IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
Posts: 1,564
|
|
« on: June 15, 2016, 12:10:23 PM » |
|
Had they had this this year with preferential voting I think it would have been one of Rubio or Bush, Cruz or Trump. You have to remember that you wouldn't have had Bush or other candidates dropping out early so they'll play more of a role than in reality. It would all go down to who finished third after preferences: I imagine that the last three candidates standing would have been an establishment-type person (Rubio or Bush depending on when the thing was, Kasich was behind for most of the campaign so he wouldn't have been there at the end but his votes I assume would have flowed this way), Cruz or another true believer and Trump who was ahead for all of the campaign so I can't imagine he's fall behind with this system. The question is where do these votes of the third placed person go: voters seem to have been a lot less anti-Trump than politicians were so I think that he might have a shot of picking up preferences from people, especially if it got down to a Cruz/Trump showdown. If that was the case as it was in reality then I think that you'd have lots of exhausted votes...
It wouldn't work without preferential voting or a second round; since then you'd either have nominees elected on 25% of the vote with the rest scattering or every election decided at the convention anyway so what's the point. You could keep the delegate system but honestly what's the point; if you have a one-day election then do it by popular vote!
You'd have a very different campaign with this system; no reason to drop out since there's only one primary and some campaigns might try and get second or third preferences or perhaps even tell their supporters how to vote further down the ballot.
|