Colorado Caucus Sets Disturbing Precedent For Future Caucuses, Primaries And Elections

Will Colorado’s voterless caucus set a dangerous precedent in America’s election system?

The National GOP’s power is so great nationwide that Colorado decided to hold a caucus that no citizen of Colorado was allowed to vote for who they wanted to nominate on the republican ticket for president. In my opinion this type of behavior sets a dangerous precedent for not only caucuses, but also primaries and general elections.

Although The State of Colorado and others claim this action is legal, it has left a bad taste in the mouths of most Americans and a foul odor in the air. Like myself, even if their favorite candidate loses an election or caucus, we like to know that we were given a chance to VOTE. Donald Trump has every right to scream to people on TV that he feels he was cheated, simply because he was.

The fact that Trump didn’t actively campaign in Colorado doesn’t mean that they can pull “dirty tricks” then call him a whiner when he complains that Cruz has pulled another fast one as he did in the Iowa Caucus when he told his crew to publicly state that Ben Carson had suspended his campaign, then asked the Carson’s delegates to vote for him. That’s two good ones for Lying Ted.

But the important issue here is not who wins the nomination, rather it is the dangerous precedent being set for the American election system. In the future, the nation’s president could be elected by people who become powerful enough to say they speak for the people and there is no need for them to vote. Scary thought? Yes, it is a scary thought but a very plausible thought. In every way, both major parties are slowly chipping away at our Constitutional rights. They have slowly passed unconstitutional laws to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. What’s next, selecting nominees or elected officials without citizens being assured of their right to vote! Shame on you Colorado GOP!

14 thoughts on “Colorado Caucus Sets Disturbing Precedent For Future Caucuses, Primaries And Elections”

  1. “But the important issue here is not who wins the nomination, rather it is the dangerous precedent being set for the American election system. In the future, the nation’s president could be elected by people who become powerful enough to say they speak for the people and there is no need for them to vote.”

    There are a couple of problems here, Don, both with your understanding of “precedent” and your prediction for the future.

    1. The GOP is not a government institution. It is a private organization. In the United States, private organizations have the freedom to choose their candidates, nominees and officials in any manner they see fit. When, pray tell, is IPOD having its primary elections for any office whatsoever?

    2. The Founding Fathers never intended to have popular votes for Senators, let alone Presidents. The way the Founders intended presidential elections to work is pretty clear:

    “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”

    The way that Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist, Number 68:

    “It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favourable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements that were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation.”

    The notion of popular election of presidential electors, or the idea that they would be bound to the result of state elections, was not intended by the Founding Fathers in the first place, Don.

    So, is there “precedent” for having an elite group decide the outcome of the presidential election? Yes – it was the original Constitutional system in the first place (along with only white men being allowed to vote for anyone).

    But, here, we aren’t even talking about the presidential election – which the Founders did not intend to be put to a popular vote of any sort. Instead we are talking about the process by which a private organization nominates their own candidate for office. Are you saying that the government should be setting rules for how private organizations conduct their business, Don?

    What are you, some kind of socialist?

  2. Nit:
    There is no misunderstanding or is there a failure to spot the truth when I see it. The post is labeled both commentary and opinion.
    I’ve stated that the people have the right to vote for something as important and their nominee for president of the United States.

    You have the right to your opinion and I’ve already stated mine on this issue.
    You must have been waiting in the wings on this one, you commented within minutes of my posting. Thank you for watching and commenting.

    BTW, I’ve just finished reading Federalist Paper 68 by Hamilton and did you realize that John Adams and Alexander Hamilton were at odds with Thomas Jefferson, Madison and most of the continental congress over how the government was to be run.
    Adams and Hamilton wanted a king with a parliament and most of the rest of the founding fathers wanted a Constitutional Republic. These two political ideologies prevailed until Jefferson became president and Adams left the presidency. I, for one am satisfied the the idea of a Constitutional Republic prevailed.

  3. “I, for one am satisfied the the idea of a Constitutional Republic prevailed.”

    Which still has nothing to do with either popular election of the president, or the manner in which private political parties decide to appoint their nominees.

    There are a lot of ways to configure elections in a Constitutional Republic, which is certainly not a direct democracy.

    Perhaps you might remind us all, Don, of how many primaries were won by Jefferson in order to become the nominee of his party.

    Also, Don, could you remind us of what the vote totals were for the 1800 election, and how that election was decided?

    Because the election of Jefferson was precisely decided by: “people who become powerful enough to say they speak for the people and there is no need for them to vote”.

    So, let me see if I understand you, since you are happy with the way the election went down in 1800 – you’d rather have state legislatures picking the electors with no popular vote at all, and then you’d rather have the House of Representatives decide who is president after 34 rounds of voting. Is that correct, Don?

  4. Nit
    You have completely changed the subject to the election of 1800 of Jefferson, in a vain attempt to make that work as an analogy for the Colorado Caucus. You are a mess.
    You do use Saul Alinsky tactics!

  5. “You have completely changed the subject”

    Don, your post is about “precedent” – i.e. examples of things which happened in the past that are used for guidance in the future. You brought up Jefferson’s election, for reasons which are not at all clear, since the Constitution was ratified 11 years before that.

    But you still have yet to explain why a party nominating process is required to work the way you want it to. You aren’t even a Republican, so what’s it to you?

  6. @Nitpicker
    But you still have yet to explain why a party nominating process is required to work the way you want it to. You aren’t even a Republican, so what’s it to you?

    It’s not only the way I want it, most of the US believes the Colorado Caucus system needs to be upgraded, if you haven’t been watching the news or social media.

    You’re correct that I am not a Republican. I ditched their sorry asses about two and a half years ago, if my memory serves me right. I’ve recently been elected as Chairman of The Independent Party of Delaware, and can now really build the party right.
    But you forget that many people are voting for Donald Trump, so it is my business and well as many republicans, democrats and unaffiliated independents. That’s what it is to me!!!!!

  7. “I’ve recently been elected as Chairman of The Independent Party of Delaware…”

    Congratulations. What was your margin of victory over your opponent in that election?

  8. @Nit
    Your question is a sarcastic one since you know the answer to the question you ask. I will tell you the answer to that anyway. I was nominated by one of the party’s Board of Directors and won by a unanimous vote. I know what your next useless path of bullshit will be, so I’ll save you the trouble so you can relax with a scotch.
    My small party election is NOT analogous with the presidential nomination election.
    Give it a break!

  9. @Nitpicker
    If I register as iPod, do I get to demand a recount?

    If you register with IPoD, we will sue the Dept. of elections for everything we can think of.

  10. I fail to see how Ted Cruz pulled “another fast one” in the case of the Colorado delegates. The Republican caucus in Colorado afforded all registered Colorado Republicans the opportunity to go out and elect delegates to represent them. These delegates are self binding —which is why Cruz/his organization could go out and recruit them. Trump had the same opportunity but didn’t take advantage of it. Cruz/his organization did not make the rules —they were made back when there were 17 Republican candidates when Cruz was not heard much from. In my own mind, I do believe it was set up this way to favor J. Bush or M. Rubio although I could be wrong. As far as the Carson thing goes —-CNN was the one who reported that Carson was leaving Iowa early and speculated that he was suspending his campaign. So how did Cruz become the “liar” that spread false rumors? Rubio’s campaign also pushed the narrative because of the same CNN report. Cruz stood up and admitted that his campaign made a mistake and took full blame for it as well as apologized.
    I don’t like caucuses –just have a primary election and have it over with and let the best man win. As an Independent, I don’t get to vote at all in a caucus or primary election so have no say whatsoever in who the nominee will be. I don’t like Trump at all —his “Make America Great Again” sounds too much like “Hope and Change” to me. He talks a great game and I like his bluntness but he has not convinced me that he is the best candidate. I am also very much against his idea of what Eminent Domain is, for one thing; I can’t quite grasp the details of his health care reform plan. I am very wary after the past 8 years of incompetence. On the other hand, Clinton and Sanders are the final straws in the destruction of America as I knew her.

  11. @annie
    Thanks for you honest and heartfelt comment. There are many opinions on this issue and you makes some good points the way you see them.
    I like commenters that can make a point because that’s what they believe or understand about a certain situation.

Comments are closed.