• 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!

the process in both parties is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The constitution regulates state and federal elections. Being private organizations, the constitution doesn't regulate party nominations, therefore party processes can't be unconstitutional.

They have every right to dig their own grave, honestly I hope they do.[/QUOTE

i do respectfully disagree ,again no where are the parties spoken to in the constitution,although the right to vote is ,5 times ,so no the party system can not be constitutional as it does not allow for an open vote .
how do you square the party system with the democratic process,when TRUMP wins a state and cruz gets the lions share of the delegates,no that is unconstitutional,come on man,TRUMP has two million more votes then cruz ,the only reason cruz is still in this is the system is corrupt,and a corrupt system is an unconstitutional system.
i am well aware now what the parties are up to( THANKS TO GOOGLE ) i thought i was an informed voter i was not,but i am now and this is about corruption in both parties,this is not 1972 the cats is out of the bag so to speak,to quote Curly Haugland, a republican party hack,We choose the nominee, not the voters: mr haugland can kiss this voter's posterior.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html

run don run

run don run
 
The constitution regulates state and federal elections. Being private organizations, the constitution doesn't regulate party nominations, therefore party processes can't be unconstitutional.

They have every right to dig their own grave, honestly I hope they do.[/QUOTE

i do respectfully disagree ,again no where are the parties spoken to in the constitution,although the right to vote is ,5 times ,so no the party system can not be constitutional as it does not allow for an open vote .
how do you square the party system with the democratic process,when TRUMP wins a state and cruz gets the lions share of the delegates,no that is unconstitutional,come on man,TRUMP has two million more votes then cruz ,the only reason cruz is still in this is the system is corrupt,and a corrupt system is an unconstitutional system.
i am well aware now what the parties are up to( THANKS TO GOOGLE ) i thought i was an informed voter i was not,but i am now and this is about corruption in both parties,this is not 1972 the cats is out of the bag so to speak,to quote Curly Haugland, a republican party hack,We choose the nominee, not the voters: mr haugland can kiss this voter's posterior.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html

run don run

run don run

It doesn't really matter whether you agree or not. The fact is, the constitution does no say anything about how parties are to pick their candidates, so they are therefore free to pick their candidates however they want. The right to vote only applies to state and federal elections. It doesn't apply to votes cast for the leadership of a private organization.
 
so trump wins the vote and cruz playing by the RNC rules gets the delegates,so my vote does not count, it is all about the party.well the republican party has lost me for ever.
i looked and i still do not see any rnc or dnc rules in the constitution.

The Democratic and Republican parties are private organizations. The Constitution does not apply to them. They can create any rules they want to select a nominee.

Look - people care about the person they vote for. You vote for Trump - or whomever - because that's the person who appeals to you most. Most individuals don't give too much thought to whether the guy they're selecting can actually win in the general election. The party only cares about selecting someone who can win the general election. That's why those rules are in place. To make sure that a popular candidate whom the party doesn't think can win doesn't get the nomination.
 
Well, if the RNC/GOPe were attempting to keep up pretenses, it appears that’s all gone now. During a CNBC interview Curly Haugland explains the RNC will select the republican nominee for president and the primary voters are irrelevant and inconsequential peons to be summarily dismissed.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...l-we-choose-our-nominee-not-the-voters-video/

run don run

Trumpers dont seem to understand that political parties are private organizations...
 
Trumpers dont seem to understand that political parties are private organizations...


"Trumpers dont seem to understand" man that is an adult statement,what is hidden in you statement (not to well) is that people that vote for TRUMP are some how a little slow,no i understand quiet well what is going on and has been going on for to long.
the best you can do is insult millions of A fellow Americans with your "Trumpers dont seem to understand" bs,what a guy.
here is something for you,show me where in the constitution it says anything about parties or their rules,it does not although it does mention the right to vote 5 times.
so for a guy that is so much smarter then us "Trumpers" so show me where the constitution speaks of any political parties.

run don run
 
i agree and thank the DNC is just as bad if not worse,pox on both of their houses,i am a conservative ,i am not a right wing conservative wing nut though,like most Americans i am in the middle,and find no room for voters like me in either party .

run don run

I left the party a few years ago.................. Never looked back.
 
The Democratic and Republican parties are private organizations. The Constitution does not apply to them. They can create any rules they want to select a nominee.

Look - people care about the person they vote for. You vote for Trump - or whomever - because that's the person who appeals to you most. Most individuals don't give too much thought to whether the guy they're selecting can actually win in the general election. The party only cares about selecting someone who can win the general election. That's why those rules are in place. To make sure that a popular candidate whom the party doesn't think can win doesn't get the nomination.

so you are in favor of throwing the constitution under the party buss and let a group of party hacks that represent 23% of all reg voters telling the rest of AMERICA who they will vote for,come on man.

run don run
 
It doesn't really matter whether you agree or not. The fact is, the constitution does no say anything about how parties are to pick their candidates, so they are therefore free to pick their candidates however they want. The right to vote only applies to state and federal elections. It doesn't apply to votes cast for the leadership of a private organization.

exactly my point ,the process is unconstitutional,the fact that the party process does not allow one man one woman one vote is unconstitutional,it is obvious that the party hacks are running this show and can change the rules to fit their likes or dislikes,nothing fair or constitutional about this process.
you hold a vote and the winner wins,but no the parties want to play this shell game with delegates and disenfranchise millions of voters and you thank this is constitutional .
TRUMP has over two million more votes then cruz ,it is obvious that cruz knows how to play the game of disenfranchising voters and the RNC is just to happy to help in any way,come on man.

run don run
 
so you are in favor of throwing the constitution under the party buss and let a group of party hacks that represent 23% of all reg voters telling the rest of AMERICA who they will vote for,come on man.

run don run

I'm not in favor of throwing the Constitution under the bus for any reason. What you're failing to understand that the Constitution does not apply here. The Constitution applies to the government it does not apply to private organizations and political parties are private organizations.
 
exactly my point ,the process is unconstitutional,the fact that the party process does not allow one man one woman one vote is unconstitutional,it is obvious that the party hacks are running this show and can change the rules to fit their likes or dislikes,nothing fair or constitutional about this process.
you hold a vote and the winner wins,but no the parties want to play this shell game with delegates and disenfranchise millions of voters and you thank this is constitutional .
TRUMP has over two million more votes then cruz ,it is obvious that cruz knows how to play the game of disenfranchising voters and the RNC is just to happy to help in any way,come on man.

run don run

Have you actually read anything anyone has said to you?
 
"Trumpers dont seem to understand" man that is an adult statement,what is hidden in you statement (not to well) is that people that vote for TRUMP are some how a little slow,no i understand quiet well what is going on and has been going on for to long.
the best you can do is insult millions of A fellow Americans with your "Trumpers dont seem to understand" bs,what a guy.
here is something for you,show me where in the constitution it says anything about parties or their rules,it does not although it does mention the right to vote 5 times.
so for a guy that is so much smarter then us "Trumpers" so show me where the constitution speaks of any political parties.
Trump is literally arguing that political parties are not private organizations.... They have the right to create their own rules and the rules were set years ago. Trump not understanding them and many of his supporters not understanding them is their own damn fault.
run don run
:lamo
 
Have you actually read anything anyone has said to you?

yes i have and watch your mouth there brother,do not get above your raising ,you are not the only vet here man,and do not talk down to me.
yes i have herd and it is obvious you have not herd what i said, this show put on by both parties under the guise of a political convention is nothing but a shell game put on by the elites to keep control of washington dc and as i said the party process is unconstitutional,it is one man one woman one vote,the fact that both parties are a private entity or not does not matter,no where in the constitution does it say a word about political parties,or their rules,again the DNC and the RNC political process is unconstitutional.



run don run
 
yes i have and watch your mouth there brother,do not get above your raising ,you are not the only vet here man,and do not talk down to me.
yes i have herd and it is obvious you have not herd what i said, this show put on by both parties under the guise of a political convention is nothing but a shell game put on by the elites to keep control of washington dc and as i said the party process is unconstitutional,it is one man one woman one vote,the fact that both parties are a private entity or not does not matter,no where in the constitution does it say a word about political parties,or their rules,again the DNC and the RNC political process is unconstitutional.


run don run

So no, you have not.
 
Well, if the RNC/GOPe were attempting to keep up pretenses, it appears that’s all gone now. During a CNBC interview Curly Haugland explains the RNC will select the republican nominee for president and the primary voters are irrelevant and inconsequential peons to be summarily dismissed.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...l-we-choose-our-nominee-not-the-voters-video/



run don run

Of course they will........

And have been doing so in the same manner and rules for a very long time..........

"Private Clubs" can make up all the rules they want to follow without concern of government intervention declaring lack of constitutionality.........and it says so in the Constitution is a couple of places.......

Political parties are private clubs.............if you join you're subject to their rules......... none of this "I'll follow this rule but not that one"........

Further more if you think political parties are to follow democratic procedures .............. your may be in Lala land........


If you must need an example.........we elect representatives to Congress.......... and they are free agent to vote as they see fit even if their constituency feels other wise........


That is called Republicanism .................... or something like that.........

SEE:

The republican form of government legal definition of The republican form of government
 
Obviously, the constitution has nothing to do with political party rules. I think the problem is pretty straightforward. The question is should voters determine the nominees or should the party insiders. Either is fine in my view. However, if the insiders are the ones charged with the nomination then it is ridiculous to have primary elections. I think that is where the problem is. The parties basically invite the voters to choose the nominee as long as the result appeals to the insiders. If not, then the insiders take over, making the primary election corrupt. If the insiders want to hold the nomination power then they need to get rid of the primary elections.
 
The parties are private organizations and can do what ever they want within the party rules.

So the question then becomes a simple one: why should private organizations be given such free and complete access to the ballot process in public elections?

Eventually, we are going to have to face this question and decide if it is fair and acceptable to most people that political parties be able to enjoy the best of both worlds - first their autonomy to do things the way they want to because they are private groups, while at the same time playing an integral and essential role in the public election process for government office.

One big obstacle of course is that the very people who would have to reform that process are members of the parties and it is difficult to imagine them weakening their parties independence through laws which begin to tell those same parties how to conduct their business.

A far more likely remedy would come from internal party mechanism such as the McGovern commission that tried to reform party nomination procedures after the 68 election.

Perhaps a massive GOP loss in November would cause the republicans to look inward and make the necessary changes in their own process? We shall see.
 
Back
Top Bottom