DC Delegates Shocked to See Their Votes Handed to Trump, Instead of Rubio and Kasich

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: RED STATE

URL: http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/07/19/dc-delegates-shocked-see-votes-handed-trump-instead-rubio-kasich/

by: Susan Wright


So here’s the rundown for the DC delegation:

In March, Senator Marco Rubio won DC, garnering 10 of the 19 delegates. Governor John Kasich was awarded 9.

From the Washington Examiner:

   

The DC Republican Party's official rules note that regardless of all other rules regarding binding, "if only one candidate's name is placed in nomination at the Republican National Convention, all delegates shall be bound to vote for such candidate on the first ballot provided that the candidate received votes in the DC presidential preference poll."

    So, because Trump was the only candidate placed in nomination at the convention and because he received some votes in DC, all of the delegates were diverted to Trump.

    However, the story doesn't full end there. The DC delegation said they thought they had worked something out that would allow their votes to be cast in accordance with the popular will of DC.

The national committeeman from DC, Bob Kabel, served on the rules committee. He stated that they felt they had come to an agreement to waive the rules, in order to allow the popular will of DC’s voters to be noted.

Well, in Trump’s party, and with the establishment’s desire to get someone as corrupt as they are in the running, you should never settle for a handshake deal.

   

He said they supported the binding rules in the rules committee because they thought that doing so actually bound their delegates to Rubio and Kasich.

In other words, the will of the people be damned. The establishment were going to have their false god.

The GOP deserves to burn. Too bad a lot of good people will be going down with it.

With that in mind, there are some more than a little upset at why all delegates were handed to Donald Trump, who won none of the delegates in March.

[Mechanicos]

 Red State

Per their rules since nobody else was running all went to the remaining candidate.

[geronl]

Welcome to Fascism.


did you really think Trumpists cared about the "will of the people"?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It is very odd that some of the same people who were demanding that delegates be unbound so they could ignore the will of the voters when it really mattered, have now flipped and are arguing that the will of the voters must be respected.

This is not a new rule, and given that none of those candidates are on the ballot, the rule is reasonable.

[Mechanicos]

It is very odd that some of the same people who were demanding that delegates be unbound so they could ignore the will of the voters when it really mattered, have now flipped and are arguing that the will of the voters must be respected.

This is not a new rule, and given that none of those candidates are on the ballot, the rule is reasonable.

Agreed. Red State omitted the very material fact it was their own State rules caused the result not the RNC or Trump.

[catfish1957]

Red State

Per their rules since nobody else was running all went to the remaining candidate.

Alaskan delegation proved that wrong in their case.   Trump STOLE those delegates, plain and simple.   Pure hypocrisy from the guy who kept whining the system was rigged.

[Mechanicos]

Alaskan delegation proved that wrong in their case.   Trump STOLE those delegates, plain and simple.   Pure hypocrisy from the guy who kept whining the system was rigged.

Stick to the issue, DC not AK. And DC State rules "rigged" the result. Not anybody at the convention. So as always Red State lied for money and insulted your intelligence with this article. That is who your anger should be directed at.

[Doug Loss]

Red State

Per their rules since nobody else was running all went to the remaining candidate.

So the will of the people is only important to you when you think it rebounds to Trump's benefit, eh?  No surprise really, from all your prior posts...

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So the will of the people is only important to you when you think it rebounds to Trump's benefit, eh?  No surprise really, from all your prior posts...

I'd say it is more like the "will of the people is only important" when it is actually...important. 

So when it comes to the core, central issue of determining the nominee, the will of the people is extremely important, and delegates shouldn't be free to ignore that will to vote their own individual consciences.

But more importantly, while there are plusses and minuses to different rules, the point is that they are what they are, and shouldn't be changed after the fact just because some people don't like the nominee.

The DC rule is a candidate- neutral rule that people support in principle because party unity helps the nominee, and the underlying presumptionn is that is what most Republicans would want. 

This is a case of a limited group of people wanting to change the rule established by the people who sent them tgere, simply because they don't like the nominee.

[Doug Loss]

I'd say it is more like the "will of the people is only important" when it is actually...important. 

So when it comes to the core, central issue of determining the nominee, the will of the people is extremely important, and delegates shouldn't be free to ignore that will to vote their own individual consciences.

But more importantly, while there are plusses and minuses to different rules, the point is that they are what they are, and shouldn't be changed after the fact just because some people don't like the nominee.

The DC rule is a candidate- neutral rule that people support in principle because party unity helps the nominee, and the underlying presumptionn is that is what most Republicans would want. 

This is a case of a limited group of people wanting to change the rule established by the people who sent them tgere, simply because they don't like the nominee.

But who determines when it's important and when it isn't?  That person or group is still controlling expressions of the "will of the people," as we just saw at the GOP convention.  I see that you've made a pronouncement of when it is and isn't important.  What makes your opinion on the issue any better than anyone elses'?  The answer of course is, nothing.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

But who determines when it's important and when it isn't?

The people, when they support party rules, and cast their votes under the rules as they exist at the time they cast their ballots.

When people went to the polls to vote in the primaries, they cast their votes knowing what the rules were. And if they didn't, that's on them.   FWIW, the eight state requirement was hardly a secret.

In DC, the rules were that if the candidate for whom you voted did not make it onto the ballot at the convention, your votes would go to someone who was on the ballot. Those were the rules as they existed at the time people cast their ballots, and to change those rules after the ballots are cast is simply wrong.  It changes the meaning of the ballot cast.

My explanation for what was "important" was simply my personal opinion of why DC set the rule that way.  Feel free to ignore it.  The key point is that the rules under which ballots are cast are also part of the representative process, and represent the "will of the people".  In Pa, for example, "the people" chose to leave delegates unbound.

[Doug Loss]

The people, when they support party rules, and cast their votes under the rules as they exist at the time they cast their ballots.

When people went to the polls to vote in the primaries, they cast their votes knowing what the rules were. And if they didn't, that's on them.   FWIW, the eight state requirement was hardly a secret.

In DC, the rules were that if the candidate for whom you voted did not make it onto the ballot at the convention, your votes would go to someone who was on the ballot. Those were the rules as they existed at the time people cast their ballots, and to change those rules after the ballots are cast is simply wrong.  It changes the meaning of the ballot cast.

My explanation for what was "important" was simply my personal opinion of why DC set the rule that way.  Feel free to ignore it.  The key point is that the rules under which ballots are cast are also part of the representative process, and represent the "will of the people".  In Pa, for example, "the people" chose to leave delegates unbound.

Don't worry, I'm quite happy to ignore your personal opinion.  When the GOP refuse to play the game by the rules they set up, the "will of the people" is pretty much meaningless anyway.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Don't worry, I'm quite happy to ignore your personal opinion.  When the GOP refuse to play the game by the rules they set up, the "will of the people" is pretty much meaningless anyway.

You've got it exactly backward.  The "rules they set up" were exactly as i have described, and they required delegates to vote for Trump.  This is from the article:

The DC Republican Party's official rules note that regardless of all other rules regarding binding, "if only one candidate's name is placed in nomination at the Republican National Convention, all delegates shall be bound to vote for such candidate on the first ballot provided that the candidate received votes in the DC presidential preference poll."

It was the delegates who, after the fact, wanted to change the rules under which they were elected.   If they weren't willing to abide by the rules regarding delegate voting, they shouldn't have run for delegate in the first place.

[geronl]

In a Trumpocracy, there is only one candidate.