I used this guide: John Kasich is in second place in Maryland, which clarified matters somewhat. Kasich canceling two public events in Indiana today clarified them still more. Besides, if I’m telling people to suck it up and vote strategically, well, do as I say AND as I do.
Also: if you live in Pennsylvania, this is your delegate guide.
Moe Lane
PS: Yeah, I know: I was arguing voting straight Cruz as recently as last week. Circumstances changed. And those vegetables aren’t going to eat themselves.
Moe is Adulting today. Which is generally no different than any other day.
.
.
Thankfully I was able to both vote conscience and strategically in one (unlike dead Chicagans who just vote multiple times) for Cruz, but would have gladly pulled the lever for Marco had he had a shot at winning NC.
I voted for Cruz in Michigan. Because I want Ted Cruz to win; not because I dislike any other candidate.
.
.
.
That said, I understand the concept of strategic voting, but I think it does require a certain mindset to vote that way (I want to stop this guy, but my guy doesn’t have a chance, so I vote for this third guy). Are there enough primary voters who think that way to make this work?
Oh, I want Ted Cruz to win, too. But getting it to an open convention is where I’m at, now. 🙂
This has pretty much been the foundation of our two-party system for 150 years, although usually applied to the General. Since our primary has become 50-something mini general elections the same rules and considerations now apply.
.
.
.
Sorta. I prefer Cruz by a long shot, but the shadow-primary for actual delegates is… “clunky” on a good day. If the players were reversed, I’d be quite annoyed.
Having (reluctantly) hopped aboard the Cruz bandwagon, I find today’s exit polls so far to be…disheartening. Oh, not about the vote count necessarily — I haven’t tried to figure out where that might go — but the attitudes people are expressing re: “the convention delegates should go for whoever has the most votes.” Of course I expect Trump backers to say that, because they frequently confuse the concepts of self-interest and fair play. But going off the numbers, not all of the people who are saying that can be supporting Trump. And that’s not a good thing.
.
When you can’t even get anywhere near a clear majority of Republicans to defend a basic principle of republicanism (to wit, that “delegate” and “representative” are not synonyms for “flunky” or “stooge”), then it’s a bad day for America. Because you know the Democrats won’t defend it, unless it’s in their momentary interest to do so.
You notice how Trump supporters don’t complain when he pulls _more_ delegates than his vote percentages would suggest; it’s only “cheating” when that doesn’t work in his favor.
The response of people saying “the person with the most votes should win” is a cultural thing, I believe. In a two person election 50+1 is the standard, in a multi-person race, the one with the most. It has the benefit of being simple and open and seemingly fair, and that gives the appearance of legitimacy.
.
.
An alternative is if no one cracks the 50+1 mark you have a run-off between the top two, which also has the virtue of being simple, open, and seemingly fair. People have a natural, cultural dislike for rules lawyers; they instinctively think someone is trying to swindle them. That appearance has to be avoided, no good comes of it.
.
.
My 2 cents.