If candidate A can beat candidate B - than candidate A should be the nominee

This rhetoric needs to stop - in the end it sounds that we want to pick candidates based on current polling - instead of actual voting.  Why have primary voting at all?

The time for candidates to step up was 6 months to a year ago.  

We have 3 candidates who are pretty much mathematically eliminated - but still they think they should be the nominee - why?

I guess the news stations and talk radio can keep their ratings up with the contested convention hype.  We're sick and tired big business looking for loopholes in the tax system, but now we have politicians looking for loopholes because they believe they should be the nominee.

No loopholes. Nominees are picked at the Convention by the Delegates who attend the Convention. 

We do not have a national Primary. 

I guess I've posted this or something like it a dozen times.

Well, I don't really believe that Bernie thinks he should be the nominee, despite the vote count (though some of his supporters seem to think so).  I think he'll fight to the end to keep his supporters engaged in order to influence the party platform going forward as much as possible.  This is well and good, IMHO, and exactly what he should do.  

I won't even try to speak to the issues on the other side.  

In 1968 RFK won many, perhaps most of the Primaries. Then he was murdered. Where should the votes of his Delegates have gone? 

I know where they did go, to Humphrey who didn't run in any of the Primaries.

The RFK situation is rather exceptional, don't you think?

Assuming nothing exceptional, It would be rather unfortunate for either party to select a candidate other than the one with the most votes, especially in an election year when a very large number of people feel as though the system is not working for them.

I'm not sure this article is 100% accurate but it gives a pretty fair idea of 1968:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1968

tjohn said:

The RFK situation is rather exceptional, don't you think?

Assuming nothing exceptional, It would be rather unfortunate for either party to select a candidate other than the one with the most votes, especially in an election year when a very large number of people feel as though the system is not working for them.

But it's not a plurality that wins, it's a majority. That is how it has always been. Otherwise why have a Convention?

In order to be elected President one must get a majority of votes in the Electoral College. If there are three or more candidates the one with the most votes does not win unless he has a majority, one more than 50%.

To me the majority rule is more democratic. Why should someone win with less than 50%? It means he has been rejected by most voters. Even if we were to have one nationwide Primary, would it make sense for whoever got the most votes to be the nominee? There were 17 Republican Candidates at the beginning. Suppose there had been a nationwide Primary with all 17 running. Someone could have come in first with 10% of the vote.

I can't find it anywhere - is there any data that shows percentage of delegates who usually vote for the will of the people?

I think for Bernie's path, he really needs super delegates - which would be a huge uphill battle for him.

If trump hits the magic number - it'll be hard to go against it.  Possible - but silly.

jamie said:

I think for Bernie's path, he really needs super delegates - which would be a huge uphill battle for him.

Super delegates are unlikely to go against the actual vote totals.  And frankly, since most of them are elected representatives, they'll be a whole lot more likely to vote for a candidate who helps get them (Dems) elected than for one who does diddly-squat in this regard.  

Presented without comment. 

LOST said:

I'm not sure this article is 100% accurate but it gives a pretty fair idea of 1968:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1968

tjohn said:

The RFK situation is rather exceptional, don't you think?

Assuming nothing exceptional, It would be rather unfortunate for either party to select a candidate other than the one with the most votes, especially in an election year when a very large number of people feel as though the system is not working for them.

But it's not a plurality that wins, it's a majority. That is how it has always been. Otherwise why have a Convention?

In order to be elected President one must get a majority of votes in the Electoral College. If there are three or more candidates the one with the most votes does not win unless he has a majority, one more than 50%.

To me the majority rule is more democratic. Why should someone win with less than 50%? It means he has been rejected by most voters. Even if we were to have one nationwide Primary, would it make sense for whoever got the most votes to be the nominee? There were 17 Republican Candidates at the beginning. Suppose there had been a nationwide Primary with all 17 running. Someone could have come in first with 10% of the vote.

Suppose down the road the Tea Party crowd gets sick of the idea of a Trump getting in and/or wants their own guy, and becomes a viable third party.  Suppose the Bernie crowd goes ballistic at HRC "stealing" the nomination by relying solely on super delegates to put her at the top (worse, if he has more primary delegates by that point) and creates a Bern Party for the next go.  You'd likely never have a true majority for any Presidential election.  What then?  Have runoff elections until you do?  For how long in between runoffs?  For how long in general?  Then, to make it even more insane, you'd have primaries where (as we've just seen), a boatload of folks could run and cause havoc with attaining a true majority.  And who, ultimately, would win out in either scenario?  Those with the cash, which would at least piss off those that didn't have it.  Would never work.

People who believe a plurality must govern the current nominating process are ignorant of the long-established rules of political parties and of our country's history. And people who think a plurality should govern the process are blind to the potential consequences of such a system, as ctrzaska has pointed out.

On the history piece - wouldn't a plurality system have denied Lincoln the White House (in favor of Seward I believe?), and did Eisenhower even run in the primaries?

ctrzaska said:
Suppose down the road the Tea Party crowd gets sick of the idea of a Trump getting in and/or wants their own guy, and becomes a viable third party.  Suppose the Bernie crowd goes ballistic at HRC "stealing" the nomination by relying solely on super delegates to put her at the top (worse, if he has more primary delegates by that point) and creates a Bern Party for the next go.  You'd likely never have a true majority for any Presidential election.  What then?  Have runoff elections until you do?  For how long in between runoffs?  For how long in general?  Then, to make it even more insane, you'd have primaries where (as we've just seen), a boatload of folks could run and cause havoc with attaining a true majority.  And who, ultimately, would win out in either scenario?  Those with the cash, which would at least piss off those that didn't have it.  Would never work.

Good questions. Here's another. How about if there were a none-of-the-above choice on ballots and no one wins if no one won a majority, repeating until someone does win a majority?

Can't see why Bernie would hang on (w/o getting into personalities). And frankly, if judgment is a quality to consider, Bernie should consider the spokespeople he uses on TV. The outright hostility toward the eventual nominee isn't helping. 

On the GOP side, I'd hang on for sure. Who TF knows what's possible at this point?

Tom_Reingold said:
ctrzaska said:

Suppose down the road the Tea Party crowd gets sick of the idea of a Trump getting in and/or wants their own guy, and becomes a viable third party.  Suppose the Bernie crowd goes ballistic at HRC "stealing" the nomination by relying solely on super delegates to put her at the top (worse, if he has more primary delegates by that point) and creates a Bern Party for the next go.  You'd likely never have a true majority for any Presidential election.  What then?  Have runoff elections until you do?  For how long in between runoffs?  For how long in general?  Then, to make it even more insane, you'd have primaries where (as we've just seen), a boatload of folks could run and cause havoc with attaining a true majority.  And who, ultimately, would win out in either scenario?  Those with the cash, which would at least piss off those that didn't have it.  Would never work.

Good questions. Here's another. How about if there were a none-of-the-above choice on ballots and no one wins if no one won a majority, repeating until someone does win a majority?

The Constitution provides for what happens if no candidate gets a majority in the Electoral College.

There are numerous alternative models of how to structure an election with multiple candidates other than whoever comes in first, no matter how small his plurality, winning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runoff_voting

GL2 said:

Can't see why Bernie would hang on (w/o getting into personalities). And frankly, if judgment is a quality to consider, Bernie should consider the spokespeople he uses on TV. The outright hostility toward the eventual nominee isn't helping. 

On the GOP side, I'd hang on for sure. Who TF knows what's possible at this point?

Bruni believes Bernie and Cruz are sore losers, losing gracelessly

The Cult of Sore Losers

Bernie Sanders isn’t losing. Just ask many of his backers or listen to some of his own complaints. He’s being robbed, a victim of antiquated rules, voter suppression, shady arithmetic and a corrupt Democratic establishment. The swindle includes the South’s getting inordinate sway and the poor none at all. If Americans really had a voice, they would shout “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!” until too hoarse to shout anymore.

Donald Trump isn’t winning. Just ask Ted Cruz, by whose strange and self-serving logic it is “the will of the people” (his actual words) that he and John Kasich collude to prevent Trump from amassing a majority of delegates so that some runner-up with less demonstrable support can leapfrog past him to become the Republican presidential nominee. Democracy in action!
The pro-Sanders actor Tim Robbins fired off a tweet this week with the charge that “this election is being stolen,” the hashtag #VoterFraud and the insinuation that The Times and CNN were essentially conspiring with Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/opinion/the-cult-of-sore-losers.html

I'm not sure about that. Its possible people like Bernie may be so invested in their campaign, so feted with adoration, that they have trouble envisioning loss.

The parties pick the candidates.  They both run primaries, but there's nothing that says they have to.  There isn't anything, other than their own bi-laws which they can change, that says they have to listen to "the people". 

I wish they'd stop listening to the people. The people are morons and super loud. Every four years we get 18 months of this nonsense. Enough already.

RobB said:

I wish they'd stop listening to the people. The people are morons and super loud. Every four years we get 18 months of this nonsense. Enough already.

The media are not helping the situation. Even media who try to do a good job have to report on the things the boneheaded media are reporting.

terp said:

The parties pick the candidates.  They both run primaries, but there's nothing that says they have to.  There isn't anything, other than their own bi-laws which they can change, that says they have to listen to "the people". 

They do, but occasionally the people push forward a candidate that the party was not expecting.

Why isn't anyone starting the NSA political party?   They're the only ones who listen to Americans.

RobB said:

I wish they'd stop listening to the people. The people are morons and super loud. Every four years we get 18 months of this nonsense. Enough already.

It's only just begun