RoadWarriorFromLP

If nobody wins a majority of delegates in the first round of voting, then most of the delegates are free during the subsequent rounds to switch their votes to whoever they want who is eligible.

What complicates this is that the GOP added a "Rule 40" that mandates that only those candidates who have won majorities in at least eight states are eligible. (I suppose that they could rescind this if they wished -- it isn't a legal requirement.) This makes the winner-take-all states particularly important, as many of the states that are not winner-take-all are not giving majorities to anyone.

Leslie

I prefer to think of it as a very early Sunday nap.

kimilseung

Wasn't the whole Federal system set up to stop these demagogues? At least that is kind of my interpretation of documents like Federalist Paper #10

RoadWarriorFromLP

Hamilton not only didn't contemplate having a primary system, but he was hoping to avoid having political parties altogether. That obviously worked out well...

Steerpike

Just like you don't get to vote for who is the CEO of Apple, you never used to be able to vote for who was the nominee for the GOP or the Dems. They are private organizations and can propose who they wish. But recently (and it is quite recent) parties have agreed to use a semi-consistent 'primary' format, and as such, are bound by 'public' rules. Caucuses still exist because not all states want to play by the rules. The 'incentive' to participate in 'standardized' primaries is that the govt. will fund the primary. (I've just been reading about this so others can correct/refine my answer!)

I was reading about the Democratic Convention of 1968, where we had massive riots in the streets. The nominee didn't even participate in the primaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_D...nal_Convention
I don't know if it was the debacle of this convention that triggered the reforms.

Obviously, though, if you ask people to vote, and you then ignore that vote, you are asking for trouble regardless of what the 'rules' are. Presumably that is why Humphrey lost to Nixon ...?

RoadWarriorFromLP

Yes.

Also, the president isn't a prime minister; a president is supposed to also represent the states, not just the people. The idea was that a president should not show favoritism to one particular state, nor should those who are popular in high-population states end up winning by default. Support for a president is supposed to be broad, which includes geographic dispersion.

McZaki

Trump vs Bernie would be an utter entertainment! It would be interesting to see what type of lunacy triumphs the United States of A...jolly good times ahead, I better renew my passport

dc koop

Any chance someone could start a "Slap an Evangelical" day ?

Steerpike

In fairness, people aren't talking about leaving just because a Republican may win. No one on this forum (as far as I know) suggested leaving due to a potential McCain win in 2008, or a potential Romney win in 2012; nor are they horrified now by the thought of a Kasich win or a JEB win; we are talking here specifically about a TRUMP win - a man who has openly advocated war crimes, torture, arresting and deporting 12 million people, among other crazy things.

Leslie

Not to mention that his own party finds him revolting.

Leslie

Democratic debate on CNN tonight.

Jerseygirl

I can't bear to listen to her voice.

Leslie

But she speaks so fondly of you.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Perhaps you would prefer Donald Trump with an English accent:

Giantaxe

Excellent. I can't wait to listen to her voice..