Primary Rules changes: NO MORE WINNER TAKE-ALL, no winner until May-July!!

all the way. They changed the rules in all the Dem primaries, No more winner take-alls. Get 30% of the vote, get only 30% of the delegates.

So if you think Dean can wrap it after NH and Iowa you are sorely mistaken. I think Edwards will challenge him in the South and this is going to go until April or May with these new rules until he does have it wrapped.

None of the press has even mentioned this yet, they are so DUMB! No one can take it all by March, not even a soaring good doctor.

I am a strong Deanie but if you don't want the other guys to be able to have their delegates work together and actually deny Dean the nomination, get out there working for him NOW and pre-empt the others so their delegate total in your state is LOWER come convention time. With so many candidates and the new rules you could even have MULTIPLE BALLOTS AND THEN DEAN WOULD PROBABLY LOSE AS AN ANYBODY BUT DEAN MOVEMENT WOULD THEN COALSECE AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE!!

Just to propogate the information.... Very interesting.

:shrug:

Is this a recent thing? Who did it? Why?

un-Democratic. It will make it much harder for Dean or anyone and we might end up with a BROKERED CONVENTION FOR THE FIRST TIME IN YEARS.

The media is just so out of it they never remembered this happened and keep predicting it will all be wrapped up in March...

instead of just a majority, to win at the convention without brokering.

on a side not: it seems it could actually be less democratic than more so.

for sure...looking forward to going to Boston!

That's ridiculous...

but basically there are a number of superdelegates who can vote for whoever they want to.

I hope thats correct

I think it was before Woodrow Wilson's time that that rule was still in place.

You can bet the candidates and campaigns haven't forgotten about this, even though the media has. This is why all the talk about this or that campaign being over already is so ridiculous.

And no, Dean won't be the nominee. He has a lot of support but a lot more opposition.

Each state decides unpledged delegate allocation from the primary or caucus, they are just not allowed to do Winner take all so it is a hodge-podge of rules from state to state and there ARE about 800 "Super-Delegates" who are all politicians and make it hard for any outsider to win. The big difference from 2000 is no more Winner Take Alls allowed.

Don't try to figure this system out on your own -- OR YOU MIGHT GO INSANE!

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/D.phtml

<snip>


The 44th DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION will have a total of 4316 delegate votes, with 2159 (a majority) necessary in order for a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate to be nominated.

"The rules for the 2004 Democratic National Convention call for the following formula to be used in determining the allocation of delegate votes to each state and jurisdiction sending a delegation to the Convention:

Each state plus the District of Columbia is to be assigned a number of Base delegate votes based on an "Allocation Factor" multiplied by 3,000 (the optimum minimum size of a Democratic National Convention as determined by the Democratic National Committee): a state's (or D.C.'s) "Allocation Factor" being a decimal fraction arrived at through a calculation involving the following factors-

the state's (or D.C.'s) popular vote for the Democratic candidate for President in the three Presidential Elections just previous to the Convention (in this case: 1992, 1996 and 2000). This is the "State's Democratic Vote" .
the total popular vote for the Democratic candidate for President in the three Presidential Elections just previous to the Convention (again, in this case: 1992, 1996 and 2000). This is the "Total Democratic Vote" .
the state's Electoral Vote and
the total Electoral Vote (538)
The formula for determining a given state's (or D.C.'s) "Allocation Factor" is:

AF = ( SDV ÷ TDV ) + ( SEV ÷ TEV )
The number of Base delegate votes assigned to a state is AF × 3000. Of these Base delegate votes, 75% are assigned to be district delegate votes and the remaining 25% are to be at-large delegate votes. In addition to these Base delegate votes, the state (and D.C.) are awarded a number of Pledged "Party Leaders and Elected Officials" equal to 15% of the number of Base delegate votes as determined by the "Allocation Factor" × 3000 formula described above. There are also delegate votes from U.S. dependencies which do not cast Electoral Votes for President in a General Election. PUERTO RICO is considered, for purposes of the Convention, to have a Base delegate vote of 44; the special case of the other dependencies sending delegations to the Democratic National Convention will be considered below. These delegate votes described so far (making up a number equal to 115% of the total Base delegate votes as determined by the "Allocation Factor" × 3000) are pledged, prior to the first meeting of the Convention, to the support of a presidential contender who earns the support of such delegate votes by virtue of his performance as measured by the votes cast by Democratic voters in primaries and caucuses and/or by Democratic delegates to state and/or sub-state conventions held in each state prior to the Convention.

The states (and D.C.) are also assigned a number of "Unpledged" delegates:

"Unpledged PLEOs" consisting of the following:
Democratic National Committee members.
Democratic Members of Congress (U.S. Senators and Representatives, except those who are to be Pledged PLEOs).
Democratic Governors, except those who are already members of the Democratic National Committee and, therefore, are delegates re: a.) above.
Distinguished Party Leaders (current and former U.S. Presidents and Vice-Presidents, former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate and U.S, House- including former Democratic Speakers of the House and former chairmen of the Democratic National Committee. and


Unpledged "add-on"s (chosen based on the vote of the members of the Democratic National Committee).
These "Unpledged" delegates go to the Convention officially "Unpledged" (that is, not committed- ahead of time- to vote for any particular presidential contender), though it is well known that many- if not most- of these may very well be privately supporting a presidential contender. The number of these "Unpledged" delegates to the Democratic National Convention is subject to change up to the first meeting of the Convention due to deaths, resignations from office (for those PLEOs who hold an elective office) or accession- by a Democrat- to an elective office through an intervening election or special election. In addition, any Unpledged PLEO who shall subsequently become a Pledged PLEO may further alter the number of Unpledged National Convention delegates within a given delegation."
The breakdown of the delegate votes is as follows:

3062 Base delegate votes (2279 district delegate votes and 783 at-large delegate votes)
458 Pledged PLEOs (meaning a total of 3520 delegate votes to be determined by either a primary or a caucus/convention system in each state or other jurisdiction)
796 Unpledged delegate votes (714 Unpledged PLEOs and 82 Unpledged "add-on"s)
TOTAL: 4316 delegate votes.

Is this better or worse than 2000? More fair? Less fair? Mixed bag?

delegates. If you think that gives the establishment too much power (which it probably does) you wont like it.

thus the candidate could win a slim majority in the primaries and still not win the nomination since not all delegates are chosen through the primaries.

you need to win 60% of the delegates through primaries/caucuses to gurantee a nomination before the convention.

That makes sense of the whole mess.

If Dean takes the first two he's got it.

Perhaps even enough to be a power broker at the convention. Is Carol Mosely Braun trying for enough delegates to bargain for a veep slot?

most states have a 15% threshold in the primaries whereby the candidate has to pickup at least 15% of the vote, statewide or in a district, to recieve any delegates at all.

I don't have the link at hand ...

But South Carolina is one of them. I think a lot of republican governors are cancelling them "to save money". The party in SC is trying to raise $500,000 so they can hold one without using state funds. Other states are making similar plans.

It all comes down to the caucuses .. and the convention.

We may have a very exciting convention . :bounce: ..

This is a good thread, lots of info ..

Are you crazy? Yikes, do you guys know anything.

Why in hells name would Clark and Edwards be wasting so much time down there if SC had cancelled it's primary.
(for some, a little poli-sci might be in order)

http://www.news-leader.com/today/1110-Somestates-213413.html

No, SC hasn't cancelled.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3368141,00.html

soz didn't have the link earlier ..

In some states where the government has chosen not to hold the primary, the state Democratic Party has decided to conduct one anyway and bear the cost itself.

South Carolina's Democrats are struggling to raise an estimated $500,000 for their Feb. 3 contest. Utah's Democrats also want their voters to have a say.

``We want to show the Utah Legislature they were wrong and the democratic process is alive in Utah,'' said state party chairman Donald Dunn.

they still have to win delegates .. it's just a different kind of politicing .. this is new to me .. I've never been this involved in a primary.