If Trump has all the delegates he needs to win the nomination on the first ballot, he should win. End of story. There’s no way I’ll vote for him in November, but if he followed the rules and got the votes he needs, he should be the nominee.
If he’s just a bit shy of a first ballot wins, I have no problem with the party playing hardball to keep him off the ticket.
The op asks two questions as if they are the same thing but they are not.
Should the RNC deny Trump the nomination if he has enough delegates to win? No. If he has enough to win then he wins. Of course if he does not have enough to win then he does not. One way to have enough delegates to win is to come in with a majority of the delegates on the first round. Yes, it is within the rules to change the rules but that would be even more of a disaster for them than a Trump nomination would be.
The general question: is it ever right to deny the people’s choice when nominating a presidential candidate? Yes, it is, and sometimes could be the least poor choice. If he has a plurality but not a majority of delegates (and certainly of popular vote) and not enough to win, then the party, as represented by the delegates, is in the right to decide upon a candidate that they feel serves the overall interests of the party the best. That could be the candidate with the most votes or a candidate that everyone else agreed was better, even if not all of their first choice. They’d need to decide and that is their job to do. In that circumstance deferring automatically to the candidate with the most delegates would be abdicating their responsibility, even if they still end deciding that such is the least poor option they have.
This is a responsible position IMHO. I take a less responsible one, since I dislike the primary system itself. I think the GOP should do what it can get away with. In practice though, that’s most likely following your plan. (Though if Trump is 2 delegates shy of a majority, I strongly suspect that he could cut a deal to get the remaining 2.)
Actually the media has been dreaming of this scenario for years. So have I. When the opposition is in chaos I am happy. Too bad the top 2 candidates are so awful. Trump is like Mussolini without the dignity and Cruz is like Nixon without the charm.
Other. It is essential that the Republican candidate lose, and it is desirable that he lose by as wide a margin as can be managed. In my considered opinion, the candidacy of Donald Trump is the one most likely to meet these performance specifications.
And those would both be GOOD things. Why are you posting as though they’re something to be avoided?
Just the Senate changing hands is more plausible than the Senate AND the House, though.
Trump walks into the RNC with a majority of the candidate. In response the RNC changes the rules to deny him the nomination. Others have pointed out there is no law requiring a democratic process but that is the system the parties have set up and promised their constituents.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. There’s a distinction between,
a) Trump acquires more delegates than any other candidate but nonetheless less than 50%
and
b) Trump acquires more than 50% of the delegates and the GOP responds by changing the rules. This would be entirely legal, as well as… well we discussed it above.
It seems that the OP was focused on b).
As for a), I honestly see nothing wrong with following the rules and electing, say, Reince Priebus on the 23rd ballot. As a consensus candidate, one guaranteed to upset everyone. More seriously choosing a compromise candidate, even when following a prolonged deadlock, would drive the swamps nuts.
Personally, I would love to see that, because most of the people who voted for Trump would come away with the [noparse]TL:DR[/noparse] version of the story (“The goddamn RINO Establishment hacks are trying to screw Our Guy out of the victory he won fair and square”) and be further alienated from the GOP.
If he gets to the convention with 50%+ of the delegates, it would be fairest to give him the nomination (although I recognize they don’t have to).
If he merely has a plurality and can’t get over the line on the first ballot, well… whatever happens, happens. If he can’t play politics at party level, he sure as hell can’t play with the big boys in DC and the world.
This. Parties have their own rules which don’t have to be democratic. Heck, electing our president isn’t the most democratic method.