Print

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

[Baffler]

Trump would be the most democratic choice in a simple winner-take-all vote but there's a reason this election isn't one of those. Plenty of elections do not allow people to win with less than 50% of the votes, because pluralities can be far less democratic than a system with contingency plans. If a candidate with minority opinions gets 40% of the vote, while three similar candidates split the remaining 60%, it is not obviously democratic to give the minority the candidacy because they fielded fewer people.

Then we would expect Kasich to do what he should have done months ago and drop out. If every single one of his supporters has made Cruz their second pick the numbers would reflect that, and he would have a clear mandate at a contested convention.

That isn't the world we live in though. As it is, party insiders would prefer not to allow the possibility of voters making the 'wrong' choice, and have focused their energy on pulling shenanigans in the delegate selection process to ensure Trump loses if they're released no matter how much support he has.

[mainiac]

Then we would expect Kasich to do what he should have done months ago and drop out. If every single one of his supporters has made Cruz their second pick the numbers would reflect that, and he would have a clear mandate at a contested convention.

So your "democracy" is telling people that if their preference is Kasich and not Cruz or Trump, they're votes are cheating because they are minority.

[Shadowlord]

Then we would expect Kasich to do what he should have done months ago and drop out. If every single one of his supporters has made Cruz their second pick the numbers would reflect that, and he would have a clear mandate at a contested convention.

So your "democracy" is telling people that if their preference is Kasich and not Cruz or Trump, they're votes are cheating because they are minority.

One light, one mind, flashing in the dark, blinded by the silence of a thousand broken hearts.

[Reelya]

Well we're talking about the "spoiler effect" here in the primaries, really. But it's an artifact of the voting system itself, not an inevitable reality.

One good reform would be to move to IRV voting for party primaries. Keep track of all voters' second, third, fourth preferences etc. If someone drops out, then any delegates they picked up are redistributed to the remaining candidates based on voter preferences. This would mean less artificial pressure on candidates to drop out too early. You'd certainly see a more diverse field if it worked like that, which would make it harder for a single maverick with aberrant views to get a big chunk of the vote, when faced with a large number of moderates.

And it would encourage solidarity with those who hold similar views, rather than viewing them as a threat to be pushed out, which hurts your own cause in the long run. e.g. if Kasich and Rubio were working together, with most Kasich voters putting Rubio as second choice, and vice-versa, then both could stay in the game right to the convention, and one of them possibly score an upset.

[Zangi]

Trump would be the most democratic choice in a simple winner-take-all vote but there's a reason this election isn't one of those. Plenty of elections do not allow people to win with less than 50% of the votes, because pluralities can be far less democratic than a system with contingency plans. If a candidate with minority opinions gets 40% of the vote, while three similar candidates split the remaining 60%, it is not obviously democratic to give the minority the candidacy because they fielded fewer people.

Its cause our election system typically does not include that thing where people can pick a first choice and back-up choices if their first choice loses...  But hey, what we have now is how our democratic system currently works.  Winner takes all, first past the post, there can only be one.

[Powder Miner]

There is no lasting definition of democratic that forces a candidate to drop out; Kasich is not forced to give up and his voters are not forced to give up either to satisfy the requirements of a free election. All they are doing is changing the focus of their campaigns; that act does not change the system, it does not bypass votes, it therefore does not breach the democratic process and it does not pass Go and collect $200.

In all seriousness, you can argue about the democraticness(?) of the actual brokered convention process, but this itself is just the changing of the focuses of their campaigns, and forcing a candidate to drop out instead is far from democratic. They're basically just changing their tack for where they're trying to sway voters; this doesn't override democracy at all.

[PTTG??]

I mean, I suppose that one could build a "civil interest" party that uses IRV primaries. It would be interesting, actually. If there ever was a time in American history where a third party could take off, it's probably the next eight years.

It would probably be easier to do that than it would be to reconstruct any existing party.

[Shadowlord]

And it would encourage solidarity with those who hold similar views, rather than viewing them as a threat to be pushed out, which hurts your own cause in the long run. e.g. if Kasich and Rubio were working together, with most Kasich voters putting Rubio as second choice, and vice-versa, then both could stay in the game right to the convention, and one of them possibly score an upset.

If more candidates stay in until the convention, and more elections go all the way to the convention, that would also make presidential primary campaigns even more expensive than they already are (if the candidates could still find people to throw money at them if there are half a dozen or more candidates in the race all the way to the convention).

Here are some numbers generally in the tens of millions of dollars per candidate in a month currently in the race: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-clinton-sanders-campaign-fundraising-1.3546126

(Kasich failed at even reaching $10m in March, even if you combine what he took in with what his SuperPAC took in, but he still got $4.5m and his associated SuperPac brought in $2.8m.)

Although TBH I kind of wonder if donors might in that situation just do the same thing to most of the candidates that they're doing to Kasich: Generally only throwing money at candidates they think can actually win, although who knows how much that will matter if any other candidates in the future can replicate Trump's success with free airtime etc.

[mainiac]

It's very unlikely that more primarys will go to the convention.  They are going to make sure they dont screw themselves over like this again.

[smjjames]

It's very unlikely that more primarys will go to the convention.  They are going to make sure they dont screw themselves over like this again.

Theres no guarantee of that. They tried to basically do the same thing in 2012 (make sure that they don't screw over the frontrunner) and here we are.... Theres every chance that they will screw it up for next year.

[mainiac]

The post 2012 reforms were an effort to screw over the runners up, not the front runner.  They saw the way that things dragged on and made it so that a plurality would be heavily rewarded.

[smjjames]

That's what I said, 'don't screw over the frontrunner'. It didn't seem to work too particularily well, but then again, the field was heavily fractured and through the magic of PACs, candidates were able to stay in longer.

It doesn't seem like the republicans way out of this is changing the primary schedules or rules in general since the problems go far deeper than that. So, changing how things work doesn't neccesarily mean that things will work better in 2020.

[mainiac]

Derp

Well reading failure aside, there is an easy way to reform your way out of this.  The republicans made a system that favors the frontrunner.  That means a frontrunner with an earlier plurality can be strong and creates pressure for the alternatives to drop out because they cant win.  The way to avoid Trump in the future is to make the system more like the democratic system.  In the democratic system, a plurality doesn't count for shit because your delegates are fairly close to your vote share.  Trump wouldn't have a prayer of getting the nomination if the republicans were operating under democratic rules.  The cost is of course that democratic rules virtually ensure drawn out contests as long as the runner up is reasonably strong like Clinton in 2008 and Sanders this time.

[smjjames]

Well, Clinton is particularily strong and Sanders is particularily stubborn.

The main problem the Republicans had and still have is that there wasn't a single strong frontrunner (an establishment frontrunner that is) that could crush the opposition and the field was heavily fractured. Even if they changed the method to be like that of the Democrats, having a fractured field would probably make it worse and they still wouldn't be dealing with all the other underlying problems.

[PTTG??]

Now Trump has more excuse to yell "Collusion!"

Not that he ever needed excuses to do anything.