This.
Technically, the Party chooses a candidate, not the voters. For the past several decades, they’ve been using primaries as a tool for doing so, but nothing says they have to.
Even if Trump wins more than a majority of delegates, nothing legally or constitutionally binds them to put him on the ballot. So really, there’s no democratic process to be sacrificed.
I’m not saying that’s what will happen, of course. Seems like the GOP is looking at a lose-lose proposition here no matter what.
It’s hard to tell what Saint Cad is arguing, because he hasn’t come back and offered clarification yet. That said, there’s nothing legally or morally stopping the GOP from nominating who the hell they want. They could tear up their rule book and nominate Saint Cad or Mickey Rooney (1920-2014).
As you noted though, changing their rulebook at the last minute would be politically untenable.
If Trump secures less than 50% of all delegates, the politics become less clear as this hasn’t really happened before since the primary system was established in 1972.
I didn’t answer the poll, but I think GOP should do what it wants to. Which they will do, fully cognizant of the possible consequences.
The democratic election is in November. What we are deciding now ballot design, who will appear under which heading. I say hand that task off to the professionals.
It’s very tempting to say Yes because it’s Trump, but then there’s always the consolation that he would (or will) lose to whoever the Dems run.
As for the second option, at least on the Democratic side, that’s exactly the sort of situation the superdelegates were instituted to prevent.
For the record I voted other because I believe the party rules form a contract with the candidates who declared to run. Changing the rules after people spent hundreds of hours and millions of dollars is very dirty. I don’t see it happening.
IIRC, the rules themselves allow for a large subset of themselves to be changed by the delegates at the convention prior to the nominee selection vote. So assuming changes are consistent with that process, I don’t think there’s any moral or legal problem.
I voted Yes, because it’s Trump.
I understand it’s the GOP who gerrymandered this mess to begin with, but if they let him be the nominee, they’ll shoot themselves. And I think the Dems will win the election and maybe enough seats up for election in Congress to really lose their grip.
sure, that makes sense. If the party puts forth a set of rules that candidate could expect to be followed, then they generally can’t withdraw those rules with impunity.
Still, it’s an over-reach to equate party procedures with the democratic process as a whole. Primaries are a hybrid of party rules and democratic procedures. The “real” election is in November.
Yeah, there’s no contract involved. I think you could argue for an agreement though, or maybe an implicit non-legal contract.
Still, it isn’t about the candidates or the millions they spent. It’s about the country. And if Trump doesn’t represent the GOP, he should be jettisoned.
But what if he does actually represent the GOP? Then there will be political repercussions. What I’m saying is that the best way to manage the political fallout may very well coincide with the most morally appropriate policy. The GOP should follow their own consensus.
There are other options. You could split the party. Some delegates could walk out of the convention in protest - or just walk out of it and claim they were doing something else. It’s been done before. GOP politicians could refuse to endorse anyone. Or they could resign the party.
If they dump Trump, it is probable they will select Cruz–and I see him as worse than Trump.
Cruz is in no way worse than Trump.
If Trump is elected President, both parties should come together and agree to keep him on a very short leash. No more looking the other way regarding executive overreach just because the guy doing it is on ‘your’ side. The minute Trumo exceeds the bounds of his authority, slap him down. If he tries to go around Congress, impeach him. He needs to be neutered, because he is a authoritarian with no understanding. That’s a dangerous combination.
As for the Republicans, in my opinion the only way they can avoid a serious fracture is if Cruz wins cleanly at the convention. If Trump wins, the Republcan party is going to be in serious trouble whether or not they stop him at the convention.
The Democrats have their own problems in this regard. What if Bernie winds up with more votes and regular delegates than Hillary, but she gets nominated because of the superdelegate thing? Will Bernie’s followers get meekly in line? What if she is nominated, then has to withdraw because of an indictment - and the establishment doesn’t choose Bernie? There are a few ways Democrats could crack up this year as well.
99 delegates, not 199. (That’s still more delegates than any state besides California and Texas.)
I’m reading the question to be “if Trump has 1237 or more delegates going into the convention (50% + 1 of the 2472 delegates), should the RNC deny him the nomination?”
Political parties are not in the Constitution, and they are not public utilities. They can choose their nominee however they want.
That said, IMHO they have a moral contract with their voters, that the nominee will be chosen indirectly by their votes in the way set out by the delegate selection process. This is what their voters have been told, and what they have every right to believe.
If they welshed on that contract, it would be a Big Fucking Deal, a big ‘screw you’ to their own voters. The party just might come apart over that.
Speaking as a Democrat, that would actually be a Good Thing - couldn’t happen to a more deserving political party - but it would certainly be a travesty of democracy, in addition to what I’ve already said.
I’m on record stating that Cruz would be worse as president so as long as its him or Trump atop the standings, there’s nothing I’d be willing to do to remove Trump as the nominee.
I would be willing to sacrifice children to Cthulhu if I thought it would help.
I guess I’ll go with number 2, though 3 is tempting. But 2 is just the closest. It’s not about the leaders picking people–it’s that they pick the platform. There is this thing called the Republican Party, and it stands for something. Having someone come in who discards half of the platform means you have a non-Republican running on a Republican ticket.
If Trump were to at least toe the Republican line, I wouldn’t hate him so much. I’d still think he’d be the worst choice, but I wouldn’t consider him so dangerous. Sure, he’d have limited powers as president. But, if he can win by being a bully, why couldn’t he get Congress to do what he wanted by being a bully?
And, unfortunately, it finally hit me last night that this is real. If real life Trump could be kicked out before the General, it would make the world a much less scary place.
I don’t think there is a mechanism by which the RNC can deny Trump if he gets the majority of the delegates. The delegates themselves can change the rules, but if more than half of them are sent there by the Trump campaign, than unless that campaign seriously screwed up in the people they sent, they’re presumably not going to be people that are willing to sign off on a “no Trump’s” rule.
Not necessarily. This article breaks down all the things that can occur. The gist of it is, even if the delegates were pledged to Trump, they are only pledged because of internal party rules. The actual people voting at the convention may not like Trump personally, and the RNC can change the rules before voting occurs to all all pledged delegates to vote for whoever they want. Currently, the rules are that in the first round, they must vote for who won the state’s primary or caucus, but 50% of the delegates are freed up to vote for whoever they want in the 2nd round, and like 80% in the 3rd round.
Interesting. I didn’t realize delegates in many states weren’t just chosen by the winner of the campaigns (as with Electors to the Electoral College). That article says the bulk of them are chosen in a seperate process in each state, but it doesn’t really go into a lot of detail. It seems like someone who was good enough to game that process could steal the nomination in the event of a contested convention, even if they didn’t have a large number of bound delegates.
The article says the delegates tend to be low-level party functionaries. But presumably that’s at least partly because in previous years, no one really cared who the delegates were, since a win on the first ballot was all but inevitable.
Well I was ninja’d, but I can say that about 14% of the delegates are chosen by the campaigns. The rest are pledged for the first ballot, but appointed by others.
I just learned of that within the past week.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19158081&postcount=34
Well, if Trump gets a plurality but not a majority, he could be hit with a barrage of identical soundbites, “Trump earned less than half of the delegates/votes”. This may or may not work but at that point the GOP will be choosing between bad alternatives.
Yipes. It seems like we could conceivably have a “second primary” in April and May, when candidates struggle to win State GOP conventions in order to control the actual selection of delegates. This primary season could literally drag beyond the date of the last actual primary. Madness.
Anyhoo, here’s hoping Trump wins a large majority of delegates, just to spare the journalists of the world the pain of having to try and write up explanations for the byzantine rules governing the selection of delegates for 30-odd different states.