The things you discover in political party rules...

I was going through the new Republican Party Rules, and I noticed something: all Republican primaries held before March 15 must be proportional, although a “winner take all” threshhold of 50% or higher may be set. This means that California, which has moved its Presidential primary from June to Super Tuesday (March 3, 2020), is no longer Winner Take All.

The question is, who does it hurt more - Trump, or, considering that California is where you would expect a more moderate candidate to do well, his potential opponents (and yes, I think there will be a viable attempt to primary him out)?

(BTW, although California is otherwise an “open primary,” only registered members of a party may vote in that party’s Presidential primary. This dates back to, I think, 2000, when non-Republicans could vote in the California Republican Presidential Primary, but since Republican party rules said that the primary would be void if any non-Republican votes were counted, the state released separate “total” counts, which were treated as a straw poll, and “Republican voter” counts, which were used to determine the state’s delegates.)

Much though I would like to see Trump lose everything everywhere, I don’t think he’s going to be primaried out. Look at the Republican primaries we’re seeing this cycle: Everyone is campaigning on “I’m Trumpier than my opponent!”.

The larger point is good: It is well worth it to dig into the weeds of the rules of the political parties.

The Republican nomination rules for primaries were tweaked to prevent another repeat of 2012 with Ron Paul trying to ratfuck the party as well as the long drawn out race between Romney and non-Romney.

So, naturally, the 2016 Republican primary race was the exact opposite! With such a large field that refused to narrow quickly, Trump was able to use small plurality wins to build up delegates.

I wish the media was more informed of the past rules. The Democrats allocate delegates proportionally in all of their primaries and caucuses. It caused me to scream at the TV when they kept talking about Bernie’s rallies or the enthusiasm of his voters. They didn’t spend much time talking about the pledged delegate count and how hard it would be for Sanders to catch up after the big blowouts on Super Tuesday and New York.

Way too many members of the media have no idea how the nominating process works for either party, they think all the contests are like the general election and the electoral college winner take all system.

I had a friend who participated in Nevada’s Democratic caucuses in 2016; it was an eye-opening experience for him. He had no idea it was so chaotic or as seemingly rigged. He wasn’t discouraged or put off by it so that he stopped participating, but it wasn’t what he expected. He’s stayed involved so I can’t wait to hear his take on what happens in 2020.

Searching for something that will be adaptable with extraordinary requirements in political rules try now … not for me… Having worked in a legal sphere (and politics, of course, was the first thing to talk about), I proudly looked at the party rules, however it was many years back. Would be funny to hear some information on this and furthermore the charges that will for sure take place soon.

Frantically endeavoring to change something for the better (as we think) there’s a strong necessity to start a social consideration and endeavoring the chaotic vectors that politicians take.

Speaking of party rules, the Democrats have also just released their delegate selection and convention rules, and they do include the new “Superdelegates cannot vote on the first ballot” rule, but with an exception: Superdelegates will be allowed to vote on the first ballot, if the count gets to the point where they can’t change the result based on just the pledged delegates. This is similar to the old (pre-2008, IIRC) policy where a state that had its primary too early and lost all of its votes as a result was allowed to vote anyway once it was clear that it would not have any effect on the result.

What’s the difference between “you’re not allowed to vote” and “you’re allowed to vote, but only if it doesn’t matter”?



The difference is if it’s a sure thing, the super-delegates get to say they voted at the convention which may make them feel better or may make them want to attend if it’s a sure thing. We have to stroke egos after all.