(I made a similar post near the end of another thread, but thought it was worth its own thread.)
There have been some claims about the change from Biden to Harris being illegitimate. So it seems reasonable to look at what the rules actually are.
Here's what the rule says about delegates:
“Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”
That is a recent change, replacing a rule that would have required the candidate to formally release delegates for them to vote for someone else. Obviously it's a matter of interpretation, but even if BIden hadn't withdrawn delegates could say that having a losing candidate does not reflect the intent of the primary voters..
The change was made specifically to give delegates more flexibility in unusual situations. Specifcally, in 1980 it appeared that Carter was going to lose, but because of the older "robot rule" there was no way to replace him. (Sound familiar?) The change would have allowed a replacement if the delegates wanted to do so.
So even if we don't assume that people who voted for Biden/Harris would want Harris to replace Biden if he withdrew, there's no problem. Democrat's rules are set up specifically to allow delegates to replace a candidate that is likely to lose. Republicans didn't make a similar change, so their delegates are still bound.
Much of the discussion about mini-primaries is irrelevant, since there are no other candidates. But in any case delegates are free to choose Harris.
This is separate from the question of whether it might have been wise to have more candidates to choose from. I'm looking only at what is legitimate.
www.brookings.edu
There have been some claims about the change from Biden to Harris being illegitimate. So it seems reasonable to look at what the rules actually are.
Here's what the rule says about delegates:
“Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”
That is a recent change, replacing a rule that would have required the candidate to formally release delegates for them to vote for someone else. Obviously it's a matter of interpretation, but even if BIden hadn't withdrawn delegates could say that having a losing candidate does not reflect the intent of the primary voters..
The change was made specifically to give delegates more flexibility in unusual situations. Specifcally, in 1980 it appeared that Carter was going to lose, but because of the older "robot rule" there was no way to replace him. (Sound familiar?) The change would have allowed a replacement if the delegates wanted to do so.
So even if we don't assume that people who voted for Biden/Harris would want Harris to replace Biden if he withdrew, there's no problem. Democrat's rules are set up specifically to allow delegates to replace a candidate that is likely to lose. Republicans didn't make a similar change, so their delegates are still bound.
Much of the discussion about mini-primaries is irrelevant, since there are no other candidates. But in any case delegates are free to choose Harris.
This is separate from the question of whether it might have been wise to have more candidates to choose from. I'm looking only at what is legitimate.
Are convention delegates bound to their presidential candidate? | Brookings
Brookings Senior Fellow Elaine Kamarck discusses the history of convention delegates and how they may impact the 2024 Democratic Convention.
www.brookings.edu
