WTF is the purpose of non-binding primaries?

[Driftr]

Why do we even bother to have primary elections that are non-binding?

I can understand (although I don't agree with) winner-take-all. Hey, if that's the way the state wants to play it, their choice. But what's the purpose of paying for these primary elections and then having them not make a bit of difference when it comes time to nominate someone?

[billisonboard]

One important factor to always remember is the RNC and the DNC are private, not governmental, entities which have only some power over state party entities. State governments have no real power to determine how delegates to the national conventions of either party will be selected/allocated.

[formerexpat]

One important factor to always remember is the RNC and the DNC are private, not governmental, entities which have only some power over state party entities. State governments have no real power to determine how delegates to the national conventions of either party will be selected/allocated.

I think Romney and Santorum might want to know and understand that process...

[kadee79]

The non-binding ones gives everyone a chance to see how everyone else is voting so they don't stand out in the crowd!

It also let's the leaders know which way the crowd is leaning! And gives everyone a chance to gossip & meet the candidates.

[handyman2]

When the delegates go to the convention they are not bound by the way the voters voted in the primary. They can split the vote on the floor or vote as one for a particular candidate. Example Romney got 39% Paul got 29% Sanatorium got 16% and Newt got 9%. But at the convention the delegates chosen are not bound by those numbers. It is more of a scale of how the voters see things. But it gives the delegates some room to wheel and deal for their best interests. Lets say Paul needs 35 votes to win the nomination. His floor handlers goes to the Maine delegates and says what would it take to get you to swing your vote to Paul. The head of the Maine delegation takes a poll and they say we want X million in school aid plus X Y an Z. The Paul rep says fine. And a deal is done.
The only caveat is Paul has to win the presidency to fill his promise. And the Republican delegates go back to Maine and tell the party to work very hard for Paul to carry the state so we can get what we were promised. Candidates love those old non-binding primaries. Good old fashion hard ball politics.
States that have winner take all actually lose leverage in the wheeling and dealing. But if Paul has no chance to win the final vote will usually be made unanimous to create unity in the party.

[reasonfreedom]

It is very simple. I was in the grassroots campaign for Ron Paul in 2008 and we discovered by research that delegates only matter not the popular vote. So, what we did was started getting Ron Paul supporters elected as delegates in the states. So if the popular vote, votes for Romney in one state it doesn't mean he gets those delegates unless otherwise stated like Florida is(I believe). So in Maine there is 24 delegates, if all delegates are Ron Paul supporters then they can all vote for RP even though the popular votes says otherwise. In other words you individual vote doesn't really matter. Also like what handyman2 says they can candidates can bargain\lobby for delegates(or bribe). I think it is messed up, but I think if the system is messed up then use the system to your advantage. Kind of like the IRS tax loop holes for the rich, our tax system is so messed up that you can find ways for the IRS to pay you money back.