# Will the democrats have a contested convention? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 5, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004 "2016-05-05T19:33:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/1 "2016-05-05T19:33:01Z")
I keep reading articles about the possibilities of this. Is it likely to happen? And what will be the result if it does? ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/2 "2016-05-05T19:35:18Z")
I don’t see how it would. HRC will have the votes to win on the first ballot. I don’t know what kind of shenanigans Sanders can pull to contest it. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/3 "2016-05-05T19:40:54Z")
No because Clinton’s going to clean the clock in California and New Jersey even without the superdelegates. ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/4 "2016-05-05T19:41:16Z")
Hypotheticals are cool and all, but probably not. There are two candidates and an odd number of pledged delegates; one of the two will have a majority of those pledged delegates. That candidate will win the nomination on the first ballot with the assistance of superdelegates barring some sort of black swan event. (In the case of a black swan event, the **other** candidate will win on the first ballot.) Unless some truly unusual, earth shaking events occur, Hillary Clinton will have that pledged delegate majority. Bernie Sanders could refuse to concede the nomination until after the delegates vote at the actual convention, but I’m not sure if that’s technically a “contested” convention or not. I’ve usually heard that phrase used in a situation where you have multiple ballots, and that simply ain’t gonna happen. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/5 "2016-05-05T19:46:47Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > I keep reading articles about the possibilities of this. Is it likely to happen? And what will be the result if it does? In order for there to be “contested convention” or, more accurately “brokered convention” Neither candidate would have to have enough delegates to win the first ballot. Hillary will win on the first ballot. The Bernie voters who deny this don’t like math. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/6 "2016-05-05T19:53:31Z")
Why “more accurately” brokered rather than contested? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/7 "2016-05-05T19:54:19Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > I keep reading articles about the possibilities of this. Is it likely to happen? And what will be the result if it does? Seems VERY unlikely at this point. I think it’s just the last gasp of Sanders et al wishful thinking. Clinton is likely to have put this thing away before the convention, whether Bernie boy is willing to admit it or not. The result would still be a Clinton win. Unlike Bernie, she has been focused on the super delegates and has a large majority of them locked up already. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/8 "2016-05-05T19:54:30Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > In order for there to be “contested convention” or, more accurately “brokered convention” Neither candidate would have to have enough delegates to win the first ballot. > > Hillary will win on the first ballot. The Bernie voters who deny this don’t like math. The main person denying this is the candidate himself. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/9 "2016-05-05T19:55:58Z")
Sanders definition of ‘contested’ convention is very different than the definition everyone else uses. For a convention to be ‘contested’ the voting would have to go to a second ballot. With only 2 candidates it’s pretty much impossible for one of them to not get a magority on the first ballot. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/10 "2016-05-05T19:56:28Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > In order for there to be “contested convention” or, more accurately “brokered convention” Neither candidate would have to have enough delegates to win the first ballot. > > Hillary will win on the first ballot. The Bernie voters who deny this don’t like math. [Bernie Math](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHS-K7OuLAc). ---
**Author:** ![cjepson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a9adbd/32.png) [@cjepson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cjepson)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/11 "2016-05-05T19:58:19Z")
At this point, neither candidate can get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination without the help of some superdelegates (who are free to vote for anyone they want to). The large majority of superdelegates are expected to vote for Clinton. Theoretically, Sanders could win the nomination by convincing enough of them to vote for him instead. He’s trying, but doesn’t seem to be making much headway. Because there are only two candidates, someone will win on the first ballot… unless some dark horse pops up and convinces a lot of superdelegates to vote for _them._ That also seems highly unlikely; it used to happen back in the old days, but I doubt it would fly now, and there’s no groundswell of dissatisfaction with the existing candidates to fuel such an effort. (PS. When I started writing this, there were only two posts in the thread!) ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/12 "2016-05-05T20:07:40Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Why “more accurately” brokered rather than contested? Sorry, that was just a joke. I think historically the term used was “brokered” conventions and that people just switched to “contested” because they thought it sounded better. I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/13 "2016-05-05T20:25:56Z")
Technically 3 candidates. O’ Malley has 1 delegate. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/14 "2016-05-05T20:49:17Z")
Yea, the claim is silly. There’s only two candidates with a meaningful number of delegates, which makes a contested unlikely a priori. And one of those candidates has a large lead in pledged delegates, a larger lead in the vote totals and a huge lead in unpleged delegates. Bernie was saying last week that the process wasn’t fair because super-delegates should have to vote for the winner of their State, a metric by which the winner of the nomination would…still be Hillary. Short of the Risen Ghost of FDR wheeling down from heaven to personally annoint Hillary as the nominee with all the delegates assembled as witnesses, I’m not sure there’s any more ways she could do to make the choice of the party more clear. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/15 "2016-05-05T21:00:30Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Technically 3 candidates. O’ Malley has 1 delegate. That could be the break he’s been waiting for! ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/16 "2016-05-05T21:01:17Z")
Well, it would still be more clear if she won pledged delegates by a large enough margin that the superdelegates didn’t matter at all. It wouldn’t be very _much_ more clear, because it’s awfully darned clear already. But it would be a little more clear. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stainless_steel_rat/32/5727_2.png) [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stainless_Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/17 "2016-05-06T00:33:00Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Well, it would still be more clear if she won pledged delegates by a large enough margin that the superdelegates didn’t matter at all. > > It wouldn’t be very _much_ more clear, because it’s awfully darned clear already. But it would be a little more clear. That it would, but the math seems clear enough to me. There are only 4,050 ‘pledged’ delegates available; to win a majority (2,383) of the total delegates, you’d have to win about 59% of them, meaning that the ‘unpledged’ delegates would not be a controlling interest. By the references I use, Hilary has 1,683 pledged (55%) and Bernie has 1,362 (45%). In terms of popular vote, Clinton has 12,553,043 (56%) and Sanders 9,440,066 (42%). In any ‘regular’ election, we would call that a landslide. But it is not quite enough to meet the ‘majority with pledged delegates only’ goal. So unless Hilary cleans up heavily in California and New Jersey on June 7, she’s likely to need the supers, but it will still be a rout in terms of pledged delegates by anybody conversant with mathematics. IMHO as always. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/18 "2016-05-06T01:04:25Z")
Right. Able to win without a single superdelegate vote is improbable. Calling a convention in which there is a clear pledged delegate majority and more than enough declared superdelegates to go over the required majority as “contested” is … just not accurate. (The argument is that theoretically at least all the superdelegates _could_ switch and go _en masse_ to the candidate who had lost by every metric, so their votes are still theoretically winnable and thus the result not definitive until the actual vote is taken, thus “contestable” to that moment. It is a specious argument.) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/19 "2016-05-06T01:10:52Z")
In a “regular” election, that might be a landslide, but primaries are often much more lopsided than that. In a typical primary season, there’s one serious candidate and some number of also-rans, and the also-rans stick around for maybe a third of the states before it becomes clear they won’t win, and then the winner sails on unopposed for the remaining 2/3. With a pattern like that, a 90-10 win isn’t unreasonable. By primary standards, Sanders actually got pretty close. Just, you know, not close enough. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004/20 "2016-05-06T01:45:33Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I think historically the term used was “brokered” conventions and that people just switched to “contested” because they thought it sounded better. I’ve seen contested used instead of brokered referencing the last time we had a similar situation - 1976 for the GOP. Ford had not won enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination over Reagan (along with the popular nationwide vote.) it was contested in the sense that both candidates went to the convention still campaiging to woo over unpledged delegates that would decide the nomination. Whatever we call it there’s 3 basic scenarios. One candidates is going to clearly win the first vote based on pledged delegate numbers only, a multi-ballot process where shifting among the no longer bound delegates, and what we’re talking about here and in 1976’s GOP process. Whether we have distinct names for those last two, they are different from the first and each other. Bernie Sanders needs lay off the LSD if he thinks he’s going to get enough superdelegates to win. There’s practical matter that pushing it that far forces the differences in the party to the fore which his statements seems to support. To be effective at the intra-party fight he needs to keep his support strong and not just say “of course I’ve probably lost.” That might be a blow to his reputation of honesty …but it shouldn’t matter much if he runs for reelection to the Senate. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-democrats-have-a-contested-convention/754004.md?page=2)