The Washington Post has this op-ed by Tom C. Korologos and Richard V. Allen. They believe that the Republican Party, which they support, chose the wrong presidential nominee this year. They say that the party should change the process for future presidential elections. They want the Republican Party to create superdelegates; they want to make it more difficult for candidates to seek the Republican nomination; and they want later presidential primaries and caucuses. Thanks to Richard Pildes for the link.
They’re probably miffed over The Donald winning the GOP nomination and are now hoping that the Elephants will do what the Democrats likely did this year with Bernie Sanders.
Sore losers aren’t a pretty sight.
Might also suggest a modified version of instant run-off I invented for them too… I call it threshold voting.
The parties set a threshold on the percentage of that a candidate must obtain to receive delegates. From there, on primary night, any candidate that receives below that threshold has their votes transferred to second, third, fourth, etc. options until all votes are transferred to candidates that are above that threshold.
For example, set the threshold at 15%. With 253,450 votes cast, any candidate that has less than 38,018 votes has ALL of their votes transferred to their subsequent selections until all remaining candidates have vote totals over 38,018.
So it’s not straight instant run-off, because you stop transferring votes once all candidates are over the threshold. Thus, you could still have 3, 4, 5, etc. candidates receive delegates and it does NOT require a candidate to obtain more than 50% of the vote.
Hope that the Elephant oligarchs totally blow up.
NO robot party hack primaries, caucuses and conventions.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
The field should absolutely be smaller. 17 candidates up on a stage is ridiculous and Trump won by being the grenade thrower against a divided opposition. All for being inclusive but only by people that have a realistic chance of winning. George Pataki, Bobby Jindal, Bobby Gilmore, Rick Santorum, should’ve never been given the time of day.
I’d also say to stop entryism that any prospective candidate had to be a party member prior to the preceding midterm election.
You have it exactly backwards, rj. All candidates should be given the time of day. That’s what threshold voting would permit in fact. You could have 30 candidates run for the nomination and with a threshold voting system, only those who have a decent amount of support would end up with all the votes transferred to them.
Using threshold voting Cruz would likely be the nominee right now; because in most states the votes that went to Kasich, Paul, Santorum, Jindal, Pataki, etc. would have been transferred to those voters second options, thus making their votes count in the delegate race, instead of essentially just being tossed aside like they didn’t matter.
Did a vote cast for Carson or Kasich make a difference in the assignment of delegates? Not really, no. So what if the votes cast for Kasich, Carson and Bush in South Carolina were transferred to the voter’s next option who got above 15% in the first round of tallying instead? Who would’ve won South Carolina then? Likely Cruz… not Trump. So Cruz would’ve taken those 50 delegates instead of Trump.
You can easily have more candidates in the race and still have a system that doesn’t “Split the Vote”.