I’m questioning the same thing. I don’t know how long the current rules have been in place. And yes, the delegates do need to be able to bend in a contested election.
The real problem seems to be that the GOPe can put delegates in place that never had any intention of supporting the candidate they were assigned to, except for the required first vote. (I think some states bound them for 2 votes).
We got a glimpse of this with Ron Paul. The difference was that Ron was not a popular candidate, was not winning the popular vote, yet was trying to stack the delegates in his favor. So the delegates adopted rule 40, requiring a majority win in at least 8 states to even be nominated, to disallow Ron the chance to win a contested convention.
This time it’s reversed. We have a popular candidate who is winning most of the states, consistently leads in the polls, and they are trying to stack the delegates against him.
And that has me thinking that Candidates ought to be able to pick there own delegates. And then if there is a contested convention, it’s really the candidates who need to bargain and work it out.
In the 2012 IA caucuses, Romney was initially announced the winner, but within like a week we found out that Santorum won. Except, neither one did. These votes counted as nothing but a popularity contest, and had absolutely nothing to do with delegates.
During the caucuses, voters also elected delegates to the county conventions (though from what I have read, many voters didn’t stick around for this part), who would then elect delegates to the state convention, who would then allocate the State’s delegate to the candidate.
In the end, Ron Paul, who finished in third place in the popular vote, received 79% of the State’s delegates, and Santorum received zero.
Paul didn’t “steal” any of Santorum’s delegates, since Santorum never had claim to any of them in the first place. Winning the popular vote meant nothing. And, to the best of my knowledge, the GOPe didn’t “fix” anything here, Paul just did a great job of getting his people elected as delegates.
Doesn’t seem right. Doesn’t seem “fair”. But it was all (AFAICT) played by the rules. And since I don’t live in IA anymore, it’s not really my business.
What I find quite interesting in this scenario is that a Republican form of “government” (elected representatives) failed, IMO, miserably against a Democratic form of “government” (popular vote). I’ve always been a fan of a Republic over a Democracy, but this one I just can’t explain.
BTW, I read that the rules were changed for the 2016 caucuses such that this scenario could not be repeated. I want to say it was the national Republican Party, but don’t quote me.