GOP convention delegates: bound and unbound
Here’s an informative article about an issue that’s currently being speculated about—delegates at the RNC and what they are required by the rules to do. How much leeway do they have? It depends on the state, but the basic idea is that they have quite a bit.
That’s a relic of our republican (as opposed to Republican) form of government. Primaries are not some sort of direct, populist way of choosing a nominee, despite rhetoric from some candidates and a popular belief to that effect. Voters elect delegates to the party’s national convention, where the delegates choose the nominee. You may or may not like that—and whether you like it depends on whether you’re a populist or a republican, and it might depend on whether you think it benefits or doesn’t benefit your candidate this year.
As I see the current GOP primary system, it’s a blend of populism and republicanism (or elitism, if you happen to see it that way). I think a blend is a good idea, because the pure version of either system is too extreme. But this neither-fish-nor-fowl system causes problems too (I’ve already suggested my version of primary reform).
And this is pretty much what I think about objections to the possibility of Trump not being the GOP standard-bearer even if he gets a majority (that is, a plurality) of delegate votes. A party has a right to choose its own candidate and make its own rules, and that’s what I had thought long before Trump ever came on the scene. Of course, voters also have the right to reject the party’s choice. This year, if Trump fails to win outright by getting the requisite number of delegates at the party convention, the GOP will have a big decision to make, and a large part of that decision will be ascertaining which party move will alienate the most voters and which the least—because they’re going to alienate a lot no matter what they do.
The bottom line is that the GOP is a political party. Political parties are entities that have grown up in America over the centuries, and they change and shift as conditions change and shift. But they are political entities that exist outside the Constitution, which does not require them. The two-party system has been around for a long time, and I happen to think it’s worked well, but nothing about the two-party system is set in stone.
Political parties make their own rules about how they will function and who they will nominate and why. They stop no one from running for president, but they can stop anyone from running for president under the banner of that party if the party wishes to do so. If the party can make rules and break them, voters can vote or not vote for the nominee of that party as they wish, and other candidates can run for the nomination of third parties or run independently, as they wish.
The GOP has set rules (also prior to Trump’s candidacy, not in reaction to it) that require a certain threshold of votes for electors that then vote for the nominee at a convention, and if Trump or anyone else fails to reach that threshold on the first ballot, most of the electors at GOP conventions are not bound to vote for the candidate they represent even on the first ballot.
If a party wants to say it is bound, absolutely bound, to nominate whoever registers in its primaries and gets a plurality of votes in the primaries, it is perfectly free to do that. Even then one could argue that the voters in the case of the 2016 campaign year so far have voted majority against Trump, but that’s not the issue. The issue is how much the party wants to set itself against the vocal and angry group of Trump voters who insist on his being the nominee. For example we have:
Curly Haugland is an unbound delegate from North Dakota who is one of a select group of 168 Republican National Committee members who will be vital in determining the rules at the convention in July.
Haugland made headlines last week for saying in an interview on CNBC that the sole responsibility for selecting the nominee belongs to the delegates, whether bound or unbound, and that the “media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination.”
In an interview with The Hill, Haugland said those comments have provoked an avalanche of online bullying and threats directed towards him and his family…
“I’m trying to educate the delegates about this so they know precisely their rights and responsibilities and duties, and I’m defending the rights of party members to choose the nominee, rather than surrendering that responsibility to voters in open primaries where anyone can participate,” Haugland said. “We have the right to defend our party, which is what I’m trying to do, and it’s not very popular in some circles.”
“Not very popular” is probably the understatement of the century.
The animus towards the party was already palpable and enormous prior to this election year, and that will continue no matter what the GOP does. There are plenty who will abandon the GOP nominee if it’s Trump, and there are plenty of Trump supporters who will abandon the GOP nominee if it’s not Trump. In the end, the war in the GOP benefits the eventual Democratic nominee, who in my opinion will be Hillary Clinton. And whoever the eventual GOP nominee is, if he loses the general election, GOP civil war will continue and most likely will become even more bitter.
When anything has existed within a social context long enough, people begin to think of it as a social institution per se, and feel a right of expectation with regards to it, and an appropriative interest in it.
It’s that “You are not giving me what I want!” attitude from nonmembers; which is rather different from the duplicity of the “GOPe” with regard to the expressed wishes of the majority of party members.
Nonetheless, while objecting to the demands of the grazing class which insists the Republican Party offer up a smorgasbord of delectable all you can eat for free choices, the rage of the dispossessed and targeted, is understandable.
They are being slated for subjection, replacement, and ultimately elimination, by people who have at this point ceased disguising their celebratory glee at the prospect of completing what they figure is an almost done deal: the radical reshaping of this polity’s foundational laws, and, in aid of that, its population.
A lawless political class is making war on these people; and they know it.
And there is something very peculiar in this for those of us who wish to stand on traditional natural law principles and Constitutional limits. It is found in the stated assumption of the Progressives themselves, that population replacement and demographic change will inexorably lead to and solidify permanently, a collectivist majority.
It’s startling to realize just how racialist this assumption by the left actually is. They don’t assume that culture is simply an overlay on fungible human material, but that culture and values are an expression of some innate characteristic within the population exhibiting these traits.
It’s the left proclaiming impending victory on the basis of principles of interpretation which Gobineau himself would have affirmed as true.
It’s quite remarkable what “we” have come to.
There is no we. Better wake up to it.
It occurs to me that division and turmoil within the GOP is to an extent a reflection of the fact that it is a party of individuals. The Democrat Party, on the other hand, is in large measure constituted of voting blocs, and most of those blocs are united by the quest for big, activist, and generous government. Is that fair?
I have had a love/hate relationship with the GOP National Committee for a long time. I am not really sure why; but, for years I have made any contributions to individual candidates. Rationally, I know the GOP has worked pretty well to win governor’s seats, state legislatures, and the Congress. But, I guess that, like many, I need a visible target for my frustrations, irrational though that may be. On the other hand, I do not understand why the disgruntled who are angry with the likes of Mitch McConnel and John Boehner, want to vent their frustrations against demonstrably effective Presidential candidates, and bestow favor on a Donald Trump.
Probably because they are overlapping rather than identical classes.
At a guess, half of Trump’s support has to be “independents” or Democrats. They have as little interest in the “Constitution” party as the average voter did in the last election before the Civil War.
They want their government supplied Maypo. They just don’t want it taken from them and given to someone else.
If Trump were acting specifically on behalf of Democrats and the betterment of their chances (specifically Hillary Clinton’s chances) of being elected President in an election in which they otherwise stood a good chance of losing, what would he have done differently?
It’s the knave vs fool debate all over again, except this time as it destroys the only existing force – imperfect as it is – that stands against Democrats.
>>And whoever the eventual GOP nominee is, if he loses the general election, GOP civil war will continue and most likely will become even more bitter.
All because the party couldn’t grow a backbone in passed years.
It’s a bit misleading to talk about the GOP having a decision to make, or that the GOP makes rules. The phrasing lends itself to monolithic thinking. Parties are collections of people with different priorities and bases, who only with difficulty act as a unified body.
You are right Nick, and so many people forget that. I refer to my comparison of the GOP as a party of individuals vs the Democrats as largely a party of blocs.
GRA I do not think your statement is valid. As has been suggested, the party does not govern. The GOP has done a very good job of assisting their candidates to win office in record numbers. That is what the party does, and all that it does. The manner in which they govern once in office is completely separate. I often wonder just how many people who are angry at the performance of politicians actually communicate their anger to their own representation. How many people who claim not to have a voice actually use the voice that is available to them.
A delegate who after the first vote, switches their delegate vote to another candidate is placing their personal choice in place of the choice of the majority of primary voters. It is disenfranchisement of the majority, pure and simple. It is a profoundly anti-democratic action to take. It literally abrogates the, “consent of the governed”.
“There are plenty who will abandon the GOP nominee if it’s Trump, and there are plenty of Trump supporters who will abandon the GOP nominee if it’s not Trump.”
As long as the process in choosing the nominee is transparent, logical and just, there is no reasonable basis for dispute. In the face of the certainty of the democrat’s war upon America, neither abandonment can be justified. ‘Probable’ does not supersede ‘certain’.
“In the end, the war in the GOP benefits the eventual Democratic nominee, who in my opinion will be Hillary Clinton.”
What basis is there for war, if the nomination process is transparent, logical and just? Simple disagreement is not a basis for ‘war’. It is hypocritical deceit that leads to ‘war’.
“whoever the eventual GOP nominee is, if he loses the general election, GOP civil war will continue and most likely will become even more bitter.”
There is no basis for animus, when people are forthright in their assertions and promises and then, after election are consistent in their behavior with their prior promises. It is the deceit of the GOPe that is entirely responsible not only for the current animus but for ANY continued animus.
It is NOT too much to demand that a candidate “say what they mean and mean what they say” and if they do so, there will be no widespread support for animus.
Simple honesty and sincerity is the minimum to be demanded of a candidate. Tolerating the false promises and betrayal of ‘politicians’ is part of what has got us into this mess.
And, if the GOPe continues in its deceit, there can be no justification for its continued existence. Let them go the way of the Whigs.
Reality’s consequence can only be delayed but the longer it is delayed, the more severe is the eventual consequence.
“There are plenty who will abandon the GOP nominee if it’s Trump, and there are plenty of Trump supporters who will abandon the GOP nominee if it’s not Trump”
.
Disagree!
.
The dynamics are completely different in each scenario…
.
1) Trump loses at the convention (say to Cruz – the most likely outcome):
.
If what we are told about Trump supporters are true, then there are a lot of non-voters and “dispossessed” Democrats in that crowd.
.
Hard to see that their staying home (yet again) would be a problem if a candidate other than Trump (e.g. Cruz) were to take the nomination.
.
There are many Trump supporters who say they would go for either Trump or Cruz (personally, not sure how that works in people’s minds, but it is). So, if these folks were motivated to vote, some of them would see their way to Cruz.
.
Are these people even those 2-4% of voters who are the “moderates in the middle” that the GOP and Dems typically fight over each election?
.
Bottom Line: If Cruz wins, not sure if there really will be a big impact on the GOP?
.
2) Trump wins the nomination:
.
Given Trump’s wide deviation from many of the norms that the traditional active GOP voters, his Authoritarian bent, and his deep negatives, it is possible that Hillary might come across as the least bad choice.
.
Seriously! Trump looks like the choice of chaos. We at least know what we are getting with Hillary, corrupt as she is.
.
Trump vs Clinton is chaos (and corruption?) vs corruption.
Big Maq,
Trump may well bring chaos. Hillary will bring far more than simply corruption. She is as much of an ideologue, as is Obama. Plus, no matter who is the democrat nominee, they all are committed to a path that leads to the end of liberty.
By what calculus does the uncertainty of chaos supersede; an enslavement to ever greater ‘progressive’ political correctness, the end of the rule of law and a European style socialism that welcomes open borders and unlimited Muslim migration?
Open primaries, lack of a 90 or even 120 day deadline to register as a republican, and early voting set the stage for this situation. I hope the RNC has learned a lesson, but now it will be too late if Trump achieves his mission.
GB,
Willful destruction of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the final analysis will look the same as unintended destruction committed by a vain, bombastic knave. HRC or DJT through my eyes will hasten the destruction in equal measure. So if its HRC vs. DJT I am given a choice of stage 3 or stage 4 cancer.
parker,
A choice of stage 3 or stage 4 cancer may indeed be the choice.
Remember however that, the organized, purposeful, targeted, willful destruction of the Left is certain to present far less ‘room to maneuver’ than will be the case in a scenario of unintended destruction.
I’d much rather face a dog eat dog world, than one of gulags and reeducation camps.
“By what calculus does the uncertainty of chaos supersede; an enslavement to ever greater ‘progressive’ political correctness, the end of the rule of law and a European style socialism that welcomes open borders and unlimited Muslim migration?”
.
Geoffrey, the “rule of law” is likelier to be best expended by Trump, of anyone running, given his signaled taste for Authoritarian rule. He virtually promises to blow well past where Obama left off on executive action. And, he would likely have to, to implement his campaign promises, as there would likely be a rather “unfriendly” Congress, as a result of his running.
.
Trump’s follow through on his stated immigration and trade “policies” alone would wreak havoc, politically and economically.
.
The chaos that would ensue is a FAR greater, and more immediate, danger to our freedoms and our economic well being, than a Clinton alternative.
.
Would MUCH rather we consolidate behind Cruz, who still has the possibility to win the majority delegates (if Kasich drops out).
GB,
If only DJT was of the dog eat dog ideology, I would agree there is a difference between stage 3 and stage 4. However, both DJT and HRC (IMO) are agents of big, instrusive, corrupt ‘central authority’. The only difference I see between the two is that HRC is the institutional candidate while DJT is (I hope) fools gold flashing in the pan.
Mostly, I (and the extended family) are planting seeds for eventual harvest and preservation, stocking the Northern Minnesota retreat with firewood from a local provider, and in May we will build a bunkhouse to sleep all beyond the limited confines of the original cabin and another greenhouse, plus we are stocking up on reloading supplies, buying silver and dehydrated food, and trying to determine which way the wind blows.
It may come to be that in November that we are off the grid, hunkered down, deer hunting, and looking forward to ice fishing.
GB says:
A delegate who after the first vote, switches their delegate vote to another candidate is placing their personal choice in place of the choice of the majority of primary voters. It is disenfranchisement of the majority, pure and simple. It is a profoundly anti-democratic action to take. It literally abrogates the, “consent of the governed”.
If delegates honored their commitments as you suggest, we would need another system for pluralities and open conventions because nobody would ever budge. The open convention system is the backup for when there is no majority.
GB says:
It is the deceit of the GOPe that is entirely responsible not only for the current animus but for ANY continued animus.
The GOPe didn’t elect themselves. We elected them.
In my book, that makes *us* responsible for this.
Matt_SE,
I cannot agree on either count.
That, if delegates honored their commitments as I suggest, “we would need another system for pluralities and open conventions because nobody would ever budge” is an argument for changing a dysfunctional system. Not an argument that refutes the assertion that delegates switching votes disenfranchises those they represent.
The GOPe of which I speak are not the elected. The GOP politicians who pay lip service to conservative principles, which once elected they repeatedly betray… are the proxy agents of those within the GOP who control the large donations upon which their political servants depend.
The big donors have stated they are strongly for the “gang of eights” ‘comprehensive immigration reform’. If instead, they had come out and said they were in favor of securing the border, going after employers of illegals and strictly enforcing the laws that are already on the books… do you honestly think that Congressional Republicans would ever have been in favor of what amounts to a path to citizenship?
parker, a dystopian future may be around the corner with or without Trump chaos. We have similar but also very different plans than you. We are shutting down and liquidating as we try to prepare for the civil disorder that is inevitable. Six months ago it didn’t seem that close. Now all any of us can do is try to uphold the rule of law, vote our conscience, and pray.
Kasich is obviously playing the spoiler.
He must be on some astounding blend of meth and opioids — as no-one will ever back a spoiler at the Convention — it’s just never done.
A spoiler has less than zero chances in the Fall.
So Kasich must view himself as a stalking horse for Romney… or some such.
Neither Trump nor Cruise could possibly tolerate Kasich on their ticket.
His policy suite is entirely opposite of their own.
&&&&&&&
EVERYTHING points to Trump and Cruz having the votes to put themselves on the ticket — an evolution that may take two or three votes at the Convention.
You might note that neither Cruz nor Trump is tossing grenades at each other.
It’s too late to dislodge each other.
&&&&
The GOP has made an EPIC error in allowing cross over voting in the early primaries.
New Hampshire, et. al. , has to be kicked out of the early running until such time as it moves to a closed primary.
Due to social media, the intra-party hyjackings are only going to become MORE pronounced as time goes by.