[Hoot Gibson]

We live in what some people would call the information age. Back in the early days the average American had no real access to the workings in Washington Dc, nor did he have much to say about presidential nominees. And frankly, owing to the fact that in those days men of honor served with honor, that worked fine.

Now, what with all the liberal terraforming and globalist agenda concerns, folks are not so comfortable with the status quo. And thus they are suddenly active in the proceedings of their government. They want a voice not only in the elections, but in the candidate selection process. In short, as I have been saying, the voter has awakened.

You just said voters are not entitled to participate in the selection of their nominee and that is not right. Primary states and Caucus states almost always consider the vote count of the voting public for bound delegates, and often binding unbound delegates to vote for the leading vote getter. I mean, what pray tell is the whole campaign season all about if not wooing voters?

Then you said the alternative is to completely forego nominee selection by the voter, go to a one party state sponsored system, (which is the trophy the Dems thought was in nearly in their grasp in 2012) and cede control to the state to dictate terms. Which, given the election news to date, that will not fly either.

If the people trusted the two parties to be fair, maybe the status quo could continue and the establishment could hold sway. But that process, which may have originally been engineered to keep the Bernie Sanders style goof out of office, now looks to be a bit shady. And the unfortunate lapse in character and judgment displayed by many of those in power, has resulted in the people's rejection of the establishment candidates. They are just not going to accept more of the same. I believe the willingness of people to accept the liberal doctrine has peaked, and the rejection of same is afoot. I don't know what the eventual answer may turn out to be, but disenfranchising voters, who thanks to the 24/7 news loop and civics channels have suddenly become aware, is certainly not an option. They will not be denied, so the political parties had better get it figured out in a hurry. And they'd better stop feeding bull and blather to the voter, they are obviously having none of it.

We watched John McCain get beat. Then we watched Mitt Romney get beat. We saw the congress neutered, voter ID's shouted down and the government shut down. The status quo is rudderless and without conviction. What we are seeing is the rise of the voter.


"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic." .... Benjamin Franklin

America is fighting to reunite with her soul.

As I said, political parties are not government entities. They are organizations of people formed voluntarily by individual citizens exercising their constitutional right of freedom of assembly. If a consensus of individual members of a political party want to hold internal elections to determine the party's political candidates, they may do so, but parties are under no legal or moral obligation to nominate candidates democratically.

The right that we have as citizens is to associate with like minded individuals and form political parties. There is no right to vote on a party nominee - if a party allows you to participate in the selection of a nominee, it is a privilege that can be taken away at the party's discretion. There can be no disenfranchisement where there is no voting franchise.

The Framers of the Constitution were wise to create a republic instead of a direct democracy. Political parties are wise to put build some safeguards into the nomination process. Unfortunately, those safeguards were insufficient to prevent two "goofs" from being nominated in this election cycle, IMO. When Trump talks about drawing support from Bernie voters in the general election, that should serve as an alarm to all conservatives who have supported him during the primary season.