2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

Well I think it is tacky but I don't agree that it is undemocratic. People have to vote for someone but then when if given an option do something different. Isn't that what all representatives do if their opinions different from the people they represent?

Well except we are not voting the delegates. We are voting for who we want the delegates to support on the first ballot. After that they are not representing us at all. And that is alright. Being the Republican Candidate for President is not technically an elected office.

They are representing the votes of the voters who voted for said candidate that they are pledged to. Also in New York they are actually voted in.

[Zanza]

Has there ever been an attempt to replace all those arcane rules and processes with a simple system that just counts who gets the most votes?

[Barrister]

Has there ever been an attempt to replace all those arcane rules and processes with a simple system that just counts who gets the most votes?

[alfred russel]

Has there ever been an attempt to replace all those arcane rules and processes with a simple system that just counts who gets the most votes?

That wouldn't be very fair or reasonable. Some states you can vote weeks in advance, some states you have to vote on election day, some states you have to show up to a caucus to vote, some states you have to show up to a convention.

[Zanza]

Has there ever been an attempt to replace all those arcane rules and processes with a simple system that just counts who gets the most votes?

That wouldn't be very fair or reasonable. Some states you can vote weeks in advance, some states you have to vote on election day, some states you have to show up to a caucus to vote, some states you have to show up to a convention.

And those rules can be changed by whom? The states or the parties?

[Barrister]

Has there ever been an attempt to replace all those arcane rules and processes with a simple system that just counts who gets the most votes?

That wouldn't be very fair or reasonable. Some states you can vote weeks in advance, some states you have to vote on election day, some states you have to show up to a caucus to vote, some states you have to show up to a convention.

And those rules can be changed by whom? The states or the parties?

The state parties.  So you'd have to get the 50 individual state parties to agree on having the same process.

[Zanza]

I see.

Who decides how many delegates each state can send? I noticed that the D and R have different proportions of their delegates from the states, so the number does not seem to be based on population. The committee or whoever makes that decision  (unless it's based on a fixed formula) seems to the right place to get started if you wanted to harmonise the various state rules.

[alfred russel]

I see.

Who decides how many delegates each state can send? I noticed that the D and R have different proportions of their delegates from the states, so the number does not seem to be based on population. The committee or whoever makes that decision  (unless it's based on a fixed formula) seems to the right place to get started if you wanted to harmonise the various state rules.

The national parties run the conventions and set guidelines for the state parties to follow. The state parties run their own processes. In most (all?) cases the state governments facilitate the primary processes and thus get a say in it (in Georgia we have a primary, paid for by the state, so the election laws rule).

Basically, if you want alignment, you need to get the national party, the state parties, and the state governments on the same page. Theoretically the national party could work with the state governments to freeze out the state parties.

[Zanza]

Is there precedent for selecting a candidate that does not have a plurality of the votes or pledged delegates?

[Eddie Teach]

Sure. Used to happen all the time.

[alfred russel]

Is there precedent for selecting a candidate that does not have a plurality of the votes or pledged delegates?

Yeah--as I posted a while back, Abraham Lincoln came into the 1860 well behind on the first ballot. My understanding is it used to happen a lot.

The difference is that in the past 40 years, the process in both parties has become something like: "one guy gets a lead in the primary process, it looks like he will win, the party puts pressure on everyone else to drop out so the candidate can pivot to general election mode and save money for the general election, and the eventual nominee sweeps the back half of the primaries and arrives at the convention with a big lead".

[Barrister]

Is there precedent for selecting a candidate that does not have a plurality of the votes or pledged delegates?

Yes.  Many.  Lincoln for starters.

IIRC Reagan actually had more votes than Ford in 1976, but Ford had a majority of delegates.  In 1968 HUmphrey had a bare plurality of delegates, and the convention turned into riots when he won.

BUt for the best examples of the nominee not having the most votes / most delegates, you have to go back almost 100 years or more.  Apparently the 1924 Democratic convention went to over 100 rounds of votes before selecting a candidate.

[Zanza]

Just imagine the circus if one of the conventions goes to a hundred rounds... CNN would melt down. I must say the way Americans structure their drawn out elections makes for much better entertainment than those of other countries. Not sure if they are more representative though. 

[Admiral Yi]

Just imagine the circus if one of the conventions goes to a hundred rounds... CNN would melt down. I must say the way Americans structure their drawn out elections makes for much better entertainment than those of other countries. Not sure if they are more representative though.

Much more representative IMO than Westminster style nominations.

[Barrister]

Just imagine the circus if one of the conventions goes to a hundred rounds... CNN would melt down. I must say the way Americans structure their drawn out elections makes for much better entertainment than those of other countries. Not sure if they are more representative though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention

Pretty impossible to imagine that happening now though.  The first reason is in 1924 you had two seeminly implacable sides - the Protestant KKK side, and the Catholic north-easterners.  The winner needed two thirds, but each faction could (and did) refused to give the nomination to the other side, and could veto the selection of the other side.

Also note the convention went on for over 2 weeks.  Apparently after awhile that was a part of the strategy too - to run up people's hotel bills to try and force them to give up.