[Magdalen] Stupid question

[Lynn Ronkainen]

I learned something new this primary season - that each party sets, and 
frequently changes, their primaries rules... changes are usually based on 
past 'MISTAKES' or issues - in a supposed attempt to provide a correction. 
Right. This explains a lot of what goes on in Washington today : *
I foolishly thought that each party used the same parameters across the 
board - so the other interesting rules about division of primary votes 
within a party sometimes being based on percentage of the 'take' was also 
news to me. Is it possible that this stuff has been more in-your-face this 
year because of this contentious season?

Lynn

website: www.ichthysdesigns.com

When I stand before God at the end of my life I would hope that I have not a 
single bit of talent left and could say, "I used everything You gave me." 
attributed to Erma Bombeck
 "Either Freedom for all or stop talking about Freedom at all" from a talk 
by Richard Rohr

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Eleanor Braun" <eleanor.braun at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 10:29 AM
To: "Magdalen" <magdalen at herberthouse.org>
Subject: Re: [Magdalen] Stupid question

> Of course for the general election for president, there is the
> constitutional provision for the (outdated, stupid, undemocratic) 
> Electoral
> College.  It's not necessarily a good reason, but it's the only one that
> matters until changed.
>
> In the primaries, oh such a different question.  One of the most important
> parts of our whole process is not mentioned in the constitution -- the
> political parties.  You might check out:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary
>
> and
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-presidential-primary-works/
>
> The parties are private organizations, which choose to have national
> conventions.  They can set their own rules.  One rule that has to be
> figured out:  plurality or majority.  Mr. Trump will probably go in with a
> plurality of votes cast but a majority of delegates.  If there are many
> candidates who do well and no one has a majority, you have to have a 
> system
> of sorting out who is going to get the nomination.  It's complicated.  And
> the discussion now about all these Republicans who will not go to the
> convention or will not support Trump shows one of the major stressors.
>
> Your suggestion for "pure democracy" raises a red flag for me -- it opens
> the door for a demagogue like Trump to become president.
>
> Eleanor
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I feel very ignorant in asking this, but I wonder if someone can explain
>> to me--or point me to a source--why we don't elect by popular vote?  Why
>> can't they just add up all the votes in the primaries and declare the
>> winners in each party based on the totals?
>> Then do the same with the general election--the one with the most votes
>> wins. Then you wouldn't have the ridiculous situation we had with
>> Bush-Gore.  And wouldn't that be likely to bring out more voters, since
>> they would feel their vote actually counted?
>>
>> I'm sure there is some historical reason, and it may even be a good one,
>> but I don't know what it is...
>>