Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Wpin
Because of this the 1237 rule does not make sense logically or morally.

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.

55 posted on 03/31/2016 9:18:19 PM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: CA Conservative

“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?


60 posted on 03/31/2016 9:23:07 PM PDT by Wpin ("I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: CA Conservative

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.


111 posted on 03/31/2016 11:14:04 PM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: CA Conservative
then we get to see if he really is a great dealmaker or not.

Ever try to win in a poker game with professional cheats at the table?

119 posted on 04/01/2016 1:51:26 AM PDT by itsahoot (Trump is a fumble mouthed blowhard that can't finish a sentence, but he will finish a term.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson