• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump & the Second ballot issue

I was using the definition of rigged as meaning "unfair advantages are given to one side of a conflict."

Again, unfair would be wrongfully used in this case, as all sides had a legitimate chance to know how the rules were created, to engage in attempting to create said rules, and then operating under those rules.

This is especially true of a Republican base and party that has long established and based their beliefs off the notion of "fairness" is not based on the RESULTS, or even the likelihood of reaching said results, but rather on the equally available process to reach said results.
 
I have to wonder if all this expansion of the primary process and the expectations people have coming from it will cause some sort of new look at the entire party primary process and if it should be legislated and regulated? Political parties are outside of the Constitution but now the relationship between political party primaries and elected office representing the people is closer than at any tie in our history.

If people - even a minority of people - somehow feel that they have been used and abused by the process and that their vote which they considered important is not going to be the determining factor in selecting the parties nominee - I wonder how long that situation can be tolerated before people want to regulate and control it?
 
Again, unfair would be wrongfully used in this case, as all sides had a legitimate chance to know how the rules were created, to engage in attempting to create said rules, and then operating under those rules.

This is especially true of a Republican base and party that has long established and based their beliefs off the notion of "fairness" is not based on the RESULTS, or even the likelihood of reaching said results, but rather on the equally available process to reach said results.

It depends on whether you think it is unfair to make rules which favor establishment candidates don't you think? Do you think the current rules make it "equally available" for a non-establishment candidate to get the nomination? It sure does not seem that the rules are written that way.
 
It depends on whether you think it is unfair to make rules which favor establishment candidates don't you think? Do you think the current rules make it "equally available" for a non-establishment candidate to get the nomination? It sure does not seem that the rules are written that way.

The question isn't whether or not the current rules make it "equally available" for a non-establishment candidate to get the nomination. The question is whether or not non-establishment candidates had equal availability to set up those rules. If they did, which they did, then the creation of the rules was a fair process and thus the rules themselves were fairly made and thus fair in nature. It's also fair in terms of operating under those rules, as they were known by all and everyone was equally able to operate under them. Trump had just as much of a shot as anyone else to attempt and garner those delegates support. He chose not to, or he chose to take actions that caused them to not want to support him. While some may've been predisposed not to support him, ultimately he had an equal and fair shot to gain them just as everyone else in this race, as he had full knowledge available to him to know what the rules where.

The NFL rules are such that if you have a franchise QB you're likely to do better. That doesn't mean those rules are "unfair", because everyone operates equally under them, everyone has the same general means of attempting to obtain them (Free agency and draft), everyone is playing the same game. Just because some do things better than other or in a different way than others doesn't make the process unfair.

Donald Trumps actions and inaction is what cost him delegates, not the "rules". Every single delegate that goes against Trump is someone he could've attempted to get by acting differently or courting them differently; he failed. That's not "unfair", that's him being a sore loser and a cry baby.
 
I'm always flabbergasted at how ignorant Americans are in general when it comes to the voting process. It's been the same general system since 72 more or less. I know that most states require students to pass an American government class. Caucuses are inconvenient for many Americans, but that doesn't make them unfair.
 
That maybe true but it is only because the "rules" favor establishment candidates and the primary voting is not what it appears to be. It might not be theft but accusation that the game is "rigged" would be accurate don't you think?

Yes. Both parties have it rigged so that the electorate can elect anyone for nomination that the party establishment accepts. Otherwise, the party establishment can and will ignore the electorate. The parties can have any rules they want. The problem is that that conduct elections in the first place. They shouldn't do that if they aren't going to accept the nominee that the voters chose.
 
Yes. Both parties have it rigged so that the electorate can elect anyone for nomination that the party establishment accepts. Otherwise, the party establishment can and will ignore the electorate. The parties can have any rules they want. The problem is that that conduct elections in the first place. They shouldn't do that if they aren't going to accept the nominee that the voters chose.

If you mean it is just not a simple majority of voters that select the candidate you are correct. But that is the case with our electoral system also. Bush got 540,000 less votes than Gore in 2000 and still became President. So as you can see there is precedent for other forms of selection than just a simple majority. America has always been too worried that voters may not be "good enough" at selecting leaders IMO.
 
Last edited:
If you mean it is just not a simple majority of voters that select the candidate you are correct. But that is the case with our electoral system also. Bush got 540,000 less votes than Gore in 2000 and still became President. So as you can see there is precedent for other forms of selection than just a simple majority. America has always been too worried that voters may not be "good enough" at selecting leaders IMO.

So you don't like the electoral college. Immaterial to what I said. I didn't use the term majority either. I talked about ignoring votes and voters.
 
So you don't like the electoral college. Immaterial to what I said. I didn't use the term majority either. I talked about ignoring votes and voters.

Do you think voters are being ignored? In what way? There are checks and balances that the parties have decided on but I don't think voters are being ignored...yet. If the GOP picks someone who isn't even running then you can say they ignored voters. I really doubt that will happen.
 
Do you think voters are being ignored? In what way? There are checks and balances that the parties have decided on but I don't think voters are being ignored...yet. If the GOP picks someone who isn't even running then you can say they ignored voters. I really doubt that will happen.

Yes I think they are being ignored whenever they don't come up with the right nominee.
 
Back
Top Bottom