“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.
The real republican form of government is in the selection of the delegates. That is the process that needs to get in the hands of people. It is not the candidate who really matters. It’s the delegate.
They can be totally uncommitted and go to some convention, but if I trust them and their ability, then I’m confident that the final selection will be a good one.
I see absolutely no reason to award delegates to someone who cannot gain the confidence of a majority of the people. If I’ve been thoughful in selecting the delegate assigned to my precinct/county/whatever, I know that guy. I’d rather trust his judgment.