No. Unfortunately, I think one of us understands the process and one of us doesn’t.
Delegates are unnecessary, huh? So when the States have enough calls for a convention to amend the Constitution to take back our country, you’re opposed to electing delegates to represent the states?
Similarly, you’re good with eliminating the Electoral College and going with the popular vote?
Do you also want a majority-rules democracy instead of a representative republic? Because that’s what it sounds like. Doesn’t seem like something you’d normally support.
Anger is clouding rational judgment around here.
Let’s just stick with one rabbit trail at a time.
The “process” is the key word.
The Primary is nothing but a culling of the candidates and the popular vote is virtually meaningless for any other reason.
When the forces at the top are unhappy with the popular vote.
The forces at the top have several stop gates to redirect the outcome of the simple popular primary vote; beginning with state delegate allocations; winner take all; proportional take delegates; open party primaries; closed party primaries; caucuses.
If the winning candidate survives all those hurdles, then comes the National Convention “delegates”, who have already voted one time in their state primary.
Potentially these individuals are privileged to vote three more times at the National Convention with and without regard for their state popular vote. That is not representative of their state popular vote.
One man = *four* votes.
This becomes the actual election of the nominee.
The people cull, and the forces in power elect the nominee.
Or, maybe not. They can even install another, on a Third Ballot, who did not run at all, or one who did run but got 4% of the popular vote.
If it weren’t all so laughable already, it would be hysterical.
We are not forming a Union. We are a Union. We are not a Convention of States. This the 21st century.