|
Is there any reason why they shouldn't just drop a contested delegate, send one less?
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
But if its a tie, shouldn't that be the net result anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
OK thanks. A way around it might be to double the amount of delegates each place that earns one gets. Thus, there will always be at least 2, and so they can be split. Too many people?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
I asked because I didn't know, you an rear end in a top hat or something?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
The person earlier said "You only need to do tiebreakers in single delegate precincts." was that incorrect? Because that's what I was basing that idea off of. The alternative, to cut down on delegates added is instead of doubling, is to start with a base of two, first earned nets two delegates, after that one per. remusclaw has issued a correction as of 05:16 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
I suppose dragging in the first person you see crossing the street outside to be a tie breaker would have it's objectors? Too likely to be a known partisan.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Does this problem exist in the primary system? If not, maybe caucuses ought not be the way the presidential nomination is decided, tradition be damned.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
I guess the answer here would be to do both? Just decouple the Presidential nomination from the caucus, best of both worlds, no? I mean, obviously less people would show up to a caucus that was just about local leadership, but those are the people who care about that anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
What happened? Or was it just less entertaining? I mean if all you want is drama, obviously a caucus is the way to go.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 06:06
|
|