[Magdalen] Stupid question

[Grace Cangialosi]

That may be the case, Lynn, because I never heard of the workings of the parties before this.

> On May 4, 2016, at 12:18 PM, "Lynn Ronkainen" <houstonklr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 constitutional provision for the (outdated, stupid, undemocratic) Electoral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...