Delegate Math and the GOP

[DrunkBomber]

You almost have to wonder why tax payers have to foot the bill for these primaries and caucuses when they apparently mean absolutely nothing. How much do they spend on all of this and then not use?

[StrangeSox]

There was no public vote in Colorado. That was cancelled once Trump became a viable and probable candidate for Colorado. To be a delegate there, you had to be approved by a GOP selection committee which was taking off Trump supporters off their list. There was no process for which Trump could navigate. It was corrupt, as Colorado made the rules as they went along, particularly with the declaration process, in order to have their guy win.

 

FWIW Colorado made this change back in August. It looks like Colorado was only ever polled once and that was in November. Carson and Rubio were ahead of Trump at the time.

 

Either way, it seems like the intent was to be able to screw over a non-establishment candidate even if they didn't really expect Trump to hang around this long.

[StrangeSox]

You almost have to wonder why tax payers have to foot the bill for these primaries and caucuses when they apparently mean absolutely nothing. How much do they spend on all of this and then not use?

 

Party nominees used to be chosen just by caucuses, but in the early 1900's their was a push to go to secret-ballot primaries and have the states run them so as to remove a lot of the shenanigans we're seeing now. State parties are still free to choose exactly what the rules will be for that state's delegates which is how we end up with our "charming" and "easily understood" nomination process.

 

Long story short, primaries and caucuses matter but each state does things a little differently and the parties will do things differently even within a single state.

[Harry Chappas]

Who knew House of Cards on Netflix would be a foreshadowing of these events.

[Chisoxfn]

It's not corrupt - the selection of a candidate is a party process, not an election.

 

That said, I agree with you that the ideal model is for all party races to be voted, via primaries, in every state, without any Supers or Nationals or any of the other garbage. I'd certainly prefer that.

I fully agree.

[Reddy]

It's not corrupt - the selection of a candidate is a party process, not an election.

 

That said, I agree with you that the ideal model is for all party races to be voted, via primaries, in every state, without any Supers or Nationals or any of the other garbage. I'd certainly prefer that.

 

Why should the primaries be purely popular vote based if the general isn't?

[southsider2k5]

Why should the primaries be purely popular vote based if the general isn't?

 

The primary and general elections are completely different animals. One is for private organizations to pick their candidates. The other is for the people to pick their candidates.

[Reddy]

The primary and general elections are completely different animals. One is for private organizations to pick their candidates. The other is for the people to pick their candidates.

 

This. The Democratic and Republican parties are under no obligation to change their rules just because a third party has never materialized. It's their right to run their parties however they like, honestly. You have a say by voting every two years. If you didn't vote in the midterms, you've got no room to complain.

[NorthSideSox72]

Why should the primaries be purely popular vote based if the general isn't?

My personal opinion is that both should be. But neither are, at least not exactly.

 

The electoral college model, as it pertains to the Presidential elections, is in my view decidedly less than democratic and should be abolished in favor of a pure, national popular vote. That is the only way for every vote to count equally. But that just won't happen.

 

[Reddy]

My personal opinion is that both should be. But neither are, at least not exactly.

 

The electoral college model, as it pertains to the Presidential elections, is in my view decidedly less than democratic and should be abolished in favor of a pure, national popular vote. That is the only way for every vote to count equally. But that just won't happen.

 

Why should every vote count equally?

 

EDIT: Won't that disenfranchise people from smaller, more rural states? Farmers? etc?

Edited April 11, 2016 by Reddy

[StrangeSox]

Why should every vote count equally?

 

Basic principles of democracy? Why shouldn't votes count equally? People vote, not acres.

 

EDIT: Won't that disenfranchise people from smaller, more rural states? Farmers? etc?

 

No. It would make their voting power equal to everyone else's instead of stronger. As it is, nobody pays any attention to small, rural states anyway because they're pretty "safe" for one party or the other. Races focus on moderate-large states that are in play in any given year. Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio have seen lots of attention over the last few Presidential elections and they're not small or especially rural.

 

Large states like Illinois, California and Texas already have lots of rural area and lots of farmers. As it is, Presidential candidates don't bother too much with trying to court their votes because those states are pretty ideologically solid (if any of those three were in danger of flipping, the election would already be in landslide territory).

Edited April 11, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

Basic principles of democracy? Why shouldn't votes count equally? People vote, not acres.

 

 

 

No. It would make their voting power equal to everyone else's instead of stronger. As it is, nobody pays any attention to small, rural states anyway because they're pretty "safe" for one party or the other. Races focus on moderate-large states that are in play in any given year. Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio have seen lots of attention over the last few Presidential elections and they're not small or especially rural.

 

Large states like Illinois, California and Texas already have lots of rural area and lots of farmers. As it is, Presidential candidates don't bother too much with trying to court their votes because those states are pretty ideologically solid (if any of those three were in danger of flipping, the election would already be in landslide territory).

 

Iowa says hi.

 

And remember, we're not a Democracy. We're a Democratic Republic. There's a reason this isn't pure Democracy. Pure popular vote is the reason a populist demagogue like Trump has been able to rise to prominence in the GOP. If everyone were equally versed on the issues, paid equal attention to the candidates, understood the ramifications of their votes, then great, let's have a purely popular vote.

 

Until that time, there need to be checks and balances like the superdelegate system that keep a Trump from happening at least in one of the parties. Just IMO obvs.

[StrangeSox]

Iowa says hi.

 

What does Iowa say "hi" about? Why should a voter in Iowa have more influence than a voter in any other state? How much time do campaigns spend in small-population rural states like Wyoming?

 

And remember, we're not a Democracy. We're a Democratic Republic. There's a reason this isn't pure Democracy.

 

I think we're the only country with this bizarre EC system. It's a relic from the 1700's and it doesn't even function as they originally intended (no popular vote at all!). There's a lot of room between "antidemocratic Presidential election system" and a pure democracy.

 

Pure popular vote is the reason a populist demagogue like Trump has been able to rise to prominence in the GOP. If everyone were equally versed on the issues, paid equal attention to the candidates, understood the ramifications of their votes, then great, let's have a purely popular vote.

 

Until that time, there need to be checks and balances like the superdelegate system that keep a Trump from happening at least in one of the parties. Just IMO obvs.

 

Parties can do what they want regarding their nominees. I'd prefer something along the lines of what NSS suggested. But the general election is a different matter. EV's don't act as some sort of "checks and balances" against populism.

[Reddy]

By the way, I'll get to the other stuff, but quick point that Texas is in danger of flipping. If not this cycle, then definitely the next. And Iowa is always considered a toss-up state which the candidates visit quite often, even in the general

[Reddy]

Parties can do what they want regarding their nominees. I'd prefer something along the lines of what NSS suggested. But the general election is a different matter. EV's don't act as some sort of "checks and balances" against populism.

 

Maybe not, but the EC is literally the only thing that still gives the GOP a prayer in hell of winning the Presidency.

[StrangeSox]

By the way, I'll get to the other stuff, but quick point that Texas is in danger of flipping. If not this cycle, then definitely the next. And Iowa is always considered a toss-up state which the candidates visit quite often, even in the general

If the rest of the map holds and Texas has a legit shot of turning Democrat, the GOP is doomed anyway so the race is pretty pointless.

 

Regarding Iowa, that's just because it happens to be pretty ideologically split these days and has a decent number of EV's. It's because it's "in play," not because it's small or rural, that it gets any attention. This map of campaign spending from 2012 shows what states got any attention:

 

 

What sense does it make for a Presidential election to focus on states who happen to have a close ideological split in a given election? I don't think Democratic votes in Texas or Republican votes in California should be essentially meaningless.

[Reddy]

If the rest of the map holds and Texas has a legit shot of turning Democrat, the GOP is doomed anyway so the race is pretty pointless.

 

Regarding Iowa, that's just because it happens to be pretty ideologically split these days and has a decent number of EV's. It's because it's "in play," not because it's small or rural, that it gets any attention. This map of campaign spending from 2012 shows what states got any attention:

 

 

What sense does it make for a Presidential election to focus on states who happen to have a close ideological split in a given election? I don't think Democratic votes in Texas or Republican votes in California should be essentially meaningless.

 

Wouldn't you say those states are a pretty good cross-section of America, demographically speaking?

[CrimsonWeltall]

Pure popular vote is the reason a populist demagogue like Trump has been able to rise to prominence in the GOP.

 

Trump has won 37% of the popular vote in the GOP primaries/caucuses, but 45% of the delegates.

 

Under a popular vote, Donald Trump would be doing worse.

[Reddy]

Trump has won 37% of the popular vote in the GOP primaries/caucuses, but 45% of the delegates.

 

Under a popular vote, Donald Trump would be doing worse.

 

Fair. The winner-take-all states on the GOP side do skew things pretty significantly.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Reddy

[StrangeSox]

Wouldn't you say those states are a pretty good cross-section of America, demographically speaking?

I'd say America is a better cross section of America though.

 

edit: the bulk of the spending is in the Midwest/rust belt, so ideologically and regionally it's not really that great of a cross-section. Misses a lot of the regional politics like water in the west and border issues in the SW/W.

Edited April 11, 2016 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Why should every vote count equally?

 

EDIT: Won't that disenfranchise people from smaller, more rural states? Farmers? etc?

Not sure what you mean here. First, I think every vote should count equally because that is the foundation of representative democracy. Second, not, the current system is what disenfranchises people because anyone in a state that is heavily to one side or the other is basically a non-entity in the election.

 

The purpose of the Electoral College was to protect state powers - not power of people individually. And it is effective in that regard, sort of. But it happens to be my view that they got this wrong. The legislature is already split - full states elect a senator, individual districts elect a house member. I personally think the Presidency, being essentially the only national, elected office, should go to the people. Instead, we get another split, which effectively OVER-franchises rural or small states at the expense of the people. Just my personal view.

 

I'm an individualist. If you want to empower states versus feds, I don't think the Electoral College is the effective way to do so. You instead make sure that federal laws stay within the confines of national interests, interstate commerce, defense, civil rights... the stuff enumerated in the Constitution. I realize this isn't a popular opinion, but I am tired of the Presidential elections being determined entirely by Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

 

[Reddy]

I'd say America is a better cross section of America though.

 

But in a purely popular vote, the candidates would literally just hit big cities, which skew heavily Dem anyway, so it makes things 30x harder for the GOP candidate who has to visit far more places in order to galvanize votes than does the Dem candidate, since that person can hit major cities, just GOTV and win.

[Reddy]

Not sure what you mean here. First, I think every vote should count equally because that is the foundation of representative democracy. Second, not, the current system is what disenfranchises people because anyone in a state that is heavily to one side or the other is basically a non-entity in the election.

 

The purpose of the Electoral College was to protect state powers - not power of people individually. And it is effective in that regard, sort of. But it happens to be my view that they got this wrong. The legislature is already split - full states elect a senator, individual districts elect a house member. I personally think the Presidency, being essentially the only national, elected office, should go to the people. Instead, we get another split, which effectively OVER-franchises rural or small states at the expense of the people. Just my personal view.

 

I'm an individualist. If you want to empower states versus feds, I don't think the Electoral College is the effective way to do so. You instead make sure that federal laws stay within the confines of national interests, interstate commerce, defense, civil rights... the stuff enumerated in the Constitution. I realize this isn't a popular opinion, but I am tired of the Presidential elections being determined entirely by Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

 

I think that's actually a pretty popular opinion

[NorthSideSox72]

But in a purely popular vote, the candidates would literally just hit big cities, which skew heavily Dem anyway, so it makes things 30x harder for the GOP candidate who has to visit far more places in order to galvanize votes than does the Dem candidate, since that person can hit major cities, just GOTV and win.

Well first, the election shouldn't be about cost of running in any case. Second, understand fluidity - the parties and state makeups change over time. The rural versus urban discussion is A) Not a Constitutional issue anyway, and B) is only currently stilted the way it is in terms of party bias. It wasn't before, and may not be again in the future. So you don't create laws under any assumptions that way.

 

[Reddy]

Well first, the election shouldn't be about cost of running in any case. Second, understand fluidity - the parties and state makeups change over time. The rural versus urban discussion is A) Not a Constitutional issue anyway, and B) is only currently stilted the way it is in terms of party bias. It wasn't before, and may not be again in the future. So you don't create laws under any assumptions that way.

 

Agreed on your first point. Public funding for the win.

 

Of course there's fluidity and change, but essentially whichever party "controls" the urban populations is going to be the party that has a much, much easier time of winning, and doesn't that completely disenfranchise the rest of the country?