Discussion
  • Read More
    TheEvilAttorneyHamilton Nolan
    3/30/16 4:05pm

    Counter point: stealing the nomination from Trump could create a right-wing spoiler party for the GOP, which could keep Dems in power for a long time to come.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      EsbonTheEvilAttorney
      3/30/16 4:07pm

      A centrist, business-friendly hawk in the white house hooray! So much better!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      duckinthefaceat250knotsTheEvilAttorney
      3/30/16 4:08pm

      The poor old GOP. All this strife and struggles couldn’t be happening to a nicer bunch of folks.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Cherith CutestoryHamilton Nolan
    3/30/16 4:10pm

    The ideal of American democracy, flawed though it may be, is far more important than any one election.

    I sympathize with this. I would be furious beyond belief if Bernie Sanders won the pledged delegates but didn’t receive the DNC nomination. I’m very passionately against this sudden notion that Trump burning it all to the ground would be better than Clinton (that tactic has never worked beyond the imaginations of college students). But that would make even me not vote.

    But, that being said, I do think parties should be given some say in who runs under their banner. They are private organizations and are not enshrined in our constitution. They don’t have to accept everyone if they don’t think they fit their ideals. Or, in this case, they fit their ideals too explicitly.

    The answer isn’t to force the Republicans and Democrats to accept anyone but to have more viable parties. And the best way to do that and make it stick is to eliminate the Senate. Always comes back to that.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      A SPOOKY GHOST!Cherith Cutestory
      3/30/16 4:16pm

      The two-party system may not be explicitly endorsed by the Constitution, but it is a natural consequence of the way the document set up representation.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PuddingandthemissusCherith Cutestory
      3/30/16 4:18pm

      It’s very interesting to have two popular candidates who are party outsiders.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ryanv23Hamilton Nolan
    3/30/16 4:09pm

    You mean like using “superdelegates” to make sure the party gets the candidate they want?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      bcallawayryanv23
      3/30/16 4:44pm

      The Democratic party has used superdelegates in the nominating process since 1984. You may not like the system, but it’s not new. Superdelegates would not be a problem for Sanders if he had, you know, joined the Democratic party more than six months ago.

      And no, I am a Hillbot; I’m just a guy who can think logically.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Richard Punchryanv23
      3/30/16 4:46pm

      LOL! So true!

      Except, you know... not. Not really at all.

      Superdelegates aren’t “used” by anyone. They’re individuals, who are allowed to make up their own minds. They’re the people who have been working within the party for years or even decades, spending their free time and their energy to elect progressive candidates for office.

      You can be one too! It will require that you show up to shit, so nobody will hold their breath waiting for you.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Ambition makes you look pretty ugly.Hamilton Nolan
    3/30/16 4:13pm

    The Republican “establishment” is probably much better off handing the nomination over to Donald Trump with no fuss whatsoever, and simply allowing him to get crushed in the general election.

    The less interference they provide as this weird conglomerate of disaffected Tea Party members and facist sympathizers which make up most of Trump’s base watch their hero fail miserably in the polls in November, and (you would think, but perhaps don’t hold your breath on this) face some self-realization that their platform is not viable or attractive on a nationwide scale at all, will allow the GOP to reboot without having to kowtow to them anymore than they feel is necessary.

    Simply resetting their chances at the White House for another 4 years to me seems much more attractive of an option than virtually another possible permutation that can happen with any delegate-swapping shenanigans at the final mile marker.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ARP2Ambition makes you look pretty ugly.
      3/30/16 4:32pm

      Sadly no. These people thrive on conspiracy theories and being the persecuted majority. If Trump doesn’t win, it will be because Obama rigged the election. There can be no other explanation.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Negasonic Oldage WarheadAmbition makes you look pretty ugly.
      3/30/16 4:52pm

      every time the whacked out GOP base loses, they double down. the reason the candidate lost is not because he or she was too conservative, but because he or she was NOT conservative enough. No moderation would occur because of a Trump loss. If anything, the party will lurch even harder to the right.

      There is never any reason for compromise. Compromise is weak and it shows that an elected official or candidate is not conservative enough. Only through purity and lack of compromise can the GOP bring unity unto the land. Or something.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    The Creepy KingHamilton Nolan
    3/30/16 4:11pm

    A ranked voting system is sorely needed in the U.S. It would have kept Trump irrelevant and it takes away the fear that voting for a 3rd party candidate would be “throwing one’s vote away.”

    http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#problems_r…

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      KittyReavenThe Creepy King
      3/30/16 4:17pm

      Running the electoral system in a way that’s pro-citizen would be inherently disadvantageous to organizations that seek to maintain their own level of primary influence, and those organizations are the ones that decide how elections are done.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      The Creepy KingKittyReaven
      3/30/16 4:30pm

      I agree with you, yet here we are with a candidate those “organizations” are horrified by, and the voice of the people are going to make it very hard for them to rig the process for an outcome they prefer. Change from the people is difficult, yes. Impossible? I’d hate to think so.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    CryptidHamilton Nolan
    3/30/16 4:31pm

    I don’t buy the premise that “the electoral college exists solely as a mechanism to allow elites to circumvent the public will.” The electoral college was instituted because the founders were deeply distrustful of the common man, but historically it has denied the presidency to regional candidates. So do we favor an originalist or pragmatist point-of-view? Is that elite sabotage or is it an adventitious structural check against what Madison called the tyranny of the majority?

    Meanwhile, the argument about the Republican nomination would be more clear-cut if Trump were winning clear majorities. But in many states he has won with closer to a third of the vote. The majority of voters have not voted for Trump, although it’s not exactly fair to translate this divided field into a contest between Trump and Other. I don’t think we have crossed the threshold where Trump’s strong-but-narrow support is an unequivocal representation of the popular will in the Republican party.

    Obviously, the electoral system is in need of reform, but pinning that argument on Trump’s mandate seems, well, trumped up.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Negasonic Oldage WarheadCryptid
      3/30/16 4:58pm

      Fear of a "tyranny of the majority" is an inherently elitist fear. The wealthy elite fear the majority, which are the poor, unwashed masses. They fear that the majority will rise up and tear them down from their elite perches.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      YoSup is in League with the Raccoon MenaceCryptid
      3/30/16 5:11pm

      The electoral college doesn’t function even remotely like how the framers intended it to. Under the current system, it serves no function and could simply be replaced with a vote counting rule (just say a plurality in each state is worth a certain number of “points” and count the points). There is no real argument for keeping it

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    steinoHamilton Nolan
    3/30/16 4:11pm

    I’m as pro-gun control as they come, but if the GOP somehow steals the nomination from Drumpf, I may go buy a gun. There are hordes of angry people out there who are fully armed, and this might be the tipping point for anarchy.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      KittyReavensteino
      3/30/16 4:18pm

      At least you (probably) don’t live in the city where the RNC is going to be.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Madge SmurtzKittyReaven
      3/30/16 4:36pm

      God be with you, Clevelanders.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    e.nonHamilton Nolan
    3/30/16 4:06pm

    well, considering drumpf’s comments in an interview with chris matthews that women who get abortions should be punished, i’m guessing his chances of winning have just nosedived to zero.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Seattle Dane.non
      3/30/16 4:10pm

      Considering the horrible shitty opinions of the people who already are his supporters, it won’t really change their minds in the least. They probably agree with him.

      I think he already had a near-zero chance (assuming a lack of colossal fuckery by the DNC and DWS, which is also a non-zero chance) and this won’t really change anything.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PuddingandthemissusSeattle Dan
      3/30/16 4:12pm

      Anyone voting for Trump either hates women or has no issue with their shitty treatment.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ALiteralDuckHamilton Nolan
    3/30/16 4:04pm

    Isn’t an “electoral” rather than “back-room” or “appointed” nominating process for the parties a separate issue from the constitutional structure of our democracy? The constitution doesn’t say how parties have to choose their nominees, and the procedure has changed a ton over time without the US ceasing to be a democracy

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Computer2ALiteralDuck
      3/30/16 4:10pm

      True, but it still is an anti-democratic way to pick nominees. It is sort of strange that private parties essentially can pick whoever they want to run, and in practice the public is not allowed to choose anyone else.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ALiteralDuckComputer2
      3/30/16 4:11pm

      Yeah but anyone who is qualified can still run, they just won’t be the “republican nominee”

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    DirktaniusHamilton Nolan
    3/30/16 5:27pm

    If Trump gets over 50% of the vote then he gets the nomination. The party has a rule where a candidate isn’t considered viable if they don’t get over 50%. You could make the argument that if half the party can’t get behind a candidate, it is the responsibility of that party to choose a different one.

    What if all 17 candidates would have stayed in and Trump ended with 20% of the vote. Would he still “deserve” the nomination?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Pcm9799Dirktanius
      3/30/16 5:33pm

      He would deserve it more than someone who got 19-0% of the vote.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      DirktaniusPcm9799
      3/30/16 5:45pm

      One of the primary functions of a party is choosing a candidate they think will win an election. Political parties are not the same as the United States government. They make their own rules. Don’t like the rules? Leave the party or start a new one. No one has to belong to a party or vote in a party’s election.

      HamNo seems to be equating party behavior with our American democracy and they are two separate things.

      Reply
      <