How an Obscure Rule Could Limit the GOP Convention to a Choice of Trump or Cruz

New York Magazine ^ | March 31, 2016 | Ed Kilgore

[jjotto]

Correct.

Iowa state GOP rules, for example, bind delegate almost absolutely on the first ballot. When the roll call of states takes place, a representative from Iowa will report the Iowa delegate votes without asking the delegates, and regardless of whether the candidate’s name is placed in nomination. Many states have this or similar rules.

[spintreebob]

That Cruz-Trump handshake will happen shortly after the 55 Californika primaries.

[CommerceComet]

The convention should come down to Trump or Cruz at this point. Or else the entire primary system is a meaningless sham.

Not that I want to see a brokered convention but I disagree with your assertion. Those candidates running in the primaries had their chance to make a compelling case for their candidacy. Falling short of 1,237 delegates suggests that they failed. The primary system might be sending a different message than normal but a message nonetheless. If no one candidate can rally sufficient support to garner the necessary delegates, perhaps, it is time for a do-over at the convention.

[nickcarraway]

The GOPe has spent almost no money or effort to stop Trump. It remains to be seen if they want to stop him.

[DugwayDuke]

“Iowa state GOP rules, for example, bind delegate almost absolutely on the first ballot. When the roll call of states takes place, a representative from Iowa will report the Iowa delegate votes without asking the delegates, and regardless of whether the candidate’s name is placed in nomination. Many states have this or similar rules.”

Exactly why I think all this talk about stealing other candidate delegates is either ‘click bait’ to get people to visit websites or candidates trying to keep their base excited and paying attention. In either case, this is just talk. People need to chill out.

[circlecity]

"Those candidates running in the primaries had their chance to make a compelling case for their candidacy. Falling short of 1,237 delegates suggests that they failed."

So it makes more sense to pick someone who couldn't even generate the support to make a run or someone who got even less votes and dropped out or finished behind Cruz and Trump? Sorry I can't follow that logic. If you are going to have a primary system then whoever gets the most votes should get the nod. This is especially true when there was a very croweded field which almost guarantees that the eventual winner would win with a plurality of votes.