” I argued that Trump has no more right to relax the rule in his favor to reduce the number of delegates needed than the establishment has the moral right to raise the number of delegates to defeat Trump if he should succeed in getting 1237 delegates.”
As always you articulate your argument well...but, where I disagree with you from a foundational point of view is that Trump has had to compete against a very large crowd of candidates. Or rather, all the candidates had to compete in a very large field. Because of this the 1237 rule does not make sense logically or morally. What are we to do when we have such enthusiasm for our good people running for Presidency? Make the mark for declaring victory more difficult? That is in affect what we are doing. The delegates have been split by a larger than normal number of candidates.
I understand the rule is to reflect a “majority” of delegates, but how are delegates delegated (pun intended) to each state? Are they directly related to how many votes are cast? No. I am talking how do they decide how many delegates for each state... Do they determine the number by how many registered Republicans? No. So, how do they determine the number. Does a state which is truly Republican dominant and very likely to determine victory in November granted a bigger say than a state in which the Republican will most likely lose? I don’t think so. Where is the logic in doing it the way it is done? Is it affective or just easy? How do caucuses fit into the mix? And, what about these fluidic rule changes...are those only to be upon the whim of the ruling elite to aid them in choosing who the nominee will be?
I think the people may demand and a candidate who has dominated like Trump can demand a change of the 1237 rule without expectation that the ruling elite will use the ‘flexibility’ only to hurt the people’s choice. If we cannot expect that, then why are we Republicans? Why are we playing on a field that is filled with illusion of power to the people?
Besides, perhaps the ruling elite ought to consider that if they steal, even by their corrupt rules, our candidate they will forever fracture the party. It will be like a ghost town in November.
To be frank, this nation is an evil nation...we openly support abortion, we support the tearing off of limbs and heads of live babies to sell their body parts. We are generally of late on the wrong side in most global conflicts. We persecute Christians in favor of perversion. This government has lost it’s very moral authority to govern and they as a consequence now rule over us...we have no real representative government...they do as they will in spite of the people when they disagree with us. Trump, to us supporters offer the only real chance of restoring the Republic. Those who disagree fine...but for us who understand and believe this it means something. And many of us have no illusions about some other person who will rule over us. We understand fully and reject this government and their immoral rule. That begins at the party level and goes up and down to the various governmental levels. So, as you can see for many of us our backs are already against the wall...waiting to fight with ballots rather than bullets. I will vote Trump in November no matter about the Republican party. And may God restore or damn this government.
The rule that the nominee have a majority of the delegates goes back to 1856, even when there were many candidates - no reason to change that now.
I am talking how do they decide how many delegates for each state...
Each state gets 3 delegates per congressional district, plus 3 for the state party officials. States then get additional delegates for various other factors - if the state has a GOP governor or GOP legislature, they get extra delegates; if the state has voted GOP in the last presidential elections, they get extra delegates, etc. So yes, a dominant GOP state get more influence relative to its size than a state won by the Dems on a regular basis.
I think the people may demand and a candidate who has dominated like Trump can demand a change of the 1237 rule without expectation that the ruling elite will use the ‘flexibility’ only to hurt the people’s choice.
There is no way they will reduce the number of delegates needed for the nomination to less than a majority, nor should they. If Trump gets to the convention with less than a majority, then we get to see if he really is a great dealmaker or not.
Agreed!! Very sadly.