At the recent Democratic debate, all of the candidates were asked if the convention should nominate the candidate with the most delegates even if it wasn’t a majority. Only Bernie said yes.
It used to be that each state would pick delegates to go to a convention and then, at the convention, they’d all debate and decide who should be the candidate. Then states started deciding that it would be better if delegates were committed to a specific candidate when they went, so they started having caucuses to decide this and then later primaries (which, in the history of this country, is a fairly new development). And even then, these committed delegates were allowed to change if no one candidate could get a majority.
Bernie and his supporters are now screaming and yelling that this is undemocratic and is just a ploy to keep Bernie from getting the nomination if he has the most delegates.
Apparently, this manipulative ploy is so devious that it was established long before Bernie was ever born, simply in an effort to keep him from becoming the candidate.
If Bernie doesn’t like the way the way the Democrats set their rules for the way they choose their candidate, maybe he should have worked to change it during all those years when he was a member of the party. Oh, right.
Here’s why we should not nominate whoever has the most delegates.
Suppose Bernie ends up with 32% of the delegates and Biden has 31%. This is not a glowing endorsement for Bernie, is it? Should we really be handing the nomination to someone who maybe only has a one delegate advantage, especially when the majority of delegates there support someone else?
Or worse yet: Suppose Bloomberg manages to convince 32%? Clearly, 68% of the delegates wanted someone else. Bloomberg shouldn’t get the nomination when a majority doesn’t want him, should he? No, what should happen is what works in a democracy: compromise. Negotiations. Working to find a candidate that the majority can support.
Now if Bernie ends up with 49.9% of the delegates, then yeah, politically it’s probably a good idea for him to be nominated on the second ballot. It would look terrible otherwise.
But to just make a blanket statement that it should go to the person with the most votes even if it is a minority of those voting is ridiculous.