The 19th Amendment Gave You Trump

I actually don't have a problem with this. I have said on many occasions that I would happily give up my vote if it unit all the horrible things that feminism has brought to this country (such as abortion that Trump just wanted to donate $10 million to, to debate Sanders until he backed out of that challenge). And one thing I told my husband before we got married is that I would never disenfranchise our family by voting opposite of him. So guess who is also #NEVERTRUMP

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

What gave us Trump is a flawed GOP primary system that gave a candidate with 40% of the vote some 50% of the convention delegates.

 

True story. You know that the GOP after they get slaughtered this year will be reworking the primary system. Although it will be too little too late as far as I'm concerned.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

The stupidity of the American voter is what got us Trump, Clinton, and Obama.

 

Maybe we could go back the "good ole days" when only rich, entitled white men chose our leaders from among their sect.

 

The Democrats still have that smoke-filled room system--it's called Super-delegates and Hillary gets about a third of the vote from them automatically. As for your reference to men, is that some sort of social construct? AlienAlienAlien

 

Where's the flaw and what's the solution?

Should we let the early states, who voted in what was still a 6+ person contest, have a re-vote later?

 

The GOP bosses wanted the primaries to end quickly so they stacked them with a lot of winner take all states at the early stages.

The solution is to give each candidate a number of delegates based upon his, or her, actual percentage of the votes. However, that will be more expensive for the bosses because it is doubtful that Trump would have ever reached 50% of the delegates and then the convention would have had to make the decision after the first or second ballots. Assuming the party leaders are at the convention, it is logical for them to make the decision if the party primary voters are deadlocked. Even if a candidate gets 50% of the vote, it could mean that the contest lasted all the way to California, or whatever state is last.

I am only speaking about the GOP system. The Democrat system is actually less democratic than the GOP system because the party bosses automatically go as super delegates and amount to a third of the convention votes at the Democrat convention. I could care less what the Democrats do.

 

What GOP bosses did this? Do states no longer have control over their primaries?

 

Absolutely incorrect. Up until March 15th there is only one state with a winner take all primary--South Carolina. By GOP rules no states other than South Carolina may have a winner take all primary before March 15th. In fact, there are 24 states with primaries that are NOT winner take all before March 15th. So, roughly half the states have primaries before the winner take all contests occur. That's definitely not, "stacking the primaries with lot of winner take all states at the early stages."

 

The states do not control party primaries. The rich run the parties because they pay for them. The state parties decide how their delegates are allotted. I am thinking that in states such as Pennsylvania the GOP primary is a beauty contest with the delegates selected by the party with no connection to the primary voting.

The GOP system is fairer than the Democrats system. After 1968, the Democrats made officeholders and party chairman, etc, automatic delegates, called super delegates. The GOP usually just sees that the delegates are congressmen, senators, governors, state party chairmen, etc. end up as delegates and the GOP does not have super delegates. State parties in Iowa, for example, just use a caucus system instead of a primary vote. Wasn't it Colorado where the GOP decided delegates at the state GOP convention?

It is not difficult to get to a state convention as a delegate--I got to one once because I worked for an elected official as a patronage employee.

 

Look, it is relatively early when a minor state such as Indiana ends the GOP primary in very early May. This was done by the bosses to avoid expensive contests and it was not thought out because we now have a candidate with the nomination based upon 40% of the vote. He got it easy.

 

It is extremely rare that the GOP primaries are meaningful past Super Tuesday. In fact, the primary season rarely gets into April as candidates have usually locked up the nomination by mid-March.

Not so. Having to go all the way to Indiana in May to win the nomination is not an easy path.

I think you need to brush up on your election history.

 

I am fully aware of everything that you are saying. However, the GOP bosses have made no secret that they wanted the primaries over early as they were too expensive.

This "frugality" gave the nomination to Trump without an actual majority of the votes. I am well aware that Indiana has never mattered before in the GOP primary and I posted the first of the year that it would be decided before Indiana because of the GOP system.

You are debating with me about my use of the word "early" to describe the ending that occurred in Indiana. It is the corruption in the GOP system that made the states after Indiana irrelevant when they should have been vital. Trump had an easy path because he ended the contest early with 40% of the vote at that time.

 

So, naturally you have a link that you can provide which shows this "non-secret".

Trump has unofficially won the GOP nomination based on garnering a majority of delegate votes, exactly the way the system is supposed to work. He's won it according to the rules. Deal with it.

The individual states set their primary dates with approval from the national party. The fact is some states have to schedule later primaries. You can't have all primaries in the same month. Another fact is that most years there is a clear-cut nomination winner before April. It's just the way it's always been. Or are you arguing that the GOP primary system been corrupt for 40 years?

40% of the popular vote, yes, but he got a majority of the GOP delegates. That's the vote that matters.

 

I really don't know what your point is. I have never said that Trump did not win by the rules. I have merely said that the 19th amendment did not nominate Trump but a long-standing flaw in the GOP system that allowed the nomination to go to someone without a majority at the time of Indiana.