Is this a good reform for the republican primary process

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. Only top 2 get delegates, but allocate delegates like this:

In the South Carolina Primary the top 2 finishers were Trump and Rubio, so only they two would get delegates but the rest of the candidates get to choose who they will want to send their delegates to right after their primary is over. So it would work like this: if Cruz , Kasich,Bush decide they want to send their vote to rubio their popular vote total gets added to Rubio, and if Carson wants to send his vote to trump his popular vote in that state gets added to trump.

So in the end the results would be like this in the primary

Rubio delegates =  Rubio+ Cruz+ Kasich+ Bush= 22.4+22.24+7.81+7.59= 60.4% of the states
delegates

Trump delegates = Trump + Carson = 32.39+ 7.2 = 39.59% of the state delegates

This rule would be for every state


2. Add like 400 super delegates


I say Great Plan as Trump wouldnt win any state other then maybe New York under this plan

[Slander and/or Libel]

That's not a good reform because it's not even reform. It instead just treats votes as currency that can be spent by candidates as they choose. It doesn't make any sense.

[Vosem]

Some needed reforms:
- All states vote on a single day
- All candidates get to pick who their own delegates are
- States can use IRV to whittle down the number of candidates who get delegates in each state to a universal standard (I suggest 2 "winners" per state). Delegates are then allocated proportionally among them

If no one wins a majority (winning a majority would be hard, but a sufficiently strong frontrunner, like Bush '00, could pull it off; Romney '12 and Trump '16 would both have very likely fallen short), the whole thing goes to the convention, which would then be held according to Canada Rules (candidate with fewest votes eliminated, his delegates scatter, and so on until someone has a majority), with I suppose the exception that any new candidate can enter as long as they have the endorsement of X number of withdrawn or eliminated candidates (2 seems reasonable).

These would be good rules for both the Republican and the Democratic sides, imo

[LLR]

This is completely trash. It makes no sense. It's like IRV, which is a good idea, but with much more disenfranchising voters

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is completely trash. It makes no sense. It's like IRV, which is a good idea, but with much more disenfranchising voters

And  with winning nearly all the state delegates despite winning like 30% of the popular vote in a state is not disenfranchising voters

[IceAgeComing]

why not use proper preferential voting so that a voter themselves can decide where their vote goes, rather than it be used in a game of political ping pong and possibly end up with someone that they detest?

Or alternatively if you insist on keeping delegates, use list PR with a decent threshold, 5% is always good.