Primaries with reallocated votes

[Slander and/or Libel]

Has anyone ever floated an idea like this, or would it be practical? Here's how it would go down, in my head:

Everybody in the primaries fills out a ranked choice ballot, and maybe subject to some viability threshold, delegates are awarded proportionally. Let's say, then, at some later date, a candidate who had been awarded some delegates drops out. Then the states that had voted have that candidate removed from the ballot and the results are retabulated, and delegates reallocated automatically.

Would this work? Why or why not? It's always bugged me that voters in early primary states may waste the only vote they have on a candidate who drops out a week later.

So let me have it. What are the pros and cons of this type of system? Let's leave aside logistical concerns at first and take them as read. Would there be strategic or tactical problems that I'm just totally missing?

[Mr. Morden]

Seems likely that voters would be suspicious of a system in which the outcome is heavily dependent on which candidates voluntarily choose to drop out of the race.  Imagine that Trump is initially leading in the delegate count based on getting the most first place votes, but then Rubio drops out, and enough of his votes switch to other candidates to put Cruz in the lead.  People would be suspicious about the process being corrupt.  At least with regular IRV, the process by which candidates get eliminated is automatic, and the candidates can't strategically drop out (or not) in order to throw the election to another candidate after the votes have already been tallied.

[Slander and/or Libel]

That makes sense, though in the system I'm thinking of, the candidate dropping out wouldn't be in control of the reallocation of delegates. They would be awarded by retabulating the votes in the primary as though the candidate who'd dropped out hadn't been in the race, just like with IRV. Rubio could strategically drop out to try to put Cruz in the lead, but he wouldn't have any access to information about the distribution of his voters' second choices, except as indicated by polling, internal and otherwise.

[Mr. Morden]

That makes sense, though in the system I'm thinking of, the candidate dropping out wouldn't be in control of the reallocation of delegates. They would be awarded by retabulating the votes in the primary as though the candidate who'd dropped out hadn't been in the race, just like with IRV. Rubio could strategically drop out to try to put Cruz in the lead, but he wouldn't have any access to information about the distribution of his voters' second choices, except as indicated by polling, internal and otherwise.

I'm not sure how you keep the second choices secret.  Someone has to count the ballots in the first place, no?  Seems like there's going to be the potential for some shady dealings there if you're trying to keep the 2nd, 3rd etc. place reallocation numbers secret for months after the votes have been cast.

[muon2]

I think this is the reason that states elect real humans as delegates to the national conventions. If the delegates are identified in advance of the primary vote and pledged to a candidate then the voter knows that in principle the delegate not only shares their first choice, but probably holds a set of views that would make their second choice more likely to agree with the voters who elected them. If a delegate is elected and their pledged candidate drops out, the delegate should be free to vote for any one at the convention. That vote would more likely go to another candidate acceptable to the voters who selected the delegate.

The key to making this work is having delegates identify themselves to the voters in advance of the primary along with the preferred candidate of the delegates. If the delegates are all selected at a post-primary convention the delegates are much less likely to represent voters for the winning (especially if withdrawn) candidate and are more likely to represent the convention attendees who have knowledge of the primaries that came after their primary.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I think this is the reason that states elect real humans as delegates to the national conventions. If the delegates are identified in advance of the primary vote and pledged to a candidate then the voter knows that in principle the delegate not only shares their first choice, but probably holds a set of views that would make their second choice more likely to agree with the voters who elected them. If a delegate is elected and their pledged candidate drops out, the delegate should be free to vote for any one at the convention. That vote would more likely go to another candidate acceptable to the voters who selected the delegate.

The key to making this work is having delegates identify themselves to the voters in advance of the primary along with the preferred candidate of the delegates. If the delegates are all selected at a post-primary convention the delegates are much less likely to represent voters for the winning (especially if withdrawn) candidate and are more likely to represent the convention attendees who have knowledge of the primaries that came after their primary.

Yeah, this is basically the reasoning behind what I'm thinking of. It's likely true and less complicated. I'm just not crazy about those portions of the rules that let candidates drop out, but dictate that their delegates still vote for them on the first ballot. If the candidate had dropped out before their voters had voted, presumably they'd have voted differently and those delegates would have been allocated accordingly.

It's always just bothered me that primaries are so staggered through time, and that vastly different information is available to someone later in the process than someone earlier in the process, but way more choices are available to someone earlier in the process than to someone later in the process.

I suppose one flaw is to assume that people's rank ordering wouldn't change through time. Maybe somebody who would have put Cruz second to Rubio in February would have changed his mind by May. Though the current system does nothing to let him change his mind either.

[muon2]

The staggered process cuts both ways. Later primaries have far more knowledge about the candidates who could be the nominee, but the early primaries have far more influence on reducing the number of candidates. This is a fairly unique election with both parties nominations going deep into primary calendar without a clear winner. Many years neither party goes very far at all before a winner is known.

The first ballot delegate binding has the effect of making the second ballot the meaningful vote if no one comes in with an outright majority. One reason candidates suspend campaigns but don't withdraw is to preserve those bound delegates at the convention. I think the easiest fix would be to require all states have the same rules for binding delegates - first ballot reflects the state's primary, and all subsequent ballots are unbound. If that is coupled with directly elected pledged delegates voters should get a reasonable reflection of their secondary choices.

If there is a desire for something like superdelegates, let those be selected at the state party convention and be bound to reflect the statewide primary vote on the first ballot. They can act as insiders to influence subsequent ballots if no candidate has a majority on the first ballot at the national convention. The directly elected delegates would then reflect the congressional district preferences and would reflect the voters' preferences should there be subsequent ballots.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The staggered process cuts both ways. Later primaries have far more knowledge about the candidates who could be the nominee, but the early primaries have far more influence on reducing the number of candidates. This is a fairly unique election with both parties nominations going deep into primary calendar without a clear winner. Many years neither party goes very far at all before a winner is known.

The first ballot delegate binding has the effect of making the second ballot the meaningful vote if no one comes in with an outright majority. One reason candidates suspend campaigns but don't withdraw is to preserve those bound delegates at the convention. I think the easiest fix would be to require all states have the same rules for binding delegates - first ballot reflects the state's primary, and all subsequent ballots are unbound. If that is coupled with directly elected pledged delegates voters should get a reasonable reflection of their secondary choices.

If there is a desire for something like superdelegates, let those be selected at the state party convention and be bound to reflect the statewide primary vote on the first ballot. They can act as insiders to influence subsequent ballots if no candidate has a majority on the first ballot at the national convention. The directly elected delegates would then reflect the congressional district preferences and would reflect the voters' preferences should there be subsequent ballots.

Do you mean kind of like a tiered unbinding, with that last? That certain tranches of delegates could be unbound at certain points in the process, if the bound delegates couldn't come to a majority on their own? I kind of like that idea, and that it would in some sense preserve as much of the will of the voters in the process as possible at every step.

Of course, for something like that to represent the will of the voters on the Republican side, their primary process would have to be streamlined and cleaned up quite a bit, since the rules differed so very much from state to state.