I am speaking objectively of what will happen in the next primary, if you make it a rule that a majority is not needed. Then you will have a split along geographic and ideological lines and end up with multiple candidates with 20% constituencies.
The guy who gets the nomination should be the one who can convince a majority (at least) to back him. That’s the way it has always worked. For good reason.
After a nominee is chosen, then, yes, the entire party should support him. That is less likely if your rules are that a nomination can be won with only a plurality of the votes. The guy with 22% support who has “the most” and wins will have a hard time getting support from the other 78%.
The guy with 22% support who has “the most” and wins will have a hard time getting support from the other 78%.
That is exactly what has been happening. Heck, most states don’t even get to vote during the primaries. Of course when the rnc keeps 17 people in the race to split the vote, you get what you get. It’s all an illusion. They have very conveniently put all these things in place state by state. Some are open primaries, so they can get the dnc to help them out some are closed, where they think they have it in the bag. Some are winner take all, some are proportional. We get it that it is a rigged system. If you don’t, fine.
I have been answering your questions to me. I have one for you. How do you get Cruz the win when the dems will have the kill all the gays video on everywhere on facebook, comedy shows, news media, twitter, instagram? Serious question.