possibly apportion delegates from the previous complex round of primaries and caucuses. Instead of taking a vote they abolished the vote and completely ignored all of the previous votes.
In this case, the ground game would make no difference unless the Trump supporters brought pistols, tar and feathers
Actually what happened in Louisiana was as bad as worse.
>It’s a better system than letting Democrats “cross over” in open primaries. I think New York at least has the right idea in making people register for the party in the primary 8 or so months before the vote is held.
Please. An election with no voters is a sham.
>67% of the voters in South Carolina did not vote for Trump. Why did he get all 50 delegates? Why were they disenfranchised?
At least they got to vote! Elected is always better than SelecTED.
>It’s a caucus/convention state and started with 60,000 registered republicans caucusing.
How many voted for each candidate? No numbers, didn’t happen.
That's already been posted several times - do a little work and look.
>They require registered republican voters who care enough to attend and continue to support their candidate.
>That’s up to them. I think it’s not a bad system.
I hear the communist party in Cuba agrees with you. Maybe that’s why you love Cruz the Cuban.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.