Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Question : Number of delegates required for US elections?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Politics & Debate
Why do the Democrat candidates need 2,025 to win the nomination while the Republicans only need 1,191? Anyone know?

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its all to do with the voting in their conferences, I presume they have cut thr country up slightly differently. I think the democrats have more of those wierd caucuses and therefore more votes to be decided.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't know the voting system is a bit weird in America. In one of the elections bush won with less nominal votes in total, but won more states so won or something.

    Guess the same could happen here, if every labour MP got through with a tiny majority of say 200 votes, took 40% of the house, but all the tory mp got 100% of their votes and took 35% of the house, labour would still get in even though more people in the country ticked conservative on their ballot. Democracy ftl.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I don't know the voting system is a bit weird in America. In one of the elections bush won with less nominal votes in total, but won more states so won or something.

    Guess the same could happen here, if every labour MP got through with a tiny majority of say 200 votes, took 40% of the house, but all the tory mp got 100% of their votes and took 35% of the house, labour would still get in even though more people in the country ticked conservative on their ballot. Democracy ftl.

    At the last general election the Conservatives got more votes in England than Labour - but Labour won more seats in England.

    Britain/America both use First Past The Post in general elections. (If America had Single Transferable Vote there would probably be viable third parties - and in Britain, the LibDems might actually win an election...)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Disillusioned wrote: »
    At the last general election the Conservatives got more votes in England than Labour - but Labour won more seats in England.

    Britain/America both use First Past The Post in general elections. (If America had Single Transferable Vote there would probably be viable third parties - and in Britain, the LibDems might actually win an election...)

    STV is pretty complicated though. I have enough trouble choosing one party to vote for when they all seem to be playing copycat these days anyway. It's not like in other things where one candidate is clearly better. They all preach the same stuff to the same swing votes, and then do their own thing when they're in office.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Disillusioned wrote: »
    At the last general election the Conservatives got more votes in England than Labour - but Labour won more seats in England.

    Britain/America both use First Past The Post in general elections. (If America had Single Transferable Vote there would probably be viable third parties - and in Britain, the LibDems might actually win an election...)

    Indeed, Perot got 20% of the popular vote in 1992 iirc and didn't win a single electoral college.
Sign In or Register to comment.