Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why shouldn't the party have the right to pick its candidate? It's their money, their resources, their support network, and their reputation. If you don't like the candidate the party picks, then vote for a different candidate. But recognize that the party is a PRIVATE organization. Has ALWAYS been a PRIVATE organization. A PRIVATE organization that wants their candidates to win, all of their candidates, in order to advance their platform and agenda. They have an interest in those candidates supporting their platform and agenda, because the party is looking at the big picture. They have no interest in nominating candidates that don't support their platform and agenda. Donald Trump doesn't support the GOP's platform and agenda. His political history isn't consistent, and his rhetoric is at odds with the party's positions and priorities.
It is wrong, our government is paid for by us....they use our taxes....no one said the party has to donate any money to these candidates.
Then the power also needs to be taken away from the party....
Yes, they certainly do have an interest....
I like you and enjoy reading you, but as I have said before, we agree to disagree...reason being, Washington has gone corrupt....so corrupt they are ruining our nation....it's this liberal way of thinking....and what they've done to our country disregarding laws.....disregarding the American People....throwing elections, spending money we don't have.....
It is wrong, our government is paid for by us....they use our taxes....no one said the party has to donate any money to these candidates.
Then the power also needs to be taken away from the party....
Yes, they certainly do have an interest....
I like you and enjoy reading you, but as I have said before, we agree to disagree...reason being, Washington has gone corrupt....so corrupt they are ruining our nation....it's this liberal way of thinking....and what they've done to our country disregarding laws.....disregarding the American People....throwing elections, spending money we don't have.....
The political parties are Private Organizations, they aren't the government. Their purpose, to advance their political agenda, may be all about government, but they are a Private Organization, just like the Kiwanis Club. They get to make up their own rules. And while the party does not have to donate money to candidates running under the Republican aegis, if the party does not provide resources to such candidates, it undermines its own brand and alienates the very people they purport to represent.
That is the problem here. The party wants a candidate that advances the party's agenda. But a good number of people, who may or may not be Republicans, are supporting a candidate that does not advance the party's agenda. The fact is that while Trump may be winning the plurality of votes at this stage in the nomination process, he is not winning the majority of votes. And his unfavorability ratings are through the roof.
While you say that "no one said the party has to donate money to these candidates," you are in the same breath saying that the party has to nominate a candidate that has not won a majority of the popular vote, and who does not intend to advance the party's platform and agenda. Why do you think the party is obligated to nominate such a candidate?
At this point, Trump could still end up winning the majority of delegates. But if he does not, then it is likely to be a contested convention. As it should be.
Why shouldn't the party have the right to pick its candidate? It's their money, their resources, their support network, and their reputation. If you don't like the candidate the party picks, then vote for a different candidate. But recognize that the party is a PRIVATE organization. Has ALWAYS been a PRIVATE organization. A PRIVATE organization that wants their candidates to win, all of their candidates, in order to advance their platform and agenda. They have an interest in those candidates supporting their platform and agenda, because the party is looking at the big picture. They have no interest in nominating candidates that don't support their platform and agenda. Donald Trump doesn't support the GOP's platform and agenda. His political history isn't consistent, and his rhetoric is at odds with the party's positions and priorities.
Yeah, they sure are looking at the big picture...but it's not the big picture that we want...the party is also funded by the WTO....and I don't support the GOP's Platform and agenda anymore, they have thrown us under the bus so many times....
And if the party pics the candidate, then why do we even bother to vote.....?
makes no freakin sense
Mom
LOL
and I won't vote democratic....but I also won't vote for Cruz....he is a nut case....
Quote:
While you say that "no one said the party has to donate money to these candidates," you are in the same breath saying that the party has to nominate a candidate that has not won a majority of the popular vote, and who does not intend to advance the party's platform and agenda. Why do you think the party is obligated to nominate such a candidate?
It only makes "sense" if it's not the candidate someone really likes. I'd be willing to bet if anyone of us were honest with ourselves, and "our" candidate was 5 delegates short with the most votes after all the primary votes are tallied and the party picked someone else, you and others wouldn't be very pleased/happy. And you shouldn't. Far from it. And furthermore, I find it hard to believe it would end with a "***shrug***, oh well, that's the way the system works and that's fine". That to me is one either being dishonest with themselves or acting like a pushover.
And it shouldn't be about the "work" of the elites "watching their party" go another direction because it isn't right for them. There's a perfect frame of what is wrong with the party system in this nation. Logic would dictate they would be intellgent and use the people's voting choice and delegate total as the proxy. It should be about the will of the people if the system from start to finish truly represented the will/the candidate who got the most votes from the people and the delegates. Anything else is self serving, especially in our political system environment today. Just shocks me so many out there parrot the "this is the way it works, oh well....don't you get it?". Seriously? Yes, I get it and some do, loud and clear. No wonder our political system in the end doesn't serve the people and it starts right from the beginning at the nominee process. I appears many in the herd still haven't woken up to this reality, who is really being served here. It escapes me how accepting people are and keep pulling the R/D lever so blindly.
Political parties are private entities that have a 1st amendment right to decide who will represent them. There have been multiple court cases that have reaffirmed that concept. If you don't like the way the party you belong to makes that choice you have a right to quit that party. You always have the option to start your own party, then you can assure it operates in a way that is palpable to you.
Yes, by the way, I would be okay with it if it had been my candidate, the 50%+1 delegates to be the nominee has been the rule of the Republican Party for over 150 years. The Super Delegates have existed since right after the 1968 election and first used in '72. It known and understood that it was the way it worked in every election I have voted in since I first registered. My question for anyone over 22 is, how is it that you are just now figuring this out?
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
It is wrong, our government is paid for by us....they use our taxes....no one said the party has to donate any money to these candidates.
Then the power also needs to be taken away from the party....
Yes, they certainly do have an interest....
I like you and enjoy reading you, but as I have said before, we agree to disagree...reason being, Washington has gone corrupt....so corrupt they are ruining our nation....it's this liberal way of thinking....and what they've done to our country disregarding laws.....disregarding the American People....throwing elections, spending money we don't have.....
The government is paid for by us, but the political parties aren't. This is a post I made in the beginning of March. I have tried and tried and tried to explain this, but if a political party want to choose their nominee based a any criterion, including something as ridiculous as who has the biggest feet, they are perfectly within their rights to do so and it is immaterial if the guy only got 27 votes in the state primary elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
There have been quite a few posts on here that either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is going to commit voter fraud because they are going to disregard the vote, and therefore the will of the people, in order to make sure Trump or Sanders or Cruz is not their nominee. They may or may not do it, but if they do it is perfectly within their rights. While the general election is covered by voters' rights, the nomination portion is not. That is covered by freedom of association rights. This was further clarified in 2011 by the Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa.
State legislatures have over the last couple of decades opened the primaries, but legally if a party objects there is nothing the state can do. The state can decline to pay for it if they don't like the rules a party comes up with, they can create laws stipulating how a ballot is set up in a state sponsored/financed election or they can create legislation that state level elections will not be based on party affiliation, but they can't dictate how a party chooses who will represent them in a federal general election.
This all came up in Kentucky this election cycle because of Rand Paul. Kentucky law states that a candidate can not be on a ballot twice, in other words a candidate can't run for president and senate at the same time in a Kentucky ran election, whether in the primary or general election. Kentucky had a right to decide how a state financed primary election could be run or what their ballots would contain but, because a party is allowed to choose how a nominee is selected, the Republican Party could choose to run and finance their own caucus, along with come up with the rules for that caucus. Which they did. This is why there are no remedies for "voter fraud" in caucuses if the voter wants to raise a stink, but the state party can nullify a precinct if they think there was voter fraud. This is why they can have inconvenient times and places to hold those caucuses.
Did you realize that the party itself can disreguard the entire primary process by changing the nomination rules for their party right before the convention or even during it? They indeed can. A state may object if they ran a primary to select a nominee but all the party has to do is create convention rules to minimize that state's primary through some kind of equitable rules, such as caucus states delegates will count 20 times more than primary states' delegates or create super delegates. The state level arms of the party can object with some standing but they wouldn't because it would hurt them in the long run. What stops the national level of a party from taking these steps is that they know it will stir up the wrath of the voters, which will hurt them in the long run.
Nothing legally prevents a party from doing what they want to get the nominee they want, all this talk about throwing some sort of coup and the party leaders/doner class being able to do nothing about it is simply wrong. Nothing legally can force a party to financially support a candidate in the general election, just like nothing stops a candidate from breaking their party affiliation and running third party. It is only concern about voter revolt in the general election or future widespread party unaffiliation that prevents parties from disregarding the voice of the electorate.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Because the party exists to promote candidates and agendas besides the Presidential nominee.
So, the people don't necessarily decide who gets the nomination- it's the power brokers decision.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
