Is a party required to nominate a candidate who wins the most delegates?

[Clu-Me-In]

If Obama wins more delegates than HRC, does he automatically win his party’s nomination?

[yabob]

At the convention, the bound delegates are obligated on the first ballot. If it goes to a second ballot, the delegates are free to vote for somebody else. A major party convention hasn’t gone to a second ballot since 1952, when the Democrats took 3 ballots to nominate Adlai Stevenson. After 1968, binding primaries became the preferred mechanism, and the primary season has usually allowed a candidate to amass enough bound delegates to make the convention a formality, although there have been a few challenges such as Ted Kennedy’s in 1980.

[Clu-Me-In]

@yabob

At the convention, the bound delegates are obligated on the first ballot. If it goes to a second ballot, the delegates are free to vote for somebody else. A major party convention hasn’t gone to a second ballot since 1952, when the Democrats took 3 ballots to nominate Adlai Stevenson. After 1968, binding primaries became the preferred mechanism, and the primary season has usually allowed a candidate to amass enough bound delegates to make the convention a formality, although there have been a few challenges such as Ted Kennedy’s in 1980.

Thank you yabob. I ask only because, it looks like Obama and HRC may be headed for 2 or more ballots, if things continue the way they are going for both in the primaries.

[yabob]

Addendum: the ballots are a simple majority, so if a candidate gets enough committed delegates to get a majority, yes, they have the nomination locked. If they have more than the other candidates, but not a majority, they could still lose. For instance, Edwards’ 61 delegates are not bound any more.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Clu-Me-In

Thank you yabob. I ask only because, it looks like Obama and HRC may be headed for 2 or more ballots, if things continue the way they are going for both in the primaries.

How? With only two candidates, one has to get a majority.

[friedo]

@Freddy the Pig

How? With only two candidates, one has to get a majority.

In the Democratic convention, about 1/5 of the delegates are unpledged superdelegates (who are not elected via primaries.) Even with a majority of primary delegates, if the margin is close, those guys could throw it to a second ballot.

[yabob]

There would still be a possibility of it happening if some of the uncommitted delegates decided to make a point by voting for someone other than the two on the ballot, say Edwards, in spite of the fact that he dropped out, or Gore, in spite of the fact that he’s not running. Highly unlikely, but possible. It’s also theoretically possible for a bound delegate to disobey orders and vote for someone else, but that’s even less likely.

[Clu-Me-In]

@Freddy the Pig

How? With only two candidates, one has to get a majority.

According to party rule, the Super Delegates are not neccesarily bound to a particular candidate, so they could very well switch if they determine at some point that one or the other stands a better chance of beating the Republican nominee.

“I desperately hope it is decided by the delegates selected by the voters instead of the super delegates,” said San Jose Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, a superdelegate who has already endorsed Obama. “But if it’s that close, this is a system we have for good or ill and we’ll have to do the best we can.”

It’s a responsibility superdelegate Chris Stampolis from Santa Clara, who worked his way up through party ranks from the Young Democrats to grass-roots local campaigning, takes seriously. He is one of 19 California superdelegates who ran a campaign to become a DNC member and superdelegate.

“In order to be elected, you have to convince a good number on the executive board that you’re someone they should vote for,” said Stampolis, who has worked in community and government relations for a San Mateo company and is a community college trustee. “In most cases, they are Democrats who have a history of activism and grass-roots leadership.”

This should be an interesting race to the end.

[mlees]

Opinion only:

I assume that the Democratic Party will not want to go into the convention without some candidate as a clear winner.

The party conventions these days are more of a PR stunt/morale-builder-pep-rally/multi hour Campiagn Ad, and if the Democratic Party goes into the convention without a clear winner, they may be perceived (or portrayed) as being too fractured to win the General election.

To avoid looking indecisive or fractured, I would expect some behind the scenes wheeling and dealing to occur, and a candidate crowned before the last primaries.

[Bridget_Burke]

@mlees

Opinion only:

I assume that the Democratic Party will not want to go into the convention without some candidate as a clear winner.

The party conventions these days are more of a PR stunt/morale-builder-pep-rally/multi hour Campiagn Ad, and if the Democratic Party goes into the convention without a clear winner, they may be perceived (or portrayed) as being too fractured to win the General election.

To avoid looking indecisive or fractured, I would expect some behind the scenes wheeling and dealing to occur, and a candidate crowned before the last primaries.

But a Convention that actually Does Something is far more interesting than the PR Stunt you describe.

Even as a kid, I enjoyed the Huntley/Brinkley convention coverage.

[friedo]

@Bridget Burke

But a Convention that actually Does Something is far more interesting than the PR Stunt you describe.

I agree. With an unclear nominee, they might actually get people to watch the damn thing for once.

Anyway, here’s an interesting take on the electoral math from some blog:

Here’s the math. There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination.

To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process — with Clinton and Obama roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece.

That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.

So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.

Ain’t gonna happen, barring a stunning scandal or some new crazy revelation. So, they’ll keep fighting this thing out, each accumulating their chunk of delegates, one of them holding a slight edge and bothing finishing the voting process with 1,600 or so delegates.

And then the super delegates decide this thing.

In reality, it’s likely that the superdelegates will vote for whoever has the most elected delegates, but who knows.

[SpoilerVirgin]

DNC Chairman Howard Dean wants the Democrats to make a decision before the convention:

“I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don’t, then we’re going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement,” said Dean, who failed in his bid for the party’s nomination in 2004.

“Because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention – that would not be good news for either party.”

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Bridget Burke

But a Convention that actually Does Something is far more interesting than the PR Stunt you describe.

interesting, yes. But conducive to success in the fall election, no. Between 1964 and 1988 inclusive, in each case the party which was more divided at the time of its summer convention lost the election. This is one reason why the conventions became tightly scripted infomercials.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

A brokered convention means that the Democrats would have two candidates tearing each other apart for the next six months while the Republican candidate could put out a unified message backed by the entire party. Even the Democrats, famous as they are for disarray and dissension, are unlikely to have that much of a suicidal wish for self-immolation.

One of the major reasons Romney gave for dropping out of the race, BTW, was to avoid any possibility of the Republicans getting into this situation.

Conventions have one modern purpose: to be infomercials for the party. Anything else is self-destruction before the eyes of the entire country.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Exapno Mapcase

A brokered convention means that the Democrats would have two candidates tearing each other apart for the next six months while the Republican candidate could put out a unified message backed by the entire party. Even the Democrats, famous as they are for disarray and dissension, are unlikely to have that much of a suicidal wish for self-immolation.

One of the major reasons Romney gave for dropping out of the race, BTW, was to avoid any possibility of the Republicans getting into this situation.

Conventions have one modern purpose: to be infomercials for the party. Anything else is self-destruction before the eyes of the entire country.

And it’s interesting to note that, had Romney continued to run, it’s the Republicans who would have had a much greater chance of being forced to a second ballot than the Dems.

There is no way in a two-person race that there would be more than one ballot. Math makes that clear. The only way to get a second ballot is if there is a third choice available that gets utilized by sufficient numbers of delegates.