Who won the primaries via the votes of the people? That's what I thought. You're right, pretty disgusting.
Did you conveniently or accidentally leave out the latter part about the impromptu changing the rules? I'm not sure if you are ignoring it or sincerely missed it.
As for "the voice of the people." Let me create an analogy:
There are 100 people. There are five foods (carrots, corn, cabbage, green beans, peas) that the 100 people will vote on for their favorite and least favorite food. Here are the results:
25 people vote for carrots being their favorite, 22 of the 25 dislike peas the most.
20 people vote for corn being their favorite, 17 of those 20 dislike peas the most.
15 people vote for cabbage being their favorite, 12 of those 15 dislike peas the most.
10 people vote for green beans being their favorite, 7 of the 10 dislike peas the most.
30 people vote for peas being their favorite, the votes vary for their least favorite foods.
While peas had the most votes, it's accurate to say that the majority of the people do not like peas. The will of the people is clearly not peas, in spite of peas winning the most number 1 votes. Simple mathematics will tell us a majority would be 51 votes for peas being their favorite. This isn't the case.
Now then, for implying I said "this is disgusting" to the process is out of context in relation to the process in which people vote in primaries. It is what it is.
I wasn't objecting to the process, but rather making a matter of fact statement that the will of the people does not equate to the minority of the people (minority meaning less than 50%)... which is factually true no matter how much you hate it.
What is disgusting is if, as Rachel says, the RNC made it so they could change the rules whenever they want until 2020. That is disgusting; that is bush-league.