“why on earth is the delegate system a surprise to people?”
It’s not that the system is a surprise, it is that in 2016, the system is at odds with the best interest of the people - selecting a nominee with the strongest possible popular consensus, the strongest mandate.
Remember, the whole reason for requiring a majority of 1237 delegates, rather than a mere plurality, is that a plurality is a minority, and is not perceived as a consensus, and does not carry a mandate.
An anonymous vote would clearly carry the strongest mandate, but it is obviously not possible to achieve that ideal. The next best mandate would be a super majority, say two thirds, but again this is too difficult to achieve. A simple majority is therefore a compromise - it is considered the strongest consensus that can be reasonably achieved in a presidential election context.
That, dear FRiends, is why ‘the system’ is set up with delegates who can change their vote in subsequent ballots. If they were never released from their initial pledge, then a plurality could never be resolved into a majority.
What is ironic, and even perverse, is when the system is abused - used at odds with its purpose of achieving the strongest reasonable mandate - which is what is happening in 2016.
Trump will probably exceed the 1237 majority on the first ballot, making all of this moot, but if he were to fall short by, say, 50 delegates, and a losing candidate like Cruz or Kasich, were to achieve the nomination in subsequent ballots in smoked filled rooms, or worse yet, a candidate that did not even participate in the primary process, like Ryan or Romney - would that be perceived as a consensus decision - a mandate? Certainly not. It would be a perceived as highway robbery!
If any Republican has a mandate in 2016, it is Donald Trump and no one else. If ‘the system’ produces a nominee other than Trump, that system is surely broken. I don’t think it will happen, but if it does, I think the voters will detach from the Republican Party, and rightly so.
You make some good points, but I must point out - Trump will get around 11 million votes in the primary...and a candidate in the general election will need around 55-60 million votes. This makes the notion of a ‘popular mandate’ unrealistic. Rather, the primaries include the most dedicated voters, most likely the most ideological voters. Its usually not the place to ferret out the most populist candidate (this is an odd year).
And I stand by my statement - many people seem completely thrown off kilter by the delegate system, and in their minds they believed the primary system to be similar to a slow motion version of the electoral college. And it isn’t. They’re angry because they are surprised by the system...but its a little late to change it now, 2016 or not.
I do agree that Trump will win on first ballot. Between Indiana and California, I think he’s about there.
And, I agree that if he came close, within 50-100 delegates, the voters would revolt and stay home if somebody else ended up with the nomination.