why 2383 delegates to win?

[restorefreedom]

why not have all the states vote, and at the end of voting in ALL 50 states, the candidate with the highest votes/pledged delegates (one would have to be picked ahead of time) is the winner?

no superdelegstes
no driving candidates out before all 50 states have voted
no deal making on the convention floor
no contested conventions

highes votes wins. all 50 states.

done.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

1. Because then they can't force grassroots candidates out.

[restorefreedom]

5. that seems to be the only thing that makes sense. nt

[DanTex]

2. Sounds good to me. And Hillary wins easily in that case.

[geek tragedy]

3. yes, and get rid of the caucuses in their current form.

If states won't pay for a primary, instead of having people stand around, just have them write their preference on a slip of paper and be done with it. None of this stupid bullshit of standing in place for an hour, or giving speeches, etc. And let people vote absentee.

[rjsquirrel]

4. Ok we will get right on that eom

[JI7]

6. so Hilary would have won in 2008

And it would have been much easier for her this time around.

[restorefreedom]

9. would have depended if they had gone with pop vote or pledged delegates

but yes, it is possible. then again,the florida michigan debacle screwed up the pop vote count anyway.

it was still a mess.

[SharonClark]

7. That is called the general election

and electoral college delegates determine who the president is (unless the Supreme Court does).

We are going thru primary elections/caucuses now to determine who will represent the parties in the general election. The members of each party (Dem, GOP, Green, etc) determine who the nominee to represent their party is for the general election. Unless it is an open primary and a free for all.

[restorefreedom]

10. i am all for free for all. nt

[onehandle]

8. Agreed. Hillary wins! nt

[restorefreedom]

11. if the calendar is not stacked regionally, and the debates are fairly handled,

and all the states get to vote, then if that is the case, so be it.

[thesquanderer]

12. re: "highes votes wins. all 50 states. "

What if there are 17 candidates? What if the highest vote still only represents a small minority of voters? What if you have one crazy guy who comes out on top, because the people who think he's nuts split their vote among 16 other candidates?

[restorefreedom]

14. um, like trump?

i doubt there would ever be a democratic "trump"

but the choice still belongs to the people.

[brooklynite]

13. Answer: you still need delegates.

Delegates vote on the Party platform and other procedural matters.

[LiberalFighter]

15. Because those are the rules they decided to use.

How about asking why Democrats don't use 3 delegates for each district and 10 at-large delegates and 3 party members for each state? Or extra delegates for Presidential results and for Republican Senators, Representatives, Governor, and state legislative chambers?

Why aren't special delegates on the Republican side called superdelegates?

Why make a big deal about this when the necessary delegates have not been reached yet? The rules are in place to determine the nominee under various situations. i.e. when they have enough delegates or they don't have enough delegates. Members of the Democratic National Committee determine this because it is their party organization. Those members are from all of the states. They were elected by their peers within the party organization structure which includes the county, district and state members.

If the winner is based on results of all of the states then it would require every state holding their primary on the same day. And only those that have declared themselves to be a Democrat could participate.

[restorefreedom]

16. personally, this delegste stuff is bullshit imo

as is the ec for national elections.

one person, one vote. count em up.

the end.

[LiberalFighter]

18. This is not an election for the general populace.

More than just election results is integral in the process. Delegates are needed to pass rules, platforms, and other items.

As for one person, one vote currently Clinton is ahead by 2.4 million votes but that alone should not be the criteria. It is important for a nominee to have strong support from states that are likely to vote for the Democratic nominee. The current plan is weighted for states that have a higher turnout for Democratic candidate for President. For instance, if Wyoming had a higher turnout than it currently has it would have more delegates than it does now.

Whether you like it or not the commissions in the past determined that it was imperative to follow this structure to maximize the success of the Party and Presidential candidates running as Democrat. They are not going to change the plan because you don't like it or anyone else that doesn't have a stake in the future of the Democratic Party. Over 400 DNC members make the decision based on what is best for the Democratic Party. And they represent the party from the grassroots to the leadership.

[restorefreedom]

19. it makes perfect sense for those into party structure

but i just am not. i don't care about platforms either because neither side sems to stick with them anyway. just put a bunch of candidates out and let em have runoffs till we have a winner.

[PeaceNikki]

17. You should get involved with your local party and ask that question.

Going to meetings and conventions is much more effective than posting about it on the internet.