These arguments are like well, the establishment will change the rules next election. They’ll have it that you have to have 2,000 delegates to win on the first ballot. The establishment makes sure they keep in at least 3 in the race. That making sure no one can get the 2,000 so it will always be chosen by the establishment from then on? That’s to say this isn’t going to happen from now on? Once they get their man in this time the rules will forever be written their way?
Each convention writes its own rules.
Regardless, if you try to follow my argument, you see that enacting a “Trump rule” whereby the “guy with the most votes” (plurality) automatically wins is a recipe for more shenanigans and division in the future.
You will see multiple candidates staying in the race and the plurality of the winner getting smaller and smaller.
Meanwhile, minority fringe candidates with no support from the party will win the nomination, then fail miserably in the general
Do you really want to automatically nominate the guy with 22% support who is all for stopping global warming and increasing immigration?
Maybe stop focusing on this one guy (Trump) winning and try thinking in abstract, objective terms. What is a party for? Why would it select a nominee who holds positions opposite to a majority of its members?