So what? Parties have the right to choose their candidates by their own rules.I just wanted to get everyones thoughts on this…
What Would Happen in this Country if the Super-Delegates “Abort” the Peoples Choice?
Not everyone participates in primaries, or in caucuses. Caucuses, particularly, tend to draw mainly the party faithful or energized partisans of particular candidates.
And some primaries allow independents and non-party members to participate pretty easily. Some primaries are winner take all, and some are proportiional. So it’s hard to say that the results of caucuses and primaries are the “people’s choice” when it comes to the party as a whole.
In times past, the purpose of a party conventiion was to select a candidate, not to ratify one.
I agree in theory with both of these posts, but if one candidate gains a clear majority of primary votes and another is nominated by action of the superdelegates, that nominee will have a hard time shaking off the ‘back room’ connotations and an even harder time getting elected. That’s why I don’t see it happening. If it is very close and one candidate has only a nominal lead, all bets are off.So what? Parties have the right to choose their candidates by their own rules.
Our primary system is totally screwed up anyway. The presumptive Republican nominee and the Democratic former-underdog turned almost-frontrunner both owe their status to independents (and maybe crossovers for the Republican) voting for them in states that have open primaries.
As to the candidates themselves, no comment, but both parties maybe saddled with candidates chosen for them, at least in part, by non-party members.
Nominees should be chosen by parties, not “the people”. I’d have no problem with ditching primaries altogether and going back to having candidates chosen by bosses in smoke-filled (well, probably not anymore) rooms. It’s not like there has been a big improvement since we “democratised” the selection process with primaries and caucuses.
I think you may be right; although it would cause more of a stir in the news media and certain sections of each party, than in the general public. The left wing of the Dems would try to cry foul (loudly!) if it appeared superdelegates alone denied the nomination to their guy, just as the right wing of the GOP is even now cryiing foul about the apparent front runner. But most people won’t get much worked up until the general election, if then.I agree in theory with both of these posts, but if one candidate gains a clear majority of primary votes and another is nominated by action of the superdelegates, that nominee will have a hard time shaking off the ‘back room’ connotations and an even harder time getting elected. That’s why I don’t see it happening. If it is very close and one candidate has only a nominal lead, all bets are off.
And in some primaries, since anyone can vote in whichever primary they wish, the winner is often not the one chosen by the party. I wish we could do away with that system.Not everyone participates in primaries, or in caucuses. Caucuses, particularly, tend to draw mainly the party faithful or energized partisans of particular candidates.
And some primaries allow independents and non-party members to participate pretty easily. Some primaries are winner take all, and some are proportiional. So it’s hard to say that the results of caucuses and primaries are the “people’s choice” when it comes to the party as a whole.
In times past, the purpose of a party conventiion was to select a candidate, not to ratify one.
As didymus mentioned earlier. I would disagree with both of you, I think in most cases a candidate who has crossover support is more likely to win the general election because he can win the independents. Of course every nominee must also take care to balance his appeal to the other party and independents with maintaining the support of his base.And in some primaries, since anyone can vote in whichever primary they wish, the winner is often not the one chosen by the party. I wish we could do away with that system.