Why even bother voting?

[WinePusher]

Bernie Sanders won the plurality of the votes in Wyoming but Hillary Clinton (as of now) has taken the majority of the delegates. Trump will most likely win the majority of the delegates by the time of the republican convention, but if he doesn't reach the 1237 threshold Ted Cruz and the establishment will probably implement some corrupt rule change to deny Trump the nomination.

Why even bother voting when these political party elites have created these obscure, disgraceful rules and regulations that have essentially rendered our votes worthless?

Why is the primary election process in the United States so.... stupid? Why don't we just have a nation wide election on one single day instead of spacing out the elections over several months? Why do we have delegates in the primary process at all? Why don't we just elect the guy/girl who wins the majority of the votes and trash all of this delegate nonsense?

[bluethread]

Bernie Sanders won the plurality of the votes in Wyoming but Hillary Clinton (as of now) has taken the majority of the delegates. Trump will most likely win the majority of the delegates by the time of the republican convention, but if he doesn't reach the 1237 threshold Ted Cruz and the establishment will probably implement some corrupt rule change to deny Trump the nomination.

Why even bother voting when these political party elites have created these obscure, disgraceful rules and regulations that have essentially rendered our votes worthless?

Then I gather you do not believe in the tenth amendment to the Constitution. These "obscure, disgraceful rules and regulations" have been set up by the various state parties. These are not government organizations, but private ones and some of the states cooperate with regard to special elections. Even if this were processes of the federal government, we do not live in a simple democracy, as populists would like. Originally, the Senators were not elected by popular vote, but were appointed by whatever means each state chose. In the actual election, we have the electoral college to make sure that the states with large metropolitan centers can not control the presidency by shear numbers. Since Washington State electors are assigned on an all or nothing basis, that is the situation we are in, in this state. King and Peirce counties, the most populous, choose the President and Senators.

Why is the primary election process in the United States so.... stupid? Why don't we just have a nation wide election on one single day instead of spacing out the elections over several months? Why do we have delegates in the primary process at all? Why don't we just elect the guy/girl who wins the majority of the votes and trash all of this delegate nonsense?

If by "we" you mean the general citizenry, "we" don't elect the candidates. The individual parties, being private organizations, get to make their own rules. The reason they do not just have one day nominating elections is because neither of them is the Populist party. The general pubic is under the impression that the choosing of candidates is a federal process, because two parties have dominated for so long, people equate them with the federal government. In fact, candidates have never been elected in primaries, they have been elected by various means at the conventions. The primaries and caucuses just choose who goes to the conventions.

[WinePusher]

Then I gather you do not believe in the tenth amendment to the Constitution.

What did I write that would cause you to reach such an absurd conclusion?

These "obscure, disgraceful rules and regulations" have been set up by the various state parties. These are not government organizations, but private ones and some of the states cooperate with regard to special elections.

I don't care. We're talking about free and fair elections, and by definition any election that is bogged down with overly complicated, contrived rules and regulations is neither free nor fair.

Even if this were processes of the federal government, we do not live in a simple democracy, as populists would like.

Actually, both the republican and democratic party are nominating people to run the executive branch of the federal government.

Originally, the Senators were not elected by popular vote, but were appointed by whatever means each state chose. In the actual election, we have the electoral college to make sure that the states with large metropolitan centers can not control the presidency by shear numbers. Since Washington State electors are assigned on an all or nothing basis, that is the situation we are in, in this state. King and Peirce counties, the most populous, choose the President and Senators.

This is all irrelevant. Yes, the way the Congress is designed is so that ALL states, regardless of population, have equal representation through the Senate while more heavily populated states will have more representation through the House. That's all great, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying regarding the corrupt and scandalous primary election process currently taking place.

Rather then space out the primaries across several months, and rather than placing such inordinate emphasis on the delegate count, we should just have the election held on one day in the same way the general election is done. How can anyone disagree with this?

Why is the primary election process in the United States so.... stupid? Why don't we just have a nation wide election on one single day instead of spacing out the elections over several months? Why do we have delegates in the primary process at all? Why don't we just elect the guy/girl who wins the majority of the votes and trash all of this delegate nonsense?

If by "we" you mean the general citizenry, "we" don't elect the candidates. The individual parties, being private organizations, get to make their own rules.

Wow. I heard a republican party insider say the exact same thing and I'm surprised that you actually agree with this highly offensive and highly repulsive opinion. In this case we should just trash all the elections and just allow party insiders to decide who the nominee will be at the convention.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 3:

What did I write that would cause you to reach such an absurd conclusion?

Your next sentence...

I don't care.

It's absurd in, that if ya didn't care, well what the heck was all that postining about, on the stuff it was, ya didn't care.

"I don't care me so much, here I sit, I'm a-gonna respond me to it!"

That's as goofy as the pretty thing there asking me why it is, I'm a chasin' her round the pool. "Ya big ol' pretty thing, it's 'cause ya won't stop long enough I can get me my hands on ya!"

[bluethread]

Then I gather you do not believe in the tenth amendment to the Constitution.

What did I write that would cause you to reach such an absurd conclusion?

Well, primaries are not, nor have they ever been, part of federal law. The equal protection clause and the voting rights act do control access, counting and funding of elections. However, parties, being private organizations, are not bound by the results of those elections, nor are they required to use elections at all.

These "obscure, disgraceful rules and regulations" have been set up by the various state parties. These are not government organizations, but private ones and some of the states cooperate with regard to special elections.

I don't care. We're talking about free and fair elections, and by definition any election that is bogged down with overly complicated, contrived rules and regulations is neither free nor fair.

The elections are not effected. They follow the guidelines of the voting rights act. However, an election is merely an information gathering device. What is done with that information is up to the controlling authority. The actual election of the President and federal congress are dictated by the Constitution, enabling legislation and judicial review. However, in accordance with the tenth amendment of the Constitution, all other elections, and the uses of their results, are left to the people and the states respectively.

Even if this were processes of the federal government, we do not live in a simple democracy, as populists would like.

Actually, both the republican and democratic party are nominating people to run the executive branch of the federal government.

Nominating is the operative term here. There are a myriad of parties nominating people to run the executive branch of the federal government. Some of them are only in a few states, yet the federal government does not mandate their primary procedures. Some just put up a candidate without a vote.

This is all irrelevant. Yes, the way the Congress is designed is so that ALL states, regardless of population, have equal representation through the Senate while more heavily populated states will have more representation through the House. That's all great, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying regarding the corrupt and scandalous primary election process currently taking place.

No, I was not talking about the number of senators, but how they are chosen. I am also talking about the electoral college. The first used to be designated by each state as it saw fit. If they went with the third person to use a particular public restroom on a particular day, then that was perfectly legal. Now, all senators are elected by popular vote, which disenfranchises rural counties, in states with large metropolitan areas. The electoral college is what the whole Bush/Gore recount was all about. It did not matter who got the most votes nationwide, it's the number of electors in the electoral college.

Rather then space out the primaries across several months, and rather than placing such inordinate emphasis on the delegate count, we should just have the election held on one day in the same way the general election is done. How can anyone disagree with this?

Those who are not populists disagree. Those who believe that the federal government should not dictate to the states and private organizations how they should do things also disagree.

Why is the primary election process in the United States so.... stupid? Why don't we just have a nation wide election on one single day instead of spacing out the elections over several months? Why do we have delegates in the primary process at all? Why don't we just elect the guy/girl who wins the majority of the votes and trash all of this delegate nonsense?

If by "we" you mean the general citizenry, "we" don't elect the candidates. The individual parties, being private organizations, get to make their own rules.

Wow. I heard a republican party insider say the exact same thing and I'm surprised that you actually agree with this highly offensive and highly repulsive opinion. In this case we should just trash all the elections and just allow party insiders to decide who the nominee will be at the convention.

All parties do the same thing, the Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, Communists, . . . everybody. If that is how you feel then maybe you should start the Egalitarian Party with the platform of all things being decided by election and all elections being absolutely binding.

Of course, this post is just to provide information and suggestions, since this is the General Chat thread.

[WinePusher]

Well, primaries are not, nor have they ever been, part of federal law. The equal protection clause and the voting rights act do control access, counting and funding of elections. However, parties, being private organizations, are not bound by the results of those elections, nor are they required to use elections at all.

Yes, and this is an abomination to the democratic ideals that this nation supposedly holds in such high esteem. Because you know, we send our men and women in uniform to fight overseas in order to defend our right to have a handful of corrupt, party insiders decide who can and can't be president.

I don't care. We're talking about free and fair elections, and by definition any election that is bogged down with overly complicated, contrived rules and regulations is neither free nor fair.

The elections are not effected. They follow the guidelines of the voting rights act. However, an election is merely an information gathering device. What is done with that information is up to the controlling authority. The actual election of the President and federal congress are dictated by the Constitution, enabling legislation and judicial review. However, in accordance with the tenth amendment of the Constitution, all other elections, and the uses of their results, are left to the people and the states respectively.

?

I don't even know what your point is. The election is most certainly affected by absurd rules and regulations concerning the delegate count, the convention procedures, the spacing out of state primaries over several months, etc.

Nominating is the operative term here. There are a myriad of parties nominating people to run the executive branch of the federal government. Some of them are only in a few states, yet the federal government does not mandate their primary procedures. Some just put up a candidate without a vote.

And if this is the system you support then don't bother voting. If you support a system in which a nominee is put forth by a handful of party insiders, without any consideration as to what the general public may think, then don't bother voting. Place your faith in the judgment of these party insiders and surrender your voting rights. Your vote doesn't matter in a system where the person who wins the MAJORITY of the popular vote gains the minority of the delegates, which is what happened to Bernie Sanders. You vote doesn't matter in a system where the person who wins the majority of the delegates, but falls short of the made up, arbitrary 1237 threshold, will lose to someone who has a considerably smaller delegate count.

Now, all senators are elected by popular vote, which disenfranchises rural counties, in states with large metropolitan areas.

Basing an election purely upon the popular vote doesn't disenfranchise anybody. The corrupt election system currently in place, which you apparently support, is what is disenfranchising people.

Rather then space out the primaries across several months, and rather than placing such inordinate emphasis on the delegate count, we should just have the election held on one day in the same way the general election is done. How can anyone disagree with this?

Those who are not populists disagree. Those who believe that the federal government should not dictate to the states and private organizations how they should do things also disagree.

I really can't tell if this is a serious argument. If you do intend this to be a serious argument, here are some things you should take into account:

1) Those who are not populists tend to be oligarchs. This election is nicely displaying the differences between the populists (those who believe that the people should determine the nominee) and the oligarchs (those who believe that a small group of elites and insiders should determine the nominee). If you do not believe in populism then surrender your voting rights, plain and simple. Let the corporations, lobbyists, special interests and party elites decide who should be your nominee and your president. This is a system that you may favor, but I find such a system to be completely disgraceful, and a grave affront to everything this country stands for.

2) The 10th amendment states that those powers which are not given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved by the states. Holding the primary elections on a single day (in the same way the general election is done) and choosing the nominee based upon whoever gets the majority of the vote doesn't in any way, shape or form violate the 10th amendment. To suggest that it does would require quite a stretch of the imagination.

[bluethread]

Well, primaries are not, nor have they ever been, part of federal law. The equal protection clause and the voting rights act do control access, counting and funding of elections. However, parties, being private organizations, are not bound by the results of those elections, nor are they required to use elections at all.

Yes, and this is an abomination to the democratic ideals that this nation supposedly holds in such high esteem. Because you know, we send our men and women in uniform to fight overseas in order to defend our right to have a handful of corrupt, party insiders decide who can and can't be president.

No, we send our men and women in uniform to fight overseas in order to defend our right to have a handful of corrupt, party insiders decide who can and can't nominate their candidate for president, who must then must run against a myriad of candidates from other parties and some from no party at all and win a plurality of electors in the electoral college in order to then be president of these United States.

I don't care. We're talking about free and fair elections, and by definition any election that is bogged down with overly complicated, contrived rules and regulations is neither free nor fair.

The elections are not effected. They follow the guidelines of the voting rights act. However, an election is merely an information gathering device. What is done with that information is up to the controlling authority. The actual election of the President and federal congress are dictated by the Constitution, enabling legislation and judicial review. However, in accordance with the tenth amendment of the Constitution, all other elections, and the uses of their results, are left to the people and the states respectively.

?

I don't even know what your point is. The election is most certainly affected by absurd rules and regulations concerning the delegate count, the convention procedures, the spacing out of state primaries over several months, etc.

If you are talking about the actual presidential election, one need not have anything to do with all that. All one needs do is file the proper paper paperwork with enough states and win enough of those states in the general election to get a plurality of the votes in the electoral college.

If, however, you are talking about the manner in which a given party chooses it's nominee, that is entirely up to that given party and is no bodies business but it's own. Are you aware of how each of the following parties choose their nominees? I'm not. nor do I care to know. It is none of my business.

America First Party 2002
American Conservative Party 2008
American Freedom Party 2010 American Third Position Party
America's Party 2008 America's Independent Party
Black Riders Liberation Party 1996
Christian Liberty Party* 1996 American Heritage Party
Citizens Party of the United States 2004 New American Independent Party
Communist Party USA 1919 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties
Freedom Socialist Party 1966
Independent American Party 1998
Justice Party 2011
Modern Whig Party 2007
National Socialist Movement 1974 National Socialist American Workers Freedom Movement World Union of National Socialists
New Black Panther Party 1989
Objectivist Party 2008
Party for Socialism and Liberation 2004
Peace and Freedom Party 1967
Prohibition Party 1869
Reform Party of the United States of America 1995 United We Stand America
Socialist Action 1983 Fourth International
Socialist Alternative 1986 Labor Militant Committee for a Workers' International
Socialist Equality Party 1966 Workers League International Committee of the Fourth International
Socialist Party USA 1973
Socialist Workers Party 1938 Pathfinder tendency (unofficial)
Transhumanist Party 2014
United States Marijuana Party 2002
United States Pacifist Party 1983
United States Pirate Party 2006 Pirate Party International (observer)
Unity Party of America 2004
Veterans Party of America 2013
Workers World Party

Nominating is the operative term here. There are a myriad of parties nominating people to run the executive branch of the federal government. Some of them are only in a few states, yet the federal government does not mandate their primary procedures. Some just put up a candidate without a vote.

And if this is the system you support then don't bother voting. If you support a system in which a nominee is put forth by a handful of party insiders, without any consideration as to what the general public may think, then don't bother voting. Place your faith in the judgment of these party insiders and surrender your voting rights. Your vote doesn't matter in a system where the person who wins the MAJORITY of the popular vote gains the minority of the delegates, which is what happened to Bernie Sanders. You vote doesn't matter in a system where the person who wins the majority of the delegates, but falls short of the made up, arbitrary 1237 threshold, will lose to someone who has a considerably smaller delegate count.

That is your opinion and you have a right to it. However, I'll decide for myself which party or parties I will be involved in and to what extent. I also believe that it is not the place for the federal government to dictate the inner workings of any party. It is good IMO that, to an overwhelmingly large extent, that is still the case in these United States.

Now, all senators are elected by popular vote, which disenfranchises rural counties, in states with large metropolitan areas.

Basing an election purely upon the popular vote doesn't disenfranchise anybody. The corrupt election system currently in place, which you apparently support, is what is disenfranchising people.

Yes, however, based on the "your vote doesn't count" argument, that is the implication. When it comes Senators and the President, in Washington State, only Democrat votes "count", because the metropolitan areas vote overwhelmingly democrat. Therefore, your argument regarding my vote counting works against a raw popular vote. That was the argument of the Federalists, that prevailed in giving us the electoral college.

Those who are not populists disagree. Those who believe that the federal government should not dictate to the states and private organizations how they should do things also disagree.

I really can't tell if this is a serious argument. If you do intend this to be a serious argument, here are some things you should take into account:

1) Those who are not populists tend to be oligarchs. This election is nicely displaying the differences between the populists (those who believe that the people should determine the nominee) and the oligarchs (those who believe that a small group of elites and insiders should determine the nominee). If you do not believe in populism then surrender your voting rights, plain and simple. Let the corporations, lobbyists, special interests and party elites decide who should be your nominee and your president. This is a system that you may favor, but I find such a system to be completely disgraceful, and a grave affront to everything this country stands for.

This is nothing more that demagoguery. Oligarchy in private institutions does not equate to oligarchy in the main. Also, rule by the 51%, or less in the case of a plurality, can also be viewed as oligarchy, more specifically the tyranny of the majority. If it were not for this so called "oligarchy" you refer to, we would not have the bill of rights, but merely the rule of the majority, as they had in France.

2) The 10th amendment states that those powers which are not given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved by the states. Holding the primary elections on a single day (in the same way the general election is done) and choosing the nominee based upon whoever gets the majority of the vote doesn't in any way, shape or form violate the 10th amendment. To suggest that it does would require quite a stretch of the imagination.

They are reserved by the states and the people respectively. If the states and the people wish to pass a constitutional amendment making that so, then yes that is possible. However, until then, any such imposition on the part of the federal government is a violation of the 10th amendment and I will fight to the death any such amendment or imposition.

[WinePusher]

No, we send our men and women in uniform to fight overseas in order to defend our right to have a handful of corrupt, party insiders decide who can and can't nominate their candidate for president, who must then must run against a myriad of candidates from other parties and some from no party at all and win a plurality of electors in the electoral college in order to then be president of these United States.

It's very sad if this is actually what you believe bluethread. It would understandable for party elites to hold such an opinion, but for an ordinary citizen (which I presume you are) to say that a handful party insiders can block the will of the people just makes no sense. And in trying to justify this incongruous opinion, you have completely distorted the meaning of the 10th amendment. Also, I would like to know if you think that corporations and individual millionaires and billionaires should be legally permitted to pour obscene amounts of money into elections.

I don't even know what your point is. The election is most certainly affected by absurd rules and regulations concerning the delegate count, the convention procedures, the spacing out of state primaries over several months, etc.

If you are talking about the actual presidential election, one need not have anything to do with all that. All one needs do is file the proper paper paperwork with enough states and win enough of those states in the general election to get a plurality of the votes in the electoral college.

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying though. Again, please try to understand my point. When someone like Bernie Sanders wins the majority of the votes but receives a smaller portion of the delegates, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. When Colorado holds a convention rather than an election or a caucus, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. When the will of the public is trumped by a few party insiders, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system.

But then again, there are people like you who are just perfectly fine with the will of the public being usurped by a few oligarchs.

If, however, you are talking about the manner in which a given party chooses it's nominee, that is entirely up to that given party and is no bodies business but it's own. Are you aware of how each of the following parties choose their nominees? I'm not. nor do I care to know. It is none of my business.

And this is where we differ. In your mind, the political party is made up only of a few elite oligarchs, and what they say matters most. In my mind, the political party is made up of it's actual members, the registered voters who choose to affiliate with the party. If the voters who are affiliated with the party want to nominate one candidate, and the party oligarchs wants another candidate, well apparently in your mind the party oligarchs win.

So it's very simple bluethread, if it's all up to the party oligarchs then stop holding elections and surrender your voting rights. Your vote doesn't matter, all that matters is what a few oligarchs say.

And if this is the system you support then don't bother voting. If you support a system in which a nominee is put forth by a handful of party insiders, without any consideration as to what the general public may think, then don't bother voting. Place your faith in the judgment of these party insiders and surrender your voting rights. Your vote doesn't matter in a system where the person who wins the MAJORITY of the popular vote gains the minority of the delegates, which is what happened to Bernie Sanders. You vote doesn't matter in a system where the person who wins the majority of the delegates, but falls short of the made up, arbitrary 1237 threshold, will lose to someone who has a considerably smaller delegate count.

That is your opinion and you have a right to it. However, I'll decide for myself which party or parties I will be involved in and to what extent. I also believe that it is not the place for the federal government to dictate the inner workings of any party. It is good IMO that, to an overwhelmingly large extent, that is still the case in these United States.

Huge non-sequitur. Would you mind responding the what I actually wrote? If you support a system in which a nominee is put forth by a handful of party insiders, without any consideration as to what the general public may think, then why do you bother voting? That is the question of this thread after all. Mind answering it?

1) Those who are not populists tend to be oligarchs. This election is nicely displaying the differences between the populists (those who believe that the people should determine the nominee) and the oligarchs (those who believe that a small group of elites and insiders should determine the nominee). If you do not believe in populism then surrender your voting rights, plain and simple. Let the corporations, lobbyists, special interests and party elites decide who should be your nominee and your president. This is a system that you may favor, but I find such a system to be completely disgraceful, and a grave affront to everything this country stands for.

This is nothing more that demagoguery. Oligarchy in private institutions does not equate to oligarchy in the main. Also, rule by the 51%, or less in the case of a plurality, can also be viewed as oligarchy, more specifically the tyranny of the majority. If it were not for this so called "oligarchy" you refer to, we would not have the bill of rights, but merely the rule of the majority, as they had in France.

Um, do you know what an oligarchy is? The bill of rights was formulated and ratified by several congresses, not by an oligarchy. If you think that having a congress or any type of legislative body amounts to having an oligarchy, then I would simply suggest that you look up what the definition of having an oligarchy is.

2) The 10th amendment states that those powers which are not given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved by the states. Holding the primary elections on a single day (in the same way the general election is done) and choosing the nominee based upon whoever gets the majority of the vote doesn't in any way, shape or form violate the 10th amendment. To suggest that it does would require quite a stretch of the imagination.

They are reserved by the states and the people respectively.

Right, and everything you have written in this thread has thoroughly demonstrated that in your opinion, what the people say doesn't matter. All that matters is what a handful of party elites say.

If the states and the people wish to pass a constitutional amendment making that so, then yes that is possible. However, until then, any such imposition on the part of the federal government is a violation of the 10th amendment and I will fight to the death any such amendment or imposition.

So basically, you would "fight to the death" to allow party insiders to disenfranchise the general public. If the republican or democratic voters want a certain candidate, but the party insiders want another candidate, then you would "fight to the death" to defend what the party insiders want. Ok then.

[bluethread]

No, we send our men and women in uniform to fight overseas in order to defend our right to have a handful of corrupt, party insiders decide who can and can't nominate their candidate for president, who must then must run against a myriad of candidates from other parties and some from no party at all and win a plurality of electors in the electoral college in order to then be president of these United States.

It's very sad if this is actually what you believe bluethread. It would understandable for party elites to hold such an opinion, but for an ordinary citizen (which I presume you are) to say that a handful party insiders can block the will of the people just makes no sense. And in trying to justify this incongruous opinion, you have completely distorted the meaning of the 10th amendment. Also, I would like to know if you think that corporations and individual millionaires and billionaires should be legally permitted to pour obscene amounts of money into elections.

Interesting that you bring up millionaires and billionaires. How are they pouring obscene amounts of money into elections? Are they handing out money at the polls, giving money directly to candidates or promising favors to those who vote as they like? Oh yah, there are politicians that promise to hand out government benefits, if they are elected. Is that what you are talking about? Money spent on publicity is not corruption. It's speech. That is what the Citizens United decision was all about. I am surprised to see a free market economist like yourself calling for a federal cap on advertising. We are talking about the internal workings of private institutions anyway, not general elections. Should employment agencies be required to hold binding public elections to decide who they will propose for a given position? This is an employment process after all.

I don't even know what your point is. The election is most certainly affected by absurd rules and regulations concerning the delegate count, the convention procedures, the spacing out of state primaries over several months, etc.

If you are talking about the actual presidential election, one need not have anything to do with all that. All one needs do is file the proper paper paperwork with enough states and win enough of those states in the general election to get a plurality of the votes in the electoral college.

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying though. Again, please try to understand my point. When someone like Bernie Sanders wins the majority of the votes but receives a smaller portion of the delegates, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. When Colorado holds a convention rather than an election or a caucus, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. When the will of the public is trumped by a few party insiders, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system.

But then again, there are people like you who are just perfectly fine with the will of the public being usurped by a few oligarchs.

It's THEIR system. It is not the public's system. If we were to have an election regarding who should run this web site, should Onteg step down, just because there was a vote? There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a private organization deciding for themselves how they will use election results, especially when that usage was clearly stated before the election. In fact, most of our government is not only run by unelected individuals, but unelected individuals who can not be fired.

If, however, you are talking about the manner in which a given party chooses it's nominee, that is entirely up to that given party and is no bodies business but it's own. Are you aware of how each of the following parties choose their nominees? I'm not. nor do I care to know. It is none of my business.

And this is where we differ. In your mind, the political party is made up only of a few elite oligarchs, and what they say matters most. In my mind, the political party is made up of it's actual members, the registered voters who choose to affiliate with the party. If the voters who are affiliated with the party want to nominate one candidate, and the party oligarchs wants another candidate, well apparently in your mind the party oligarchs win.

No, I never said that. I said that it is up to the members of the party. If the members of the party want an oligarchy, who am I to say otherwise?

So it's very simple bluethread, if it's all up to the party oligarchs then stop holding elections and surrender your voting rights. Your vote doesn't matter, all that matters is what a few oligarchs say.

My vote doesn't matter, because I am not a member of the party. If they want to have an election that only effects a certain number of delegates, or is only a guide to a few oligarchs, why should what I think matter?

]
Huge non-sequitur. Would you mind responding the what I actually wrote? If you support a system in which a nominee is put forth by a handful of party insiders, without any consideration as to what the general public may think, then why do you bother voting? That is the question of this thread after all. Mind answering it?

How do you know they are doing so "without any consideration as to what the general public may think"? I think they are taking the election results into consideration. However, you do make a good point. Why in the world are there open primaries? Why should the general public be deciding who a private organization is going to nominate?

1) Those who are not populists tend to be oligarchs. This election is nicely displaying the differences between the populists (those who believe that the people should determine the nominee) and the oligarchs (those who believe that a small group of elite]

This is nothing more that demagoguery. Oligarchy in private institutions does not equate to oligarchy in the main. Also, rule by the 51%, or less in the case of a plurality, can also be viewed as oligarchy, more specifically the tyranny of the majority. If it were not for this so called "oligarchy" you refer to, we would not have the bill of rights, but merely the rule of the majority, as they had in France.

Um, do you know what an oligarchy is? The bill of rights was formulated and ratified by several congresses, not by an oligarchy. If you think that having a congress or any type of legislative body amounts to having an oligarchy, then I would simply suggest that you look up what the definition of having an oligarchy is.

You're the one who said, "Those who are not populists tend to be oligarchs." Rather than get side tracked by this false dichotomy, I just applied it to how a republic works. However, since you now seem to be arguing that representative government is somehow populism, why are representatives permitted to change their positions while in office? Also, how is it that you think the party elites got to be party elites?

2) The 10th amendment states that those powers which are not given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved by the states. Holding the primary elections on a single day (in the same way the general election is done) and choosing the nominee based upon whoever gets the majority of the vote doesn't in any way, shape or form violate the 10th amendment. To suggest that it does would require quite a stretch of the imagination.

They are reserved by the states and the people respectively.

Right, and everything you have written in this thread has thoroughly demonstrated that in your opinion, what the people say doesn't matter. All that matters is what a handful of party elites say.

No, I am saying that only what the party people say matters, in their party. If they want to ask me what I think, I may or may not tell them. However, what they do with that information is entirely up to them. Do you really think I have a right to force others to do what I want, just because they asked me my opinion?

If the states and the people wish to pass a constitutional amendment making that so, then yes that is possible. However, until then, any such imposition on the part of the federal government is a violation of the 10th amendment and I will fight to the death any such amendment or imposition.

So basically, you would "fight to the death" to allow party insiders to disenfranchise the general public. If the republican or democratic voters want a certain candidate, but the party insiders want another candidate, then you would "fight to the death" to defend what the party insiders want. Ok then.

Those are two different statements. First, yes , I would "fight to the death" for the right to keep the general public out of my business and for that right to apply in the same way to any other person or organization. Second, if the members of a party, be it Republican, Democrat, or WinePusher party, want to ignore primary results and choose their candidate with a rock-paper-scissors contest, that is none of my affair. If I do happen to be a member of such a party and it was declared that was the case before the primary, I have no one to blame but myself for not being more involved before now.