Ethics of Representative

Posted by Esceptico 9 years ago to Politics
146 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The other night I saw two delegates from Florida interviewed. Both were elected to vote for Trump at the convention. The two were Cruz supporters and freely admitted on national television they ran as Trump delegates only so they could switch their vote to Cruz on the second ballot if there was one. I gather is part of the Cruz “ground team” procedure. The rules allow this. The two were asked if they thought they were doing anything unethical by being elected to vote for Trump with an agenda to vote for Cruz. Both answered it was not unethical. What is the opinion in the Gulch?

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 6.
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I;m guessing they may change again. The system becomes quite fluid if it's a brokered convention. I really don't have a problem with it because so many things can happen between now and then. What id Cruz is forced out? Who would they vote for? Hard to be too ethical in a system like this.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    That is my opinion as well. I am surprised so many in the Gulch think it is okay simply because it is allowed by the rules.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    That is the rule,I agree. But it is ethical to hide your true intent when running for the position when your intent is to double cross the people electing you as the first opportunity?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    While I agree with your comments, my question is specifically to actions based upon an undisclosed intent when elected.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years ago
    Context is everything. In this case we are being asked to decide the ethics of an action within an overall process that is clearly unethical. What gives political parties the right to be "gatekeepers" to eligibility for political office within a free society?

    It's like asking whether it is ethical for a group of thieves to give some members less of the loot than they had promised them. Any answer is wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes it is ethical. They are bound on the first vote but not subsequent votes. If they were it would never get resolved. I don't like this switching after the primaries that is going on. I haven't been much of a Cruz fan all along but this makes him look like a slime.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years ago
    It is unethical. If you are a delegate for candidate X, then you are supposed to honestly be a supporter for X.

    Obviously if the first ballot doesn't select someone then somebody is going to have to be persuaded to change -- but they shouldn't be actually an advocate for a different candidate.

    It isn't just the vote, it's also voting on rules and other procedural things. If you are actually voting against the interest of the person you are supposedly representing you are acting unethically.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years ago
    It's statist party politics. Of course it's unethical.
    The entire political class does not accept responsibility for their unethical behavior.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Supporting the left wing fascists on any vote is ethical to some as it was in the 1930s. What they call ethics I call something entirely different. But then goose stepping to some is just a new fad dance step.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes it is ethical...so long as they support trump at the caucus. Did they run to support trump for life or all the way thru...that's a different story. However, if I were them and it didn't come down to a second vote at the convention...I would hate myself for being ethical.

    Like I said, I wouldn't take that chance.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    They say they want to support Cruz, not Trump, yet ran to get elected saying they would support Trump. The question is whether such conduct is ethical.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    And my point is that on a second vote, no matter their pledge or original intentions someone WILL be changing their vote from their vote on the first ballot.

    My answer again is Yes...as long as they stick to the job they were elected for...second votes...all bets are off.
    I am also going to look at it your way, Yes, because their intention is to honor their agreement even though they would rather support TC...I am not sure I would take that chance.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The question deals only with the ethics under the circumstances I proposed. Whether or not it matters is not the issue. I have to agree with you, it is rigged.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    What I am getting at is they are really moles for Cruz, who got elected to vote for Trump but did not disclose at voting time they were for Cruz and would change their votes at a second ballot. Is that ethical?

    I can see voting for a different candidate on second vote if you have not pledged to vote for Trump. But where you pledge to vote for Trump do not disclose you are a Trump supporter and actually want to undermine Trump, is that conduct ethical?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years ago
    I don't think it matters anymore. I think it's all fraudulent and have decided not to participate. But, I don't fault anybody else for hanging in there.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The obligation is to vote for trump initially...and if they do so, then they have acted in good faith...that is ETHICAL...regardless of their intentions upon a second vote which is not a certainty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years ago
    I'm okay with it as long as they vote Trump on the first ballot. If you don't secure the nomination on the first ballot then it's a free for all. I live in Pennsylvania and we have a crazy system. We have 71 delegates but the primary winner only gets 17 of them on the first ballot. The other 54 are free to vote for who ever they want. Most delegates running have said they will vote consistent with their district on the first ballot but they are not required to. What a mess.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years ago
    It's a bizarre environment...but initially the delegate system was a hedge against voters make a BIG mistake that would change the nature of the country...seems the left and the left/right kakistocracy has screwed that up as well. Delegates were supposed to be "statesman" meaning engaged, intelligent and constitutional.

    However, a second ballot requires a rethink because the first one didn't work out the way it was expected to.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo