Donald Trump said that 1,237 was just an arbitrary "random number." Like many things Trump says this is simply false. The minimum number of delegates required to have a majority of the delegates, that is, more than 50%, is the number 1,237. Even if a candidate wins only 1,237 delegates before the convention, with almost 50% of the delegates opposed to his nomination, that candidate still wins because he has the majority.
But what happens if no one reaches that magic number? In that case, of course, no one has a majority, and when no one has the majority, the delegates decide for themselves who will be the nominee for the party. And that decision should be made based on the delegates' judgment as to what is best for the party and for the country, and not simply who has "the most votes and the most delegates."
This is called a "contested" convention, and it is "contested" because a majority has expressed opposition to all of the candidates. To give the nomination automatically to the candidate who has the most votes or the most delegates would be to thwart the will of the majority and to validate a minority. Some elections allow a minority to win for offices of lesser import, but for the highest office in the land, the election is too important to let it end at that point.
If the delegates are bound to select the candidate with "the most votes and the most delegates," why speak of a "contested convention" at all? There would be no contest. Simply grant the win to the plurality winner automatically, and forget the majority. That is what Sean Hannity and others at this point want because they think that is the path that would benefit the candidate of their choice.
Unfortunately, for Ted Cruz, the question is not just a matter of selecting one of the top two delegate winners either. He speaks of what the current rules are, and about "big-wigs" changing the rules before the convention, but the rules that exist before the convention are never the rules that govern a convention. At every convention, the rules are discussed and agreed upon by the delegates (not the "big-wigs") that will govern the course of the convention.
In the case of 2016, if the convention is contested, the most likely outcome will be a decision between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz since both will likely come into the convention with delegate numbers close to 1,237. While the delegates will not necessarily be bound (after the first or second ballot) to vote for either of these candidates, it is not likely that they could ignore the large support of both of the candidates.
However, if in their judgment neither candidate can win in November, it would be foolish for them not to consider a more viable name, if such exists. If a large number of delegates could rally around such a name, and it becomes impossible to get a majority vote for either Cruz or Trump, a different name could be nominated and win at the convention for the good of the party.
No one would be taking the election away from either Cruz or Trump in this scenario because you cannot take something away from someone that he does not have. Trump's talk of violence at the convention if he doesn't win is unpresidential. Cruz seems to be saying something similar, and that is similarly wrong-headed.
Many efforts have been spent by conservative Republicans to prevent Donald Trump from winning a majority of delegates before the convention. If that effort succeeds, Trump will reach the convention with less than 1,237 votes. His supporters know this, and they know that the effort is likely to succeed. When they argue that the candidate with "the most votes and the most delegates" should necessarily win the nomination, they are trying to impose a de facto rule that is contrary the way nominations have been decided for years, and they are trying to impose the will of a minority on the rest of the party.
Republican leaders should take note of that effort. It is right to oppose that thinking and nip it in the bud now.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome but monitored for appropriate content.