Posted on 04/12/2016 10:50:38 PM PDT by gg188
Here we have a thread about how delegates can easily and legally be bribed, and people still defend this system?
The RNC wanted certain firewalls in place. This is one of them. No matter how this primary turns out, the delegate system needs to be skuttled completely.
Top two should have a followup vote. Simple. Clean. Better reflects the general election’s campaign trail.
BTW, that’s impy’s idea. I only offered a small adjustment.
On this very important thread I offer some informed input.
Kabar is a seasoned DC lobbyist. This is one of his posts regarding the convention.
[First he quotes Ryan for context ...]
Count me out,” Ryan said. “I simply believe that if you want to be the nominee — to be the president — you should actually run for it. I chose not to. Therefore, I should not be considered. Period.”
Kabar:
Ryan is saying that all 17 candidates who entered the race have a shot. The Hell with Rule 40B, which could be changed at the whim of the delegates. Based on my long experience with GOP politics, I posit that most of the delegates are not Trump or Cruz supporters. They are GOPe types. That is how most of the delegates are selected. They are long time party apparatchiks who are rewarded by being delegates to the national convention. Usually, it is a time to party and have fun.
[unquote]
Adding an update:
Paul Ryan Ups Trump Criticism...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_RYAN_TRUMP_MIDDLE_EAST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-14-12-13-57
Who is going to pay for the expense of having each and every state and territory have another primary or caucus?
You actually think it’s too expensive to have a single followup vote to unify? You would rather let delegates be bribed by proxies of Soros and the Saudi prince who runs FoxNews?
I think that most times it doesn’t matter cause you don’t have someone running as a disruptor trying to highjack a party.
Ultimately, the party gets to decide who is their nominee. I’m not sure why this shouldn’t be the people who put the time and effort in, who support the party over the years and who would be expected to work hard to elect the guy in the general.
Voters get their input, but if they fail to coalesce I don’t see automatically deferring to a re-vote. Especially with states with open primaries.
Yeah, I’m thinking that’s a good change. Forget the instant runoff. Have a national primary in say March then like 2 months later have a runoff vote between the top 2 (unless someone gets over 50% in the initial vote as an incumbent President running for reelection probably would). Several Southern states have that system for congressional and state offices.
Nice and clean, easy to understand, fair to all voters in all states (no IA and NH getting first say).
Bonus: If we change our system first it would embarrass the democrats, with their super-delegates.
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.