What exactly does a "brokered convention" mean?

[Hugabear]

I've seen this phrase pop up a few times so far today, but I'm not sure exactly what it means. From the context in which I've seen it, it seems like it could be beneficial to "minor" candidates like Kucinich, Ron Paul, etc.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. Refers to a situation where no candidate has a majority of delegates going into the convention.

That is, they don't have the number required to secure the nomination, per the rules.

Then some kind of negotiations at the convention have to determine the nominee.

Not a particularly great situation for either party if it were to occur.

But it appears more likely, for both parties, than in recent years.

[alfredo]

16. It's like a caucus.

[Kucinich4America]

2. It means basically that the DLC attempt to rig the front loaded primary has failed

and no candidate rolls into Denver with enough delegates to take the nomination.

Some imagine a scenario where Obama and Clinton split delegates, and Edwards holds just enough to put either over the top, and all the power rests in his hands.

Others imagine a gridlocked two way race, with neither candidate acceptable to the other and a third party brought in as a candidate who both sides would accept. Which explains the most recent Gore 2008 posts.

[SteppingRazor]

4. But power only rests in Edwards hands in as much as he can convince his delegates...

to go for one candidate or the other. They don't have to listen to him.

[Kucinich4America]

6. True enough.

That's why, if it comes down to a brokered convention, I'd prefer the Gore solution.

[SteppingRazor]

3. It breaks down like this.

All the delegates go to the convention and vote for the person they've promised to vote for. Superdelegates vote for whomever they damn well please. If no single candidate gets enough votes, then we get a brokered convention -- every delegate is essentially free to vote for whomever they please, in theory. So, again in theory, that would seem to help folks like Kucinich. But in practice, brokered conventions have generally resulted in the candidate that is the favorite of party bigwigs getting the nod.

Now, that said, previous brokered conventions likely won't play out like one in Denver, if there is one. This country has not seen a brokered convention since 1952, before TV was a big deal. A brokered convention in the modern mass media era is an entirely unknown commodity.

[JDPriestly]

15. Generally, the delegates are loyal enough to their candidate to

accept the candidate's guidance on voting after the first vote. As a result, the candidates have an incentive to negotiate for the votes of other candidates. That is how we got the ticket JFK/LBJ.

[Orangepeel]

5. there's no benefit to minor candidates

The candidates with delegates will fight over it. One might be forced to take another as a VP candidate or one candidate might be able to force certain things into the party platform. Some people have a fantasy that the delegates will compromise on some savior of the party, like Al Gore, but that won't happen either.

It'll just be a bitter mess that damages our nominee coming out of the convention.

[SteppingRazor]

7. Pretty much. The only saving grace to a brokered convention would be...

if the other side has one too.

[Hugabear]

10. I imagine the media would just love to have a brokered convention

Would just give them that much more obsess over 24/7.

[SteppingRazor]

12. Well, I can't necessarily blame them for that.

There hasn't been a brokered convention in more than half a century. Regardless of how you feel about the media, it would be an interesting development in the process of choosing a nominee. That doesn't have anything to do with the media being sensationalistic (though they are). A brokered convention would be a newsworthy development.

[Hugabear]

13. Plus we'd get to see a bunch of cool new graphics and audio intros

We'll get to see intros like "PARTY IN CRISIS" and dramatic music...

Oh, how I love the modern media!

[Kucinich4America]

9. How does it damage a nominee to actually fight for a nomination

as opposed to buying one, which is the intended result of these front loaded DLC manipulated primaries.

It's a stretch, but I might even gain respect for Hillary if she had to fight for the nomination. Not that I see her coming out the winner of a brokered convention.

[SteppingRazor]

11. It damages a nominee because...

having your nomination come out of smoke-filled rooms instead of through the initial delegate process makes you look less legitimate.

[JDPriestly]

17. It did not damage JFK.

In the old days, a lot of state delegations would vote for a favorite son during the first vote. That threw the convention open and the deal making would begin. As I said above, one result was JFK/LBJ (may have been negotiated before the convention but based, I believe, on the assumption of a brokered convention). The combination JFK/LBJ was important because each candidate brought loyal voters and represented specific interests in the party.

[MNDemNY]

8. Beneficial to the Democrats.

And maybe Non-candidates such as AG.

[Reciprocity]

14. Thank you for asking this question.

I've been hearing the pundits taking about a brokered convention for some time now, and was wondering what's the big deal. I distantly remember Chuck Todd of MSNBC saying that, just once in his life he would like to see one. Now I know why. It would be pandemonium.