Talk:Brokered convention

The definition of brokered vs. contested convention appears to be wrong, or confusing
Specifically with regards to the status of the convention before the first vote. The current definition here on wikipedia says:

"In the United States' politics, a brokered convention, closely related to a contested convention, either of which is also sometimes referred to as an open convention, is a situation in which no single candidate has secured a majority of overall delegates (whether those selected by primary elections and caucuses, state conventions, or superdelegates), after the first vote for a political party's presidential candidate at its national nominating convention."

But according to external dictionary sites:

In the US presidential election, a convention held to select the candidate at which no one has a majority of delegates when the convention starts, and therefore the candidate has to be selected during the convention http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/contested-convention

The definition of a contested convention is when no single candidate has a majority of delegates before the first official vote for a presidential candidate at the Democratic National Convention or the Republican National Convention. http://www.yourdictionary.com/contested-convention

The last contested convention took place in in 1976, when Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan both came close but failed to win enough delegates to clinch the nomination outright. Ford went on to win on the first ballot. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/brokered-vs-contested-conventions-whatever-theyre-called-there-have-been-more-than-you-think/

So my questions are, when do you have a contested convention? Do super delegates count towards whether or not its contested? Is it "before" or "after" the first vote? What is the actual difference between contested and brokered?

How to add cn-template
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)
 * 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)

Some topic ??
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)


 * 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)

Should there be an explanation of what is meant by majority? I'm assuming it's 51% and not just more than anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.97.234 (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

informality of the 2008 section
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

I removed this paragraph: "The Republican contest featured four strong candidates right up to Super Tuesday, following which Mitt Romney 'suspended' his campaign (despite winning in several states that day) and media sources declared John McCain the presumptive nominee. On March 4, 2008, McCain won primaries in four states, thus giving him more than the 1191 delegates needed to secure the nomination on the first vote; Mike Huckabee dropped out the same day." The first statement, "The Republican contest featured four strong candidates right up to Super Tuesday", is not true unless you consider Ron Paul a "strong candidate", which practically speaking he wasn't. Thompson and Giuliani both quit prior to Super Tuesday after very disappointing starts, so at best there were three "strong" candidates at that point: McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. But even before Super Tuesday John McCain was seen as the clear front-runner, especially after winning Florida (at which point Giuliani quit.) Beyond that, this paragraph as is is of no relevance to the article's subject. It could be rewritten to recount how and why a brokered Republican convention seemed quite possible at one point, and at the end, briefly summarize how McCain's hot streak diminished that possibility and finally put it to rest. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ford/Reagan
"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)

Basically, Ford went into the ocnvention without a majority of the delegates. In theory, Reagan could have won had he won all of the uncommitted delegates. But Ford was ahead and had the party aparatus behind him, so when the delegates were counted, he received a majority. --Amcalabrese (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul?
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)

what is the definition? The first or the second one mentioned?
Hello,

I'd be happy, if you could clarify this for me, so we can clarify it in the article. The article begins with
 *  A brokered convention refers to a situation in United States politics where there are not enough delegates obtained during the presidential primary and caucus process for a single candidate to obtain a majority for the presidential nominating convention. Since no candidates receive enough votes on the first ballot to win the nomination, the convention is brokered through political horse-trading and multiple ballots.

So what does that mean? What is a brokered convention? Is it when So can it be that a brokered convention has just a single voting and no second ballot? To me it seems the Democrats can only have a second ballot if the convention results of clinton and obama will differ by less than the number of delegates Edwards has. Is that correct? Will Edwards' delegates still formally vote for Edwards on the convention on the first ballot? What happens on the second ballot? Are all delegates free to vote what ever they feel fit?
 * A: there are not enough delegates obtained during the primaries and caucuses? Or is it
 * B: when noone wins at the convention on the first ballot?

I guess there is a difference between the two alternatives A and B, as the 2008 section suggests to me that superdelegates aren't counted for A(as they can theoretically choose on the convention whom to vote for), but surely have to be considered for B (as this depends on whether there is a simple majority on the first ballot.). I could believe that brokered convention is A. In that case, brokered convention would just mean that the outcome isn't definitely decided about, when the convention starts. But I don't see how the 2008 section can then say that a brokered convention is only possible with the Democrates. In case A) is correct than McCain needs half the votes not including any unpledged delegates. So he'd have to get more than 50% of the pledged delegates of the primaries and caucuses. Maybe it's very likely that he will. I don't know. But I think the article should either say it's still possible or say that it's not and why. Just listing the Democrates, I find confusing. -- JanCK (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On more thing. I read that on the first ballot, one would have to get a simple majority. Why does it say simple and not absolute? Is that because delegates can decided not to (or are forced to not) vote. Mainly: What are delegates pledged to Edwards do? Will they vote for Edwards and raise the number of votes given (so that absolute and simple majority differ)? .. Or is difference of simple and absolute majority only important when there are more than two candidates left at the convention? -- JanCK (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the 2008 section better now. But I'd like it even better if the article could explain what brokered convention is. Is it A) or B)? The 2008 section says now:
 * The current split of support for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could result in a race where no candidate receives a majority of delegates on the first ballot as nearly 20% of the delegates are unpledged superdelegates.[4]
 * Why does nearly 20% of the delegates being unpledged make this more likely? Is it because they aren't counted when it's to be decided whether there has to be a brokered convention? Or is this just an unimportant phrase saying nothing but: "we don't know whether the first ballot will give a simple majority to any of the candidates as we don't know at least 20% of the votes"? Thanks. -- JanCK (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are loads of changes to this article. Shouldn't the most important (and therefore first) change be, that we clarify what a brokered convention is? The first sentence still reads: A brokered convention refers to a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates obtained during the presidential primary and caucus process for a single candidate to obtain a majority for the presidential nominating convention.  and I think it doesn't make clear whether delegates obtained during the primary and caucus process refers to pledged usual delegates, pledged usual delegates plus pledged superdelegates or all delegates and superdelegates voting for one candidate. And it doesn't make clear what the majority needed is a simple or an absolute majority. -- JanCK (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I clarified the definition and put in some references. The convention isn't considered "brokered" until the first round of voting fails to produce a majority. Then the rules change. Superdelegates vote in the first round. It must be an absolute majority - that's what the third reference says, and if all you needed was a simple majority, there would never be a brokered convention. I also changed the "and/or multiple ballots" to just "further ballots", because they always have to have a final vote - there's no "or" about it. --Mujokan (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Likelyhood of a brokered convention for the both parties
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)


 * 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)

I know that this sounds like a daft way of backing up the point, but an online bookmaker (www.intrade.com) shows that those staking money on the subject believe there to be a 5% chance of a brokered Republican convention but a 15% chance of a brokered Democratic convention...

Their definition of a brokered convention is one where the first round of voting does not lead to a result and where there has to be a second (or further) round of voting before a candidate can be chosen.

Obviously, this should not be considered a reliable or definitive source, it's just a third party trying to reach some binding conclusion so that betting can take place within defined circumstances...81.157.183.182 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Convention rules
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)

Brokered conventions today
"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)

I think the poster above is right. My understanding is that delegates have to vote for the person they are assigned to on the first ballot. They cannot choose to vote for any other candidate. They can't be assigned to vote for any other candidate, either. The candidate has no control over them - they don't belong to the candidate, but to the State. For example, delegates who are delegated to vote for John Edwards have to vote for him, or abstain. After the first ballot, if there is no absolute majority, then anyone can vote for any candidate, and that is when the convention becomes "brokered". So I am going to delete that sentence. If someone wants to revert it, please provide a citation. --Mujokan (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Deleting 2008 section
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)


 * 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)

2016 election
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The two types of 'open' convention
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: 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) -- PS: It is an honor to be discussing this on the same page as J. Wales.
 * 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.

Explaining why 'contested convention' replaces 'brokered convention'
A great explanation by Michael Barone in National Review magazine online. Headline-1: No, There Won’t Be a Brokered Republican National Convention 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) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
 * http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428710/republican-brokered-convention-likely

What is a contested convention if not the same as a brokered convention?
The intro says: "a brokered convention, closely related to but not quite the same as a contested convention". Why does "contested convention" link here if its not the same thing as a brokered convention. I don't see a definition of contested convention in here separate from the main one for brokered convention. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The two terms related to the sort of the convention that actually happened so long ago that modern usage of the terms just doesn't stop to check the finer details as to which term should be used when. Most talk of brokered/contested conventions is media speculation (and sometimes hope, bear in mind the conventions are in a notoriously slow news period) rather than rigorous analysis. This article can't find a meaningful distinction.
 * (The distinction would appear to be that a "brokered" convention would have deals made by party leaders with control over big blocks of delegates, but the modern system doesn't really give party bosses that kind of formal block vote any more and, as noted in a piece linked to further up, these days it's much easier for politicians to communicate and sort things out before getting to the convention itself. The "contested" convention seems more focused on votes on the convention floor to determine the nominee with advanced uncertainty.) Timrollpickering 18:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

2024 brokered DNC
There is clearly substantial discussion that the 2024 Democratic National Convention may be brokered, enough for this to be mentioned in the introductory section of the overall election's page. But as the convention hasn't happened yet, it cannot be classified as either definition, as it is not confirmed what will happen. Is it still worth including on this page? 71.161.96.241 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the very first discussion I've seen of it. I'm WP:AGF in not removing this section as WP:NOTAFORUM. If there are no WP:RS of this substantial discussion, this section should be closed and/or removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems reasonable. With the section removed from the election's page the discussion here is null. 71.161.96.241 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)