Question for Democrats/Republicans? Do you people choose your candidates for president based on the primaries or the conventions or both? I don't understand the point of having both a primary and a convention. Is that wasteful? I bring it up because this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble_clinton;_ylt=AujCRGwSV4KnrPtCPLF2uGKs0NUE
says Michican is having a pimary, but the pimary doesn't matter. What's the point then?
2007-10-11 07:11:04 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The primary selects the delegates that go to the convention where the nominee is selected. It is similar to the electoral college except that delegates are free to change affiliation before they vote so deals can be brokered.
2007-10-11 07:19:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Each party in each of the 50 states holds a primary to decide which candidate their party wants to run for President. The state then sends delegates to the national convention to vote for the candidate that won in their state. If their candidate is not doing very well, they will have to decide to support one of the others. That is why the conventions take so long sometimes.
When the convention is over, the party has selected a candidate for the national election.
The article you linked is a situation where the state party has decided to hold their primary so early that it doesn't make sense - and the national convention is threatening them with not being allowed to send delegates.
2007-10-13 17:31:16 · answer #2 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋