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 peoples 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.
“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.”
I like a man of principal who will see his party burn down rather than change the rules to be fair to the voters...oh, except you do accept that the ruling elite may change any rule they like prior to the convention right?
What I think a lot of us are saying is—keeping in mind the transparent animus of the RNC towards Trump—that if it is clear that they have changed their rules at or about the convention date for the sole purpose of cheating Trump from the nomination, not for an objectively reasonable party purpose ... how to put this: then, we’re going to wear their guts for garters and suspenders.
Ever try to win in a poker game with professional cheats at the table?