Forum Thread

Delegate Allocation Virtually Guarantees a Prolonged Dem. Primary

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 3 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Democrats have a unique way of allocating delegates in each state and because of that we should all expect a long and grueling primary season that likely won't be over quickly. However, this isn't necessarily a bad thing because it (hopefully) weeds out the weakest candidates and forces the stronger candidates to make their case to more than a handful of states.

    The Democratic Party's rules mandate that delegates, the people chosen to go to the national convention and officially nominate the candidate for President on the Democratic ticket, must be doled out proportionally based off the percentage of votes each candidate wins (so long as they reach what is called the 15% threshold). So a candidate can "win" a primary with 35% of the vote, but instead of getting 100% of the delegates (as they would in many Republican primaries), they will only get 35% of the delegates.

    This type of delegate allocation also dilutes the power of "big" states like California, New York, and Texas because, while they have more delegates, they will be divvied up proportionally in the same way as every other state. That will only wind up hurting lesser known candidates because it makes it more difficult to focus on one big state that they can use as a springboard.

    Many lesser known candidates will undoubtedly drop out of the race, but don't be surprised if Biden, Warren, Sanders, and one or two more go deep into the primary season. The rules virtually guarantee that they will.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    That's interesting. How the Democrats run their primaries has always confused me. So as long as you pass the 15% threshold, you get proportional delegates awarded based on the % of people voting for you?

    In a sense, I think that's incredibly fair. I would think it means a candidate can't rely on marginal victories in just a few big states but has to campaign in several states across the US, right?

    On the flip side, yeah. Less popular candidates would never get a big delegate chunk from a single state they happen to win (no matter the margin) but if its representational across the board, I'm not sure they should be artificially spring-boarded.

    If say Kamala Harris were to win her home state of California by just a percent or two, I wouldn't necessarily think it's fair she should get ALL the delegates from that state, turning her marginal win from one big state into a commanding win. But maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

    Like I said, this still confuses me. Would you prefer they do a winner take all approach instead? Can you explain real quick your thought process on that, I'm curious.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I personally think it's the best way to allocate delegates because it gives smaller states at least somewhat of a say in the whole process. If they had winner take all then the candidates with the most money and name recognition would just set up shop in California, New York, and Texas and write off the rest of the country. This way it forces candidates to take every state seriously.