Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

Except by the rules of both major parties, you have to have a majority of the delegate votes to be the candidate.

If this majority doesn't happen it leads to what was brought up a couple of times before, a brokered convention.

A brokered convention is generally not a good thing (although admittedly could potentially be entertaining) as it completely throws out the popular vote, frees the delegates from their promises to vote as their districts voted, and allows them to vote however they want, in the hopes that it'll lead to a majority on a revote. If that still doesn't lead to a majority, then all sorts of interesting stuff can happen... although most of it pretty out of the hands of any voter influence.

Basically, unless someone gets better than 50% of the delegates, anything could happen.

[TD1]

Didn't Clinton and Sanders do better than Cruz and Trump? :V

Shady and the Trump.

[misko27]

Guys, what if Sanders and Clinton are secret lovers? I mean they probably aren't but just imagine.

[origamiscienceguy]

Guys, what if Sanders and Clinton are secret lovers? I mean they probably aren't but just imagine.

I don't want to.

[mainiac]

Wouldn't be the first time.
clean but nsfw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skIlZflDs9Y

[smjjames]

Rand Paul just dropped out, to focus on his senate race instead apparently: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

edit: Seems that he made the decision on Monday but didn't officially drop out until today.

Also, Trump is a tantrumming sore loser.

[Rose]

Guys, what if Sanders and Clinton are secret lovers? I mean they probably aren't but just imagine.

Bill or hillary?

[Playergamer]

Rand Paul just dropped out, to focus on his senate race instead apparently: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

edit: Seems that he made the decision on Monday but didn't officially drop out until today.

Also, Trump is a tantrumming sore loser.

Probably for the best, honestly. I like Paul, and think he's, y'know, sane, and not a weasel, unlike nearly everyone else running...but he'll get more done in the Senate. Plus, this'll probably mean his good ideas get passed, and the crazy ones stay crazy.

[mainiac]

Also, Trump is a tantrumming sore loser.

Accusing your opponent of fraud, a time honored tradition.  I wonder if it happened in the first democratic election or if it took them a while to get there.

[itisnotlogical]

I like to think that Trump is kept on a leash bolted to the wall in the corner by his campaign supervisors, but occasionally he stretches just far enough to nick somebody's iPhone and write something stupid on the Internet.

[Bohandas]

Except by the rules of both major parties, you have to have a majority of the delegate votes to be the candidate.

If this majority doesn't happen it leads to what was brought up a couple of times before, a brokered convention.

A brokered convention is generally not a good thing (although admittedly could potentially be entertaining) as it completely throws out the popular vote, frees the delegates from their promises to vote as their districts voted, and allows them to vote however they want, in the hopes that it'll lead to a majority on a revote. If that still doesn't lead to a majority, then all sorts of interesting stuff can happen... although most of it pretty out of the hands of any voter influence.

Basically, unless someone gets better than 50% of the delegates, anything could happen.

What I was trying to propose earlier was that they should do away with the delagates altogether and just have all registered party members vote directly, on the same day, and take whoever gets the most votes. Because as you've made clear, the way they do it now is just stupid.

[Rolan7]

Technically they don't *have* to listen to the people, of course...  But if they want popular support, they have to pretend.

Hence this complicated dignitary process even for the relatively simple primaries.  And the transparently disenfranchising "caucus" system which is absurdly complicated and different from state to state.  That's a feature when you're obfuscating.

[RedKing]

The other problem is that you'd wind up with nominees who only got 10-15% of the votes in their party. Which is not a god way to build support for the nominee within the party. The primary process is expensive, arduous and painful -- but it does serve a purpose. It winnows out the weaker, niche, or deeply flawed candidates and it gives the eventual nominee time to build their organizations, fundraising and campaign planks.


C'mon, even American Idol makes the winner survive through multiple rounds. If we went to a system like you're describing, we'd have the Eurovision model. And then we wind up with an Austrian drag queen for President.

[Rolan7]

... And?
But point taken.

It's the same reason for the electoral college.

I think this was specifically designed to keep irrelevant states relevant.  Though probably not to the degree it currently does.

[RedKing]

Except that it really doesn't. Nobody gives a fuck about winning Wyoming. NOBODY.

The big money goes where the votes are, more specifically where the MOVEABLE votes are.
Look at Iowa -- Kasich and Christie barely even acknowledged it exists, because they know they can't win there.

I'll be genuinely interested to see how much money and effort Sanders puts into SC, because frankly he can't win there unless attitudes shift dramatically within the African-American community about him.

Bush thought he could win in Iowa and burned a shit-ton of money to try and move votes. He'd have been better off not contesting the state at all, because at least then he'd have Trump's excuse of "we didn't invest much in Iowa".

In the general election, the GOP isn't going to waste money trying to win in CA, MA or NY, despite all those juicy votes because they're not moveable.
The Dems aren't going to waste money in places like OK, KS, NB, AL, MS because they're not moveable *and* there's not enough votes to be worth the effort.

The "relevant" states become the swing states with a moderately large number of votes (OH, FL, PA, NC, VA, MI). What's got to be troubling for the Republicans is that the Democrats continue to enjoy having vote-rich urban bulwarks like CA, MA and NY that they can rely on, while the traditional large red states like FL and TX are becoming more purple thanks to demographic shifts. This is why the GOP either has to win over Latinos, or somehow get rid of all of them (or at the very least, push them into blue states -- they'll lose the popular vote but might could win the electoral vote). The remaining GOP bulwarks are vote-poor rural states in the South and West.

It's created a weird system in which the least populous states are still irrelevant, but the most populous states are largely irrelevant as well, at least in national elections. The real kingmakers are the second-tier states which are populous but still have a mix of urban/rural.

When it comes to policy-making, the irrelevant states are still largely irrelevant. California has 12.1% of the US population, so it gets 12% of the House membership. Wyoming has 0.18% of the population, so it gets 1 representative (which is actually a statistical over-representation, since 1 rep=0.23%).

The Senate is the only thing that tries to keep largely uninhabited states relevant. Unfortunately, because conservatism is strongly correlated with the degree of ruralism, it tends to do this by electing Senators who think we all need rifles to protect our crops and womenfolk from coyotes and injun savages. Or who are former mining execs just looking to strip-mine the empty land. Or both.