How should a winner be determined?

[kentuck]

Should it be the candidate that gets the most popular vote? Or should it be the one that gets the most delegates? If it's about the popular vote, why even have delegates??

Or should it be about who can get the most "Super Delegates"? Who decides?

Who made the decision to have proportional representation whereby the candidates would get delegates in proportion to their victories in various districts in the various states? Was not the premise of the whole electoral process to see who could get the most delegates? Is that not how the President was to be chosen?

If no one has enough delegates to clinch the magic number, what should then be done? And why the number set so arbitrarily high? Should the candidate with the most delegates at that time be declared the victor? Or should the popular vote winner be declared the winner? And would that not defeat the whole purpose of delegates?

Jus how important are delegates in this process? Should that be the primary method of choosing the victor?

[tyne]

1. The delegate system

is the method of choosing the nominee. The candidates plan their strategy with that in mind. If we want to change it...we should...next time.

[Lord Helmet]

2. It already has been and Obama is so far ahead with delegates she can't catch up.

[doc03]

3. I think it should be from the popular vote

this delegate system is like the Electoral College it's undemocratic. It just isn't right in my opinion that Hillary can win Texas by 3% and Obama gets more delegates and if it was the other way round it wouldn't right either. This is a mess some states winner take all and others are proportional and then there is Texas. From what I have heard the Republicans have a far better system.

[ncabot22]

4. One answer - Thunderdome

Just kidding. Seriously, I think the popular vote and pledged delegate leader should win the nom.

[kentuck]

5. I think the best solution might be...

That the nominee should have to win the most delegates and also the most popular votes. If one candidate has the most delegates and the other had the most popular votes, then all the delegates at the Convention would vote by secret ballot to break the tie. The candidate with the majority of votes from our representatives and super delegates would be the nominee. Simple, huh? :-)

[TheDoorbellRang]

26. At this point Obama has the most popular vote and the most pledged delegates

And it doesn't look like that will change anytime soon, or is even possible to overcome. :shrug:

Each state's primary or caucus system seems to vary widely from one another. I notice there's a lot of indignation about how Obama will get more delegates from the Texas system than Clinton will, but no one seems to complain that in some of the other states the delegate apportionment has favored Clinton over Obama -- in Alabama, for example, Obama beat Clinton 56-42%, but the delegates were apportioned O-27,C-25. In Hawaii, it was Obama 76-24%; delegates went O-14,C-6. That's the way it goes, but I do notice the Obama camp hasn't been crying about it.

[kentuck]

27. If it ends up that way...

with Obama with the popular vote and the majority of delegates, then he should be the nominee, in my opinion. However, if Hillary is able to overtake him in the popular vote but not in the delegate count, then it should go to the Convention to be decided by secret ballot by the entire delegation.

[TheDoorbellRang]

30. In most states you cannot win the most delegates without the most votes

The Texas two-step is throwing everyone for a loop, except Texans, it seems. They all seem to like it and I've read some good posts explaining and defending it, so it is what it is.

But most states don't have that system; if Obama continues to stay ahead in pledged delegates, he will also stay ahead in popular vote.

[kentuck]

31. Wasn't Nevada similar?

Didn't Obama win the most delegates but Hillary the popular vote ??

[TheDoorbellRang]

38. Yup. It was 51-45% in Clinton's favor; then O = 13/C = 12 in PD's

But again, it seems that the only ones that make the news are the ones that act in Obama's favor. The results in Alabama and Hawaii that gave more delegates to Clinton than the percentage of votes would seem to indicate never saw the light of day -- the Obama camp didn't raise the "It's not fair!" banner.

That's why I find the whole "Texas isn't fair!" argument so bemusing.

[kentuck]

40. Good point.

And fair.

[paperbag_ princess]

6. There is already a system in place

We shouldn't get to change the rules in the middle of the process.

Nominee receives 2025 delegates...

Neither nominee can reach this number without superdelegates.

Superdelegates decide based on their own reasons and they do not act as a group.
They use their own reasoning...on what they determine is most important.

They could determine based on any of the following:

popular vote
delegate count to date
who has they better qualifications
who they think has the better chance to win
what states they won
what types of voters they bring to the polls
or any other reason they choose

Each candidate has to make their case to the superdelegates..and sway their decision.

You may not like the system...but that is what is in place. Both candidates have an good shot at winning the nomination based on this system. All of these posts saying that the math is not in Hillary's favor are bunk.

[kentuck]

9. There is no guarantee that either would get the 2025...

by this system already in place. There are about 600 plus delegates left and if they split those, neither will have the required number even with super delegates.

[Apollo11]

11. Looks like someone is paying attention!

If I am a superdelegate, of course I will look at who won my district and who won my state and who won the most pledged delegates nationwide (especially if all 3 are the same).

But I am also gonna look at the two candidates and ask myself who can beat John McCain in November and go on to lead a successful administration and get re-elected in 2012.

[kentuck]

12. And if neither gets the 2025 votes necessary for nomination?

What do you do then? It's likely that neither will reach that magic number.

[jakem]

7. pistols at dawn. think of the publicity!

well, maybe prime time rather than dawn... put it on after idol.

[blogslut]

8. bumper car battle

First one to hit the wall forfeits the nomination.

From the stuff I'm reading, neither one will be able to get 2,025 pledged delegates. That's a problem.

[kentuck]

10. I think we should assume that neither will get the 2025 votes?

And where in the hell did that arbitrary number come from???

[blogslut]

13. It's not arbitrary

It is what it is.

[kentuck]

14. Thanks for the explanation.

Everything is much clearer now.

[TheDoorbellRang]

28. It's one half plus one of the total pledged and super delegates

There are 3253 pledged delegates and 796 super delegates = 4049

[kentuck]

29. So it is possible that neither could get that number?

But much thanks for those numbers. :-)

[TheDoorbellRang]

34. One of them will, by hook or by crook

I've been using demcomwatch as one of my essential go-to sites for information.

The way each newssource attributes delegates varies, but this site graphs four different sources side by side so you can realize, I guess, that everyone is absolutely clueless. ;-) The differences in totals by each source range from 109 to 4.5, depending on who you believe/trust.

One thing of interest in these totals: if you look at each state's total pledged delegate count available, you'll notice that all the delegates aren't accounted for by both candidates' totals combined. Eg., CO has 55 PD's available, but it only shows O-32/C-13 (in two of the four sources).

By my reckoning there have been 2642 PD's put in play so far, and even the most robust apportionment of C =1220/O = 1360 PD's leaves out 62 of the PD's to date (26 of these were Edwards'). Many of these states don't "seal the deal" until their state conventions I think, and each state seems to have their own little modus operandi.

There are 611 PD's left in the remaining contests, so neither is going to get to 2025 without the SD's, and a good chunk of them, to boot.

(And I won't even start on the FL and MI Pd's and SD's not in play here.)

[kentuck]

36. Let's say they split the remaining delegates..?

Clinton would have approsimately 1526 delegates and Obama would have have approximately 1665 delegates. Since there are about 350 Super Delegates left to declare, neither would get the needed number of 2025 if they won every single delegate...which is not likely. So, what then? I say a secret ballot at the Convention if the popular vote and delegate votes are split. If Obama wins both the popular vote and the delegate votes, then he should be the nominee, in my opinion.

[TheDoorbellRang]

41. The 1220/1360 count was only for PD's. Throw in the SD count for added murkiness

That example, BTW, was AP, so I'll stay with their SD count too. Per AP, we have 62 homeless PD's from past contests and 611 PD's in the contests to come, for a total of 673. Let's split them down the middle and I'll give the extra one to Obama (just because I wanna :D ). That gives Clinton 1220 + 336 = 1556; Obama 1360 + 337 = 1697. Clinton then needs 469 SD's to hit 2025, and Obama needs 328 SD's to seal the deal. Per AP, Clinton has 242 SD's in her corner and would need 227 more; Obama has 207 for him and would need 130 more.

Ain't this fun?

[Upton]

15. Holding primaries to award delegates

was put in place for a reason. To ignore them goes against everything the Democratic party stands for.

[kentuck]

17. The delegates definitely have to be considered.

But if the election is so close, and another candidate wins the popular vote, what should be done? If one nominee wins both the majority of delegates and the popular vote, then that should be our nominee. However if they split the delegate votes and the popular vote, then we need another solution. I think the best way to handle that is to have a secret ballot at the convention - with all our Representatives and the Super Delegates - and the candidate with the majority, even if one vote - would be our nominee.

[saltpoint]

16. The Democratic Party's ticket from this point forward should be determined by

me.

I should be the sole arbiter of our tickets for 08 and onward.

That seems fair.

_ _ _ _

Howard Dean could do the party a big favor and convene a silver-hair/young blood panel of Dems to find a better way to select a candidate. The romance of New Hampshire and Iowa notwithstanding, the vote in the primary/caucus system needs a serious rehaul and makeover.

I favor late-spring 17-state rotational primaries with states selected randomly with 17 one week, 17 more the next, and the remainder the third week. Gives everyone a chance to raise organization and bucks.

[kentuck]

20. I like the idea of rotational regional primaries.

That is the most democratic way, in my opinion.

[saltpoint]

21. 'mornin'. kentuck.

Good to see ya.

[kentuck]

22. Top of the mornin', Old Crusoe.

:-)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. There Is No Easy Answer

If one candidate wins the popular vote and another candidate wins the delegate vote and both are close than the Super Delegates have to decide the winner...

I don't know the answer...

[kentuck]

23. The Super Delegates would have to then decide...

But if one had the most delegates and one had the most popular votes, the the entire delegation should vote by secret ballot. Why? Because home-state Senators and Represntatives might feel obligated for political reasons to vote for one candidate over the other. The secret ballot would permit them to vote their conscience and to vote for who they think is the best nominee.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I Am Trying To Be Non-Partisan

Best case for Hllary scenario...

She wins PA, PR, WV, KY, and IN... She wins re-votes in FL and MI...She's leading the pop vote by a percent or so but losing the delegate vote by a percent or so...

The Supers have a dilemma...Unless the two share a ticket, half the party will think they were screwed...

[kentuck]

25. And you are doing a very good job.

But what happens if one wins the popular vote and one wins the most delegates? Even if they share the ticket, one side will think they were shafted and should have been at the top of the ticket. If we end up with this scenario, which is very likely, I think the vote should go to the entire Convention for a vote by secret ballot, and the winner would then be the top of the ticket.

[Upton]

19. Delegates awarded by the primaries

were put in place for a reason. To ignore them goes against everything the Democratic party stands for.

[underpants]

32. The system as it is is fine but we could enhance it by including chainsaws

Sorry if I am stating the obvious.

[kentuck]

33. What do you mean, underpants??

That machetes aren't good enough? :-)

[underpants]

35. Sharpened carbumpers are more "organic"

machetes could be okay if, of course, they are supplemented with a steal cage but then what isn't?

[kentuck]

37. What ever happened to the old-fashioned circular firing squads?

:shrug:

[underpants]

39. YEAH! and hand grenades at 5 paces too

kids these days are wussies

[Shine]

42. These are all excellent questions, kentuck.

There's a "system" in place, as we all know, to makes these sorts of determinations.

Perhaps having that system questioned and re-assessed is a "benefit" from this whole confusing and frustrating process.

I just want Clarity and Unity from the party. Is that too much to ask???

Apparently so. :rofl: