After a string of losses, Trump rages that the delegate system is 'rigged' and 'corrupt'; RNC Chairm - Polidicks

If Trump wanted to make his point loud and clear, he should sue on behalf of Bernie Sanders in the elections that were rumored to be shady. Like Arizona. That would really get things roaring.

[QUOTE=sb27;50123069]You're talking about a system where it's not unusual for turnout at elections to only be 25%. Would everyone really be pissed?[/QUOTE] Voter turnout has always been in the 50%-60% in the USA

[QUOTE=Ridge;50125204]Colorado GOP cancelled the primaries and just gave all the delegates to Cruz. It's pretty clear that they don't care what the voters actually want.[/QUOTE] It's not like they just decided to not have an election. Their system has been in place for over a year I believe. Remember, we have a republic. The voters elected those people to represent them and they created this system. If the people of Colorado don't like it, then they can elect new representatives next time.

[QUOTE=download;50122458]I'm hoping both Sander and Trump lose by a hair and then both parties rip themselves apart.[/QUOTE] People saying this shit, but all that would probably happen is new precedents would be set in what politians can get away with.

[QUOTE=DuCT;50125285]Voter turnout has always been in the 50%-60% in the USA[/QUOTE] but primaries are around 25% depending.

[QUOTE=patq911;50126116]but primaries are around 25% depending.[/QUOTE] True, Primaries are always lower.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50125354]It's not like they just decided to not have an election. Their system has been in place for over a year I believe. Remember, we have a republic. The voters elected those people to represent them and they created this system. If the people of Colorado don't like it, then they can elect new representatives next time.[/QUOTE] Yea in principle that is possible but to dismiss anger about the political system by saying "if you don't like it change it" entirely ignores and misrepresents the ways in which the system is stacked against the common voter and tooled towards elite interest. One of the biggest ways it accomplishes this is by ensuring widespread disillusionment and voter apathy. Another way is through the concentration of power (esp. money) into the hands of corporate interest groups. The main thing confounding our ability as individual citizens to effectively organize is because mass interest groups seeking reform are so difficult to organize. Effective hyper polarization along party and ideological lines ruins any chance of broad based support of political reform that should be in everyone's interest. These are just a FEW of the things that make the "if you don't like it change it" argument reductionist and uncontextual.

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;50126508]Yea in principle that is possible but to dismiss anger about the political system by saying "if you don't like it change it" entirely ignores and misrepresents the ways in which the system is stacked against the common voter and tooled towards elite interest. One of the biggest ways it accomplishes this is by ensuring widespread disillusionment and voter apathy. Another way is through the concentration of power (esp. money) into the hands of corporate interest groups. The main thing confounding our ability as individual citizens to effectively organize is because mass interest groups seeking reform are so difficult to organize. Effective hyper polarization along party and ideological lines ruins any chance of broad based support of political reform that should be in everyone's interest. These are just a FEW of the things that make the "if you don't like it change it" argument reductionist and uncontextual.[/QUOTE] Can you point to a specific policy where the majority of the voting public (note that this is different than the total population) wanted change, but the change never happened?

[QUOTE=sgman91;50126584]Can you point to a specific policy where the majority of the voting public (note that this is different than the total population) wanted change, but the change never happened?[/QUOTE] One example I would point to is the topic of wealth inequality. Certain polls state that up to 65% think that the distribution of wealth is unfair. Add to that the fact that Americans consistently underestimated the level of wealth inequality, and that American consistently overestimate their own class position (people who fall within the bottom 80% of wealth owners think they would be adversely affected by wealth redistribution when really they would likely benefit the most from it). May be a poor example because how to solve wealth inequality is a contentious issue, but it wouldnt be unfair to say that its something that conceivably could be widely supported and would benefit the majority of Americans but inequality has only been increasing since the 80s. There are other issues that will follow similar trends. What many political scientists are finding is that generally the only significant predictor of whether a government policy is enacted is whether it has support amongst the wealthy elite and/or corporate interest groups (lobbyists etc.). The only times that public support of a policy is a predictor of a policy being enacted is when it happens to align with elite/corporate interest. Add to this that party differences are also rarely a factor. These are features of US politics that supports the idea that the US is functionally an oligarchy.

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;50126697]One example I would point to is the topic of wealth inequality. Certain polls state that up to 65% think that the distribution of wealth is unfair. Add to that the fact that Americans consistently underestimated the level of wealth inequality, and that American consistently overestimate their own class position (people who fall within the bottom 80% of wealth owners think they would be adversely affected by wealth redistribution when really they would likely benefit the most from it). May be a poor example because how to solve wealth inequality is a contentious issue, but it wouldnt be unfair to say that its something that conceivably could be widely supported and would benefit the majority of Americans but inequality has only been increasing since the 80s.[/QUOTE] There's a reason I said specific policy. Not liking wealth inequality is very different from supporting a specific policy on how to fix wealth inequality. If you know of a specific policy supported by a good consistent majority of the voters, then please show it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50126709]There's a reason I said specific policy. Not liking wealth inequality is very different from supporting a specific policy on how to fix wealth inequality. If you know of a specific policy supported by a good consistent majority of the voters, then please show it.[/QUOTE] Idk how specific you want but how about campaign finance reform? NYT did anot article with a poll that showed 86% of adults wanting either fundamental reform or a complete reworking of how campaigns are financed, broadly supported across party lines. Yet no policy changes are enacted by either parties.

[QUOTE=patq911;50126116]but primaries are around 25% depending.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=DuCT;50126332]True, Primaries are always lower.[/QUOTE] Take in account this probably has a lot to do with closed primaries being a thing, preventing much of the population from cross-party voting.