More and more it appears we will have a contested convention and there will be rule changes at the convention.  It’s likely the 8 state threshold will be cast aside so that someone other than Trump can secure the nomination. Currently Cruz has not yet met the threshold of 8 states and Trump is well past it with 20 states.  (While Cruz has won 9 states, in three of those he won with a plurality, not a majority.) Meanwhile Governor Kasich has won exactly one state, his own, Ohio.  So why is he still in the race when he can’t possibly meet the 8 state threshold now necessary for a nomination at the convention?
From thehill.com,
“Reality check: Kasich is running to force a contested convention so the Republican establishment can pick the candidate, instead of the voters. Kasich is staying in the race to thwart the democratic process: all that voting, all those special trips folks made to the polls. All those “I Voted” stickers people posted pictures of on social media — they’re all for show.
Â
If he succeeds, one man — Kasich — will have had more say in who wins the nomination than the voice of tens of millions of voters. Political parties like it this way. That’s why Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is winning a close election in the other primary. It’s all about the super delegates. It’s like Curly Haugland of the RNC Rules Committee said, “The political parties choose their nominees, not the general public.”
Louisiana is but one state where their primary may not matter at all, after taxpayers paid $3.5 million to vote. In the Louisiana primary Trump won over Cruz by 11,000 votes,  3.6%, and yet it may not matter. Their delegate counts are the same, 18.  There are 5 unbound party officials who are likely to back Cruz and Rubio’s delegates are likely to do the same.  Cruz could win the Louisiana delegation by 10 delegates.  Why did the people of Louisiana even bother to vote? As expected, Trump is threatening to sue the Republican party over Louisiana’s rules.Â
Ted Cruz is objecting to a change the 8 state rule,
“I think that would be a terrible idea for the Washington power brokers to change the rules, because they’re unhappy with the candidates who the voters are voting for,” Cruz told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday. “It was the Washington establishment that put this rule in place. So now when the Washington establishment candidates are losing, they want to change the rules to try to parachute in some candidate who hasn’t earned the votes of the people. That is nothing short of crazy.”
“ConventionFacts.gop is a tool for voters to learn about convention delegates, rules, and how the overall process works in a simple, easy to understand format,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement provided to the Washington Examiner. “Conventions are democracy in action and our Party’s gathering in Cleveland will be an exciting, transparent, and fair process.”
The end result may make Governor Kasich the Kingmaker at the convention after having won one state, or possibly two, if he carries Pennsylvania, which is doubtful but possible. Â
22 comments
I guess that I would be disturbed if the RNC suddenly changed the rules to the detriment of a candidate who won fair and square. However, what happens if we go a few ballots and the convention is deadlocked? Does it go to an elimination round? Or might it make sense to change the rules at that point? (I am asking respectfully here.)
The only guarantee of any rules manipulation is the resultant permanent exodus of voters from the party. Why vote when Corporate United owns the game?
No… next question.
And the rules in Louisiana were known before the voting and have not changed. Trump’s ignorance of those rules does not mean the system was rigged and, therefore, he can sue.
Hail President Hillary! It’s sad the RNC would rather her than the current frontrunners. What about US?
Aah, dawn finally breaks over the The Bull Elephant and months of Trumps rants and Cruz as savior pieces can be put aside and the real issue pops to the surface. This was and has been the national party and establishment end game for some time now, at least as long as Jeb Bush was clearly not every going to be capable of securing the nomination for them. The only missing piece is that Kasich is really nothing more then a convenient stalking horse to assist, along with Cruz, the denial of any chance, of any candidate reaching the 1237 delegate count. He is no heir apparent to the establishment crown. That individual has not been surfaced yet but will be in an orchestrated event on the convention floor with oodles and oodles of phony surprise, genned up enthusiasm and professional stage craft.
For conservatives (whatever that may currently mean) that couldn’t figure this out for themselves earlier, the finally irony here may be that you not only are potentially thwarted from seeing the final candidate group individual you support every seeing the nomination but you won’t even extract any admission from the party establishment that policies and treatment of the base that led to the Trump/Cruz events are anything they need to correct or even address with the working and middle class Republican voter.
A conservatism this politically stupid desires to die and the sooner the better so something can be put in place that is actually effective in some manner. For those of you that will resist to the bitter end, clinging to the Trump/Cruz rant cycle, particularly if it denies Trump the initial nomination delegate count, just understand whose game you are playing, as I’m sure the national party is very appreciative, as well as, Hillary Clinton. Any tangible benefits on immigration, trade and budget that were at least possibilities will be in effect gone. Some achievement.
I agree. Not Trump or Cruz. But who? Any thoughts, names?
Let me get this straight, conservatives rightly objected to instituting the 8 state threshold in 2012 and said that it should be changed. However, now that it benefits us, we want to keep it?
I’m sorry, but I’m not going along with that hypocrisy. I didn’t like the eight state threshold in 2012 and I don’t like it in 2016.
That is all well and good, but there is also the point that the rules of a game should not be changed in the middle of that game.
Also worth noting… even under the old rules it is likely that only Trump and Cruz would qualify for consideration at the Convention.
Trump has already qualified under rule 40(b), Cruz may very well not given the remaining delegate states prior to convention, as the rule requires a majority win not a simple plurality.
Cruz very likely will… and Louisiana will be one of his quaifying states.
So far, Cruz has a majority of delegates in Kansas, Idaho, Maine, Texas and Utah. He has 9 of the 10 delegates allocated thus far in Wyoming and will likely win the vast majority of the 29 delegates in that state. He will also likely take Wisconsin which is winner take all so that is seven right there.
Cruz may also pick up a majority of delegates in Minnesota depending on whether Rubio get to keep his majority after suspending his campaign (and depending on how good Cruz’s delegate recruiting game is in that state). Even if he doesn’t, and even if Louisiana’s reported delegate breakdown is wrong, Cruz only needs one more state after Wisconsin.
Assuming Louisiana’s reported delegate breakdown is correct, and Cruz has managed to get all of the at large and Rubio delegates, Louisiana puts him over the top for majority states and everything else is gravy.
Just curious, do the territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) count in Rule 40? Also, I think North Dakota has caucuses or something this weekend. Maybe Cruz could benefit from that one as he has done well in the upper Midwest?
The rule explicitly says states so I don’t think territories count but I could be wrong. If I am, Cruz also could likely count Guam in his category. Even though their delegates are officially unbound, I understand they support Cruz.
North Dakota’s delegates are also unbound but could likely similarly count if a majority pledged their support.
Thanks, AmyH. I was wondering since the territorial delegations do have votes that count towards the 1,237 majority, right?
Territories count but you musr have a majority delegate win, plurality awards do not qualify against the rule.
Like I said, a strict reading of the rules excludes territories as they are not states but both Trump and Cruz will easily qualify without territories anyway.
Interestingly, the rules do not require that a majority of delegates from a state to be bound to the candidate in order for that state to count toward the 8. The rules only require that a candidate be able to demonstrate majority support… so, for instance, if Cruz can get statements of intent to support him from a majority of the ND delegation, that state would count toward his 8 even though the delegates are officially unbound.
Rule 40 and paragraph B read strictly says the candidates qualified to appear on the nominating ballots must win a majority of delegates in at least eight states.
The paragraph reads:
(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established.
A strict reading of this to me would not imply that a “statement of intent to support” from an unbound delegate would solely suffice. “A “certificate” evidencing the affirmative of written support of a “seated” delegate as the rule reads does not seem to me to imply a simple letter of intent from an unbound delegate prior to being seated. You may be correct but I don’t believe it would be an unchallenged slam dunk to proceed on that interpretation of the rule.
The “certificate” mentioned is generated by a campaign and provided to the secretary of the convention. It is not something that a campaign has to obtain from a third party.
Morton Blackwell, a rules committee member from Virginia who has served on every Convention Rules Committee since 1972, and who is a proven conservative leader and activist, also wanted the rule changed, but he now says it’s too late and a change would be unwise. That’s good enough for me.
First David, he is only one of a hundred members of the national Rules Committee that is comprised of 2 individuals from each state and he chairs no sub committee that I am aware of, second, he is incorrect that change regarding rules of the convention is to late. The committee meets the week of July 11th a week prior to convention startup so any change recommended and approved by the national party could be easily implemented prior to convention. That he believes it unwise does in no manner make it unlikely. I respect your opinion that his advice is good enough for you, but to me one person’s position on a committee of one hundred, is just that, one person’s opinion. As they say at the poker table “being lulled is the first step in being played”.
Fair enough, but the comment I was addressing was whether to change the rule or no, not the odds of it being changed. I wouldn’t wager on that event anymore than I’d get involved in a poker game at a casino; I’ll just stick with my nickel slot and a Rob Roy.
There is no precedent or will to change the rules drastically enough to put anyone but Cruz and Trump into the running. Additionally, the delegates have to vote on the rules and would likely not accept them if they had radical and unprecedented changes.
For the record, I think the changes to rule 40 were terrible (especially egregious was the change in part d that doesn’t even allow the votes for people that don’t qualify under part b to be counted) BUT these rules are what everyone knew about going in, changing them back to the old pre-2012 rules will likely not allow any other candidates besides Trump and Cruz to qualify, and opening them up for change will just make a difficult election cycle worse.