You have to wonder if the two parties had to have "none of the above" on the list, how well "none of the above" would have done.

Related: how do y6u decide who gets the delegates if who originally one has since dropped out? Why the heck the U.S. doesn't employ ranked voting, at least at some point, is beyond me.

There are two types of "dropping out"
1. those who drop out and remove their name from the list
2. those who suspend their active campaign but remain on the list of nominees.

for 1.'s they can either vote
a. for whoever they wish,
b. follow recommendation of their former candidate,
c. if a candidate has the 50% + 1, or more, then voting for that nominee is common, to maintain party unity.

for 2.'s they should still vote for their candidate.
u
edit] They, of course, could choose to abstain.

There are also different State rules for the delegates if it goes to a second or more votes.

My point was not to ask how it is done, but to ask why it is not done some other way. Has any suspender of a campaign ever revived his or her campaign? I am not aware of this ever happening, but I admit I could be wrong.

Thus, to reduce the risk of contested conventions and bribes and riots, why not do the following?

Voter ranks five still running (at an earlier point in time):

Cruz
Trump
Bush
Kasich
Rubio

Bush drops out, so that voter's ranking becomes:

Cruz
Trump
Kasich
Rubio

Rubio drops out:

Cruz
Trump
Kasich

If, by some weird event, Cruz dropped out before Kasich, we'd have.

Trump over Kasich.

There'd be much less question as to "what the people have decided".

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Sarge, why not have one national primary day. That eliminates the drop out problem and how to split the votes when someone drops out.

There is really no good way to split or apportion the votes of a candidate who drops out as we never could know how that state would have voted if that person wasn't running. Hate is a powerful motivator as Drumpf is proving.

---

But by delegate count Rubio has more than Kasich.

Political Conventions have been that way for a long time. Interesting history and a lot of comparisons here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1880_Republican_National_Convention

Hopefully there will be a better outcome this time after the Republican Candidate is elected.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Ivana says

. . . we need immigrants. Who’s going to vacuum our living rooms and clean up after us? Americans don’t like to do that.”

why not have one national primary day

That makes so much more sense to me than this seemingly random procession of state primaries and confusing caucuses.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Maybe the widely spread out primaries are the brainchild of big advertising companies.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

why not have one national primary day

That makes so much more sense to me than this seemingly random procession of state primaries and confusing caucuses.

And that is the reason it will never change. Those in Power, both sides, do not want a system where 'We The PEOPLE' make the choice, because 'We' don't know what we need.

The establishment will not change of it's own accord, and will not be changed from the outside without immense struggle. As in all forms of human endeavor the need to 'be in charge' will always preempt logic.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

The establishment will not change of it's own accord, and will not be changed from the outside without immense struggle. As in all forms of human endeavor the need to 'be in charge' will always preempt logic.

Approximately 75% of Republican Voters (Trump + Cruz). Are voting against Their Establishment.

Anti-Establishment Sanders, may now have a plurality (and leading Establishment Hillary) of Democrat Voters.

Sanders Catches Clinton

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/a-sanders-surge-in-polling-if-not-delegates/477198/

And the RNC has it's 'rules committee', and the DNC has super delegates to prevent a 'non-annointed' candidate from obtaining their party nominations. Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell will not go 'quietly into the night'.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Maybe the widely spread out primaries are the brainchild of big advertising companies.

I suppose we could spread it out a bit, say 28 days. All states in the Eastern time zone vote on week 1, all the states in the Central time zone vote on week 2, all the states in the Mountain time zone vote on week 3, and all the states in the Pacific time zone plus Alaska, Hawaii and any others vote on week 4.

It lets the advertisers get plenty on revenue, lets the candidates jet all over a few states at a time and gives all of us sanity by getting the process over quick. And it also makes anyone considering running have some national traction before they toss a hat in the ring.

Oh, if we wanted to make it really interesting on week zero we have a lottery to determine the order of the time zones voting, so every year it would be a different order!

---

You don't say ....

---

You don't say ....

":D>

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

I don't like the idea of primaries. IMO the tax payers should not have to pay for partisan selections. Conceptually to me caucuses are a better idea. Each party pays for it's own selection process.

---

I don't like the idea of primaries. IMO the tax payers should not have to pay for partisan selections. Conceptually to me caucuses are a better idea. Each party pays for it's own selection process.

Unfortunately caucuses bar a fairly large segment from being able to vote - for instance those that have to care for the infirm and anybody that has shift work when the caucus is scheduled.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I still don't understand why voting at home via the internet isn't being used. Surely by now the technological process could be verifiable, and it would definitely improve voter turnout.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

I still don't understand why voting at home via the internet isn't being used. Surely by now the technological process could be verifiable, and it would definitely improve voter turnout.

Haven't you been reading about the FBI breaking encryption? Can't verify without unbreakable encryption.

---

I still don't understand why voting at home via the internet isn't being used. Surely by now the technological process could be verifiable, and it would definitely improve voter turnout.

I can see some good reasons to not vote at home via the internet.
When giving a vote you also have to be present in some sense.
Meaning that a person have to give voice to his/her opinion.
Otherwise you could do polls and get the same result as in an election.

And why does Americian citizens need to register to vote?
Here we get what's needed to vote from "Skatteverket", Swedish IRS, without needing some registration.

Unfortunately caucuses bar a fairly large segment from being able to vote - for instance those that have to care for the infirm and anybody that has shift work when the caucus is scheduled.

Bobby, that still does not address why those who are unable or unwilling to get involved in their party should have a say in what the party does and does not in the least address why the tax payer should pay for a partisan election.
Republicans should be selected by their party as should Democrats and 3rd party candidates. A primary election is not the same thing as a general election.
As an aside the Democrat party in my state, Washington has provisions for those who can't make it to a caucus to cast their vote in an absentee manner.

---

Haven't you been reading about the FBI breaking encryption? Can't verify without unbreakable encryption.

No, I haven't really been following that. There should be some sort of solution for internet voting. If everybody was honest, it would work. ;~)

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Haven't you been reading about the FBI breaking encryption? Can't verify without unbreakable encryption.

No, I haven't really been following that. There should be some sort of solution for internet voting. If everybody was honest, it would work. ;~)

LMAO. Have you heard of the "Panama Papers"?