Moderator NOTE:
Let’s keep the discussion on topic. Reread the OP if you have to. Factual answers to the OP please.
The most rounds of votes that I’ve found so far was the Democratic National Convention in 1924. 103 rounds to pick a candidate.
But hw were delegates selected in The Good Old Days? I suspect not by an open vote /secret ballot of the statewide party faithful.
Yes, the biggest prize a national party brings to any candidate is a massive organizational machine. Part of the electioneering is running around making speeches and dirty tricks. The other part, which helps guarantee a win, is getting out the vote - local organizations everywhere across the country, staffed by local volunteers. They help distribute signs and pamphlets, they provide volunteer help for every event, they track sympathetic and wavering voters, then on election day, they watch polling stations, determine who of the sympathetic voters have not voted yet, and help or nag them to get them to the polls. (Often by offering rides, babysitting services, etc.) In a close election this can be a big decider.
(Oh, and I should mention the myriad connections the full phalanx of party brass have for fund-raising for the candidate)
If the party brass (the “smoke filled room” boys) decide to ignore the rules the party operates by, and award the nomination to second, third, or fourth runner up or a previously non-candidate option, then it risks alienating this very grass roots organization that is very important to win - not to mention, too much dirty laundry will turn off many of the loyal voters.
To get more specific without digs - if the party brass were to hypothetically decide to give the nomination to someone else instead of Trump - “I’ll start the bidding at one No Trump” - do you think the Rubio supporters will accept Cruz or vice versa? Either of those groups will accept Kasich? Or Giuliani? Or McConnell? Perry? In a slugfest like that, the party would fall apart like the USSR did, and the infighting would continue to November and would probably be a landslide for the other side.
For career politicians, they cannot treat the party like a fair weather friend, either. You lost the nomination, you help whoever in YOUR party won, or forget about a career in politics. Only one guy in that race does not have to care about his future in politics if he loses.
Yes, but in those days the Dems required a 2/3 vote to nominate anyone. That was changed for 1928. I suspect that rule was there to give the south a veto, although the south no longer had 1/3 of the votes in the party.
Back in the days that I came of age (for the '52 election), the conventions really did choose the candidate. And the delegates were pledged only for one round. And then the fun began. In recent years as most states had primary elections, the conventions became rubber stamps. But that could change of course. I recently read somewhere that the Reps were more rigid than the Dems about pledged delegates changing their vote. I mean what are you going to do if a delegate dishonors his pledge? Arrest him?
I read in the NY Times today that some Republicans are concerned that the nomination of Trump might cause the loss of the senate. In which case, Hillary will nominate a replacement for Scalia and the Reps are rethinking the idea of agreeing on a compromise moderate who might be more favorable to big business. Stay tuned.