[TomGuy]

60% of “the people” chose someone else!

Not exactly.

Corrected: '60% of “the people” chose someone else others!'

Others, plural, as NO individual got anywhere near 60% as you tried to indicate.

The next runner-up was nearer 30% and the others lower than that.

[DugwayDuke]

TomGuy wrote: “Corrected: ‘60% of “the people” chose someone else others!’”

Thanks for the grammar lesson. The fact remains, it’s difficult to justify the statement that “the people” have chosen Trump when only 40% of “the people” have actually voted for Trump and ‘others’ have received 60% of the vote.

[Yulee]

No one wants a nominee who has won the convention by a plurality. If a nominee is selected automatically with a plurality of delegates, there would be no reason for a convention, other than to crown the winner. Delegates, who are not tied to the plurality nominee, will view their vote as useless.

There are a lot of people out there who couldn't vote for their choice, when the time came in their state, because their nominee dropped out. They voted for their second choice. Now you would be telling them that even their second choice has no chance against the plurality nominee.

With this going on, people tend to drop out of the process.

Most delegates pay their own way to the convention. They are tied to a nominee for the first ballot, by the process in their state. After that they should be able to vote their conscience.

Remember when Perot ran, and Bill Clinton was voted into office with a plurality, but declared he had a mandate for his policies. Remember Obama declaring himself King and Dictator, despite voters by Congressional district, and then in the Senate, saying stop Obama.

Plurality elections, whether at the convention or in the General Election are sickening.