Under existing rules, the GOP convention could deadlock if Cruz’s team will support anybody but Trump and Trump’s group will support anybody but Cruz. Rubio’s and Kasich’s delegates could be left high and dry without the ability to vote even once for their candidate, because of rules artificially limiting the panel to those winning 8 or more states. Yet any attempt to change the rules or repeal 40(b) will correctly be seen by the base as a desperate and underhanded action by the Republican establishment to overrule the will of the people, or at least those voting in the Republican primary. Or caucus. What oh what should be done?
That’s where we come in. I trust there’s some sort of rule tweaking that will leave most movement conservatives comparably satisfied, despite their evident divisions.
Keep rule 40(b) for the first 5 ballots. Anybody nominated in that time frame must have won at least 8 states. To be fair, delegates representing candidates not winning at least 8 states will not be permitted to vote during this phase.
Eligible candidates will make speeches on why they deserve the nomination after the 3rd ballot.
Starting with the 6th ballot, nominees must have won at least 4 states.
After the 8th ballot, candidates will receive 60 minutes of questioning from the floor following their speeches. Those eligible to ask questions must have the support of at least 200 delegates, as confirmed by a floor vote.
Starting with the 11th ballot, nominees must have won at least 2 states.
Before the 14th ballot, nominees must have the endorsement of at least 12 delegates. Qualifications for the nomination at that point will be guided by Constitutional principles: they must be over 30, etc.
All votes cast must be public and televised to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
The rules committee will have an interim meeting after each vote lasting not more than 3 hours after the 18th ballot. Rules can be updated as appropriate.
All votes by the rules committee will be anonymous to assure fairness and freshness.
Robert’s Rules of Order will apply after the 15th ballot. Senate rules will apply initially. For the 6th-14th ballot, House rules will apply.
pretty much guarantees a deadlock if Trump hasn’t already gotten half on the first ballot, until those other bound delegates are freed. It pulls 300-some odd delegates out of the balloting.
Ya know, this is one of those ideas which just kinda grows on you…
If they nominate either Trump or Cruz, there will be Hell to pay in November.
By leaving the top two positions empty, they avoid all the negatives they get if the Dems get to unload on either candidate - until then, there are non-GOPers who don’t really know how far off the tracks this train has gotten.
The GOP would probably be better off if those folks DON’T hear all the details of their Presidential candidate.
Between June 7 and July 18, the party will want to work out what happens at the convention.
If Trump comes in with a strong plurality, he can make strong case that a Cruz nomination would be seen, by the November electorate, as unfair. Then the party insiders can give him the nomination on the first ballot.
But if Trump ends with a California loss, or is trending down in the polls even among Republicans, they’ll probably feel that the Trump bubble has burst, and let the delegates go with their heart. The convention can then be choreographed to rush through the first ballot and pick Cruz by acclamation on the second.
I realize that some of the insiders prefer Kasich. But there’s no way to get there without messy, and, when it comes to the convention, these guys are neat freaks.
Philly Guy- I tend to agree and great post: it sounds prescient.
How might we be wrong? We might be wrong to the extent that the GOP establishment is utterly incompetent. Which they well may be: they couldn’t even organize an ad-bomb against Trump last Fall. Further evidence is that they have a rule committee guy pushing for Roberts Rules of Order, which isn’t exactly designed for political parties needing to curb the wrangling and put forward a winning candidate. The OP scrupulously tries to give each side its due in terms of procedures. But that misses the point: these aren’t really policies that are being deliberated. They are personalities. It’s harder to compromise on that short of nepotism.
Say… how about Ivanka 2016? You heard it here first.
OP, what is the goal of these proposed changes? To keep conservatives from believing the nomination is being stolen?
My suggestion: in the first ballot, the delegates will vote for whom they are pledged, whether or not their candidate won 8 states. 2nd ballot – delegates vote for who they want to.
Yes, in part. It’s also intended to show that rulemaking that attempts to appease all sides can have unintended outcomes. Compromise is usually a good if ugly thing when making policy. But the proper way to evaluate rules is to game them out, rather than appealing to abstract notions of fairness. If you game out the rules in the OP, a likely disaster for the Republicans can be discerned (unless Trump wins during the first ballot). For every bullet point. But it’s a decent imitation of fairness, at least until things play out. At which point the losers will interpret the dysfunction as evidence of a rigged game.
Remember, RNC officer Solomon Yue of Oregon is pushing for a switch from House of Representative rules to Roberts Rules of Order during the convention. My parody has at least one identifiable target: [INDENT][INDENT]Some see the idea as a recipe for utter chaos, and one that could open the door to mischief-making. With thousands of delegates on hand, it’s easy to imagine a scenario where objections pile up, jamming up floor proceedings and turning the convention into a train wreck — all before the eyes of a national audience.
[/INDENT][/INDENT] Yue’s proposal won’t happen. But it’s fun to think about, particularly if you are a Democrat.
The rule didn’t prevent anybody from voting for Rand Paul in 2012; they just didn’t bother counting those votes. I don’t think it is clear as to whether or not someone pledged to a candidate who is not eligible to be nominated per Rule 40 is still bound to that candidate; it may depend on the state.
