G
gilliam
Guest
Two contested conventions? It wouldn’t be the first time abcn.ws/1oJgAnK
- Status
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
I think both trump and sanders should run third party. Then we can give the people some real choices instead of the same old same old.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
New speculation about the possibility of Democrats having a contested convention – in addition to the already likely scenario that Republicans will have one –- could add 2016 to a small list of historic presidential races.
The prospect of having dual contested conventions is far from set, but if it were to happen, it wouldn’t be the first time.
Four other elections included contested conventions where both Democrats and Republicans determined their nominee past the first ballot, according to a review of post-Civil War elections by the Pew Research Center.
Three of those elections were consecutive: 1876, 1880, and 1884. The fourth was in 1920.
Pew analyzed elections after the Civil War and up through 1984, since that was the last time a party’s nominee was uncertain going into the convention. Including elections since 1984, there have only been 18 contested conventions with more than one ballot, out of 74 total conventions.
That means three quarters of all conventions since the Civil War have been decided either before the convention convened or during the first ballot vote.
More:
abcnews.go.com/Politics/contested-conventions-time/story?id=38251668
The prospect of having dual contested conventions is far from set, but if it were to happen, it wouldn’t be the first time.
Four other elections included contested conventions where both Democrats and Republicans determined their nominee past the first ballot, according to a review of post-Civil War elections by the Pew Research Center.
Three of those elections were consecutive: 1876, 1880, and 1884. The fourth was in 1920.
Pew analyzed elections after the Civil War and up through 1984, since that was the last time a party’s nominee was uncertain going into the convention. Including elections since 1984, there have only been 18 contested conventions with more than one ballot, out of 74 total conventions.
That means three quarters of all conventions since the Civil War have been decided either before the convention convened or during the first ballot vote.
More:
abcnews.go.com/Politics/contested-conventions-time/story?id=38251668
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
The Democrats would dislike that more than the Republicans. If the electoral votes are split in such a way that none of the four candidates achieve 270 necessary to win, the election would move to the House of Representatives of which presently the Republicans have a 246 to 188 advantage.
C
chero23
Guest
Exactly, you beat me to it. The republicans would definitely elect whoever is the republican candidate. And guess what, this would become a big issue possibly causing uproar.
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
How is it the rules can’t be changed to accommodate more than two parties? Isn’t it better to give the people more choices? The two party system is too corrupt. This year might very well be a time to push for a third and fourth party.
C
Crossbones
Guest
While the media would like this to happen for having something interesting to cover, it just won’t happen.
The Democrats have only 2 candidates. Clinton is too far in front. Even if Sanders gets closer, the superdelegates won’t switch because Sanders isn’t a long time Democrat and they aren’t going to vote against the the first woman to be nominated for President by a major party.
It may get closer, but it won’t be contested.
The Democrats have only 2 candidates. Clinton is too far in front. Even if Sanders gets closer, the superdelegates won’t switch because Sanders isn’t a long time Democrat and they aren’t going to vote against the the first woman to be nominated for President by a major party.
It may get closer, but it won’t be contested.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
If Trump is blocked from the nomination and decides to run as a 3rd party candidate, I sure hope Jesse Ventura runs as well. He has some very good positions, but also some very bad ones, which would still be good in that they’d take a few votes from the Democratic nominee and make this race anything but a sure thing.
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
I really don’t think Trump will run a third party unless someone else on the democrat side runs third party. Trump doesn’t want to give it to hillary. Instead of doing all this, he could just go back to his comfortable life. He doesn’t need a political career. If the people decide they don’t want trump’s skills or leadership, I think he’ll move on.
U
ucfengr
Guest
Because the 2 parties control the election and electoral process. There already are more than 2 parties, but there’s no way for them to gain any traction under the current system. That said, I’m not convinced a multi-party system would be inherently better than our current system. Many countries have multi-party systems, Canada and Great Britain, for example, but they still have many of the same problems we do.
H
halleone
Guest
Don’t I wish. Please, someone make it so!
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
Sorry to disappoint you, but you will have to wait till someone beats him.
O
Ojo_Feliz
Guest
The US Constitution doesn’t address the matter of political parties. However, it does say that if no candidate wins a majority of the electoral vote, the US House of Representatives will select the next president.
I have heard that this is what the founding fathers envisioned: the people would voice their preferences, but elected officials would pick the best of the candidates. It is why we have the Electoral College, as well.
How should a president to be selected, if none of the candidates win a majority vote?
M
Melodeonist
Guest
Now this is just my opinion, but I think contested conventions are complete and utter BS. The people should be able to decide who gets nominated. If we don’t have a voice, then we are basically a dictatorship. /rant :coolinoff:
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Basically? Or really? I don’t know what you mean by “basically?”
We either are or aren’t.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Maybe not. The Constitution say s the House will elect a new president “immediately.”
“Perhaps the most dangerous possibility left open by the Constitution is that the lame duck Congress could try to move the time for counting electoral votes back to a date before January 3, when the new Congress convenes, so that the old Congress could choose the new President.”
theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/80oct/deadlock2.htm
However, the House was Republican before wasn’t it? So that would have no effect?
I don’t think the Democrats will have to worry about a contested convention. If Clinton gets the great majority of votes, but still falls short of the required delegates, Sanders’ super delegates will move to her side, just as they moved from her to Obama. This assures that the will of the voters a obeyed.
M
Melodeonist
Guest
By “basically” I mean dictatorship light. Just like there’s Budweiser and Bud light, and bold cigarettes and mild cigarettes, there too is Dictatorship and Dictatorship light.Basically? Or really? I don’t know what you mean by “basically?”
A
anon67074017
Guest
Would Sanders be the nominee in a contested Democratic Party convention?
P
powerofk
Guest
As for Trump running 3rd party - even if he wanted to, he probably wouldn’t be able to get on ballots in enough states. And in reality, he’d more than likely have to run as “no party” because the most important minor parties (Green, Libertarian, and Constitution) have their conventions before the final major party primaries (usually in April or May). And many states (such as New Mexico) forbid someone who lost his/her party’s nomination contest from running as an Independent or write-in. Plus, the deadlines for independents to get enough signatures and/or pay the filing fee (some mandate a certain number of signatures; some accept a filing fee in lieu of signatures; some require both a certain number of signatures PLUS a filing fee) differ from state to state, with some states mandating that this happen before their state’s primary election.
This is actually why the Dems and the GOP have such a tight grip on our politics - the rules are really severely tilted against 3rd party and independent candidates on any level. In general, the states most favorable to 3rd party candidates are Minnesota, Maine, Vermont, and California. And other than these four states, it’s nearly impossible for a 3rd party/independent candidate to even get on the ballot for any elected position other than President (and even then, only parties recognized by the state get on the ballot).
Regardless, here’s the thing: Republicans are now more likely than not to have a contested convention. It’s almost certain that Ted Cruz will have won the majority of delegates in 8 staes (he’s already up to 6 due to his under-the-radar delegate wins in Wyoming and Colorado, and is favored to win outright majorities in at least 5 more states). It’s also becoming increasingly likely that Trump will come in significantly under the 1237 delegates required to win an outright majority on the first ballot. In truth, it looks like it’ll come down to how well he does in California. And though Kasich won’t be able to have a nomination on the floor, his delegates in Ohio (and elsewhere) are still bound to vote for him, as are many of Rubio’s - though some of Rubio’s were released due to state rules. It’s thought that most of Rubio’s delegates that were released will go to Ted Cruz because their positions were the same on just about everything other than immigration, but they are officially “unpledged” and can now vote for whoever they want.
Here’s the thing - Trump will have won a distinct plurality of the delegates. But party rules require an absolute majority (50% + 1) of the delegates voting to win the nomination. And after the first ballot, most states release their delegates to vote for whomever they wish (>90% of delegates are released after the first ballot; >95% after the second; and about 100% after the third). If no candidate wins an outright majority on the first or second ballot (which is quite possible - it’s unlikely that Trump’s people would vote for Cruz or vice versa; Trump would likely need to win on the first ballot, but Cruz could possibly win on the second, unless Kasich’s delegates refuse to vote for either Trump or Cruz), then the GOP could have many ballots, trying to find a compromise candidate that would be palbable to all three branches of the GOP - the Trump branch, the Christian Conservative branch (that both Cruz and Rubio come from), and the pragmatic branch (the governors, including Kasich, generally belong in this group). And it’ll be hard, but it’ll have to be done.
This is actually why the Dems and the GOP have such a tight grip on our politics - the rules are really severely tilted against 3rd party and independent candidates on any level. In general, the states most favorable to 3rd party candidates are Minnesota, Maine, Vermont, and California. And other than these four states, it’s nearly impossible for a 3rd party/independent candidate to even get on the ballot for any elected position other than President (and even then, only parties recognized by the state get on the ballot).
Regardless, here’s the thing: Republicans are now more likely than not to have a contested convention. It’s almost certain that Ted Cruz will have won the majority of delegates in 8 staes (he’s already up to 6 due to his under-the-radar delegate wins in Wyoming and Colorado, and is favored to win outright majorities in at least 5 more states). It’s also becoming increasingly likely that Trump will come in significantly under the 1237 delegates required to win an outright majority on the first ballot. In truth, it looks like it’ll come down to how well he does in California. And though Kasich won’t be able to have a nomination on the floor, his delegates in Ohio (and elsewhere) are still bound to vote for him, as are many of Rubio’s - though some of Rubio’s were released due to state rules. It’s thought that most of Rubio’s delegates that were released will go to Ted Cruz because their positions were the same on just about everything other than immigration, but they are officially “unpledged” and can now vote for whoever they want.
Here’s the thing - Trump will have won a distinct plurality of the delegates. But party rules require an absolute majority (50% + 1) of the delegates voting to win the nomination. And after the first ballot, most states release their delegates to vote for whomever they wish (>90% of delegates are released after the first ballot; >95% after the second; and about 100% after the third). If no candidate wins an outright majority on the first or second ballot (which is quite possible - it’s unlikely that Trump’s people would vote for Cruz or vice versa; Trump would likely need to win on the first ballot, but Cruz could possibly win on the second, unless Kasich’s delegates refuse to vote for either Trump or Cruz), then the GOP could have many ballots, trying to find a compromise candidate that would be palbable to all three branches of the GOP - the Trump branch, the Christian Conservative branch (that both Cruz and Rubio come from), and the pragmatic branch (the governors, including Kasich, generally belong in this group). And it’ll be hard, but it’ll have to be done.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Okay, thank you for clearing that up.
- Status