Jump to content
270soft Forum
lok1999

Primary problem

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, lok1999 said:

No one is dropping out, everyone is staying in until the conventions, and it is really confusing me.

Everyone thinks they're Ron Paul now... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin_270

I was thinking about this yesterday. How about adding, in the editor, more "drop out" functions. For instance:

1. Stays into convention (keep that as it is), and if it isn't checked:

2. Stay until someone clinches nomination:

3. Drop out date and requirements:

[Month-day-year -- if --criteria -- #]

Ex: January 29, 2020 -- if Pop vote is less than 5%. 

Ex: January 29, 2020 -- if delegates less than 10

Ex: January 29, 2020 -- if rank is less than 4 (that is, if 4 candidates poll higher)

Ex: December 12, 2019 -- if Pop vote is less than 5% (the date would mean someone would drop out pre-primary)

For part 3, each candidate could have several benchmarks for the major primary dates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

@admin_270

I was thinking about this yesterday. How about adding, in the editor, more "drop out" functions. For instance:

1. Stays into convention (keep that as it is), and if it isn't checked:

2. Stay until someone clinches nomination:

3. Drop out date and requirements:

[Month-day-year -- if --criteria -- #]

Ex: January 29, 2020 -- if Pop vote is less than 5%. 

Ex: January 29, 2020 -- if delegates less than 10

Ex: January 29, 2020 -- if rank is less than 4 (that is, if 4 candidates poll higher)

Ex: December 12, 2019 -- if Pop vote is less than 5% (the date would mean someone would drop out pre-primary)

For part 3, each candidate could have several benchmarks for the major primary dates

This would be a welcome change. I wasn't sure if it was just my experience either, but I've also seen a lot more candidates staying in past Iowa and New Hampshire, and Super Tuesday, than you'd expect based on historic precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, thr33 said:

This would be a welcome change. I wasn't sure if it was just my experience either, but I've also seen a lot more candidates staying in past Iowa and New Hampshire, and Super Tuesday, than you'd expect based on historic precedent.

I'd say I have a deadlocked convention about 75% of the time. I never have anyone drop out before Iowa, after Iowa, or even after New Hampshire. Generally, no one drops out after Super Tuesday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'd say I have a deadlocked convention about 75% of the time. I never have anyone drop out before Iowa, after Iowa, or even after New Hampshire. Generally, no one drops out after Super Tuesday. 

There should be a toggle for making a scenario. For instance, pre-1960's scenarios should keep things as is, because the nomination was effectively decided at the convention, In fact, in such a mode, "smoke-filled room" intrigues should have some mechanic. The other toggle should have a more modern primaries/caucuses progression where very few are left by the time the convention hits. Also, there should be a setting for Independents and parties that are effectively just vehicles for one candidate's electoral campaign, and that have no primaries/caucuses, conventions, or chance of the uncontested candidate dropping out (unless they make a deal to do so or be VP for or accept as VP another candidate from another party).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

There should be a toggle for making a scenario. For instance, pre-1960's scenarios should keep things as is, because the nomination was effectively decided at the convention, In fact, in such a mode, "smoke-filled room" intrigues should have some mechanic. The other toggle should have a more modern primaries/caucuses progression where very few are left by the time the convention hits. Also, there should be a setting for Independents and parties that are effectively just vehicles for one candidate's electoral campaign, and that have no primaries/caucuses, conventions, or chance of the uncontested candidate dropping out (unless they make a deal to do so or be VP for or accept as VP another candidate from another party).

What year would you say they moved out of the backrooms? I recall reading that in 72 the Dems moved to a so-called national primary system, and the GOP followed suit in 76. Were the primaries for 60,64,68 still very much convention-mostly affairs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thr33 said:

What year would you say they moved out of the backrooms? I recall reading that in 72 the Dems moved to a so-called national primary system, and the GOP followed suit in 76. Were the primaries for 60,64,68 still very much convention-mostly affairs?

It's kind of grey border territory. @vcczar probably knows better than I do on that exact issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Patine said:

It's kind of grey border territory. @vcczar probably knows better than I do on that exact issue.

@thr33

1972. 

In 1968, Humphrey did not contest a single primary, and won the nomination at the convention, mostly because Kennedy, McCarthy, and others had split the primary votes. Had Kennedy lived and endorsed McCarthy, or vice versa, then it might have been different. 

Following this election, George McGovern led a movement for 100% primary-based elections. He doesn't get enough credit in American history. In 1972, McGovern ran, with Humphrey as his main challenger. Humphrey was still not acclimating to the new system, hoping party bosses would pick him at the convention, but McGovern won enough votes in the primary to get the nomination. Thus, the main mind behind the system won the primary using it. Unfortunately, he got landslided against Nixon in 1972. Republicans didn't have to adopt the changes in 1972 because Nixon was going to get renominated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also like the ability for conditional running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

I'd also like the ability for conditional running.

I agree with that, too. I've also thought about that. This would be very useful for independent candidacies. For instance, in 1912. Bull Moose Roosevelt joins in if Republican Roosevelt drops out. In 1968, Humphrey jumps in if LBJ drops out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

I agree with that, too. I've also thought about that. This would be very useful for independent candidacies. For instance, in 1912. Bull Moose Roosevelt joins in if Republican Roosevelt drops out. In 1968, Humphrey jumps in if LBJ drops out. 

Would this mean a player or party swap being automatic - that is, if you were playing GOP Roosevelt, and Taft (or something else) got the nomination, and he switched to Bull Moose, you automatically become the Bull Moose Roosevelt, or, if your playing LBJ in 1968, could you take over as playing Humphrey after dropping out in 1968, the way you can take over as a player if they agree to take your previous player as VP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Would this mean a player or party swap being automatic - that is, if you were playing GOP Roosevelt, and Taft (or something else) got the nomination, and he switched to Bull Moose, you automatically become the Bull Moose Roosevelt, or, if your playing LBJ in 1968, could you take over as playing Humphrey after dropping out in 1968, the way you can take over as a player if they agree to take your previous player as VP?

I think it would be too complicated to have the player swap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×