CNN: Trump win ends talk of contested GOP convention

So much for a historic convention floor fight in Cleveland this summer.

The prospect of a contested Republican convention captivated party officials, political junkies and the media for months -- sending everyone to the rulebooks for a refresher on how the nomination process works.
That's all a pipe dream now.

Donald Trump emerged Tuesday as the GOP's presumptive 2016 nominee following a commanding win in Indiana and Ted Cruz's decision to drop out of the race. Trump said he spoke with Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus Tuesday night. And the chairman, who has had a contentious relationship with Trump, made clear the real estate mogul would be at the top of the ticket in November.
Trump win ends talk of contested GOP convention

Some people on this forum want to claim that a contested convention could have been justified because "the US is not a democracy." The following is my answer to that:

IMHO, delegates are irrelevant until they're unbound. As far as I can surmise, until delegates are unbound they must follow the relevant regulations of the state where they're from.

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.
Republican delegate rules by state, 2016

By enacting the above regulations, the states have made the USA a quasi-democracy at the party level in the primary process. In a union of states, who else but the states should determine such things?

Labeling the USA as a "democracy", a "republic", or simply a corporation means nothing when it all comes down to the laws that must be followed. The relevant laws determine what is to be done. Labels are irrelevant.

I think there is a good chance that the GOP is already holding brainstorming meetings to make sure this never happens again. By 2020 they will have new rules to make sure that the party picks the candidate and not the voters.

Or maybe Trump will manage to get them to see the light. Maybe they will see how great this worked out. Or at the very least, perhaps he can get them to change the primary rules so they are more fair to the voters with less opportunity for insider delegates to override the will of voters in some states.

I don't understand whats so complicated, why not a person casts a vote, it gets counted and who ever gets the most wins?

originally posted by: Brotherman
I don't understand whats so complicated, why not a person casts a vote, it gets counted and who ever gets the most wins?

There's no reason it can't be that way ... except that TPTB don't want that.

The electorate is a holdover from a time when slavery was cool. Now that's topic material for ATS!!

a reply to: Snarl

In a way that's true, but it did not have to do specifically with slavery.

The original selection rules were created at a time when people did not have the information to make a selection. There was no Internet, no TV, no radio, and newspapers were not common. There was no way to get the information to people, especially in rural areas.

Although the rules changed a bit over time to allow more people to be involved, they retained rules which allow the elite party members to have some control.

On the Democrat side, they have said the Super Delegates exist intentionally to prevent an insurgent from gaining nomination. That is what Sanders is justifiably complaining about. He might win without the Super Delegates.

On the Republican side, they actually tightened some rules when they were scared at the rise of Paul. This is how the 8 state winner minimum came about. It is also why Colorado changed the rules last summer to not allow voters to vote at all. Only delegates could vote in Colorado this year. There are still other states with rules that allow unbound delegates to decide regardless of who the voters choose.

These archaic rules might have been necessary long ago, but people have enough information to make the decision now, and the rules need to change.

The GOP was fully prepared to take this to a brokered convention, but realized Trump had lots of support within the party and they faced a potential mutiny within their ranks if they took the nomination away from Trump.

So they voted not to change the convention rules and are willing to lose this election by nominating Trump. They have learned their lesson and will have to see what happened here so that it doesn't happen again.

a reply to: introvert

I wouldn't put it past the GOP to find another way to keep Trump out. Many of them would rather have Hillary, because at least, she knows what she's doing. Trump is clueless and It will be very interesting to see what he does if he gets elected...

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: introvert

I wouldn't put it past the GOP to find another way to keep Trump out. Many of them would rather have Hillary, because at least, she knows what she's doing. Trump is clueless and It will be very interesting to see what he does if he gets elected...

I wouldn't put anything past the GOP, but would they be willing to face the backlash that would occur if they steamroll Trump?

Their party is already fractured. Something like that could be the final straw.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Many of them would rather have Hillary, because at least, she knows what she's doing. 

If anythingn Hilary's stint as Secretary of State would contradict your contention. She has proven herself to be completely incompetent at best and possibly a criminal as well.

a reply to: Metallicus

If anythingn Hilary's stint as Secretary of State would contradict your contention. She has proven herself to be completely incompetent at best and possibly a criminal as well.

You think that because you believe the propaganda that has been spread. She actually did a decent job as SoS.

The problem is that people just can't get past the Benghazi witch hunt, in which she was cleared of any wrongdoing.

originally posted by: introvert
I wouldn't put anything past the GOP, but would they be willing to face the backlash that would occur if they steamroll Trump?

It would all depend on who they DID put forth and how it worked out. For example, if they DID get rid of Trump and put Paul Ryan in the seat, a LOT of Republicans would be happy and the anger about steamrolling Trump would be just the same as the anger about steamrolling Ron Paul. In 2020, the people would practically forget about it. After all, those who supported Ron Paul are now voting for whoever the GOP puts forth...

Their party is already fractured. Something like that could be the final straw.

We can hope.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If anythingn Hilary's stint as Secretary of State would contradict your contention. She has proven herself to be completely incompetent at best and possibly a criminal as well.

Yeah, I don't believe everything I hear, especially all the propaganda, but have fun with it.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Metallicus

If anythingn Hilary's stint as Secretary of State would contradict your contention. She has proven herself to be completely incompetent at best and possibly a criminal as well.

You think that because you believe the propaganda that has been spread. She actually did a decent job as SoS.

The problem is that people just can't get past the Benghazi witch hunt, in which she was cleared of any wrongdoing.

I was upset that 4 Americans were considered "collateral damage" in Bengazi, but that's not my call to make. I was just an enlisted puke with no power, so I only knew the simple things like "never leave a man behind".

But the current issues with her mishandling classified documents seems to be a much bigger problem in the context of ever prosecuting another person for the same thing, should she skate on this. The precedent that could be set is frightening and might allow treason to go unpunished in the future. But what do I know.

a reply to: network dude

It's hard to put the email issue in proper perspective because we really do not have enough information to even speculate.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

It's hard to put the email issue in proper perspective because we really do not have enough information to even speculate.

Well, the information we do have, the e-mails presented through the FOIA are enough to show (at least to someone who used to be held accountable to the UCMJ) wrongdoing did indeed occur. But if she is exonerated, that could be used in the future to be a defense against the same kind of crime. It's a slippery slope to be sure.