“Gore Lieberman won the “simple first place finish”, George Bush became President because in your words he was able to successfully “reach some arbitrary number of delegates to clinch the nomination”.
The rule requiring a majority of delegates for nomination is no different than the requirement of a majority of the electoral college to win the Presidency. Reject the one, consistency requires you reject the other. Else be considered a political hack willing to bend the law to your candidates advantage.”
You’re not being entirely honest there.
The Electors are bound by our Constitution to vote whichever way their district voted. Not so, with the delegates of the two major political parties. They have multiple opportunities to cast votes at their respective conventions, and those votes can turn on a dime, depending on what sort of pressure is brought to bear upon them, at the time.
Factually, the differences between constitutional Electors and party delegates, is quite wide.
No they aren't, there is no constitutional provision other than reserving the selection and duties to the states, nor are there any Federal laws. It's a state issue. About half the states bind their electors, about half don't. Some states punish a "faithless" elector, some don't. Some states show the electors names on the ballot, others don't. Most states are winner take all, but not all. It's a very similar system. Win the majority of delegates, win the nomination. Win the majority of electors, win the Presidency. The only fundamental difference is the single election for electors, vs multiple ballots for nominations. But both negotiation and faithlessness can happen in both.