Trump being the only example needed. In a five-way race, someone who gets 25% of the vote, but is strongly opposed by the other 75%, could end up the nominee.

However, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote by almost a 60% to 40% margin. Note: some caucus states do not report the popular vote, since records aren't kept of that vote.

It is very likely that the delegate count will closely match the pledged delegate count at the convention, due to our proportional delegate allocation system. So, what you are asking for will almost certainly be the case at the time of the convention. The candidate with the plurality of the popular vote will be the nominee. Watch this site as the primaries continue. You'll see that this is correct:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

Even if that happens , we shouldn't have had the negative experience the day after we respectively cast our votes in primaries or caucuses of reading about how delegates-awarded in our respective states will be skewed by precinct or Congressional district.

He's far behind in the popular vote right now.

I'm not trying to come up with a system in which Bernie Sanders would definitely win this year, or the most liberal candidate in the next contested primary would definitely win.

I'm just saying the system next time should be: one person one vote.

Kind of the same problem.

Ideally, the Democratic nominee would be chosen with the popular vote, and the president would be chosen with the popular vote.

revealing a much larger than realized anti-establishment/anti-corporatist/progressive fervor (yes, he would have sung that song--of course), Bernie could have never emerged from the background, only famous for shaking his finger futilely at The Donald on the debate stage, and Hillary? Well, around mid April that rogue satellite could have fallen on her, enough of her vote could have switched to "what's-his-name-Sanders?" to make him viable, and it could have been an almost unknown Bernie and The Donald at the convention.

Would we really want people most motivated by anxiety, resentment, bigotry (yes, we have a fair number of conservatives in the party), and "anti-establishment" fervor to elect us a President The Donald on our ticket?

Like anyone committed to government of, by and for the people, I've never approved of the various devices designed to keep voters from having whatever they vote for. However, this election is causing me to feel greater appreciation for what very flawed and untested safeguards we do have.

Fwiw, so far "the people" have chosen Hillary 2 to 1.

...if he'd run as a Democrat.

We could have chosen law professor Larry Lessig if we wanted a candidate who has never held elected office, but we didn't.

would have been saying whatever he needed to get our crowds rallying to him. All of Bernie's messages and much more.

I am a Lessig admirer, donated to him, signed on to his website, signed his petition, etc., but if no one bothered to notice him or rally to his genuinely huge issue this time, why would they with The Donald sucking up all the national air and air time?

No, my big question is, since he would have to replace mainstream liberals, who would reject him big time, with other voters, would he unite the resentful antiestablishment right that wants big change now!!! with the crowd on the left and abandon our minority blocks or try to rally the latter in yoooge numbers?

nothing ever changes. Evidently SOME people like this system. Not me, but some.

those you apparently imagine do is whether to try to "reform" it to file down some of the worst snags on the people's will or to hang our collective bare butt in the wind and see if anything interesting happens.

thanks

There's a reason each state gets 2 senators and then representatives depending upon population... to account for regional differences and the tyranny of a majority. The delegate system is a similar check and balance. However super delegates need to go.

But ideally the Senate would have proportional representation.

There may be work that needs to be done in our system, but I don't think a straight up popular vote is the best way.

This year's primary schedule is set up in such a way that voters in NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Portland(among a lot of other large cities)have almost NO say.

Why should the nomination be decided almost entirely by suburban and rural voters?

I don't want how much my vote counts to depend on which I'm living in at the time. I believe in one person one vote.

guess they're happy with the out dated system created before vulture capitalism .