If 50% were required to get delegates committed to one’s name, then we would not have this steam-roller effect that comes with someone winning an earlier state by a small margin and using that victory to launch past other candidates in the mind of the media.
In fact, this system could reject ALL the candidates. That would have been a good idea this year.
And selected local delegates at a national convention could probably do a better job of picking a candidate as do popularity contests in each state. Representative democracy....the republican ideal.
Nonetheless, the popular vote could still win for a candidate IF some candidate were the clear choice of the majority of primary voters.
Otherwise, no way the candidate should be someone unable to win in state by state contests.
“In fact, this system could reject ALL the candidates. That would have been a good idea this year.”
As a pragmatist, I have ‘mechanical’ issues with this approach. Who selects the ‘uncommitted’ delegates and how do you ensure that they really are ‘uncommitted’?
I do have issues with the current system where one candidate with a plurality gets 100% of the delegates. Perhaps, a combination of systems would be best where a candidate with at least 50% (or some higher threshold, perhaps 2/3) of the vote gets all the delegates. If no candidate breaks the threshold, then the delegates are awarded proportionately to the actual vote might work.
I do share your appreciation of the republican field this cycle. It seems you really wanted to vote ‘None of the Above’ and I wasn’t all that fired up with the field myself. The problem is, we are selecting a candidate for President. I’m not sure how ‘None of the Above’ fits into that.