The thing about state conventions is

[MineralMan]

that delegates come there with their votes already decided, for the vast majority of delegates. The outcome is pretty certainly known before the convention even begins. That's because the allocation of delegates to the national convention is controlled by rules that are designed to make sure the allocation is in accordance with the primary or caucus voting, generally on congressional district boundaries.

In most states, the fact that the number of votes for the two candidates is almost certain, as the rules require means that the convention is really a pro-forma sort of thing. There are other issues at the convention, like endorsing statewide candidates, such as governors or U.S. Senators. There are also state platform resolutions to be presented at the national convention for possible adoption.

But, the allocation of delegates to the national convention is pretty much set by previous primary events, along with county and district conventions.

At every Democratic Party convention I've attended, there are always some delegates who are there for the first time. They've never attended a convention before. They're often a little confused about the agenda and protocol. Sometimes, they don't understand things like credential confirmation and the fact that the credentials committee will make several reports before the voting begins. They may not be familiar with the fact that such conventions are run according to Roberts Rules of Order. That sometimes leads to misunderstandings and questions. Sometimes it leads to frustration and disappointment.

Bottom line is that the convention delegates were selected at other venues and are committed to voting according to the allocation at those previous conventions or the primary votes or caucus results. There are a few exceptions of course, but the function of the state convention in presidential races is to allocate delegates to match the results from the primary voting or caucuses. That's how the rules are set up.

In Nevada, that's what happened, actually. The allocation of Nevada's delegates to the national convention match those caucus results, just as the rules of the convention and of the Democratic Party intended. All of the uproar and disrupting protesting wasn't ever going to change that fact. All that did was make the convention last much, much longer than necessary. It didn't change what the outcome was going to be one bit.

Inexperienced delegates acting badly don't change the outcome. They just cause a disruption. The delegation to the national convention is now set. Now we move on to that convention, where the rules will also be in place and the delegates will vote as they are pledged to do or as the unpledged delegates decide for their own votes. The numbers will be honored, regardless of the behavior of any group of delegates.

[merrily]

1. What ACTUALLY happened at the Nevada state convention. (From politicians who were there.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=372396

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017372733

ETA: And from a Clinton delegate who was also there

[polly7]

11. +1,000,000. nt.

[floriduck]

2. Can you explain why former Dem congressman James Bilbray, in office from 1987-1995

ripped up his ballot and left the convention in disgust over Roberta Lange's conduct? It was well reported by his daughter, Erin Bilbray, who was reporting live for a local TV station. She also is a DNC member.

Why the descepancy in all of this?

[MineralMan]

3. I can't speak for any other person.

You'd have to ask him.

[floriduck]

6. He made it quite clear. And that doesn't quite jive with your version.

[merrily]

15. You're speaking for an entire event you did not attend.

[HumanityExperiment]

16. asked and answered...

does actual reporting have any impact with you?

Oh wait...

[Blue Meany]

4. Actually, the Nevada rules are particularly convoluted in the way

delegates are distributed based on three-tiers of voting. The Sanders campaign was competing based on those admittedly convoluted rules and was gaining delegates, so at the last minute they changed them to take back his gains. Changing the rules in the midst of an election to disadvantage one candidate is not usually considered fair play. The DNC did that at the National Convention in 2008, but that was a compromise that was hammered out between in two campaigns in the rules committee. This was different. IMO, they should just hold a primary and be done with it.

[MineralMan]

9. Same think happens in many caucus states.

I'm in favor of moving to primaries completely. Minnesota will be doing that in 2020, and I'm glad of it.

We also have a multi-tier convention system here, following the caucuses. Things shift slightly, but in the end, the actual delegate allocation to the national convention is essentially identical to the precinct caucus results in each congressional district. It's a complicated system, though, that is truly understood by only a few. I don't completely understand it myself, and I've been a convention delegate multiple times. Each time I learn more.

But, when I compare the delegate allocations to the caucus results in each congressional district, they always match. It all works out, in the end.

[merrily]

17. Did you happen to watch the video to which I posted a link in Reply 1. Convoluted rules were the

least of it. Lange acted as a dictator.

[azurnoir]

5. weren't you promoting closing down Minnesota's primary's so they are more participation restrictive?

How's that going for you?

[MineralMan]

7. Uh, no. I prefer closed primaries, though, since it is the party

selecting its nominees. But, I have no influence on how the upcoming primaries in 2020 will be configured. That will be decided by the state DFL Party organization and the state legislature.

I'm glad to see the presidential caucuses go, though. That's for sure.

[azurnoir]

8. But you do want more restrictions on who participates ?

[MineralMan]

10. I want primaries that are limited to declared party members.

It is the party that is nominating the candidate. So, party members should decide. That's my opinion. But I have no power to make that the rule.

[azurnoir]

12. that's nice except in MN there is no party declaration-there wasn't even a space for in the last

voter registration form I filled out-so is that what you want changed?

[MineralMan]

13. Nope. However, at MN caucuses and conventions

you have to declare your agreement with DFL principles and goals. You might not remember doing that, but you did when you signed in to participate. It's right there on the form. Further, the caucus and convention agendas have that declaration read aloud to participants.

At current primary elections, though, you simple ask for the ballot for whatever party you wish. Personally, I'd prefer registration by party, but if that's not the system, I'm OK with that, too. Remember, I'm talking about my preferences only, not the actual rules. I have literally nothing to do with those, frankly.

The DFL Party takes participants at their word on the matter. Sure, someone could lie, and I suppose some do, but people lie on their voter registrations, too. At some point you have to take people at their word.

[azurnoir]

14. In that case anyone could do that as we're told in states Bernie won it's because Republicans enmass

stampeded to vote in Dem primary's , but something I noticed I haven't seen any such charges coming from Repubs in states like MN where Trump lost -you know it could be I don't pay much attention to them but it is interesting none the lass

[MineralMan]

18. Bottom line is that anyone can lie about anything.

The reason some states have rules about changing party affiliation just before a primary election is an attempt to prevent people from an opposition party from spoiling a party primary.

Registration by party is not a sure way to keep people from joining the party just to mess with a primary.

There is no good way to limit voting in primaries. However, it's OK to try, I think.

[azurnoir]

19. It would have to happen in massive numbers and there for is quite unlikely

but it does make a good cover story for those wishing to reduce voter participation

[MineralMan]

20. You're probably right. My point is that there really isn't any way

to restrict primary voting by party. Not an effective one, anyhow. Whichever state you vote in, you need to understand the voting laws in that state and make sure you're able to vote as you choose. I have no problem, however, with political parties choosing closed primary elections, if that's what they want to do. It's a state-by-state decision, and is up to people in those states, really, not me.

Minnesota does not require voters to declare their party affiliation when they register. You vote in primaries on the ballot you choose. At general elections, parties don't matter. Everyone gets the same ballot, anyhow.

In principle, however, I prefer party nominations to be decided by members of that party. I think that's fairer in a party-based political system. You might feel differently. We can disagree. I recognize that I have zero influence in how the DFL Party decides to deal with the issue. I'm a DFL member. I participate, and will continue to.

I limit my convention participation to the State Senate and Congressional District levels. No statewide policies are decided in those. The state convention is too costly for me to attend and requires two days of lost work time for me. So, I don't try to become a delegate to that convention.