Republicans Consider ‘Conscientious Objector’ Rule for Convention Delegates
A lot of people voted for Trump in the primary elections. As Trump says:
What do you think these voters would do if the GOP adopts the conscientious objector amendment and deny Trump the candidacy? Will they mount a massive write-in campaign? Will they push Trump to run as a third-party candidate? Will they start assassinating faithless electors? Will they just not vote?
Could they go with the option of “none of the above”, where the delegates either vote mostly for Trump or no one, which would give Trump the win but by less than 50% or something?
The Republicans are definitely in a bind because Trump won the primary votes, though not necessarily over 50%. So if they go against the will of the majority, or at least those who voted for Trump, they could get in serious trouble with the voters. Of course, if Trump loses the election, where will his supporters go after that and what will happen to the party? Scary times ahead no matter what
( Can anyone please explain, to this non American, why and how they are ‘bound’. And what it means for their vote. )
Huh. Well, Trump did win a majority of votes/delegates apparently fair and square. I think the party throwing out the results because the party doesn’t like them might well inspire a rebellion in the average voter. I mean, what better would prove that the average person’s vote is meaningless and it’s not about what the people want, it’s what the power-brokers and billionaires want?
I understand why the party leadership wants to do this - they’ve lost control. And I personally don’t want Trump as president. But overturning elections because we don’t like who won isn’t the way to go about correcting the situation.
See faithless elector. Basically, delegates pledge to cast their votes for the candidate the people tell them to vote for. If they don’t, they face censure from their parties and political repercussions. In some states, voting against the will of the people is a crime.
While Donald Trump has been implying that he’s prepared to “go it alone” if the Republicans deny him the nomination it wold “be extremely illegal” and other threats, it would be extremely difficult at this point for him to run as a 3rd Party candidate.
The deadline for submitting the requisite signatures has already passed for Texas and North Carolina. Illinois and Indiana’s are coming up next week and and a ton of other states are coming up with a few weeks.
Getting the signatures to do an independent run(which I assume would require him to choose a VP nominee) would be extremely expensive and one of the underreported stories of this election cycle is how he’s been spending as little money as he can.
I’m not saying it’s impossible but as dumb as he is, I suspect that’s an empty threat.
That said, if he does decide to do it, pass the popcorn.
The party organization in each state has rules that say that the delegates selected must vote for a certain candidate on the first ballot (and sometimes second ballot as well) as determined by the popular vote, even if the delegates themselves are chosen caucus-style at state/county/local convention pyramids. They might even set penalties for failure to do so. In this way they are considered “bound”. Some of these might even be state law rather than state party rules, I don’t know for sure. Of course, there’s nothing to stop these people from actually voting for someone else if the national party rules are amended to allow them to do so. I believe the national party rules normally require them to abide by the state party binding rules, but there’s no reason why they necessarily need to - each state party is a different entity than the national party (most notable in Minnesota for the Democrats, where the state party merged with the state Farmer-Labor party and are consequently called the DFL), and while they obviously work together, the national party can give the finger to the state parties and their rules if they really want to.
Wimps. If they won’t live up to their commitments, they should flee to Canada like their Vietnam Era compatriots. 
The thing is, this is the way Trump’s campaign has been all along. If he doesn’t like the debate setup, he threatens to skip it. He likes favorable polls, but unfavorable polls are rigged.
As for overturning elections, it could be argued that it happened in 2000. I still don’t understand what business the SCOTUS had in deciding the election.
I think it’s as likely as not that they dump the Trump, but if has another week like last week then all bets are off and he’ll spend the last pre-convention weeks circling the drain. What I don’t know is how loyal the Trump delegates actually are. Presumably they’re being lobbied by both sides in this battle. Usually conventions are snoozefests, this one promises a better show.
None of this is plausible unless there’s a plausible alternative nominee, one with broad enough support that Trump voters wouldn’t object much to switching to, one who would lose more respectably than Trump will. But there isn’t one. He’s the guy, and the rest are a buncha losers, like he says.
What are you talking about? No election was “overturned”. Had a recount concluded that Gore was the winner then the election would have been “overturned”, but that’s not what happened.
Also, SCOTUS didn’t “decide” the election. They decided on the constitutionality of the recount and how or if it was to proceed. How is that not their “business”?
That’s probably Trump’s trump card*.
Who would be the plausible alternative. Romney, who lost last time? Rubio the robot? Ted Cruz, who is hated almost as much as Trump? Jeb Bush, the guy who proved to be a terrible candidate? Kasich, everybody’s second choice who only won one state?
I think there was a question that, since it was a recount of the vote in Florida, whether or not it was a state matter.
This is getting more and more complicated, but I wonder if part of the reason Trump continued campaigning through June 7 despite clinching the nomination was because he foresaw efforts to have some of his delegates switch.
Even with a so-called “conscience” clause, this could be a cloudy and potentially painful nomination process. Let’s suppose they enable delegates to change the rules, which is the first step. That alone will touch off a massive floor fight. If they lose and the delegates remain bound, you’ve effectively got a party that has no leadership whatsoever because they will have all be effectively voted out of existence by virtue of that vote. It will no longer be the party of Rence Preibus or Paul Ryan or anyone. It will be the party of Trump supporters and anti-Trump supporters. And it seems like a lot of anti-Trumpers are not going to be at the convention anyway, so I’m not sure this is a wise move. Trump is polling horribly. This will have some down-ballot effect, but once Trump is done, he’s done. I wonder if it wouldn’t be better for the republicans to accept a Trump nomination and just not support him. Accept the possibility of a crushing defeat and move on from it. Trump or no Trump, the party still has major issues to confront. Trump is by no means their only problem.
Even if they begin to abandon Trump, the GOP still needs someone to replace him and grab those voters.
Well if Kasich really was everyone’s 2nd choice, the scenario might work. But I’m not convinced of that and my reading of 2nd choice polling doesn’t support that contention (IIRC). So, it’s even worse.
The GOP has lost control of the process: it’s amazing that their top 2 vote winners were unacceptable to the establishment. It’s not like their standards are that high. Their actions should be interpreted as damage control. Their best outcome is a Trump defeat combined with small losses downballot and retention of the House and Senate. Because electing a terrible policy maker who is ideologically unmoored could destroy the GOP brand.
I nominate John Cornyn. I’m kidding, but it’s odd that the #2 Republican in the Senate isn’t even considered for the position. (I can fully understand why they would pass over Mitch McConnell, who lacks charisma.) I think nominees should be chosen by insiders and political parties/coalitions chosen by electorates.
Oh yeah, nice piece of rhetoric by the GOP. Heh. “Conscientious objector”.
No, the ruling was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Exactly. If such a person existed, presumably he/she would have beaten Trump during the primaries.
Hitler came to power in similar messy circumstances.https://goo.gl/images/dUJ2Uo