Why I'm voting Trump in the Indiana Primary...

[jamil]

Trump can claim the "will of the people" mantle far more than any other candidate (or potential nominee). There's simply no denying that.

Now, in a non-Trump primary, would the votes have shaken out differently? Yes, and that very likely would have resulted in a Jeb Bush nomination, from an even weaker plurality that Trump at his weakest - because that's exactly the outcome this primary process was designed to produce.

Yes. I think trump has a bigger popular mandate than any othe republican candidate at this point.

But a more representative process would consider the public opinion of all the candidates. Trump was the most popular first choice but people either like him or they don't. I doubt he would have been many people's second choice or third choice, fourth, fifth. In the ranked polling I did on INGO, granted, Cruz won handily, but Trump got a lot of first place and last place votes. He ended up middle of the pack because he wasn't very popular.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes. I think trump has a bigger popular mandate than any othe republican candidate at this point.

But a more representative process would consider the public opinion of all the candidates. Trump was the most popular first choice but people either like him or they don't. I doubt he would have been many people's second choice or third choice, fourth, fifth. In the ranked polling I did on INGO, granted, Cruz won handily, but Trump got a lot of first place and last place votes. He ended up middle of the pack because he wasn't very popular.

INGO is pretty much confirmation bias. Most of the actual polling that I've seen (caveat: I don't generally consider polls to be all that accurate, especially in this primary season) show Trump getting a significant amount of second-choice support - on the order of 1/3 to 1/2, depending on the first-choice candidate.

 

[tbhausen]

Vote Cruz! He is the Conservative in this race. If you liked Reagan, you will love a Ted Cruz presidency.
Now is the time to stand up for smaller government...

No, because I don't want a contested Convention. If that happens, I believe we might as well coronate the Hildebeest now.

 

[T.Lex]

He just invoked Godwin's Law.

By the way, I forgot to address this earlier. In my edits of the quote, the "enemy" was... the Bolsheviks.

Worth noting that it was one socialist vilifying other socialists. Make of that what you will.

 

[jamil]

INGO is pretty much confirmation bias. Most of the actual polling that I've seen (caveat: I don't generally consider polls to be all that accurate, especially in this primary season) show Trump getting a significant amount of second-choice support - on the order of 1/3 to 1/2, depending on the first-choice candidate.

not back when the field was full. It's not hard to imagine Trump as someone's 2nd place now when there are just 3 left. The very thing that got me thinking about ranked voting is back in the summer after seeing analysis of Trump's poor likability vs his lead among a large field of Republicans. Most Republicans, especially then, viewed Trump as a clown. That keeps the top ranking for him very narrow. You either like him or you don't.

But Cruz has a similar problem. His likability isn't that great either. His unlikely 2nd place position now is as much an artifact of the process as Trump's. Most republicans viewed him negatively. And still do. He's popular on INGO, but not everywhere else.

I think if all candidates were still in the race and we had one simultaneous ranked DIRECT vote--none of this delegat bull****--to determine the nominee, it's doubtful that the two republican candidates with the worst likability would be at the top. A lot of the people who are supporting Cruz are strategically voting against Trump. I'm in that group. And only because of the SCOTUS. And I have no doubt that many of the Trump voters are #nevercruz because his evangelical rhetoric scares the **** out of them.

 

[MisterChester]

not back when the field was full. It's not hard to imagine Trump as someone's 2nd place now when there are just 3 left. The very thing that got me thinking about ranked voting is back in the summer after seeing analysis of Trump's poor likability vs his lead among a large field of Republicans. Most Republicans, especially then, viewed Trump as a clown. That keeps the top ranking for him very narrow. You either like him or you don't.

But Cruz has a similar problem. His likability isn't that great either. His unlikely 2nd place position now is as much an artifact of the process as Trump's. Most republicans viewed him negatively. And still do. He's popular on INGO, but not everywhere else.

I think if all candidates were still in the race and we had one simultaneous ranked DIRECT vote--none of this delegat bull****--to determine the nominee, it's doubtful that the two republican candidates with the worst likability would be at the top. A lot of the people who are supporting Cruz are strategically voting against Trump. I'm in that group. And only because of the SCOTUS. And I have no doubt that many of the Trump voters are #nevercruz because his evangelical rhetoric scares the **** out of them.

Need to spread the wealth around before I can rep you, well said. I am totally in favor of a system like that.

 

[T.Lex]

I'll play devil's advocate and say that direct system would be worse over the long haul. It is would be more prone to whim and temporary popularity.

A direct system would make more Trumps.

(We're talking party nomination, right, not general election?)

 

[chipbennett]

I'll play devil's advocate and say that direct system would be worse over the long haul. It is would be more prone to whim and temporary popularity.

A direct system would make more Trumps.

(We're talking party nomination, right, not general election?)

Yes: party primary elections.

And there are ways to maintain a balance of respecting the "will of the people" and the party autonomy. For example, here's one potential process:

1. All states use primary preference elections (no caucuses)
2. All state delegates are bound, according to the sequence below. (Super-delegates remain unbound.)
3. Delegates are selected by the party, in the manner of their choosing
4. At the convention, for the first three ballots, state delegates vote proportionally
5. If, after the first three ballots, no candidate has a majority of delegates, all state delegates vote in a winner-take-all fashion for the next three ballots
6. If, after those three ballots, no candidate has a majority of delegates, all delegates are unbound for the remainder of voting

Such a system:

a) Ensures that all party members, in all states, have an equitable means of expressing their will
b) Ensures that the "will of the people" is represented through actual primary preference elections
c) Ensures that the "will of the people" has six ballots, half as WTA, half as proportional, to be represented by the delegates
d) Ensures that the party has ultimate control, in the case that the "will of the people" does not produce a clear majority

There are certainly other systems; this is just one off the top of my head

 

[T.Lex]

Yes: party primary elections.

Whew. I'm in even less of a mood to talk electoral college.

3. Delegates are selected by the party, in the manner of their choosing

This is basically the current system, with some tradeoffs.

b) Ensures that the "will of the people" is represented through actual primary preference elections

But what about when the "will of the people" is for a different system.

When I was a kid, we had relatives in Iowa. I remember them talking about the caucus. It only made sense to me then because my "elders" thought it was a good idea. People show up at the caucus not necessarily sure. They make speeches, they see who is going one way or the other, then pick a side. It is very dynamic. MUCH more dynamic and... inclusive I guess... than a primary.

Conceptually, I have an issue with the conservative national party getting too authoritarian in how states choose their delegates, or how their delegates should vote. There must be a framework, but a spectrum (see what I did there?) of freedom within that framework.

 

[chipbennett]

Whew. I'm in even less of a mood to talk electoral college.


This is basically the current system, with some tradeoffs.

Well, no. Not really. It adds consistency among the several states, and weights the "will of the people" factor in the earliest votes. It also ensures that, if the "will of the people" has not expressed itself clearly, then the balance of power swings back first to the States (through winner-take-all ballots), and then entirely to the party (through unbound, 100% party-selected delegates).

In this system, the delegates don't actually cast a ballot until they are unbound. Until then, their votes are pre-determined.

And there are opportunities for variation/refinement, such as the proportional ballots at first including all candidates, then including only those over a certain threshold (with proportional redistribution), then including only the top two (again with proportional distribution).

But what about when the "will of the people" is for a different system.

When I was a kid, we had relatives in Iowa. I remember them talking about the caucus. It only made sense to me then because my "elders" thought it was a good idea. People show up at the caucus not necessarily sure. They make speeches, they see who is going one way or the other, then pick a side. It is very dynamic. MUCH more dynamic and... inclusive I guess... than a primary.

How do you know that it is the "will of the people" to hold a caucus, and not merely a minority, based on anecdote?

Conceptually, I have an issue with the conservative national party getting too authoritarian in how states choose their delegates, or how their delegates should vote. There must be a framework, but a spectrum (see what I did there?) of freedom within that framework.

President is a nationally elected office at the federal level. The right of the Colorado GOP to choose their method of delegate selection does not trump the rights of the voters of Indiana to have votes for the candidates they support be counted equally, regardless of which states' residents cast them. The participating voters are disproportionately represented (or not represented at all) in the current system, which is effective disenfranchisement. There is an argument to be made to make the system as consistent as possible, so that the votes of all participants are cast, and counted, consistently.

 

[MisterChester]

Whew. I'm in even less of a mood to talk electoral college.


This is basically the current system, with some tradeoffs.


But what about when the "will of the people" is for a different system.

When I was a kid, we had relatives in Iowa. I remember them talking about the caucus. It only made sense to me then because my "elders" thought it was a good idea. People show up at the caucus not necessarily sure. They make speeches, they see who is going one way or the other, then pick a side. It is very dynamic. MUCH more dynamic and... inclusive I guess... than a primary.

Conceptually, I have an issue with the conservative national party getting too authoritarian in how states choose their delegates, or how their delegates should vote. There must be a framework, but a spectrum (see what I did there?) of freedom within that framework.

My major problem with a caucus is that it severely limits turn out. Not everyone can make it to the local middle school, at 1pm, on a Tuesday. Primary allows give or take 12 hours of opportunity.

 

[T.Lex]

How do you know that it is the "will of the people" to hold a caucus, and not merely a minority, based on anecdote?

Because the Republicans involved in local politics know the system, the options, and can change it if they wanted.

President is a nationally elected office at the federal level. The right of the Colorado GOP to choose their method of delegate selection does not trump the rights of the voters of Indiana to have votes for the candidates they support be counted equally, regardless of which states' residents cast them. The participating voters are disproportionately represented (or not represented at all) in the current system, which is effective disenfranchisement.

Truly, you lost me. Are you saying that the Colorado voters have more representation in delegates than Indiana, other than the delegate allocation from the national party?

There is an argument to be made to make the system as consistent as possible, so that the votes of all participants are cast, and counted, consistently.

Consistency for consistency's sake, though, is an argument. (Perhaps a compelling one.) So is tradition for tradition's sake. (Personally, far less compelling.) But I do not live in Colorado. If they want to use a silly system, isn't the conservative position to allow them to do so? Because freedom?

 

[j706]

Not sure about anyone else but I will be voting for Trump because I am sick and tired of being lied to. We voted in a bunch of republican a few years back. They ran on shutting down obama care ect. They failed to do what they promised to do. I am also sick of the career politician. Politics should IMO be a calling not a job for life. I am at the point where I could care less what RNC thinks or says.

 

[JettaKnight]

Not sure about anyone else but I will be voting for Trump because I am sick and tired of being lied to. We voted in a bunch of republican a few years back. They ran on shutting down obama care ect. They failed to do what they promised to do. I am also sick of the career politician. Politics should IMO be a calling not a job for life. I am at the point where I could care less what RNC thinks or says.

Voting for Trump because you're tired of being lied to... that's the best joke I've heard all day!

 

[T.Lex]

Not sure about anyone else but I will be voting for Trump because I am sick and tired of being lied to.

What color is irony?



I encourage you to vote your conscience. On May 4.

 

[chipbennett]

Because the Republicans involved in local politics know the system, the options, and can change it if they wanted.

Right. The Colorado GOP, who tweeted, from their official Twitter account, "We did it! #NeverTrump", is going to be fair and impartial in determining the will of the people with respect to method of primary.

Truly, you lost me. Are you saying that the Colorado voters have more representation in delegates than Indiana, other than the delegate allocation from the national party?

No, I'm saying just the opposite. In some states, the people have greater control over delegate selection, through primary preference votes - but in other states, the party has the greater control. For supporters of Candidate A in the former states, the delegate selection of the latter states suppresses support for Candidate A, on the whim of the party.

Consistency for consistency's sake, though, is an argument. (Perhaps a compelling one.) So is tradition for tradition's sake. (Personally, far less compelling.) But I do not live in Colorado. If they want to use a silly system, isn't the conservative position to allow them to do so? Because freedom?

So, for the moment, let's set aside the primary-vs-caucus question, and focus on the meat of my proposal (because I don't want the entire thing to be sidetracked), by assuming (IMHO not a valid assumption) that caucuses are fair and representative.

The bigger part of the proposal was the proportioning of delegates through the balloting process, as a means of balancing "will of the people" with "autonomy of the party".

 

[T.Lex]

Right. The Colorado GOP, who tweeted, from their official Twitter account, "We did it! #NeverTrump", is going to be fair and impartial in determining the will of the people with respect to method of primary.

But, #nevertrump is also an expression of the will of the people - both the people in the party and the people in the party apparatus.

No, I'm saying just the opposite. In some states, the people have greater control over delegate selection, through primary preference votes - but in other states, the party has the greater control. For supporters of Candidate A in the former states, the delegate selection of the latter states suppresses support for Candidate A, on the whim of the party.

Ah - so it really isn't about representation, it is about control of the process. Whatever the system, the result could have ended exactly the same, as it did in several other western states.

My assertion is that the people of the state party, made up of "normal" people in the party, control their own system, within the bounds set by the national party.

The bigger part of the proposal was the proportioning of delegates through the balloting process, as a means of balancing "will of the people" with "autonomy of the party".

I think that balance is more appropriately struck locally than nationally, though. Frankly, I feel a bit of pity for the national party (GOPe, if you will) trying to incorporate all these different systems into a single framework.

Having played my role as devil's advocate, I will say that after this cycle, there will be considerable changes to the system.

 

[BugI02]

In fairness, while Godwin's Law is somewhat applicable, I was thinking more in terms of the rhetoric, the formula. Granted, that formula has been used by every elected leader and involves a common enemy, demonization, etc.

Even more ironically, Sanders is using the same rubric except with the "big banks."

But the "America for Americans, first and foremost" theme just seems TOO reminiscent of other nationalist populists.

Alas, the underlying, all-too-real problems are the driving forces that make the theme effective. Perhaps if the establishment listened to the people a bit more and a bit sooner many tears could be averted

 

[rob63]

Alas, the underlying, all-too-real problems are the driving forces that make the theme effective. Perhaps if the establishment listened to the people a bit more and a bit sooner many tears could be averted

Sadly, after Hillary is elected they (establishment) will just view it as further proof of how great things are working for them.

 

[BugI02]

Yes: party primary elections.

And there are ways to maintain a balance of respecting the "will of the people" and the party autonomy. For example, here's one potential process:

1. All states use primary preference elections (no caucuses)
2. All state delegates are bound, according to the sequence below. (Super-delegates remain unbound.)
3. Delegates are selected by the party, in the manner of their choosing
4. At the convention, for the first three ballots, state delegates vote proportionally
5. If, after the first three ballots, no candidate has a majority of delegates, all state delegates vote in a winner-take-all fashion for the next three ballots
6. If, after those three ballots, no candidate has a majority of delegates, all delegates are unbound for the remainder of voting

Such a system:

a) Ensures that all party members, in all states, have an equitable means of expressing their will
b) Ensures that the "will of the people" is represented through actual primary preference elections
c) Ensures that the "will of the people" has six ballots, half as WTA, half as proportional, to be represented by the delegates
d) Ensures that the party has ultimate control, in the case that the "will of the people" does not produce a clear majority

There are certainly other systems; this is just one off the top of my head

Interesting. I think I would consider limiting the number of super delegates to some relatively small percentage of the whole, though (perhaps 10% - enough to sway the outcome but never determine it outright)