I'm curious how many people really understand the nominating process.

[Pacifist Patriot]

I suspect the percentage is higher on DU, but even here I see some inaccurate perceptions about the democratic nature of the party nominating process.

I see accusations of breaking rules, changing rules, etc. when it seems the individual really doesn't know what the rules are. Instead he or she is making assumptions based on democratic expectations related to elections, not nominations.

In truth, very few people (and I'm including active party members, not just registered voters) understand the intricacies of our convoluted and confusing primary and caucus system for determining the party's nominee. I don't understand it all! Goodness, just trying to figure out Texas gives me a migraine.

Our party nomination process is so complex many of us forget that it's not constitutionally mandated that we have the right to even participate. Instead it is a tool of the parties themselves. American citizens, registered voters in particular, are ostensibly included in the process via the primaries and caucuses, but ultimately the polling place is little more than, well, a poll.

When we pull the lever, touch the screen or circle in the dot for a specific individual we are not even voting for that person. We're telling a slate of delegates to the convention whom we prefer. Some are committed yes, but some are not. And then there's the whole Superdelegate issue. Party nominations are not democratic and never have been.

The head nod the voters (or at least those in the early primary states) have been getting at the conventions within popular memory affirm the perception that we the people are actually the decision-makers rather than giving the party an idea of who may have the best chance against the opponent in the general election.

I know most of us probably are aware of this, but I think it deserves repeating for anyone else interested who may not realize it. The party can ultimately select just about anyone at the convention they feel can get the job done in November. And the job is simply to beat the nominee in the other party.

History buffs please help me out here. Haven't convention surprises havened before? I'm thinking late 19th century-ish, early 20th. I don't know why, but I have it in my head that someone who wasn't even running was brought in as a compromise nominee at the 11th hour. What am I half/pseudo-remembering?

It doesn't sit well with our contemporary take on participation in the democratic process, but I'm pretty sure that putting up another candidate (even one who has not been campaigning)for the nomination at the convention is not changing or breaking any rules.

Heck, when it comes down to it, we don't even vote for the president in the general election. And sadly I just encountered some high school seniors who took a semester of American government this past fall and they had no clue.

The only point I'm trying to make here (and I am NOT advocating any particular candidate or application of the rules) is that I see an awful lot of people up in arms about changing rules mid-stream when they may be getting wrapped around the axle for nothing. Or at least over the wrong issue.

Does anyone know a good website with a really user-friendly explanation of how the nominating process works and what may be allowed to happen at the convention? Not what should or should not transpire, but what is permissible under the party rules.

Thanks!

[BuelahWitch]

1. Don't know the answer to your question about prior elections

But I'm giving this a kick because it's good information. :hi:

[izzybeans]

2. Those are the formal party mechanisms for sure. However, the public mechanism

of opinion and political pressure allows voters to demand their voice be heard, otherwise the party will have to pay a price.

That's the other part of the nominating process. We can withhold support if they do not take our advice. We must demand no less at all times.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. Absolutely, but ultimately if we want more direct say than...

more people need to actually join the party and work towards positions within which they can affect real change that will include the voter more.

But I also thinks it behooves us to understand the workings of the party if we're going to provide advice and demand adherence to that advice.

Look at our present situation. What advice are we giving our leaders as to whom should be the nominee? What can the party (not should the party) do if there is no clear message from the people?

[Arkansas Granny]

4. K & R. Great explanation.

[GoldieAZ49]

5. We have a representative government

Many do not understand what that means.

Even the pledged delegates are not required to vote for a particular candidate.

I had a great history book in HS that was an excellent source, unfortunately I have never been able to find a copy of it.


It will be a good web search project, for the info, maybe the book.

[GoldieAZ49]

6. Here is a link with info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy


Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives.<1> The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.

In many representative democracies (Canada, the USA, Britain, etc), representatives are most commonly chosen in elections by a plurality of those who are both eligible to cast votes and actually do so. A plurality means that a winning candidate has to win more votes than any other candidate in the race, but does not necessarily require a majority of the votes cast. While existing representative democracies hold such elections to choose representatives, in theory other methods, such as sortition (more closely aligned with direct democracy), could be used instead. Also, representatives sometimes hold the power to select other representatives, presidents, or other officers of government (indirect representation).

[architect359]

7. K + R for the good reminder... n/t

[mmonk]

8. Yes, there is nothing unconstitutional about backroom deals

or changing the rules. There is however, a difference between doing things democratically or choosing not to (which tends to piss people off, especially if the rules change in midstream or bosses decide after prolonged rank and file participation).

[crispini]

9. K & R

[LostinVA]

10. Uh oh

You are a brave woman.

:pals:

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. For exposing an ugly truth?

Cheers!

[GeorgeGist]

11. Democracy by proxy ...

ain't really democracy ... which is of course the core of the 'Founding Fathers' philosophy.

[WillyT]

12. Here's My Favorite Story: FDR And The Superintendent Of Chicago Sewers

<snip>

...

With such shenanigans, a given party could virtually guarantee that the favored candidate would be nominated whether the constituency wanted him or not, even if the candidate himself did not feel disposed towards running. Indeed, the nomination of a reluctant President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to run for his third term was conducted by essentially a single man. Roosevelt, tired after two terms, was argued into running for a third by Chicago mayor Ed Kelly. Kelly managed to convince the Democratic Party to hold the convention in Chicago rather than Philadelphia, where he could easily manipulate things. Unfortunately, FDR announced at the convention that he wasn't interested in running. However, the wily Kelly had stationed Thomas D. Garry, Chicago superintendent of sewers, in the basement of the convention center with a microphone wired into the public address system and a switch to turn everything else off. At the appropriate moment (right after FDR's spokesman announced his reluctance to run), Garry shouted into the mike, "We want Roosevelt! Alabama wants Roosevelt!" The Alabama delegates looked at one another in confusion. "Jersey City wants Roosevelt!" The New Jersey boss Frank Hague asked his delegation, "Who said that?" The chant caught on, and before long, the entire convention was clamoring for FDR's reelection. He subsequently took the nomination, the Presidency, and the United States into World War II, all thanks to a lowly sewer guy.

<snip>

Link: http://www.historyhouse.com/uts/party_conventions/

When I first heard this story on C-Span, they said that Garry also had various local high school marching bands waiting outside the convention doors. And when the chants of "We want Roosevelt" got to a crescendo, he let the bands come marching through the convention playing "Happy Days Are Hear Again", FDR's 1932 Campaign song.

The entire convention went for FDR again by acclamation.

Gawd I love history.

:hi:

[harun]

13. K & R

[Willo]

14. Oh great, so the lowly sewer guy is the plan.

Seriously, thanks for the information Patriot. I definitely didn't know this.

Can't say I like knowing it right now.

The irrational part of me is saying "quick burn thread!"

That sewer story is starting to sound familiar to me.

[Bake]

15. Those are the facts.

Would you prefer blissful ignorance? If you don't like the facts, work to change them.

Bake

[Willo]

16. Calm down Bake. I don't think I said anything for you to raise your

sword about.

[Bake]

17. No sword intended.

I meant "ignorance" in its actual meaning, not in a derogatory sense. Fact is, OP is correct, and the sewer guy story may well be true. It certainly could be under the rules.

Peace.

Bake

[Willo]

19. Okay, I'll bite and respond

what did I say that makes you think:

1) I might be choosing to remain ignorant to the OP's message?

2) that I didn't believe the sewer story?

3) that I didn't understand the definition and context in which you used the word "ignorance"?

[Bake]

23. You said something to the effect that you'd rather not know it ...

That's all. No biggie.

:hi:

Bake

[TheDoorbellRang]

18. I've run across several samples of convention battles/surprises...

...in the threads discussing brokered conventions. There is quite a misperception as to the public's "right" to select a party's candidate, but from what I've seen, a party does a lot better when they pay some attention to the voters. Some historian could shed a lot of light on this (and make some money on a book!) researching the evolution of the primary process in America. Here's just a few things I've tripped across here and there:

I'm just starting to read Goodwin's "Team of Rivals." Did you know that not one of the Republican contenders for the party's nomination were even present at the convention? Evidently it would have been "unseemly" for them to attend. Instead, they all had their own little Roves running around in the back rooms making deals.

Some convention surprises: in 1920 Harding became the nominee on the tenth ballot -- he was the original dark horse candidate.

FDR went into the 1932 convention with the most delegates, but didn't become the nominee until the fourth ballot.

In 1952, the party decided in its infinite wisdom to give the nomination to Adlai Stephenson over Kefauver. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estes_Kefauver">wikipedia:

In the 1952 Democratic Party presidential primaries, Kefauver received 3.1 million votes, while the eventual 1952 Democratic presidential nominee, Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson, received only 78,000 votes. Yet "the Kefauver campaign for the nomination in 1952 became the classic example of how presidential primary victories do not automatically lead to the nomination itself."<4> So the Democratic Party political bosses blocked Kefauver's presidential nomination in 1952 and, instead, selected Stevenson.

Remember President Stephenson? Neither do I...

The more modern primary system came about after the Democratic Convention in 1968, when Humphrey received the nomination over anti-war candidate McCarthy. Here is a little background on how that one went:

In 1968, after President Lyndon B. Johnson eked out a narrow win over McCarthy in New Hampshire, either McCarthy or the other anti-Vietnam War candidate, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, won every remaining primary, except for two states, Florida and Ohio, that voted for favorite sons. Yet, when the Democrats met in Chicago in 1968 to nominate a candidate for president, after LBJ had withdrawn in March and RFK was assassinated in June, they chose Hubert H. Humphrey, Johnson's vice president. Humphrey had not entered, let alone won, a single Democratic primary contest.

The reason for Humphrey's convention victory was that a majority of the convention delegates were unelected, and it was these unelected delegates who determined the outcome. The result was a Democratic Party split asunder. This split between anti-Vietnam War Democrats and pro-Vietnam War Humphrey Democrats helped elect the 1968 Republican presidential candidate, Richard Nixon.

Democrats initiated the modern primary system after the 1968 disaster, and the Republicans followed suit.

Last two convention battles post 1968 were Ford vs. Reagan in 1976 and Carter vs. Kennedy in 1980. In both those cases -- again -- a battle at the convention resulted in a win for the opposition. Of course, those losses cannot be completely attributed to a convention battle, but the sense that the party wasn't 100% confident in their eventual nominee couldn't have helped.

So to recap: in 150 years we've gone from a system that excluded both candidate and voter from the selection process to a quasi participation by voters today. With all the scrutiny the primary system has come under during this campaign season, I would guess some major changes will once again occur in the way candidates are chosen. But when all is said and done, please note that since FDR, not one of these convention battles resulted in a winning candidacy.

[Justitia]

24. lesson: FL & OH have been a pain in the ass since 40 yrs ago - LOL! -eom

[Hippo_Tron]

20. I'm pretty sure elected delegates are committed on the first ballot

If nobody wins after the first ballot, they can vote for whomever they want.

[walldude]

21. History: 1924 Democratic party split over prohibition..

Comes up with John Davis as a "compromise candidate" so all you Gore folks hang in there.. :eyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7233365.stm

There is a bit about it at the link... Dems ended up losing to Calvin Cooledge..

[Willo]

22. I tried to find some details but this is not my forte

What I did not find (rules, agenda) leads me to believe that the convention as a festive formality (being the more recent norm and expectation), might make for an ugly, unprepared mob scene this year.


http://www.wnymathguy.com/DelegateSelection/DelegateSelection.htm

This specific page gives a Timetable/schedule for the candidates and DNC.
http://www.wnymathguy.com/DelegateSelection/DeadlineSummary.htm