dakshdar wrote: it is an indication that while that candidate may have received the most delegates, they aren't a strong enough candidate to receive sufficient party support. This then allows the party to do what it needs to in order to come up with a solution that best fits the party goals.
it's just that any solution you come up with a solution that citizens wanted less than that candidate, seems odd that it's even an option.
Not true. The person winning the most delegates may be someone that went out and won 40% of each state. Didn't 60% of the people voting in that party's primary then, given their initial choices, not want the candidate that got 40%? While the democrats have just two options and the winner will represent the majority of the democratic voters from primaries/caucuses, this isn't true for the Republicans. If the options were only Cruz and Trump, would the results still be the same right now?
shel311 wrote:
dakshdar wrote:Reign's reference of the polls that show Trump losing to Clinton but Cruz defeating her, while it is only a data point, is justification enough that party have the ability to adjust as needed.
Then why even allow citizens to vote? Just let the republicans choose Cruz as their presidential nominee.
Because the best potential for either party to ultimately win is for their voters to show, through the primary process, that they're solidly behind one candidate with a substantial majority. When you get a situation that we're getting with Trump, we're seeing that is definitely not true. If Trump was winning 70% of every state we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is only an issue because he's a divisive candidate that doesn't appear to be capable of winning enough votes from his own party to win in November, which is only learned through this process. So the party needs the process to pick their candidate.
dakshdar wrote: It is only an issue because he's a divisive candidate that doesn't appear to be capable of winning enough votes from his own party to win in November, which is only learned through this process. So the party needs the process to pick their candidate.
But this shows how much the GOP knows . They still sent Mitt up in 2012 and many Republicans stayed home and didn't vote. A no vote for a Republican is the same as a vote for a Democrat.
dakshdar wrote: it is an indication that while that candidate may have received the most delegates, they aren't a strong enough candidate to receive sufficient party support. This then allows the party to do what it needs to in order to come up with a solution that best fits the party goals.
it's just that any solution you come up with a solution that citizens wanted less than that candidate, seems odd that it's even an option.
Not true. The person winning the most delegates may be someone that went out and won 40% of each state. Didn't 60% of the people voting in that party's primary then, given their initial choices, not want the candidate that got 40%? While the democrats have just two options and the winner will represent the majority of the democratic voters from primaries/caucuses, this isn't true for the Republicans. If the options were only Cruz and Trump, would the results still be the same right now?
shel311 wrote:
dakshdar wrote:Reign's reference of the polls that show Trump losing to Clinton but Cruz defeating her, while it is only a data point, is justification enough that party have the ability to adjust as needed.
Then why even allow citizens to vote? Just let the republicans choose Cruz as their presidential nominee.
Because the best potential for either party to ultimately win is for their voters to show, through the primary process, that they're solidly behind one candidate with a substantial majority. When you get a situation that we're getting with Trump, we're seeing that is definitely not true. If Trump was winning 70% of every state we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is only an issue because he's a divisive candidate that doesn't appear to be capable of winning enough votes from his own party to win in November, which is only learned through this process. So the party needs the process to pick their candidate.
Oddly enough, the whole thing could be resolved if delegates were redistributed after a party leaves the race.
@ Shel... we can really confuse you and talk about how someone can "win" a state and then not receive the delegates.
ReignOnU wrote:
Oddly enough, the whole thing could be resolved if delegates were redistributed after a party leaves the race.
I don't know why they don't do that. I think this field staying as large as it had for as long as it had is the establishment way of getting this to a brokered convention.
Speaking of a brokered convention:
Former Speaker John Boehner said Paul Ryan should be the Republican nominee for president if the party fails to choose a candidate on the first ballot.
“If we don’t have a nominee who can win on the first ballot, I’m for none of the above,” Boehner said at the Futures Industry Association conference here. “They all had a chance to win. None of them won. So I’m for none of the above. I’m for Paul Ryan to be our nominee.”
dakshdar wrote: It is only an issue because he's a divisive candidate that doesn't appear to be capable of winning enough votes from his own party to win in November, which is only learned through this process. So the party needs the process to pick their candidate.
But this shows how much the GOP knows . They still sent Mitt up in 2012 and many Republicans stayed home and didn't vote. A no vote for a Republican is the same as a vote for a Democrat.
Mitt exceeded the delegate minimum though. Trump, perhaps, won't. So if Mitt was an un-Mitt-igated disaster, what's going to happen with Trump?
I think either party is tremendously hurt by having more than two candidates left this late in the primary voting process.
ReignOnU wrote:
Oddly enough, the whole thing could be resolved if delegates were redistributed after a party leaves the race.
I don't know why they don't do that. I think this field staying as large as it had for as long as it had is the establishment way of getting this to a brokered convention.
Speaking of a brokered convention:
Former Speaker John Boehner said Paul Ryan should be the Republican nominee for president if the party fails to choose a candidate on the first ballot.
“If we don’t have a nominee who can win on the first ballot, I’m for none of the above,” Boehner said at the Futures Industry Association conference here. “They all had a chance to win. None of them won. So I’m for none of the above. I’m for Paul Ryan to be our nominee.”
A candidate can withdraw and then release their delegates to vote for someone else. This doesn't mean that the delegates actually have to make that move. In most cases that's how it goes down, but it's not a lock. For instance, if Kasich dropped out, then released his delegates to vote for Trump, and Trump went on to get big winnings in California and Pennsylvania, he'd likely secure the number needed. Losing Ohio to Kasich was a huge hit for Trump getting to the magic number.
dakshdar wrote: It is only an issue because he's a divisive candidate that doesn't appear to be capable of winning enough votes from his own party to win in November, which is only learned through this process. So the party needs the process to pick their candidate.
But this shows how much the GOP knows . They still sent Mitt up in 2012 and many Republicans stayed home and didn't vote. A no vote for a Republican is the same as a vote for a Democrat.
Mitt exceeded the delegate minimum though. Trump, perhaps, won't. So if Mitt was an un-Mitt-igated disaster, what's going to happen with Trump?
I think either party is tremendously hurt by having more than two candidates left this late in the primary voting process.
Mitt was the only semi-viable option in 2012, imo. His undoing didn't necessarily come from policy as much as it came from not being able to protect his professional history. It's not like the GOP was going to send Ron Paul out there... and Newt probably wasn't going to cut it either.
Oddly enough, the whole thing could be resolved if delegates were redistributed after a party leaves the race.
I don't see how this is even possible unless, in the process of voting, people have to rank all ballot options in order. Which would make way too much sense.
dakshdar wrote: It is only an issue because he's a divisive candidate that doesn't appear to be capable of winning enough votes from his own party to win in November, which is only learned through this process. So the party needs the process to pick their candidate.
But this shows how much the GOP knows . They still sent Mitt up in 2012 and many Republicans stayed home and didn't vote. A no vote for a Republican is the same as a vote for a Democrat.
Mitt exceeded the delegate minimum though. Trump, perhaps, won't. So if Mitt was an un-Mitt-igated disaster, what's going to happen with Trump?
I think either party is tremendously hurt by having more than two candidates left this late in the primary voting process.
Mitt was the only semi-viable option in 2012, imo. His undoing didn't necessarily come from policy as much as it came from not being able to protect his professional history. It's not like the GOP was going to send Ron Paul out there... and Newt probably wasn't going to cut it either.
True, but I was more responding to George saying that the GOP sent Mitt up in 2012. It was actually the voters that did that since he received the proper number of delegates. So, that was not a case of the GOP forcing a candidate on the people -- they did it to themselves.
Oddly enough, the whole thing could be resolved if delegates were redistributed after a party leaves the race.
I don't see how this is even possible unless, in the process of voting, people have to rank all ballot options in order. Which would make way too much sense.
2 options...
1.) Rank all of the entries, including the option to abstain at a certain point.
2.) Eliminate those votes for withdrawn nominees and redistribute based on revised percents.
Oddly enough, the whole thing could be resolved if delegates were redistributed after a party leaves the race.
I don't see how this is even possible unless, in the process of voting, people have to rank all ballot options in order. Which would make way too much sense.
2 options...
1.) Rank all of the entries, including the option to abstain at a certain point.
2.) Eliminate those votes for withdrawn nominees and redistribute based on revised percents.
Redistributing based on revised percentages places an assumption on how people would have voted with a reduced candidate field. I think that's an unfair or unreasonable assumption to put in place. The ranking works better (IMO).
dakshdar wrote:Just remember, the people don't elect the president directly either. The presidential candidate with the most popular votes nationwide is not automatically the president, it always comes down to the electoral college.
Also doesn't make sense to me.
Without the electoral college the middle of the country has absolutely zero say in who becomes president, most Americans either live on the east/west coasts.
Can you elaborate on this, what does that mean?
If you did away with the electoral college, the middle of the country's delegates wouldn't really change, right?
dakshdar wrote:
True, but I was more responding to George saying that the GOP sent Mitt up in 2012. It was actually the voters that did that since he received the proper number of delegates. So, that was not a case of the GOP forcing a candidate on the people -- they did it to themselves.
My angle was how voters will just stay home rather than vote for someone they do not agree with.
Republicans needs to stick by whatever candidate happens to be on the ticket this race. There is a lot more at stake than just the presidency, which most of it can be mitigated thru a Republican house or senate if Hillary does end up becoming president.
dakshdar wrote: It is only an issue because he's a divisive candidate that doesn't appear to be capable of winning enough votes from his own party to win in November, which is only learned through this process. So the party needs the process to pick their candidate.
So we replace him with a Cruz or someone else who the American people(Republicans) spoke up and said they wanted less tham Trump...someone less capable of winning said votes? Just doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, at its core, any person you replace him with is a person who had less votes and was less capable than Trump of winning enough votes.
dakshdar wrote:Just remember, the people don't elect the president directly either. The presidential candidate with the most popular votes nationwide is not automatically the president, it always comes down to the electoral college.
Also doesn't make sense to me.
Without the electoral college the middle of the country has absolutely zero say in who becomes president, most Americans either live on the east/west coasts.
Can you elaborate on this, what does that mean?
If you did away with the electoral college, the middle of the country's delegates wouldn't really change, right?
dakshdar wrote:Just remember, the people don't elect the president directly either. The presidential candidate with the most popular votes nationwide is not automatically the president, it always comes down to the electoral college.
Also doesn't make sense to me.
Without the electoral college the middle of the country has absolutely zero say in who becomes president, most Americans either live on the east/west coasts.
Can you elaborate on this, what does that mean?
If you did away with the electoral college, the middle of the country's delegates wouldn't really change, right?
Electoral college votes are somewhat set by ratios from the 2010 census. They're not perfect, but essentially each state has the number of votes relative to the total of its population relative to the total for the country. It is about 2.5 votes per million people in the census.
I'm not sure how this helps the middle of the country, like George stated, because all but 2 states are winner-take-all when it comes to the electoral college.
dakshdar wrote: It is only an issue because he's a divisive candidate that doesn't appear to be capable of winning enough votes from his own party to win in November, which is only learned through this process. So the party needs the process to pick their candidate.
So we replace him with a Cruz or someone else who the American people(Republicans) spoke up and said they wanted less tham Trump...someone less capable of winning said votes? Just doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, at its core, any person you replace him with is a person who had less votes and was less capable than Trump of winning enough votes.
It depends how people would have voted if they were only given the choice of Cruz vs Trump. In an extreme case, what if everyone that voted Rubio and Kasich the last 2 months would vote Cruz instead. He'd be a runaway winner over Trump. Again, the large number of options is hurting the GOP.
dakshdar wrote:Just remember, the people don't elect the president directly either. The presidential candidate with the most popular votes nationwide is not automatically the president, it always comes down to the electoral college.
Also doesn't make sense to me.
Without the electoral college the middle of the country has absolutely zero say in who becomes president, most Americans either live on the east/west coasts.
Can you elaborate on this, what does that mean?
If you did away with the electoral college, the middle of the country's delegates wouldn't really change, right?
There are 17 states that typically vote Democrat worth 217 electoral college votes. 22 states that typically vote Republican worth 191 votes.
As you can see from the map most of those Democratic electoral college votes are on the coasts (northeast and west coast).
So if you did away with the electoral college votes then you are not listening to what middle America wants as well.
Even though I originally brought it up, 95% of the time the electoral college and the popular vote are in agreement. Meaning that the will of the people is enforced. The electoral college doesn't really help middle america count more, and it shouldn't. The population dictates the needs of the country and the population isn't in middle america.
dakshdar wrote:Just remember, the people don't elect the president directly either. The presidential candidate with the most popular votes nationwide is not automatically the president, it always comes down to the electoral college.
Also doesn't make sense to me.
Without the electoral college the middle of the country has absolutely zero say in who becomes president, most Americans either live on the east/west coasts.
Can you elaborate on this, what does that mean?
If you did away with the electoral college, the middle of the country's delegates wouldn't really change, right?
Electoral college votes are somewhat set by ratios from the 2010 census. They're not perfect, but essentially each state has the number of votes relative to the total of its population relative to the total for the country. It is about 2.5 votes per million people in the census.
I'm not sure how this helps the middle of the country, like George stated, because all but 2 states are winner-take-all when it comes to the electoral college.
I get the idea of what the electoral college does, just didn't understand George's point as I don't get the nuances of it all.
If you did away with the electoral college, it would just be whoever gets the most votes, regardless of where those votes come from. I think that's more fair than, say, George Bush winning Florida by 500 votes but getting all the electoral college votes, which just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Gore could have won another state by 1 million+ votes, yet trailed because that state is smaller than Florida, all over 500 or so votes?
. They still sent Mitt up in 2012 and many Republicans stayed home and didn't vote. A no vote for a Republican is the same as a vote for a Democrat.
