Talk:Brokered convention

message: I'm not sure how to mark things as needing a citation, so if someone could put that in the article, I'd appreciate it. It belongs on "some people see this strategy implied in his book" (or some such phrasing). 75.60.169.46 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this still relevant? I guess, what you meant was adding the fact or cn template Template:Fact -- JanCK (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How to add cn-template

message: What are the mechanics of a brokered convention?
It has been so long, I doubt anyone remembers.  In the old days, there was a first ballot in which no one got a majority.  At that point, the various delegate blocks get lobbied to support another candidate, in return for certain promises.  For example, in 1860, Abe Lincoln won the support of certain north eastern delegates by promising to name Simon Cameron the Secretary of War.
In reality, though, the horse trading would take place before the convention.  Imagine the following GOP situation: 
Needed to win 1,191
Romney 700
McCain 700
Huckabee 500
Giuliani 400
Thompson 81
Both Romney and McCain would win with Huckabee.  So both would before the convention try and get Huckabee on their side.  They might offer him the VP slot or a platform position for something he wants.  
In reality, who knows.  --Amcalabrese (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the term "brokered convention" is that the votes are brokered, that is that there are deals between brokers controlling blocks of votes. In your example Huckabee is the broker of his votes. The article shows no sign of recognizing the origin of the term, leaving it mysterious why a convention where a majority is not initially commanded is called "brokered". Andyvphil (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Some topic ??

message: The 2008 section has got to go.  This speculative material does not belong in an encyclopedia entry.
User:WesHermann  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.195.60 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is very well sourced and is relevant to understanding the situation, just like all the presidential campaign articles discuss potential states they are going to win, as determined by polling, also very speculative. Not much difference in this case. Calwatch (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The end of it sports a broken link, and calls modern campaigns "infomercial-like". I can't say that sounds well-sourced. The section itself doesn't need to go, it just needs to be edited. Fearwig (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: informality of the 2008 section

message: "The last seriously contested convention was the 1976 Republican convention, where Gerald Ford beat Ronald Reagan on the first ballot without obtaining a majority of delegates through the primary and caucus process."
According to the article, this wasn't a brokered convention, just a contested one. Yet, no majority of delegates was obtained. That's a contradiction, based on everything else written here. I'm going to remove this information until it can be resolved. Fearwig (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ford/Reagan

message: Is the Ron Paul comment spam or have I missed the point? I don't remember anything happening in Florida that would turn Ron Paul into a frontrunner...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.225.66 (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ron Paul?

message: Surely a brokered convention is far more likely on the republican side, where there are three "viable" candidates who could split the vote, resulting in no clear majority? Where as on the democratic side, as Edwards has only 20ish delegates, there's a slim likelihood of neither Obama or Clinton having a majority?
Is there non-neutral point of view here, or is one of us (me or the writer) just stupid? 
202.0.43.190 (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote in the section above, there might be an explanation for that. It might be that Clinton or Obama need 70% of the votes in order to not depend on the superdelegates even if they were to vote for them. And it might be that McCain is likely to get more than 50% (plus some little percent to counterweight the unpledged delegates) of the votes at least for now he has got more than 50% of the votes, hasn't he? So, it might be true (depending on the defintion of brokered convention [which I don't know - is it A or B??]) that a brokered convention is more likely with the Democrats. But I still hope that someone can clarify this. btw. the 2008 part on the republicans got deleted only yesterday evening. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brokered_convention&diff=189569874&oldid=189490007 . Oh, and I just see that there is a sentence about the republican party again. I'll read that now. -- JanCK (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Likelyhood of a brokered convention for the both parties

message: Is it possible that no-one knows convention rules? Is a simple majority needed or do candidates need the majority of those that have right to vote? In any case, a brokered democratic convention in 2008 is very unlikely, unless the rule specify that the first vote does not count superdelegates or requires a qualified majority of more than 50%. I can't believe that there is no link to convention rules out there -- written by User:129.59.250.93 17:27, 7 February 2008 
: I also think, that the article is still unclear on what the definition of a brokered convention is. The first sentence should make that clear. And there should by a source for this somewhere. Both for the convention rules and for the definition of brokered convention. Actually, I don't see what for we need all this speculation in this article about what might happen. All we need in this article is an explanation of whether there might be a brokered convention this year. But the article doesn't say much about that as all the sentences don't dare to say explicitly whether they are referring to a brokered convention. All one gets from this article, right now, are sentences like this: ... national convention might be brokered, or at least that the convention may commence without a presumptive nominee. This way, we are explicitly unclear about whether we are discussing the case of a brokered convention (what ever the exact meaning is) or the case of a convention that may commence without a presumptive nominee.   I still think, somebody should just know, what a brokered convention is, and where to find the definition. -- JanCK (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Convention rules

message: "pursuant to an agreement with a stronger rival a candidate with enough delegates to deny the front runner(s) a majority could instruct his/her delegates to vote for another candidate, replacing any delegates who (s)he believes might not co-operate with his/her wishes."
What is the source for this? I've never heard that a candidate can actualy replace delegates because they might vote in a way different than what the candidate desires. In fact, everything I've heard says just the opposite - that pledged delegates have to vote for the candidate they're pledged to on the first vote, but after that (in most states) anything goes.
So, source cite needed there. --98.18.134.189 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, you look at the near unanimous votes in past conventions, and this is not the case. What happens is that the candidate may release their delegates and ask them to vote for someone else. However, there is nothing in the DNC rules that require them to vote for any candidate. I'll have to pull out some articles during the period where there were three Democratic candidates that describes this scenario. Also recall that hub-bub when Clinton's surrogates said they would go after pledged delegates. Calwatch (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone put in a reference to the rules whereby a candidate can't mandate their delegates vote for someone else. However, I think there are other dirty tricks possible when the delegates are being assigned. The candidates can't mandate who their guys vote for, but there may well be other ways to change their vote, or as you say they can be "released" on their own recognizance it seems. If anyone wants to write on that it'd be good. I tidied up a couple of paragraphs in this section. The main change was to take out a confusing bit which implied (but didn't actually state) that a brokered convention was one decided by superdelegates. This isn't the proper definition of the word, though it's used a lot in the media. After all, superdelegates have only been around since the Eighties I think, and the most recent brokered convention was in 1952 or something. --Mujokan (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Brokered conventions today

message: I think the section on a brokered convention in 2008 is out of date and probably pointless. The best policy in my opinion would just be to delete the whole section. I'll come back in a few weeks and see if anyone disagrees. --Mujokan (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a historic artifact, though, it should be kept, since the discussion permeated the media for the months before Super Tuesday on both sides. One paragraph per party should suffice though. Calwatch (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting 2008 section

message: While the section on the 2016 election is readable and informative and I personally think pretty astute analysis, it is partly opinion and it is completely unreferenced.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, for these reason. It's entirely circumstantial and any useful/sourceable  content is in the main article. --Errant (chat!) 12:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is time to start working on this article. Nothing is certain but the odds of a brokered convention this year are higher than at anytime in a generation. If/when this becomes more likely, this article is going to become a big deal on the project. Perhaps we should raise the priority level. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If/when it does, then the material will be easy to cover as a matter of historical record. Otherwise it's engaging in speculation which is not what Wikipedia is about. We could litter pretty much every articles with content saying "so and so COULD have happened", it's not a good idea for us to do so for obvious reasons. --Errant (chat!) 13:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016 election 

message: An open convention (as said by many media people today) is when (we all know) one nominee hopeful (candidate) does not have the clear simple majority of delegate (votes). In 2016, pundits say "Twelve thirty seven" for the simple majority of 1,237 delegates, since there will be 2,472 delegates attending from the 50 state, Washington D.C., and six U.S. territories.  There are two types, and Ted Cruz differentiates: 
* A brokered convention: decided by RNC leaders in 'smoked-filled rooms'. 
* A contested convention: without a clear majority, the 'vote-leader' is contested, leading to recurring ballots.
Some know a brokered convention will not be possible in a modern age. Newt Gingrich says that the attending delegates hold the power and that those in RNC leadership play a minor role when it comes to actually selecting the nominee. Reince Priebus agrees.  -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The two types of 'open' convention 

message: A great explanation by Michael Barone in National Review magazine online.
 Headline-1: No, There Won’t Be a Brokered Republican National Convention
* http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428710/republican-brokered-convention-likely
QUOTE: "... In those days politicians outside of Congress didn’t see much of each other in person. Train travel was time-consuming and plane travel hazardous. Regularly scheduled jet travel began when the Boeing 707 was launched in 1958. It’s no coincidence, then, that the last multi-ballot national convention was in 1952, when Democrats nominated Adlai Stevenson. As long-distance calls and jet flights became more common, some of the communication that could occur only at the convention started happening earlier. ..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining why 'contested convention' replaces 'brokered convention'