The RNC Delegates Are Morally Free to Vote Their Consciences

Loading

Jay Cost:

The Trump campaign and the leadership of the Republican National Committee are working hard to pressure delegates to vote for Trump. The race is over, they say. The voters have rendered their judgment. Delegates do not have the right to nullify this verdict. Now is the time to rally around Trump and unify the party.

Trump and the RNC leadership are wrong. The delegates should feel free to vote their consciences, and the rules and history of the Republican National Convention support their right to do so. In a separate entry, I will focus on the rules and the history of the convention, while here I will examine the moral responsibilities of convention delegates.

The claims of the Trump boosters ultimately boil down to: Because this is a democracy, the people have spoken, and delegates are morally obliged to follow their instructions, regardless of what their consciences claim. This thinking is faulty. In truth, the people have not really spoken, and, even if they had, this is not actually a democracy. Let’s take each point in turn.

First, Trump did not win a majority of the vote. He claimed slightly less than 45 percent of the primary vote, which is less than any presumptive nominee in the modern era. People can have a legitimate debate about the moral demands attending a majority vote—but Trump scored a plurality victory, and an unimpressive one at that.

The truth is that there is not much of a moral sanction for a plurality victory. The winner of such a contest cannot be said to represent the people. If anything, the people as a whole rendered no verdict on the question presented to them. Granted, this first-past-the-post approach to elections is common in our country, but its use is not universal. First-past-the-post is employed not because it is moral, but merely because it is convenient. Declaring that a plurality winner is the victor does not require a costly second round of voting, and it typically favors the two major parties (which happen to write the election laws!).

There are other ways to organize the vote, and they are just as legitimate. Importantly, the constitutional system to elect the president is not first-past-the-post. A candidate must win an outright majority of electors, otherwise the House of Representatives makes the final determination.

What Trump really won is a majority of pledged delegates, so he is not asserting moral sanction but alegal sanctionand a specious one at that. Trump and the RNC are ultimately not relying upon the principle of majority rule, but the fact that the RNC laws call for a first-past-the-post system. But in fact, they do not. That will be the subject of my next essay.

Second, it is true that in a democracy, the people rule—but our system is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. Of course, the people play an important role in our system—as the Declaration of Independence argues, all political power flows ultimately from the people. But the Founding Fathers rejected the notion of vox populi, vox dei. The people were prone to make mistakes and could often form self-interested factions that were dangerous to the welfare of the whole community.

Our system of government employs a vast array of checks and balances to channel the demands of the people into public policy that works for the benefit of all. Crucially, the first line of constitutional defense is the principle of representation. As James Madison writes in Federalist 10, one advantage of a representative republic over direct democracy is that representation may

refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.

This is an important point. The duty of a representative is not simply to reflect public opinion, but to find a way to “refine and enlarge” it, by aggregating the often selfish and ill-informed views of the people into a final judgment that serves their true interests. Trump supporters will denounce this as “elitism,” but they are arguing against the Constitution they claim to revere. This is a bedrock principle of our republic.

Edmund Burke expands on this idea in the Address to the Electors of Bristol, where he rejects the notion that voters may instruct him on how to vote in Parliament:

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
96 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Jeb Bush would agree.
In order to garner plenty of RNC cash he PLEDGED that he would absolutely support whoever the became the presumptive nominee via the primaries.
Then he reneged.
Pledged delegates are only pledged for the 1st ballot at RNC under the rules as they stand today.
Unless those rules change pledged delegates are free to vote their personal conscience after the 1st ballot only.
Not before.
That’s kind of why they are called pledged delegates.

But, hey, when your ”leaders,” like Jeb, ignore their word, why wouldn’t the followers want to do so, too?

I would call it breech of contract by liberal infiltrators.

An act so foul any and all retribution would be called for and nessicary.

So… Your excuse for giving someone else the nomination is that Mr. Trump only got 45% of the vote?
And you want to replace him with someone who got even less?
Yeah, great argument.
You’re right, the USA is not a democracy, but it’s fast becoming an oligarchy. And we’re sick of it. (At least, 45% of us are.)
We’re sick of political insiders deciding who can be nominated.

Delegates should not be bound no more than our elected officials are bound to vote the way we want them to. Delegates have already gone through the process of being elected to their precinct, county and state conventions and we elected by a majority, not a plurality, vote.

If you tell a candidate you are going to support him, then that candidate does/says something really stupid the day before the election, by the “bound” theory, you should be bound to vote for that candidate, no matter what.

Those demanding the delegates remain pledged, don’t seem to know the history of the Republican Party conventions. Only Ford shoved through the rule to bind delegates in 1976 to be able to defeat Ronald Reagan and go on to run against Carter. How well did that work out?

If you didn’t trust your elected delegates to make the decision to support the candidate of your choice, then why did you vote for them?

@Petercat:

We’re sick of political insiders deciding who can be nominated

You had the same opportunity to become a delegate to the national convention as anyone else. You could have spent the time and money to campaign to be a delegate to your state convention, and done the same to get elected to the national convention. You could have went to Cleveland, paying your airfare, hotel, taxis and meals, all out of your own pocket just like others will have to do. Instead, you’ll whine and moan about “insiders” and “establishment”.

I am sick of you know-nothing Trumpsters who whine because there is a chance the delegates will be unbound. And while not likely, maybe, just maybe, someone else will become the nominee on the second, third or even fourth vote, just as Abraham Lincoln was.

And we’re sick of it. (At least, 45% of us are.)

No, you’re angry. And so you have bought into the angry words of a man who has no history of doing any of the things you demand and no guarantee he will do any of the things he claims he will, unless he rules by Executive Order fiat just as Obama does.

C-SPAN is covering the rules’ committee live.
They are in a break right now.
Back at 11AM Eastern Time.
So far the call there has been for any whose ”conscience” won’t allow them to vote for Trump – even on the 1st ballot – to STEP aside and be replaced by someone who will follow the rules.
So, that appears to be the official RNC direction.

@retire05: Amen

IF your goal is to defeat Hillary, you better hope the Delegates choose someone else. Trump is more disliked than Hillary and he will lose. He wins almost no demographic but old white males and there are just not enough of them to beat Hillary. How we managed to choose a more flawed candidate than Hillary is just so depressing. Looks like we are in for justice not mercy as a nation.

@Nanny G:

So far the call there has been for any whose ”conscience” won’t allow them to vote for Trump – even on the 1st ballot –

Yeah, delegates, people like Nan want you to just forfeit your conscience in order to elect a guy who can’t defeat Hillary.

to STEP aside and be replaced by someone who will follow the rules.

What is it about the fact that there are no rules yet until they are written and voted on by the entire body that you don’t seem to understand?

@retire05:
I’m just reporting on the C-SPAN coverage of the morning discussions.
You’re correct that the voting takes place after this lunch break….in about 1 or 2 hours.
The platform does include building a wall at the USA/Mexican border.
So few people realize that we already have the laws on the books to have a physical border, we even have some walls, some fences, some barriers already up.

The Republican Party Platform approved by the Platform Committee this week in Cleveland adopted Donald Trump’s call for a security wall on America’s southern border as part of the solution to the nation’s broken immigration system…..
But some delegates noted that a “physical barrier” could mean all manner of things, from a chain-link fence, to a series three-foot high concrete blocks like Americans typically see on construction sites or around sensitive government buildings. The delegates decided to remove all ambiguity, replacing it with Donald Trump’s words, calling for the construction of a “wall.”
The platform specifies that the security wall should secure “the entirety of the Southern Border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.”

Ironically, that last bit goes further than Donald Trump has gone!
He says the geographical and geological barriers of deserts means that a physical wall is only necessary on about 1,000 miles of the 2,000 mile border.
But, hey, it’s a starting point.

@Nanny G:

I’m just reporting on the C-SPAN coverage of the morning discussions.
You’re correct that the voting takes place after this lunch break….in about 1 or 2 hours.

Right………………….and wrong.

The Rules Committee will vote on the proposed rules for this year’s convention. Those proposed rules will have to be voted on by the entire body of the convention.

So just because the Rules Committee proposes rules doesn’t mean those rules will be passed by the entire body.

And good luck building a “wall” right down the middle of the Rio Grand.

@Lynn Tercel: Gotta agree –“to pick a more flawed candidate than Hillary’ wasn’t an easy task.”
Charles Koch “If I HAD TO VOTE FOR CANCER OR A HEART ATTACK WHY WOULD I VOTE FOR EITHER?”
There it is.

@Richard Wheeler: yes it is!

(11 a.m.): According to multiple Rules Committee sources, the word is that Unruh, who has organized the anti-Trump rebellion, can’t get anywhere near 28 votes.

@Nanny G:

No agreement was met, at least according to my sources. Steve Munisteri, having served three terms as TxGOP chair and Rules committee member, just got a new rule put into place that gives latitude to the Candidate committee, not before held. Since I don’t have a copy of his amendment, I cannot give you the wording but will when I get it.

Haley Barbour is a jerk.

@retire05: #4
Really, Retire? You can’t disagree with someone without resorting to a name-calling, childish, foot-stomping hissy fit? And then you have the nerve to say that I’m whining?
You’re a real prize, Retire. You need to get your meds adjusted. Again. Face it, you senile old bag, your candidate lost, more people preferred Mr. Trump, and he’s the nominee.
Oh, and I’m not angry, if anything, I’m amused. By ignorant people like you who know nothing except the opinions expressed by other people who also know nothing. I think it’s funny that you call people who have actually educated themselves about the candidates “know-nothings”, and I enjoy rubbing your nose in your own vomit.
You think you can hide behind your keyboard and spew your bile onto me without a response in kind? Not happening. I don’t mind mud wrestling, I’d just prefer it to be with a young, attractive woman.

@Petercat:

Really, Retire? You can’t disagree with someone without resorting to a name-calling, childish, foot-stomping hissy fit?

Oh, my, Snowflake, did I hurt your sensitivities when I said Haley Barbour is a jerk? Well, I don’t apologize. Haley Barbour, and his actions on the Rules Committee less than an hour ago, shows him to be a jerk.

And of course you can’t seem to see your own hypocrisy when you whine about me calling someone a jerk yet you resort to your own name calling (i.e. “you senile old bag” or this little cute comment “I enjoy rubbing your nose in your own vomit” ).

Tell me, Petercat, how many times have you been a delegate to the RNC National Convention? Or your state convention? Or even at a Precinct Convention? Most of you Trumpsters have never darked the door to a GOP meeting in your lives or sat on your local GOP Executive Committee. Now you’re experts on what the GOP should do?

I don’t like Trump. I don’t have to like Trump. It is my Constitutional right to not like Trump. And I damn sure have nothing to learn from the likes of you and no amount of foot stomping on the part of you Trumpsters will make me like Trump. As a matter of fact, the more you rail on me, the less I like Trump and his supporters.

I don’t mind mud wrestling, I’d just prefer it to be with a young, attractive woman.

Why do I suspect you would have no takers?

You don’t have to like Trump to objectively look at what the US will look like if we get 4 years of Shrillary right after Obama. We have already caused ourselves a “lost decade” ala Japan, with 4-8 more years of this crap we will be sliding past the fall of Argentina. Plus with all the black and muslim violence completely unchecked.

Have we forgotten what happened to the U.S. economy during 2007 and 2008?

Obama inherited an already-horrible unemployment rate that was climbing like a rocket, federal revenue that had fallen through the floorboards, an unstable financial system, a stock market ready to go into cardiac arrest, state and municipal governments so broke that they couldn’t afford their schools, police departments, emergency medical services and fire departments, and two wars-in-progress that had been running off the books on money borrowed from China. The entire global economy was at risk of going down like a line of dominoes.

Maybe some people don’t have enough imagination or historical perspective to know what a “lost decade” would actually look like. They should at least be able to figure out that Obama will be leaving the U.S. economy in far better shape than it was in when he walked into the Oval Office. That only takes a memory that reaches back 8 years. Claiming otherwise is highly suggestive of a totally delusional state.

@PaulManafort
Anti-Trump people got crushed at Rules Committee. It was never in doubt: Convention will honor will of people & nominate @realdonaldtrump.

@Nanny G: oh pleeze Why are you so infatuated with this crude charlatan?

#NeverTrump Delegate Rebels ‘Defeated’ at the RNC Rules Committee
Breitbart News
A last-minute plot to push a “conscience” voting provision through the RNC Rules Committee failed, virtually eliminating any options for the “Free the Delegates” movement to go forward and stop Donald Trump from getting the nomination on the convention …

GOP leaders kill plan by anti-Trump movement to unbind delegates …
Fox News

RNC counsel: Without rule change, pledged GOP delegates must
Blog-Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)-Jul 13, 2016

Attempt to Stop Donald Trump at Convention Fails Decisively
In-Depth-TIME


Never Trump movement fails twice on key RNC votes</

Politico
Donald Trump's allies on the national GOP convention Rules Committee crushed a proposal Thursday aimed at dumping Trump from the top of the Republican ticket — and they sealed its fate further by passing an amendment to ensure his nomination.

@Greg: I suppose you wrote your soliloquy to show how bad it was when Obozo took over. The problem is that even if it was bad, the only direction it has gone since is further downhill. Let me give you a little lesson. If half of the people do not have a job and 8 years later even less than half have a job, then the situation got worse. If more people are on food stamps today than 8 years ago, the situation got worse. If there are now hundreds of thousands more illegal aliens in the country than 8 years ago, the situation got worse. There is no statistic you can name that indicates that the country is better off other than the fact that there are now less days for Obozo to be in office than there were 8 years ago.

For all those that were ‘hoping’ for a miracle at the Rules Committee, happy failure. It’s nice when someone does what they say they willl do and follow the rules.

@Redteam:

For all those that were ‘hoping’ for a miracle at the Rules Committee, happy failure. It’s nice when someone does what they say they willl do and follow the rules.

Interesting.

For all you Trumpsters, who are celebrating the “happy failure”, remember this one thing; the Grassroots lost yesterday and the “Establishment”, that all you Trumpsters love to rail on, won and won big. You know, establishment types like Rience Priebus, Haley Barbour and ilk? They are the ones that won. As a matter of fact, yesterday’s display of a total regard of the power of the grassroots made the “establishment” even stronger in the RNC. The new rules that were passed make sure of that.

Never mind that the chair of the Rules Committee, Enid Mickelson, refused to allow a roll call vote, or even a standing vote, when one was called for according to RROONV.

So as you do your happy dance, remember it the next time you complain about how the grassroots doesn’t seem to have any influence that you were happy when they were smashed by the “establishment” Republicans.

@retire05:

For all you Trumpsters,

As you well know, or at least should know, I have never said I’m a Trumpster nor have I said I support Trump. My consistent statement has been that I would support the Republican nominee as long as it was a qualified candidate. As far as I know, Trump is a natural born citizen, he is 35 years of age and he’s the Republican nominee. He clearly fits my conditions for getting my vote. I have not spent one dime supporting any candidate this year. I have also said I would not support the Dimocrat candidate regardless of who it is.

If you are saying that you are disturbed because the Republican Party is playing by the rules and supporting the nominee that received the required number of delegates, that is interesting. Most people believe that if you have rules, they should be followed. I suspect, that had Cruz received the required number of delegates, that you would not be supportive of a movement to deny him the nomination.

@Redteam:

If you are saying that you are disturbed because the Republican Party is playing by the rules and supporting the nominee that received the required number of delegates, that is interesting. Most people believe that if you have rules, they should be followed. I suspect, that had Cruz received the required number of delegates, that you would not be supportive of a movement to deny him the nomination.

What is it about the convention system you don’t understand? Those rules you speak of applied to the 2012 convention, not this one. That is why they have a Rules Committee, to adopt, amend or rewrite the old rules. All the rules adopted at this convention will be a) part of the old rules, b) old rules that have been amended or c) new rules. Once the proposed rules are written by the Rules Committee, those rules then go to the body of the whole for a vote. There is no guarantee that the rules that were adopted yesterday will pass on the convention floor.

But congratulations; Haley Barbour and your beloved establishment won the day yesterday.

BTW, if Cruz had won the plurality (not a majority) I would still support the movement for the delegates to be unbound. And I damn sure would not have supported giving a few RNC insiders the power that the Rules Committee did yesterday. You really should stop trying to second guess people. You’re not very good at it.

@retire05:

What is it about the convention system you don’t understand? Those rules you speak of applied to the 2012 convention, not this one. That is why they have a Rules Committee, to adopt, amend or rewrite the old rules.

They acted according to the rules, as you yourself have stated. The rules allowed them, if they so chose to by a vote, to allow them to have a motion to not keep the delegates bound. According to the rules, that motion did not carry and so it was not opened. if the vote had been to open the process to allow them to not be bound, that would be according to the rules also. You seem to feel as if following the rules was something that was bad because of who made the rules. The establishment. Well, the establishment is always going to make the rules because they are the ones in power. If one of them gets voted out, they just replace him with someone else that will quickly fall into line. If a movement gets big enough to outvote the establishment, then they will get voted out.

You really should stop trying to second guess people. You’re not very good at it.

Who do you think I was trying to second guess? Not sure how you were able to measure something I didn’t do. If you are referring to my statement about had Cruz won the required number of delegates to get the nom. Note I did not say ‘if he got a plurality’ I said if he got the required number for the nomination, as Trump did.

BTW, if Cruz had won the plurality (not a majority) I would still support the movement for the delegates to be unbound.

I wouldn’t. As long as the delegate system is in play, the delegate that is committed to a particular person because of the way the voters vote, should not be allowed to let their judgement over rule the voters. If a delegate is not sworn to vote as his voters dictate, then people should not vote for a candidate, only for the delegate and just tell the delegate to vote for whoever they choose. That would not be a Representative Republic form of government. An elected representative of the people is supposed to represent the people, not himself.

What the sour-grapes #NeverTrumpers can’t understand, is that: If delegates were to be declared unbound completely (including in the first vote,) then there is no longer any reason for a primary process. Period. As such a move would mean that registered Republican voters would never really have a say in whom their Presidential candidate should be, and that the party would instead be ruled by a de facto “star chamber” (aka a fascist oligarchy.) Had the RNC gone that route, they would have justified a complete political revolt from the base, and the RNC might as well dissolve the party and go the way of the Whigs.

As I stated before, the RNC leadership is not that flippin’ stupid.

@Ditto: Do you consider foul mouthed, charlatan Trump representative of the GOP Base? Sad.

If you want to talk about foul-mouthed candidates, first consider your own party’s harpy Hillary. White House assigned Marines during the Clinton Presidency and (Secret Service) who have had to put up with her abuse. LBJ was also well known for his profanity laced speech. Would you say they are representative of the Democratic Party’s base?

@Greg I got the biggest raise of my life changing jobs in 2008. Bush's mistake was the bank bailout, but then Obummer did more of that in spades. Anyone who says the economy is better now than it was then is a liar or an idiot (if they actually believe it). CBO just did a report showing debt vs. GDP. We are going Greek, in a couple of ways.

@Ditto:

What the sour-grapes #NeverTrumpers can’t understand, is that: If delegates were to be declared unbound completely (including in the first vote,) then there is no longer any reason for a primary process. Period.

Well, let’s see; between 1936 and 1976, delegates were bound. Gerald Ford lobbied for delegates to be bound during the 1976 national convention to stop an upstart named Ronald Reagan. Want to remind us all how that election worked out?

After 1976, the delegates remained unbound until the 2012 national convention when Mitt Romney did the same thing Gerald Ford did. Again, how did that election work out.

So are you saying that there was no reason to hold primaries during those years when the delegates were unbound?

As such a move would mean that registered Republican voters would never really have a say in whom their Presidential candidate should be, and that the party would instead be ruled by a de facto “star chamber” (aka a fascist oligarchy.)

In many states, like Texas, voters are not registered to a party. But the cross over vote in Texas was 10% of the Democrats who voted in the Republican March, 2016 primary. Those are cross over voters who will, once again, vote Democrat in the general election and who tainted the vote count of those who ARE Republicans.

Also, if you had watched the entire session of the Rules Committee on Thursday, as I did, you would understand that the very thing you are concerned about “that the party would instead be ruled by a de facto “star chamber” is exactly what happened as the establishment GOP claimed even more power for itself against the grass roots.

Had the RNC gone that route, they would have justified a complete political revolt from the base, and the RNC might as well dissolve the party and go the way of the Whigs.

That, Ditto, after the disgrace that was the Rules Committee power players on Thursday, like Haley Barbour, is exactly what may happen. And if it does, the Democrats will control all three branches of government for decades. I hope you’re proud of supporting Reince Priebus and Haley Barbour against the grass roots.

@retire05:

In the Ford v. Reagan convention, those two candidates were very evenly matched in both delegates and popular votes. Yes, Ford finally won after the fourth vote, only to lose to Jimmy Carter in the General election. You #NeverTrumps love to put forth this claim that the Delegates are unbound, but it simply is not the case. Most of the claims to “all the delegates are unbound” comes from sour-grapes anti-Trump ND Rules Committee person Curly Haugland, who is spouting off only his opinion.

War Of Words Erupts In NDGOP Over Curly Haugland’s Comments On Delegates

According to Haugland, who sits on the RNC Rules Committee, all of these state votes getting intense attention from the media are meaningless. He says not a single state delegate is bound to a candidate at the national convention, even on the first ballot.

“The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination,” Haugland told CNBC recently. “That’s the conflict here.”

Haugland has been ripped for these comments by national media figures on the right and the left, from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to Rachel Maddow.

He’s also getting some flak from his own state party.

“Curly is speaking for himself,” NDGOP Chairman Kelly Armstrong told me. “His comments do not represent the views of the NDGOP.”

After reading those comments in an earlier post Haugland called to respond saying, while he certainly does not claim to have any say in the internal workings of the NDGOP, he is elected by Republicans in the state to the RNC to help influence RNC issues. Like delegate rules.

But now Congressman Kevin Cramer, one of the NDGOP’s top elected officials in the state, is taking some shots at Haugland as well.

Appearing on Chris Berg’s 6:30 Point of View program (video above), Cramer kind of wrote Haugland off as irrelevant.

“Curly is one of these guys, he means well, he sort of likes to talk about the rules, and sort of dig into them…but you know he brings these things up and usually they roll their eyes, pat him on the head, and hope he buys the next round at the cocktail party and say isn’t he fun to have around,” Cramer said.

​Federal Court Sides With Grassroots Activists: RNC Delegates Are Bound to Follow Election Results

Delegates Remain Committed to Donald J. Trump;
Anti-Trump Effort Dealt Crippling Blow

(New York) July 11, 2016 – Senior United States District Judge Robert E. Payne today ruled in favor of Trump campaign delegates who had argued – in line with overwhelming public opinion – that RNC delegates must follow election results and that delegates cannot be stolen at the national convention. Delegate Beau Correll, Jr., had brought the suit against the Commonwealth of Virginia hoping to reject the will of the voters, but was soundly defeated.

Specifically, the Court found that RNC Rule 16, which binds delegates based on their election results, “is in effect presently and that it controls the allocation and binding of delegates as to their voting at convention.” (p. 6) The Court held that the Plaintiff’s “expert testimony” from Erling ‘Curly’ Haugland was not credible, lacked “textual support,” (p.6) and that “delegates are bound by RNC Rule 16.” (p. 7)

Further, the Court found that by signing the “Declaration and Statement of Qualification,” RNC delegates are bound by RNC Rule 16(c)(2) (p. 10), and that this Declaration obligated Correll to vote in accordance with Republican Party rules and Virginia’s election results. (p. 46)

Trump Campaign Attorney and former FEC Chairman Don McGahn issued the following statement:

“The court has confirmed what we have said all along: Rule 16 is in effect and thus delegates, including Correll, are bound to vote in accordance with the election results. The court did not buy what Curly Haugland was selling, and noted that his testimony has no support in the rule’s text and was contradicted by his own book, Unbound. This case puts his unbound theory to rest, and is a fatal blow to the Anti-Trump agitators.”

Adittionally, The RNC’s Commission has this week denied your sour-grapes Delegates from being unbound in the first vote.

I hope you’re proud of supporting Reince Priebus and Haley Barbour against the grass roots.

You seem very confused at what “the grassroots” means. I take the Grassroots to mean the entire party base. The Grassroots voted overwhelmingly for Trump. In fact, at 14 million votes, Trump has received more Grassroots votes in a primary than any GOP candidate in history. You do not represent the majority of GOP voters, Trump does. Nor is the RNC’s going with the choice made by the majority (14 Million) voters in anyway descriptive of an oligarchical Star Chamber. The #NeverTrumps are only a small very whiny portion of the Republican base. The Rules Committee said “No” to you and Curly, because they know, that with Trump the only clear winner in a not even close primary process, to ignore the will of the majority base will only destroy the party.

But some people only want to see the world burn. Don’t you Retire?

@Ditto:

In the Ford v. Reagan convention, those two candidates were very evenly matched in both delegates and popular votes.

Really? Reagan took 4,706,222 votes (45.9%) while Ford took 5,529,899 votes (53.3%). Seems there is some dispute there on what is considered “evenly matched.”

Yes, Ford finally won after the fourth vote, only to lose to Jimmy Carter in the General election.

Actually, Ford took the nomination at the 1976 RNC national convention on the first vote, not the fourth.

You #NeverTrumps love to put forth this claim that the Delegates are unbound, but it simply is not the case.

Delegates were never “bound” until 1976. So for 40 years, delegates went into the conventions “un” bound.

Most of the claims to “all the delegates are unbound” comes from sour-grapes anti-Trump ND Rules Committee person Curly Haugland, who is spouting off only his opinion.

No, Haugland’s “claims” are based on historical records, something you seem painfully ignorant of. But according to you, just because Trump won a plurality of the vote (around 44%) he should automatically be the nominee. So then, why didn’t the Republicans have as their nominee William Borah in 1936; Thomas Dewey in 1940; Douglas MacArthur in 1944; Earl Warren in 1948; Robert Taft in 1954 and Ronald Reagan in 1968? Every one of those candidates held a “plurality” in the popular vote yet were not the nominee.

And if we give the nomination by bound delegates, then why bother even having a national convention to choose the nominee?

You do not represent the majority of GOP voters, Trump does.

Trump does not represent the almost 60% of Republican voters that voted for someone else. Trump only represents less than 45% of the voters in the primary elections. So do try to keep your facts straight.

Nor is the RNC’s going with the choice made by the majority (14 Million) voters in anyway descriptive of an oligarchical Star Chamber.

Those 14 million Trump voters were not a majority. Do try to get that through your head. As to the “star chamber”, it won last Thursday as more power was given to the RNC elite, not the grassroots. Why are you so painfully uniformed?

The #NeverTrumps are only a small very whiny portion of the Republican base. The Rules Committee said “No” to you and Curly, because they know, that with Trump the only clear winner in a not even close primary process, to ignore the will of the majority base will only destroy the party.

The “will” of the voters was clearly ignored in 1934, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1954, and 1968 with the “will” of the voters clearly ignored in 1944 when Dewey took 49.8% of the vote to Wendell Wilkie’s 7% who was the nominee.

But some people only want to see the world burn. Don’t you Retire?

News flash, Ditto; the world is already burning. Turkey? Nice? What I don’t want to see is the GOP go the way of the Whigs, which is exactly what Trump will cause. Trump will not get that estimated 10% Democrat vote he got in the primary in the general election, those people will go back to the Democrats. We will also loose down ticket election, possibly costing us the very narrow margin we hold in the Senate and a loss of the House of Representatives in 2018 is a very strong possibility.

Hillary is a known disaster. Trump is a disaster that is yet unknown. He could possibly be worse than Hillary because the Republican “establishment” (i.e. Haley Barbour, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, et al) will not buck him like they will Hillary. Everything Trump does, and I do mean everything, will depend on who panders to his ego.

As to the Virginia court case, I recommend you read the judge’s actual ruling, not the spin on the case presented by the Trump camp. It seems to be one other thing you do not fully understand.

@retire05: Delegates were never “bound” until 1976. So for 40 years, delegates went into the conventions “un” bound.

And so, according to your own math, for the last 40 years delegates have been bound!

But according to you, just because Trump won a plurality of the vote (around 44%) he should automatically be the nominee.

Nothing ”automatic” about it, retireo5.
With 17 competitors at the start then shrinking down to 8 by Super Tuesday, it would have been amazing for anyone to get more than 50% of the total votes.
Even after Super Tuesday there remained 4 candidates for a while during which time several primaries took place.
That number went down to 3 on May 3rd when Cruz dropped out.
On the 4th of May Kasich dropped out.
At that point only absentee votes (and protest votes) would be for other candidates than Trump.
By May 26th Trump passed the threshold number of BOUND delegates to clinch the nomination.
Then he went past that number.
Remember CA,
Mont,
NJ,
NM,
and So Dak all took place after Trump clinched his 1237.

So, then, (again NOT automatic) there was the Rules’ committee’s chance to unbind the delegates IF the NeverTrump’ers had at least 28 on their side.

They did NOT even have that small number.

Get over it.

Edited to add:

He could possibly be worse than Hillary because the Republican “establishment” (i.e. Haley Barbour, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, et al) will not buck him like they will Hillary.

Where have you been during times when the Legislative and Executive Branches were both Republican?
Not watching the news.
They bickered like crazy!
They fought like crazy.
They found distinctions inside their own party and made mountains out of those molehills.

@Nanny G:

And so, according to your own math, for the last 40 years delegates have been bound!

Did I say that? Nope, I did not. In 1976 the Gerald Ford contingency managed to bind the delegates. That ended with the 1980 convention and they were not bound until 2012 when Mitt Romney pulled a Gerald Ford coup again binding the delegates. If you are going to argue FOR binding the delegates, at least get your history straight.

Where have you been during times when the Legislative and Executive Branches were both Republican?
Not watching the news.
They bickered like crazy!
They fought like crazy.
They found distinctions inside their own party and made mountains out of those molehills.

So what? At least they were fighting with each other and not the Democrats who seems to be able to control Congress even when they don’t have a majority. Seems you may have whined yourself about that but I could be wrong.

I guess you agree with open primaries, as well. I have told you before, I am disappointed in you, Nan, because you have seemed to have lost every bit of common sense you previously exhibited. Trump will be a disaster, make no mistake about that. But you put your blinders on and ignored every stupid thing he has ever said and every liberal stance he has ever taken.

So, then, (again NOT automatic) there was the Rules’ committee’s chance to unbind the delegates IF the NeverTrump’ers had at least 28 on their side.

Oh, please…………………..there is a big difference between the “NeverTrump’ers” and the “FreeTheDelegates” movement. The fact that you want to conflate the two shows you are pretty uninformed yourself.

But hey, congratulations, you have just sided with the RNC “establishment.”

Get over it.

Stuff it.

Most of the State’s Republican Parties do not agree with you and Curly that delegates are “unbound.” Oh yes I know you are desperate to make everyone think that you and Curly are right. but you aren’t.

Binding delegates: In most states, party rules or election laws require delegates to be “bound” to support the candidate to whom they were allocated at the national convention. Some delegates, such as those from Massachusetts and Virginia, are only bound to support their candidate through the first round of voting. Delegates from other states are bound to support their candidate through the second and third rounds of voting. A few states, such as New Mexico and Mississippi, have party rules or state laws governing what happens when a delegate votes for a candidate other than the one to whom they are bound.

And last week, (as we know,) the RNC Convention Committee made it very clear that bound delegates are required to remain bound for the first vote.

..there is a big difference between the “NeverTrump’ers” and the “FreeTheDelegates” movement.

Not that big a difference. Most #FreeTheDelegates are also #NeverTrumps. Nor do they have all the support behind them that they claim to. ergo, why they lost on trying to change the RNC rules. The RNC said, that the delegates must in the first vote support the candidate the swore that they would, their “conscious” be damned. As Nanny says. You lost. Get over it.

We do understand that you, (like many of the establishment elite,) don’t want the voters to decide who the nominee will be. Instead, you want a small number of party operatives (i.e. an oligarchy,) to be able to ignore what the party base has to say, and arrogantly tell the people whom they will have for their leader.

We really do understand Retire. You like the same kind of top-down crony capitalist “progressive” political fascism that corrupt socialist states enjoy. You don’t care how the base will be able to vote in the primaries, so long as a small number of ethically-challenged, arrogant asses can completely ignore the results of the primary process, and instead do whatever the hell they want.

Some of us however, believe that if the party is going to offer the base a choice (and with it, go through all the trouble of a primary process,) then the party leadership needs to honor their voter’s decision. We believe that if you make a promise, the ethical thing is to try your best to keep that promise. As the Conservative Republican Base have made very clear in this primary season, haughty, arrogant, “screw-the-base” Republicans like you are part of the problem, which is precisely why 14 Million of them voted for Trump as the solution. Trump has the required number of delegates, and that eats into your gut. Well, I don’t care if you don’t like it. Trump was not whom I wanted either, but he has received more support from the Republican Base than any of the other candidates. Trump will be the nominee, or the base will revolt, because they are fed-up with being ignored, and they will not take another slap in the face by a handful of faithless political cheats.

@Ditto:

Oh yes I know you are desperate to make everyone think that you and Curly are right. but you aren’t.

Yes, we are correct, and historical records show we are correct.

In most states, party rules or election laws require delegates to be “bound” to support the candidate to whom they were allocated at the national convention.

True. But you fail to acknowledge that national party rules trump (pardon the pun) state party rules, just as state party rules trump county party rules. So if the national party changes rules for a new convention, the states are bound to honor them. Or are you going to deny that, as well?

And last week, (as we know,) the RNC Convention Committee made it very clear that bound delegates are required to remain bound for the first vote.

Well, the begin with, it was not the “Convention” Committee, but the Rules Committee. They are not one and the same. So if you want to appear informed, at least get the terminology correct.

And do you even know how that mess happened in the Rules Committee last Thursday? I doubt it. But the Trump campaign, for all Trump’s blathering about being anti-establishment, climbed in bed with the GOPe and pulled up the sheet. Emails were sent out by not only the Trump campaign, but also the [hated] GOPe leadership, to vote against anything that Morton Blackwell, et al, proposed and stand behind long standing establishment types like Steve Duprey, Haley Barbour, John Ryder and Randy Evans (ed. I’m sure you know exactly who ALL those people are without having to look them up, right?). Trump, and his lackey, Reince Priebus, just made the RNC LESS grassroots and MORE [hated] establishment.

We do understand that you, (like many of the establishment elite,) don’t want the voters to decide who the nominee will be.

While you love to trumpet (again, sorry for the pun) how Trump garnered a record 14 million votes, you refuse to admit he also garnered a record 16 million voters who rejected him. And if you think that gaining less than 44% of the vote is the voice of the base, that is nothing more than pure and simple spin. If Trump deserves the nomination because he took a plurality of less than 44% of the popular vote, then why wasn’t William Boran, Thomas Dewey and Douglas MacArthur the Republican nominee?

As the Conservative Republican Base have made very clear in this primary season, haughty, arrogant, “screw-the-base” Republicans like you are part of the problem,

No, you “roll over” voters are the problem. You are just not honest enough to admit it.

Trump will be the nominee, or the base will revolt, because they are fed-up with being ignored, and they will not take another slap in the face by a handful of faithless political cheats

What is this “base” you ramble on about? If you think it is the conservative wing of the RNC, they just got shot down last Thursday when Trump linked arms with the GOPe. And you have done nothing but cheer that loss.

I gave you fact/historical data. You present nothing but idiotic commentary. Now, I understand that you can’t argue against historical fact, so you are reduced to talking points and lobbing insults to try to make your argument.

Reince Priebus is worried he is going to lose his job. So he has willing climbed into bed with the carnival barker. And you are just to ill informed to understand that.

When you respond to me, Ditto, please do try to stick with the facts as things actually happen and not with emotion filled, uninformed commentary.

@retire05:

But you fail to acknowledge that national party rules trump (pardon the pun) state party rules, just as state party rules trump county party rules. So if the national party changes rules for a new convention, the states are bound to honor them.

Uh, no. The states are not at all “bound to honor them.” The States can continue to demand that their delegates honor their promise, If the rules are changed at the national level and Delegates refuse to honor the promise they made to their home state (and in doing so betray their promise to their State party and it’s base voters,) they can be barred from the state party from ever again being made a delegate.

But the Trump campaign, for all Trump’s blathering about being anti-establishment, climbed in bed with the GOPe and pulled up the sheet.

And you refuse to acknowledge that the #NeverTrump and #FreeTheDelegates movements are both mostly made up of GOPe establishment “progressives” and sour-grapes Cruz supporters. Which are you?

Yes, some of the establishment RNC party leaders are in damage control mode, and trying hard to keep the party from imploding from your misguided movement’s ‘nuclear’ plan to ‘stop Trump at all costs, even if it means destroying the party.’ Yes, some of those leaders are establishment. That in of itself does not support your claim that ‘Trump climbed into bed with the establishment’ wing of the party. Some (not all) of the establishment leadership recognize that they need to pull the party in line under a single candidate. They are putting aside their establishment yearnings in order to keep the party from further fragmenting.

The establishment politicians and spiteful Cruz supporters you align yourself with are a petulant gang of whiners who would rather destroy the party, than suffer uniting the party under Trump, whom you hate. Which of their ilk are you? Cruz supporter or Establishment Wonk? You have continually refused to say whom you stand for.

it was not the “Convention” Committee, but the Rules Committee.

You are correct there, and the Rules Committee rejected the idiotic #NeverTrump – #ReleaseTheDelegate – Retire05 attempt to deny the will of the voters through an ill-concieved ‘nuclear’ plot. You lost.

While you love to trumpet (again, sorry for the pun) how Trump garnered a record 14 million votes, you refuse to admit he also garnered a record 16 million voters who rejected him.

Who is this mythical candidate that you seem to think the other 16 Million want instead of Trump? There isn’t one, admit it. The #NeverTrump or #FreeTheDelegates movements, which are a small minority of the GOP, does not represent this other 16 Million of the base, and your propaganda pretending that the two discredited moments does, is pure hyperbole. All those two movements represent are their own selfish the-end-justifies-the-means agenda. and not what the other 16-Million of the GOP want. So get of your insufferable high horse and recognize that your sniveling convention coup plan has failed With 17 candidates, it was clear that no candidate would receive a simple majority of the base. Trump did however win a simple majority of the delegates, which is what is required to win. Chew on those facts.

You will support Trump and you will like it. (Or maybe you won’t like it. But you will support him anyway.) I like the “in the opinion of the chair” part. It always helps to shut off your opponents’ microphones and kill the audio from the floor.

@Greg:

You will support Trump and you will like it.

No Greg, it is ‘you will vote as you promised your home state you would and as you were instructed by your constituents.’ That is what Republicanism means.

Republicans hold that a political system must be founded upon the rule of law, the rights of individuals, and the sovereignty of the people. It is also closely connected to the idea of civic virtue, the responsibility citizens owe to their republic, and to opposition to corruption, or the use of public power to benefit the politician.

Pretty hypocritical of you, as a shrill from a party with thousands of elite super-delegates whom can over-ride what the base of their party wants.

What you’re talking about there is pure democracy. Republicanism involves selecting people to represent your interests, not to do exactly as a majority commands. It provides a mechanism that prevents the majority from always imposing its will upon the minority.

What you just saw was the republican party establishment in action, suppressing dissenting opinion in the ranks.

@Ditto:

,

If the rules are changed at the national level and Delegates refuse to honor the promise they made to their home state (and in doing so betray their promise to their State party and it’s base voters,) they can be barred from the state party from ever again being made a delegate.

Tell me, Ditto, just how many times have you been a delegate to your state convention or the national convention because you are painfully ignorant of the rules. A state cannot bar anyone from being a delegate if they are legally elected at their state convention and meet all the rules as certified by the Credentials Committee. Stop showing how ill informed you are before you really embarrass yourself.

And you refuse to acknowledge that the #NeverTrump and #FreeTheDelegates movements are both mostly made up of GOPe establishment “progressives” and sour-grapes Cruz supporters. Which are you?

Really? So Ken Cuccinelli is part of the GOPe establishment? Really, even after he has repeatedly said he is supporting Trump? My God, man, do you even understand what happened on the convention floor today? My guess is you are clueless about what was even going on.

Trump did however win a simple majority of the delegates, which is what is required to win. Chew on those facts.

Trump hasn’t, in fact, won a damn thing yet. The vote has not been taken. And here’s a little tid-bit to stick in your pipe; the delegates who don’t like being strong armed like they were today, including Trump delegates, and denied a duly required roll call vote, can refuse to vote by abstaining on the first vote. Trump didn’t win anyone over today by having the RNC disenfranchise even Trump supporters.

Now, get back to me when you fully comprehend how things really work, not your pie-in-the-sky b/s which only shows just how clueless you really are.

Lets see who is not there. Mac, Romney, Bush 1 and 2, Dr Paul, Rabbi who married Trump’s daughter, Gov. Kasich. Present and speaking are reps. from Happy Days and Duck Dynasty.

Anything good on HBO?

Speaking later this evening on republican family values… Our next First Lady.

Perhaps it’s time for a break with tradition.

@Greg: Great pic. What’s she wearing tonight? HBO can wait. Thanks Greg.

@retire05: 37,

they just got shot down last Thursday when Trump linked arms with the GOPe.

I think you mis-interpreted what happened that day. The GOPe attempted to link with Trump. Trump didn’t attempt to link with anyone. This whole thread has me laughing.
When there are 17 candidates and one of them get’s 44% of the vote, that means the other 16 got an average of less that 3% each. So you prefer someone with an average of 2.8% compared with 44?

When the GOPe saw that they had lost, they decided to salvage what they could and begin to support Trump.

There is no one in the whole wide world that would make a worse president than Hillary (no you can’t name Obama, he’s no longer eligible, not that he ever was), so since the election in November is going to be either Hillary or Trump, you only have to decide whether you want to have the USA go completely to hell with Hillary or maybe have a better outcome with someone else.

I see that as a rather easy choice, but apparently some don’t ‘see’ the same way I do and don’t really care if the USA goes to hell or not. No one else, of significance will be on the ballot. Hillary or Trump.

@Richard Wheeler:

Lets see who is not there. Mac, Romney, Bush 1 and 2,

Mac and Romney, good, they figured out how to blow the last two elections, we don’t need their advice.

Dr Paul, Rabbi who married Trump’s daughter, Gov. Kasich.

Who the hell is Dr Paul? Was the Rabbi invited? Maybe Trump didn’t want him there.

What’s she wearing tonight? HBO can wait. Thanks Greg.

What a strange thing for someone known for wearing assless chaps in public to say.

Do republicans that trumpery is a word? They might want to look up the definition.

@Redteam:

I think you mis-interpreted what happened that day.

I didn’t mis-interpret a damn thing, RT. I know exactly what happened.

The GOPe attempted to link with Trump. Trump didn’t attempt to link with anyone.

Bull. Trump is pandering to Reince Priebus, who is trying to hold on to his job. But we all know Priebus’ track record; two losses already under his belt going for #3.

This whole thread has me laughing.

That’s what people who really don’t know what is going on do, RT. They laugh to hide their ignorance.

So you prefer someone with an average of 2.8% compared with 44?

See my post #33.

you only have to decide whether you want to have the USA go completely to hell with Hillary or maybe have a better outcome with someone else.

Poison is poison no matter the type. Trump will prove to be a horrible president, and I’m not willing to back the orange-faced carnival barker who is simply a publicity wh0re.

I see that as a rather easy choice, but apparently some don’t ‘see’ the same way I do and don’t really care if the USA goes to hell or not.

Those that care just got run over by the Trump GOPe bus today. You should be sooooo proud.

And who pushed through a rule that allowed the Romney GOPe to shut down the grass roots in 2012? Paul Manafort ring a bell?

@retire05:

Poison is poison no matter the type. Trump will prove to be a horrible president, and I’m not willing to back the orange-faced carnival barker who is simply a publicity wh0re.

Ok, here’s your question and give an honest answer. If there are two pills, and you have to take one of them and you know that one of them is deadly poison and the other has a 50%-50% (or pick any percentage). You would say that it would make no difference to you which one you take?

See my post #33.

That didn’t answer the question, in fact, it didn’t even avoid the question.

Those that care just got run over by the Trump GOPe bus today. You should be sooooo proud.

Why? I’ve never said I was on the Trump bus, I’ve only said I would be on the Republican bus as long as it has an eligible candidate. I will not be on the Hillary bus either. Is that really that hard to understand?

And who pushed through a rule that allowed the Romney GOPe to shut down the grass roots in 2012? Paul Manafort ring a bell?

This is 2016. Why live in the past?

I didn’t mis-interpret a damn thing, RT. I know exactly what happened.

Okay so when are you going to talk about that?