To quote Mark Twain: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."

Each state decides how its delegate system will work. Some allow "winner-take-all;" others do not. If Trump has 37% of the vote, why does he have 45% of the delegates? Because the different states have different systems. Don't let Trump get you excited. He's a whiner. He wants you to get mad if he doesn't win, so you won't vote.

The conventions aren't about electing the nominees, but about choosing delegates who then select the nominees. You are arguing for democracy when what this nation has always been is a republic.

Trump is only getting hosed by his own failure to know the rules going in. The rules are in favor of an "establishment" Republican, because they favor someone who has the political ties to the individual voting districts in the various states and not just to the unwashed masses. Cruz is just a better organizer and has a better political apparatus to secure delegates than Trump.

(For all those who keep arguing that all we need in a President is someone who is a good administrator, I would argue that we also need someone who knows what the rules are. Trump doesn't impress me with either of these skills at the present time.)

How can I put this? I know...

The Dems have "SuperDelegates" that are like wildcards thrown in the deck to make sure the political status quo remains. Then they need "Superduperdelegates" whose vote counts for 2 of the regular vote. Then you have the Superdupersecretdelegates whose votes override everything else, they don't have to tell you who they voted for, who paid them off (and how much).

What we're seeing is the Republican attempt to replicate the "Will of the elect" that the dems run. Hell, they figure, if a handful of superspecial people can determine who will be president on their side, by gum, we should be doing the same thing. Who needs these silly serfs - WE know what WE think is best for them, and they will learn to like it. Sawdust Soup, anyone?

Vote? People? Why? You think you have a say? Oh wait... Will give you a fake "vote" complete with a voting booth and ballots (sorry, Chad won't be there), none of it's real, but you think it is... And then we have the big TV special and feed you pre-determined programming pabulum to make you think you elected so-and-so... even tho no one voted for them.

Thats true, so true, just there is not much left to pick from, the Constitution party sounded good until you read their manifesto and realize the christian republcrats all bailed and started it, they are trying to change the basis of the whole constitution and add in all "they" think was left out.

"Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning. Not A Newspaper!"
+1
+100 if I could!

Not to get into a sideways debate, but it would be my question of: Was this vote based on a real evaluation of what the candidate will represent, or what the party wanted? The mainstream Republicrats all say they hate Cruz, ignore him in the Senate, and he has never accomplished any changes for the better, yet the rank and file believe he is the best choice? I would have thought a "go back and try again" vote would have been more considered, if none of the choices are supportable. That is one of the issues here this year, what happens when not one candidate was able to reflect the majority of the members? You get the best of a bad lot.

Thats true Rich, no arguments. I am just disgusted with the the whole "play by my rules or get out" mentality, which is also the one you get with all politicians as well as government and is why it is not they who serve us, but we who exist to serve them, which is one of the point AR was trying to make. Yet we continue to allow it to go one, because 80% think if you are not one of the 2 identical parties, you just don't matter, not realizing a mass defection to a new one would really shake their trees.

I live in Colorado and we elected delegates at the precinct level that were overwhelmingly Cruz people. When they went to district they selected Cruz supporters and when the district delegates went to the state convention they selected Cruz people.

Yep, we're a bit removed, but things worked out like we wanted 'em to.

Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, Not A Newspaper!

Each party is responsible for determining how they select a nominee. It can be "fair" or "unfair". I think it's a mess and switched to Libertarian a long time ago. The elites in both parties hate when someone tries to crash the party.

Exactly. Spot on.

I find the whole system is corrupt and rigged, and easily manipulated, but there is no system I can think of that is not so subject when the populace thinks like herd animals.

John, he is as much a looter as any politician or businessman today (that does not include smaller companies that actually produce) but it is a collection of looter foisted on us, so all there is, isi a choice of the least offensive.

I heard it explained somewhere that the delegate system was in place to insure the people don't make a choice they'd regret...fat chance now days, they are just as easily fooled, bought or just as uninformed.
I think at one time they were unapproachable and not out in the open like now,
Read an article earlier about a 100 or so Ron Paul delegates that aren't so well known that might help tip the balance at the convention.

Ah, but then it becomes a pure democracy, which our founding fathers knew was a sure road to despotism. Granted, the system, as it is currently practiced, is very flawed with all the special interests (read labor unions and welfare recipients) holding many states in thrall, it is just as unbalanced to the moochers and looters. Trump I consider a looter on the order of James Taggart.