Before Election Day, there were some who said that the GOP was going to drastically overhaul and revamp its primary process to prevent a Trump-like insurgent from ever hijacking the party like this again. Now that Trump shockingly won, though, would this primary reform still happen - to give the party ultimate veto/say over who is the nominee?
Why would any voter want to participate in a primary process that can simply be vetoed by the party bosses?
Yes, because even though Trump won the party leaders wish they had won with a more amenable candidate. They’d rather have somebody like Jeb Bush heading towards the White House.
You have to reverse the question - why would the party bosses want to not have control of the process? - and then remember the party bosses, not the voters, write the rules.
That’s not necessarily how the reform would go, though.
During the campaign it was noted that the Democratic party has a lot more superdelegates at its convention than the Republican party. That would have made it harder - but not impossible - for an anti-establishment candidate to win. This characteristic doesn’t stop people voting in the Democratic primaries.
Or, the party could introduce preferential voting in its primary elections, or the proportional allocation of delegates. Trump won the republican nomination with something like 80% of the delegates despite the fact that a clear majority of those who voted in the Republican primaries voted for someone else.
The GOP was going to revamp its primary process after 2016 the same way they were going to appeal to Hispanic voters after 2012.
This is what I came in to say. There are ways of changing the system without making it less democratic. Instant-runoff style voting, or maybe some similar alternative voting system, would almost certainly have solved the Trump problem.
I’m not sure any reforms would help if we keep the open primaries.