Posted on 04/15/2016 2:18:44 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
After Ted Cruz won every delegate up for grabs at the Colorado Republican convention, Donald Trump began complaining that the process at such conventions is unfair. His claim is that party insiders should not be making these choices, but rather that the power should be vested with the voters. As a consequence, Cruz is “stealing" delegates from Trump, and in so doing defying the will of the voters.
Trump's accusations are specious and disingenuous. The process that has been playing out is perfectly legitimate. Trump's real problem is that he is being outhustled by the Cruz campaign.
The Republican nomination process operates along two tracks. The first—which garners most of the attention—is the binding of convention delegates to a presidential candidate, through primaries and caucuses. When one sees news reports that Trump has 743 delegates, Cruz has 545 delegates, and Kasich has 143 delegates, these are the number of delegates obliged by the party rules to vote for that candidate on the presidential ballot in Cleveland.
But only a handful of the actual delegates have been selected so far. That is the second track, and it happens in three ways. Some delegates are directly chosen by the candidates, and others are directly voted upon by primary voters. But the overwhelming majority are selected by the party organizations in the states and territories, through a series of party conventions, usually held at the congressional district and state levels. In a few cases—Colorado, Wyoming, and some of the territories—these conventions are also tasked with binding the delegates. But most party conventions simply pick the people who will be delegates in Cleveland, leaving the task of binding to the voters in the primaries and caucuses.
Trump has been complaining that all of these conventions are unfair because his kneejerk reaction is to whine about anything that does not go his way. These conventions present two problems for him. In Colorado and Wyoming, Trump lost out on opportunities to win delegates pledged to him (i.e., the first track). But in other convention battles—for instance in Iowa, North Carolina, and Virginia—his problem has to do with the second track, in particular the growing number of Trojan horse delegates.
These Trojan horse delegates are obliged by party rules to vote for Trump on the presidential ballot, but they are otherwise loyal to Cruz. Just because they are required to vote for Trump for the presidential nomination does not mean they need to back him on other matters before the convention. Trojan horse delegates are free to vote with Cruz on disputes over rules or delegate credentials. They can also support Cruz on matters presented to the convention floor. All of that is important, as Cruz will undoubtedly try to tweak the convention rules to make it more difficult for anybody else to win the nomination. Crucially, the bulk of convention delegates are only bound to presidential candidates for a specified number of ballots. By a fourth or fifth ballot, almost all of them would be free to vote for whomever they prefer. Delegates loyal to Cruz but bound temporarily to Trump could ultimately deliver the nomination to the Texas senator.
Naturally, Trump thinks this is grossly unfair. This is nonsense. Nobody changed the party rules in the middle of this process, and nobody fed the Cruz campaign inside information that was not available to the Trump team. The rules have been a matter of public record all along. The Cruz campaign took the time to understand them and use them to its advantage.
Party conventions are open processes. Delegates to these gatherings are not handpicked by party bosses. They are regular Republicans who participate because they have the time and interest to do so. The Cruz team put in the effort to organize regulars loyal to its candidate; the Trump campaign failed to do so. Consider, for instance, the Colorado convention held earlier this month. Delegates to that convention were chosen at precinct caucuses held on Super Tuesday—and any registered Republican was invited to attend. That the Trump campaign failed to get its supporters to those caucuses is not the fault of the Cruz campaign, the Colorado Republican party, or anybody else except the Trump campaign.
The Republican party does not belong to its presidential candidates in the way that Trump presumes. In important respects, it still belongs to the party regulars who attend these conventions. Starting in the 1970s, the party organization began sharing authority with voters to select the presidential nominee, but sovereignty was never handed over to the electorate lock, stock, and barrel. The delegates to the national convention, chosen mostly by these state and district conventions, have always retained a role—not only to act when the voters fail to reach a consensus, but to conduct regular party business.
This is hardly antidemocratic, by the way. Party organizations such as these are a vital, albeit overlooked part of our nation's democratic machinery. The party regulars at the district, state, and national conventions do the quotidian work of holding the party together between elections: They establish its rules, arbitrate disputes, formulate platforms to present to the voters, and so on. It would be impossible to have a party without these sorts of people doing work the average voter doesn't care about.
And these people are hardly the "establishment" in any meaningful sense of the word. Consider the process in Colorado. There was a hierarchy at play, no doubt—delegates at precinct caucuses voted for delegates to district and state conventions, who voted for delegates to the national convention. But the process was open to any registered Republican, and more than a thousand people served as delegates at the state convention. There were some big political players involved, naturally, but by and large they were just average people. The same goes for the state conventions in places like Wyoming and North Dakota. These meetings in Cheyenne and Bismarck are in no way beholden to, or the equivalent of, the power players working on K Street.
Trump might retort that Cleveland delegates should never be unbound from him, that they should be required to vote for him through the duration of the convention. But how would the party ever reach consensus in a scenario where no candidate won a majority and every delegate is bound forever? If the voters cannot agree among themselves, then somebody has to find the middle ground. The convention delegates, chosen through a fair and open process at the precinct, district, and state levels, are an obvious choice to complete this task. And this indeed will be their job in Cleveland.
Trump could have worked harder to win loyal delegates at these local conventions. He might also have broadened his appeal, so that he stood a better chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates on the first ballot. But he did neither and now is trying to delegitimize the process. His complaint is the only thing that is illegitimate. The truth is that this process of selecting delegates is fair and proper. It just hasn't worked out to Trump's liking so far.
What word games? Trump has 40% of the actual votes, not a majority. Cruz has 30% of the actual votes - again, not a majority. Everyone else put together roughly ties Cruz - definitely not a majority for any of them.
Trump won Alabama with 43% of the vote, won Arizona with 47%, won Arkansas with 33%, won Florida with 46%, won Georgia with 39%, won Hawaii with 42%, won Illinois with 39%, Won Kentucky with 36%, won Louisiana with 41%, won Massachusetts with 49%, won Michigan with 36%, won Mississippi with 47%, won Missouri with 41%, won Nevada with 46%, won New Hampshire with 35%, won North Carolina with 40%, won South Carolina with 32%, won Tennessee with 39%, won Vermont with 33%, and won Virginia with 35%. If Trump wins an absolute majority in New York, it will be the first state he wins with a majority.
Trump placed second in Alaska with 33%, second in Idaho with 28%, second in Iowa with 24%, second in Kansas with 23%, second in Maine with 33%, second in Ohio with 36%, second in Oklahoma with 28%, second in Texas with 27%, and second in Wisconsin with 35%. That is a much shorter list than his wins.
Trump placed third in DC with 13%, third in Minnesota with 21%, third in Utah with 14%, and third in Wyoming with 7%. It's not often that both Cruz and Kasich beat him.
I try very hard to avoid games or anything that can be interpreted as a game. My goal is to (1) stick to clear facts, and (2) smooth over the friction between supporters of the two outsider candidates this year. I don't mind if someone calls Jeb/Rubio/Kasich a pro-Amnesty traitor, because it's true and all three have consistently taken that position. It's the divisive personal attacks and the lack of evidence in the attacks on Trump and on Cruz that bother me.
Yes really. Do you think the Colorado members voted in August without prior discussion, probably months, with the national members? Do you really think that two months after Trump announced he was so far ahead in the field that Colorado was afraid of him? Not everything is a conspiracy against Trump.
I’m not the one playing “word games”. You’re the one who is playing word games by trying to blur the difference between “majority” and “plurality”. Words have meaning. If they don’t, then your precious Bible is meaningless.
Just like Kasich is now.
I don't need a list of the results of the primaries, we know who can still win the majority of delegates and who can't.
Cruz knows he cannot (as does Kasich) and both are just planning to stop Trump from getting the number 1237 and then try to win at the convention.
Both Cruz and Kasich should acknowledge that they have lost and Trump has won the nomination instead of trying clever insider tactics that will be rejected by the Trump voters, no matter how much the Cruz people try to defend them with clever word games.
Hmm, let’s go ahead and post the whole paragraph from that link, shall we?
3. Majority, plurality, in the context of an election, poll, or other voting situation resulting in a statistically based statement, both denote an amount or number larger than some other. In situations in which only two candidates, options, or positions are concerned, the terms are interchangeable, though majority is by far the more commonly used: She beat her opponent by a large majority. The proposal received a large plurality of “Yes” votes. When three or more choices are available, however, a distinction is made between majority and plurality. A majority, then, consists of more than one-half of all the votes cast, while a plurality is merely the number of votes one candidate receives in excess of the votes for the candidate with the next largest number. Thus, in an election in which three candidates receive respectively 500, 300, and 200 votes, the first candidate has a plurality of 200 votes, but not a majority of all the votes cast. If the three candidates receive 600, 300, and 100 votes, the first has a majority of 100 votes (that is 100 votes more than one-half the total of 1000 cast) and a plurality of 300 votes over the nearest opponent.
Cruz is at least guilty of being in on the con of receiving stolen goods from the thief. The GOP. The fix was in when they figured Trump was for real.
Double check you spin machine is in Good Working condition.
Your gonna need it to work overtime next week. Lol. Slappy.
Go Trump
Right now, Trump has the majority of votes cast.
You can call it the 'plurality' but he still has MORE then Cruz does.
Both men need to win the majority of delegates to win the nomination in order to avoid a convention fight.
In two weeks Cruz won't be able to, and he knows it.
So, trying to plot to win at the convention despite being far behind in the delegate count is violating the spirit of the primaries, to acknowledge the decision of the voters, not the insiders.
They cancelled it in August. They decided they could handle it without the voters.
.
>> “Right now, Trump has the majority of votes cast.” <<
.
No, he does not!
He has slightly less than 1/3 of the votes cast.
“No Trump” has 2/3 of the votes.
The rules of the primary are clear. Just as many sports have overtime if no team has a win at the scheduled end, primaries are decided at the convention if no candidate has a majority of delegates before the convention. If Cruz is down by three and going for a three-pointer at the buzzer to put this game into overtime, that has been part of the rules for 200+ years. It’s a perfectly legitimate strategy.
Team Trump just has to block the shot that Cruz is taking. They are trying rhetoric to do that, but their argument is too weak to work. They have to stop Cruz at the polls, and they may be strong enough to do just that. They know the rules, and I’d like to see them outplay Cruz under the rules of the primary and if necessary of the convention.
3. Majority, plurality, in the context of an election, poll, or other voting situation resulting in a statistically based statement, both denote an amount or number larger than some other. In situations in which only two candidates, options, or positions are concerned, the terms are interchangeable, though majority is by far the more commonly used:
Kasich isn't an issue since he has no support and has won only one State.
So, in the context of the discussion of the race between Cruz and Trump, the word 'majority' is completely acceptable since he has far more votes then Cruz does and will have even more in 2 weeks.
Now, he doesn't have the majority of delegates yet, but Cruz will not be able to obtain that majority at all in two weeks.
Primaries are entered with the view that one man is going to be chosen to lead the Party by the voters.
Convention battles are for the purpose of dealing with virtual ties, as in the case of Reagan and Ford in 76.
The convention is not to be used as an alternative to the will of the voters, when one candidate cannot win the majority, but does what he can to stop the frontrunner from doing so.
So, stop trying to defend this nonsense.
We are discussing the votes in context of between two men, not all the votes cast for the other candidates who are no longer relevant.
It may not make the nominee choices more palatable to those entrenched on one side or the other, but there is certainly nothing "unfair" or specious about the various state delegation and convention nominating processes. It's all grass roots, state by state, and don't complain if you didn't figure this out and do your homework!
Obama got elected in large part due to his abilities as a "community organizer" and his campaign's massive social media organization...that's worked out well, hasn't it? HA!
I will vote for whoever the nominee is, and I hope everyone else will too. I will work actively to promote whoever the candidate is. Already voted in the Ohio primary, nothing else I can do right now. Not happy with the choices, but there's a time to whine, and there's a time to prevent HRC ascending to the Presidency for a 3rd Clinton term...
The alleged CO election was not an election. It elected nobody. It was what is often called a beauty contest. It was a form of public opinion poll. That is what was cancelled.
I have been to seven republican conventions, and I know what they are for (mostly showmanship and mending fences, but this situation is also one of their purposes). The purpose of a convention includes dealing with elections in which no candidate has an absolute majority of delegates. If the voters in the last few states decide that Cruz cannot win and all vote Trump, that will be a clear expression of their desire to avoid a contested convention, and I will approve. I personally will vote for Trump in just over a week, because I do not trust the party establishment if the convention goes to a second ballot.
However, if the voters continue voting for Cruz or even Kasich after those two are mathematically eliminated, then Trump’s lack of a majority of delegates will also be an expression of the will of the voters. I hope Trump can make the deals needed to win on the first ballot, particularly because I’m concerned about what would happen at the second ballot, but I want to see Trump win fairly by getting the necessary votes to get those delegates.
This makes me angry. This process of selecting our party’s nominee should be by the members of our party, not a hustle. I hope that what comes of this is no more shenanigans, that from this time forward the primary process will be open, straightforward, honest, and the same across all the states, that all Republicans voters get an equal voice, and no one gets any special say, and that our party’s leaders are administrators and facilitators not princes and overlords who own and control the process.
Shame on those of you who think this is good because Ted Cruz is managing to hustle and manipulate and cheat and exploit his way into the nomination when he has not won the votes of the people.
And somehow, by doing this, you think he is going to represent the people and save the constitution, when what he is in fact doing is ensuring that the party remains in the hands of those corrupt elitists who own it now.
This whole process is sickening and disgusting. How can anyone condone this?
In a virtual dead heat, a convention battle is necessary.
In two weeks, Cruz should be mathematically eliminated from being able to win the necessary majority of delegates.
That is when a candidate usually drops out, not plan to fight it out in the convention.
Had this been any other candidate other then Trump, no one would be defending the actions of these candidates in attempting to win at the convention against the overwhelming front runner.
Candidates usually drop out because they know their support will disappear when they are mathematically eliminated (I’ve worked for some who did exactly that). If Cruz believes otherwise, staying in the race is legitimate. If the voters then desert Ted, that is okay too.
As for Trump, I plan to vote for him. Supporting Cruz staying is not anti-Trump. You want to see scary? Imagine Cruz dropping out, the anti-Trump votes all going to Kasich, and the establishment arguing to the delegates that the Kasich surge shows he is the rightful nominee!
- Kasich voted for the “Assault” Weapons Ban. https://grabien.com/file.php?id=53463 and as of last year did not regret that vote
- Kasich supported and implemented Obamacare’s Medicare expansion http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kasich-bible-medicaid_us_56140a54e4b022a4ce5fb1e3
- Kasich supports Amnesty for illegals. http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kasich.htm
- Kasich dismissively said Christian bakers should “bake the cupcake” and participate in a gay parody of the sacrament of marriage, even if it violates their religious beliefs. https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160225/kasich-pushes
- Kasich supports Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kasich-id-consider-nominating-merrick-garland-supreme-court-election-2016/
Those are not old views or comments taken out of context; they are Kasich’s current and consistent positions. As a Trump voter in just over a week, I’d rather keep Cruz in the race and give anti-Trump voters a choice (i.e., divide their votes!).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.