To: Jim Robinson
Why does there have to be a run-off? Does someone have to get over 50% to be declared a winner? If McDaniel got more votes that should be it, shouldn’t it?
4 posted on
06/04/2014 1:41:47 AM PDT by
Rummyfan
(Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
To: Rummyfan
No, they have to get at least 50% to win outright.
No worries, this is a big victory for the Tea Party.
5 posted on
06/04/2014 1:47:49 AM PDT by
fortheDeclaration
(Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
To: Rummyfan
Why does there have to be a run-off? Does someone have to get over 50% to be declared a winner? If McDaniel got more votes that should be it, shouldn’t it? Because no one got 50%+1.
Before any complains: Remember that run-offs are the reason Ted Cruz is currently a U.S. Senator, instead of David Dewhurst.
To: Rummyfan
That’s not how we do things here in the South. Winner needs 50% (rounded down) + 1. This is still a huge victory for the TEA Party. McDaniel should easily win the runoff.
12 posted on
06/04/2014 3:12:10 AM PDT by
Hoodat
(Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
To: Rummyfan
Does someone have to get over 50% to be declared a winner? In some states, an absolute majority is required, otherwise the top two go to a run-off.
I wouldn't be too worried, the TEA Party has, as far as I can tell, won every run-off they've been in, and by large margins.
54 posted on
06/04/2014 6:37:15 AM PDT by
kevkrom
(I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
To: Rummyfan
Unfortunately not. I think runoffs are stupid, but there are states that require a primary to have 50 percent. It’s irritating and idiotic, but what can you do...
57 posted on
06/04/2014 6:52:33 AM PDT by
rwfromkansas
("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson