Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

pan6467 · 02-21-2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

When did I personally attack you? You said you might be totally wrong, I confirmed that you were. Nothing wrong with being wrong, but it makes no sense for me not to correct you.

Anyway, this is entirely relevant to the OP. You say that you believe this is the GOP's doing to tank McCain before the convention so that he doesn't end up with the nomination. I'm explaining that that's extremely unlikely because it'd be nearly impossible to prevent McCain from getting the nomination at this point.

So no matter how scandal ridden a candidate is, even if the vast majority knows that nominating the man would lead to certain defeat, however, someone else may stand a chance, the delegates still have to vote for that man?

I find it hard to believe. Not that that will happen, purely hypothetical, but I find it very hard to believe.

This is a direct quote from the article linked.... by all means feel free to go to the link and read the whole article..... or if asked I'll post it.

Quote:

There also seems to be confusion surrounding the obligation of delegates to actually vote for their pledged candidate.

According to the Democratic National Committee, technically, they don't have to.

"A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required."

The party's rules ask delegates to "in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/109353/output/print

OOO and how are the GOP delegates to vote (again link follows feel free to read it.

Quote:

One might respond that the Republicans have no such contingency plan for their nomination - even though their nominee is also selected by majority rule. So, why must the Democrats? In fact, the Republicans do have a plan. Theirs is just informal. The Republican solution is that most delegates become like super delegates after a few rounds of balloting. Some Republican delegates are obligated to their candidate as long as he is in the race - but most of them are free to vote their consciences after a few rounds.

This offers a different way to understand the super delegates. Perhaps they seem more reasonable than they first appeared. Every majority system must have some kind of contingency plan for when nobody has won a majority. If we accept the legitimacy of the majority requirement (and why wouldn't we?), we necessarily accept the need for a "majority maker" clause. The Constitution uses the House. Louisiana uses a run-off. The Republicans create de facto super delegates out of the rank-and-file. The Democrats give that power to party leaders.

So, the real question is how good is the Democratic solution? I think it has several advantages over the Republican one.

First, I think that if you are going to make any type of delegate "super" - it is best to make it the party leaders. They are most likely to have the interests of the party as a whole close to heart. To appreciate this, imagine what would happen if there were a knockdown, drag-out fight between McCain and Romney. The only concern on the minds of McCain delegates would be getting the nomination to McCain. Ditto the Romney delegates. But who is looking out for the party? Which delegates will calmly recognize that the elevation of their man would require a nasty battle that might do damage to the party's prospects? Neither. The McCain delegates would probably prefer a nasty floor fight that McCain wins to a cordial process that he loses because their paramount concern is the success of their candidate. Ditto the Romney delegates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...the_super.html

Quote:

Delegates And Their Role In The Republican Nomination Process

After determining the number of delegates to represent each state and territory, the delegates are then divided into two categories: pledged and unpledged. The differing roles of these delegates at the conventions are fairly self-explanatory.

Pledged delegates have their vote cast before they even enter the convention, based on which candidate won either their district or state. For Republicans 1,917 out of the 2,380 total delegates are pledged around 81 percent.

Unpledged delegates are not restricted or bound to vote like pledged delegates. Rather, they are the wild cards of the convention, and they vote purely their own based on their own decision-making process.

The Republican Party has a state-by-state approach to determining unpledged delegates. States typically choose one of three options. Some, like Pennsylvania, refuse to pledge any delegates. Others, like Illinois, leave the At Large portion of their delegation as unpledged while keeping district level delegates firmly bound. For a third category, one example being Connecticut, there are no unpledged delegates sent to the convention - every representative is bound. As a rule, there are more pledged than unpledged delegates in the Republican primary contests.

As noted earlier, there are two kinds of pledged delegates: district level and At-Large. District level delegates promise to vote for the winner of their congressional district, while At Large delegates are “bound” to support the candidate who emerges victorious in their State, even if that candidate did not win their congressional district. Although they pledge to support a candidate “pledged” candidates can support another nominee at the convention, although such switching is rare. In order to ensure that delegates follow through on their pledge, candidates are allowed to look through every “pledged” delegate and can eliminate anyone whom they feel would stray from the agreement.

http://www.rttnews.com/sp/todaystop....&item=54&vid=0

In ALL 3 articles delegates CAN switch and vote for someone else.

Not saying it WILL happen, but it can. And it is exactly how I stated above....

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I understand exactly how delegates work, I don't believe they are "required" to vote for the candidate. I believe the process is that each candidate sets out a list of say 23 "delegates" that if they are win will go to the convention and vote for them. However, those delegates, while almost always voting for the person they represent are not forced to. That is a basic summary of my knowledge of delegates.