On social media you see a lot of people saying that this candidate or that candidate is “stealing delegates.” There is no such thing. First of all, it implies something illegal, or at best, nefarious. It is neither. Secondly, there is no way you can “steal” delegates.

When people talk about stealing delegates they are displaying their ignorance about how the system works. Just as Donald Trump displayed his ignorance when he claimed that he should be the candidate because he had more votes than any other candidate, but not a majority. Reince Priebus had to call Trump into a special private meeting so he could explain how the delegate system works and what the rules are for the Republican convention. Trump is no longer making that claim.

So here is how the delegate system works. In most states, delegates are selected by the campaign of a candidate. For example, I have been selected to be a delegate for the Cruz campaign in California. If Ted Cruz wins a majority of votes in my Congressional District, I will go to the convention as a Cruz delegate. In California, you are committed to vote for the candidate whose campaign selected you for the first two ballots. After that you are “unbound.” There are some states where the delegates are only committed to vote for their candidate for the first ballot. There are some states, like Colorado, where the delegates go to the convention “unbound,” and can vote for any candidate on the first ballot. By the third ballot all delegates are unbound and can vote for any candidate.

What some people refer to as “stealing” is a practice that has gone on since the formation of the Republican Party in the early 19th Century. Smart candidates who know the system will try to get delegates to vote for them after the first or second ballots. All delegates are typically contacted by candidates other than the candidate whose campaign selected them, and asked to commit that, if their candidate isn’t selected on the first ballot, or the second ballot, they will vote for candidate “x” on subsequent ballots.  I am personally committed to vote for Senator Cruz for every ballot, no matter how many, so another candidate would be wasting his time trying to get me to commit to vote for him in subsequent ballots.  However there are some delegates who do make those commitments. The mainstream media (read: the Democrat Party press) call this long-time political process “stealing” delegates. The fact that Senator Cruz has been successful in getting delegates from other candidates to commit to him on subsequent ballots isn’t “stealing.” The fact that the Trump campaign hasn’t been successful is because they weren’t familiar with how the system works. Trump hasn’t had a campaign staff that is really familiar with how to round up delegates, or the inner workings of the Republican Party.

You also hear comments that the “Establishment” is rigging the convention so that Trump can’t be the candidate. There is no way they can do that. Yes, there are some uncommitted delegate positions that the RNC, and State parties have who will vote the way they are told to, but they are a minority of delegates and couldn’t sway an election.

The way it works is that the candidate is not nominated by a vote of the people. The people elect the delegates. The delegates nominate the candidate. There is no way the election can be “rigged.” At the convention, 2,472 individual delegates will vote. If no candidate receives a majority of votes on the first ballot it will go to a second ballot, and to successive ballots until one candidate emerges with a majority. That candidate will be the nominee for the Party. The voting is transparent. It will be an above-board system which will fairly nominate a candidate for the Party who has the support of a majority of delegates.

 

 

 

75 thoughts on “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “STEALING” DELEGATES

  1. It is time to demand fairness and transparency from your state’s two members (one man and one woman) on the RNC Standing Committee on Rules.

    The first rule that needs to be adopted by the RNC Rules Committee in convention is that all assigned delegates must stay with their assigned candidates until released by said candidate.

    Secondly, a rule that should be adopted would require (if no candidate reaches the majority number of delegates) the candidate with the least number of delegates to releases their delegates first to either become uncommitted delegates or assign themselves to another candidate as a committed delegate once again. If this fails to propel a candidate over the required majority, the second candidate with the least number of delegates release their committed delegates. If this fails to establish the necessary number of delegates. This process continues until the last candidate fails to win the majority number of delegates and releases their delegates. The floor is now open for a convention nominee.

    Super, uncommitted, unassigned, and at-large delegates can only participate when the nomination is open to the floor.

    I would suggest, if you like it and can think of any more suggestions to make this process fair and transparent, which is now the key to winning the next presidential election; IMHO, do it now. When it is finished, we will turn it into a “Motion”, to be presented to each state convention, to be proposed either via the RNC Standing Committee on Rules or by the delegates themselves in convention.

    Like

    1. Would never work. Why because if they stayed with that candidate, no one would reach 50% +1 delegate.

      Like

      1. To me our votes are represented by delegates, if someone convinces them to vote for someone else, I don’t care how you put it, only common sense tells me you are disenfranchising the ones who voted. That Sir, is Stealing my vote and giving it to someone else! You cannot convince me other wise with your double talk!

        Like

    2. Good suggestion, but I would add they should no longer award all the delegates for a state to the candidate with the highest percentage of the votes. It allows one candidate out of a great number of candidates (such as earlier this year) to win all delegates when they only won a small amount of delegates (not the majority). I don’t want a candidate who only won 27% of the caucus votes to represent all of a states delegates.

      Like

      1. You are right. The Constitution doesn’t mention caucuses. It says nothing about how candidates are elected. All states had caucuses until the early 20th Century when they started to have party primary elections where parties selected their candidates in that state. Some states never went from the caucus form of selecting candidates to primary elections. The original caucuses from the early 18th century were neighbors gathering in a local pub to choose a candidate.

        Like

      2. I agree and furthermore, you can Steal delegates. As a delegate in 2008 and 2012, I witnessed this in Michigan we had a plethora of delegates more than we have ever had. people who had educated themselves and had decided Ron Paul was what we needed to end the repetitive hypocrisy. The rules were changed from the township level up and it became impossible for this large number of delegates all for Ron Paul (we far outnumbered the Romney Delegates) to be represented at the county and then state level. This happened across the country, and when that wasn’t working they changed the rules to a plurality of states must be one. The jig is up, the vote is fixed.

        Like

    3. The first suggestion is faulty because it gives ultimate power to said candidate. If he/she is a narcissist, then he/she just isn’t releasing at LEAST until late in the game when the pressure is on.

      The second suggestion is faulty because it merely FORCES candidates who finished lower in delegates to FORCE their delegates to support another candidate who similarly DID NOT WIN by convention rules.

      There is simply nothing wrong with a delegate becoming a free agent and listening to a candidate articulate what they stand for. If they can, great. If they can’t. Too bad.

      Like

    4. I’m sure there are a lot of things that each of us would like to see changed, but nothing should be changed for THIS election! Changing any rules in mid stream opens the door to accusations of cheating. AFTER this election is the time to speak to your state party representatives about changing the way delegates are selected and unbound at the convention.

      Like

      1. The rules committee has not finalized the rules yet. They are waiting to see what the rules need to be for the desired outcome.

        Like

    5. THE CONSTITUTION STATES THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DELEGATES WILL REPRESENT THE VOTERS WHE VOTED FOR THEIR CANDIDATE IT DOESNT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ONLY ONE VOTE THEN CHANGE ETC . IT ALSO STATES WE ALL PRIMARY ON THE SAME DAY I DIDNT SEE CAUCUS NOR SOME STATES MORE IMPORTNAT THAN OTHER. ALL MADE UP AND WHEN DID THE GOP BECOME PRIVATE I DIDNT SEE ANY AMENDMENTS MAKING NEW LAWS . CORRUPTED THAT IS WHAT IT IS

      Like

      1. I think you have Republican Party delegates confused with Electoral College Electors. The Constitution says nothing about primary elections. The GOP has always been a private political party. Political parties can set their own rules.

        Like

    1. So the article headline says “stealing” and “rigging” but if you read the article you will see that it is saying the same thing I am. The candidate campaigns have to know the rules and how to play the game. Those who understand the process are more successful than those who don’t.

      Like

      1. I like that even you refer to this process as a game! Truer words have not been spoken. The fact that we need delegates at all has always puzzeled me, or the term “super” delegates…….why not just go by overall votes by state and divide proportionately or would that be too transparent? After seeing where Hillary and Bernie ended up with 105% of the votes in one state and then in Wisconsin with the total number of votes so extreme compared to total votes for Republicans in 2008 and 2012…….I can’t see anything being more transparent serving any good……

        Like

      2. So let me understand this, are you saying that the candidate with the popular vote of the people will not necessarily be the nominee due to the game played with the delegates? If that is the case then why bother voting? I vote for one candidate who may be the candidate chosen by the people but the delegates make up my mind for me? Again I ask, if my vote doesn’t count why bother voting? Same question for the general election. I don’t see how this process benefits the “will of the people”. I’ve been voting for 40 years thinking my vote really mattered….fool I am.

        Like

  2. I do not agree that this was well thought out. Look at the insanity from Governor John Kasich. Would he EVER release his delegates? Getting a few people like him could mean we NEVER have a candidate and Clinton wins without a contest. The purpose in each state having rules is to bring it closer to the people. Some have rules saying vote a certain way for one vote, some for two votes, others even more, but some have ZERO committed votes. This is decided by the STATE sending the delegates, not by the national party. And I would prefer it kept OUT of their hands and also not given to crazy people like Kasich. It belongs to the people of eachj state and it should STAY there.

    Like

    1. You understand that Kasich doesn’t have to actually release his delegates, right? Depending on the State they are automatically released after one or two ballots.

      Like

  3. Yes, that is the way it is. I was responding to Mr. Farrar’s suggestion that this be changed. I think it is a VERY bad idea.

    Like

  4. “In most states, delegates are selected by the campaign of a candidate. For example, I have been selected to be a delegate for the Cruz campaign in California. If Ted Cruz wins a majority of votes in my Congressional District, I will go to the convention as a Cruz delegate ” Later in the article, “The people elect the delegates” Which is it? Or is it different in each state? Would it make more sense to be consistent?

    Like

    1. When someone in my district votes for Ted Cruz, they are actually voting for the delegates in that district to go to the convention and vote for Ted Cruz, at least on the first ballot. So the people are electing delegates who will represent them at the convention.

      Like

  5. After reading this….it does help explain some thing. However, I’m left with the feeling that what we have is still not a system of true democratic republic. Why can’t we eliminate the “delegates” and just go with the vote of the people? I’m more and more convinced the system is rigged, that the people do not truly decide and the “party” pulls the strings. Please convince (educate) me otherwise.

    Like

    1. As I answered in a previous comment, our Founders were determined to form a republic, not a democracy. They wanted to avoid the tyranny of the majority. So Presidents are not elected by popular vote. When you vote for President in November you are really voting for Electors who will vote for the President in the Electoral College. The same here. You vote for delegates, who in their collective wisdom at the Convention will vote for the nominee.

      Like

      1. Collective wisdom? Give me a break.
        Seems like the President is chisen by using common core math! And … Political correctness? No wisdom there at all.

        Like

  6. If candidate’s campaigns choose the delegates, and state rules determine the nature of their being `bound’, then how can one conclude that the `people’ elect the delegates. I am still unclear on that.

    Like

    1. When the members of a political party vote in a party primary they are voting for delegates who will be bound to support that candidate at the convention. It isn’t a direct vote for the candidate. Read the Republican Party rules in your State.

      Like

  7. I’m curious to know just when and how the people elect the delegates. I have never voted for a delegate from my state that I am aware of. To me the fairest way would be to let ALL the people vote in ALL 50 states and then the candidate that has the majority of the votes wins and becomes the nominee for their party or, in the case of the national election, the POTUS. To me it seems like that’s the only way the people truly have the final say.

    Like

    1. Do you also think that the President should be elected by popular vote? Our Founders were very careful to establish a republic, not a democracy. The same principle works in the Party. Republican voters don’t elect the candidate. Republican voters elect delegates. The delegates elect the candidate. When you vote in a party primary you aren’t voting for the candidate. You are voting for your party delegates who are bound to that candidate.

      Like

  8. Thank you for this article, as I have been debunking the Trump lie, “Cruz is stealing,” with many Trump supporters. Although I believe there are few that will listen, because if Trump says it, it’s true, it’s certainly worth a try. Cruz’s reputation is being tarnished based upon a lie (several of them in fact.)

    Like

  9. Every state should be winner take all. End of story. All of these rules for 1st, 2nd ballot, being unbound and the delegates basically deciding the outcome and not voters is nothing but the establishment wanting to keep their hands in the cookie jar. If you are supporting Cruz then you are part of the problem. Does it not bother you that he lied to the FEC about his Goldman Sachs loan or that his campaign was dishonest about Ben Carson in Iowa? How about all those wealthy lobbyists supporting Cruz who he would owe if he had any chance of winning (he doesn’t.) Kasich is nothing but a spoiler. There is no way he can win. He likely is staying in so he can give his delegates to Cruz. There is no way Cruz can get enough delegates at this point which would lead to a brokered convention. Nice job when we have Obama Part 2 running on the Democrat ticket. Waving a Bible around does not make one qualified to lead.

    Like

  10. Where to begin???? I disagree that every state should be winner-take-all. You are disenfranchising voters, which in some case may be a majority of voters. I believe that every state should award delegates proportionally to the vote. That would seem to me to be infinitely more fair. Do you think when you vote for President in November that you are actually voting for the President? You aren’t. You are voting for Electors in your State who will vote for the President at a convention called The Electoral College. There is no direct voting for President. The Founders wanted to make sure that the country was a republic, not a democracy. A democracy is, in essence, mob rule. They understood that and formed a system where the people would elect representatives who would represent them, either in Congress, or in the Electoral College. When you vote in a party primary, you are voting to elect your party’s delegates who will go the party convention and vote for the candidate you elected them to vote for. They are not bound to vote for that candidate after the first or, in some cases, the second ballot. Voters don’t decide the outcome. Voters vote for delegates. Just as there have been instances where a Presidential candidate has won the popular vote, but wasn’t elected in the Electoral College. People, as I said above, don’t vote directly for the President.

    As far as Senator Cruz is concerned I will briefly respond to your comments, which aren’t accurate. Sen. Cruz reported the loan from Goldman Sachs when he ran for Senate on his Financial Disclosure Statement to the Senate, which is a public record. Everyone was able to review it and see that he borrowed money from Goldman Sachs in order to launch his Senatorial campaign. It was fully disclosed. What happened is that when his Treasurer filed a report with the FEC he forgot to include the loan. It wasn’t intentional, which is why Senator Cruz wasn’t penalized. The fact that he had previously disclosed it in his Senate filings was sufficient.

    As far as the Carson incident, CNN had published a news report that Carson was dropping out of the race. If you check you will find that is accurate. Their report was wrong, but Cruz’s campaign chair decided to send that out to voters in Iowa and tell them that since Carson was dropping out they should vote for Cruz. The campaign chair believed the news report, which unfortunately was false. Why would you blame Sen. Cruz for that? Subsequently, Sen. Cruz fired that campaign manager because he didn’t like some of his activities, which the Sen. felt were not in accordance with his sense of integrity. I happen to know the Senator and I don’t know anyone who has more integrity and who is more determined to put this country back on track.
    As far as lobbyists funding him. I am not aware of that. My understanding is that he isn’t taking any money from lobbyists. Can you please tell me which lobbyists and who they represent, and I will follow up and get you an answer. Thanks.

    Like

    1. I don’t understand why people have such a hard time understanding that we are a Republic and not a Democracy. The Parties are insignificant to that fact. I always find myself having to explain the difference and the reason why the president is not a directly elected office. Along with that explanation comes the explanation of the reason our Senators were not elected by the people as well. So I thank you for trying to keep our populace constitutionally educated. It shouldn’t be as hard as it is.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think part of the problem is that our children are not being educated in what we used to call “Civics.” Most people under the age of 50 today have no idea what the difference is between a republic and a democracy. I also think that most people don’t realize that the President isn’t elected by popular vote, or even that there is such a thing as the Electoral College. Our population, in my opinion, is being intentionally dumbed down so they aren’t aware of our basic principles. We need to do something about the education of American children.

        Like

  11. How about this do away with ALL non committed delegates. Depending on how your state chooses to go, proportional or winner take all. It is the voters who decide how the delegates are assigned and NOT the GOP leadership. No special meeting to assign delegates out of sight of the voters. When the night is over the delegate assignment is known and based on the will of the voters. These super delegates need to be eliminated. ALL delegates should be assigned based on the will of the voters.

    This article is just another example of the GOP Establishment trying to mislead the voters.

    Like

    1. I think Republic Means To cheat at voting. America should be a democracy, people’ vote, not the Power of the party. The majority of people’s votes can never be a Tyranny. And if the establishment steal The nomination from Trump, the Republican party will end.

      Like

      1. I realize you probably weren’t taught American founding principles or Civics in school. I recommend you do some reading on why the Founders chose to form a republic rather than a direct democracy.

        Like

  12. So many thoughts on this! First Gary Aminoff, I like how you have answered the questions, explained the article, and fielded the allegations with unbiased facts.

    Second, although I *do* understand how the electoral college works, I completely disagree with delegates, who are elected to represent the will of the people deciding that regardless of what they were elected to do, they will vote how they feel like. I’m not saying the system is flawed in that regard. I think it falls back on the education of the voters. Once upon a time, it was hard for the average Joe to figure out who voted for what, when and did they later change that vote. It’s not difficult any more. Even I can do it. So, with that, I make it a point to know my representatives, to make sure they know how I want them to vote on issues, and to vote for someone else in the next election if they show themselves disregarding the voice of those who elected them.

    I do believe in term limits for the president as well as for those in both houses. I will be watching how each of my various state representatives, at all levels votes. The problem is, too many people don’t follow how their senators, congress-persons, state reps, or anyone else votes. If they hear it on TV, radio or Heaven forbid Facebook, well then, it MUST be true! I hear people say they want term limits for every one else, but THEIR candidate, who’s been in office over their life, couldn’t possibly be part of the problem…. Yeah right! As much as I may like my congressman, I do believe he, like everyone else, needs limits to his career as a congressman. We can’t have it both ways. We can’t set limits for everyone else’s rep, and make exceptions for our own.

    Like

    1. Thanks Donna. In your second paragraph you say you understand how the electoral college works and then go on to say that you disagree with delegates who are elected to represent the will of the people decided to not represent the will of the people. I am a little confused. I assume that when you are speaking of delegates in that sentence you are referring to delegates to the Republican party convention. Or are you speaking of our Representatives in Congress? If you are saying that you don’t like the fact that elected representatives go to Congress and then when they vote they aren’t taking into consideration the will of the voters they represent, I thoroughly agree with you. That is a big irritant to me. Congressional representatives tend to forget that they are there to represent the will of the people who elected them. It is very frustrating, and a big source of the anger of the voter today, when Congressional representatives vote in a way that will please their peers, or lobbyists, rather than their constituents.

      Feel free to clarify if I have it wrong.

      There are pluses and minuses to term limits, but I would guess that at this point in time the pluses outweigh the minuses. There is, of course, already a term limit on the President.

      Like

      1. If you are saying that you don’t like the fact that elected representatives go to Congress and then when they vote they aren’t taking into consideration the will of the voters they represent, I thoroughly agree with you. Yes, this is exactly what I was saying. Thanks for the reply back!

        Like

  13. Your own words prove why voters feel cheated, you admit that no matter how your district votes you are bound to Cruz…..but that in your case that percentage of delegates is small. Well, how small? Sounds like you are no better than a democrat super delegate who make their selection months and months before voters cast a ballot……I suppose people have this crazy idea that their vote means something. But the truth is, both parties love having a bureaucracy between them and voters so they ultimately can change the rules of the game (after votes have been cast) to suit their desires. And what they do not like is, people are beginning to wake up and see the potentially corrupt nature of the process.

    Like

    1. I am having difficulty understanding exactly what your point is, or why you think voters feel cheated. Where did I say that the percentage of delegates in my district is small? Every Congressional District in the State of California sends 3 delegates to the convention. Where, exactly, is the corruption? I just am not following your comment and would appreciate it if you have some complaint or grievance that you try to articulate it more clearly. Thank you.

      Like

  14. To better understand the delegate system, we have to realize that we have allowed 2 private organizations to control our politics. As private member based organizations, they make their rules regarding primaries and how the nominee is selected. This is why, while the process is essentially the same, the Democrats and Republicans have differing rules. And if there should ever be a third party that could actually compete with the 2 current main parties, their rules would differ as well.

    Like

    1. It isn’t that we have allowed two private organizations to control our politics. There have been political parties since the founding of the country. In fact, there are political parties in every democratic country. The candidates are supported by the parties. If there were no political parties no candidate would be able to get the support to run a campaign. But, yes you are absolutely right in that the political parties make the rules regarding how their party candidates are selected.

      Like

  15. “Trump is no longer making that claim.”
    Maybe not but it won’t matter to the mobs he and his buddy Roger Stone are stirring up and who Stone is using to threaten the delegates. Roger Stone is still repeating the claim of things being ‘stolen’ and how much is Trump doing to put this notion to rest? Nothing.

    Like

    1. The purpose of this article is to explain to people why, when Donald Trump, or his attack dogs, make statements like that, they are meaningless. People can say whatever they want. Intelligent people try to determine if statements are true or not.

      Like

  16. I am so tired of all the politician lies. And you implying that all trump supporters are mislead and or stupid. Well I have no words for you 😦 Trump had to sign allegiance to the party and what allegiance have they shown him ? NONE I stopped voting for 12 years because it doesn’t matter who the American people want for a president The elite few determines who it will be. This is not a republic any more it is communist with the rich politicians and bureaucrats putting whom they want in office to keep the working class down. Nothing more need be said. I did register this year changing from democrat to republican and I will vote this year FOR TRUMP. This government was supposed to be for the people by the people Not just the elite. And as for there is no such thing as stealing votes, WRONG again FOX just showed how 2 collage students from Princeton university proved that if someone downloads a virus they can make the votes go any way they want. Check it out. The information is out there for as you said intelligent
    people

    Like

    1. Excuse me? Where did I say or imply that all Trump supporters are misled or stupid? Apparently you do have words for me. Please show me where I called all Trump supporters mislead or stupid.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. I have had enough of corrupt politicians. If Trump has the majority of votes and he is not made the candidate for the 2016 Presidential Election I will vote a straight Democratic ticket and I know many that feel the same way. If the Republicans are more interested in staying on the bribe gravy train than the will of the people then we will vote them out in 2016 and 2017 and put a Democrat in their place. If we are going to be screwed by the Republicans then we might as well be screwed by Democrats. We will have a Democratic President, Senate and House and the Republicans can go to hell.

    Like

    1. Huh? Are you talking about Trump having a majority of the popular vote, or a majority of the delegates? If he has a majority of the delegates he is automatically the candidate. The popular vote has nothing to do with who is the candidate and it never has. The popular vote is to elect delegates. In some winner-take-all states a candidate can get 27% and get all the delegates. Is that fair?

      Like

  18. Hi Gary. I appreciate your clear and ambiguous exposure of the system in the US. I love your country and obviously not from there. Within this vehicle I would like to make a reference to the Republican versus the Democratic regimes. It is actually awesome that the US corner stane decision makers decided to differentiate and choose to be a Republic. There are many Republics in the World who are managed like Democracies. The mistake those regimes and their followers made was not to study the exact track of the meaning. I concurr with your words “Mob Rule” and totally agree with the way that the delegate system works. If you could choose a President by using one man one vote system you would have chaos because voters could be bought by offering jobs and minotiries would be wiped out. I will meke a reference but not sure of facts and you may correct me. As an example Turkey is a Democracy and I quote from Wiki: Turkey is a parliamentary representative democracy. Since its foundation as a republic in 1923, Turkey has developed a strong tradition of secularism. Turkey’s constitution governs the legal framework of the country. It sets out the main principles of government and establishes Turkey as a unitary centralized state. Mr Erdogan and his party was elected within border of supposed ambiguous claims and after getting the reigns changed cource into a serious dictatorship. It seems that there are many examples of this type rule in the Balkans and Africa. From what I read here there are voters in the US who would love this type rule only because it gives power to who ever could show victory in amassing votes. That is also a reason why there are so much voter fraud registered within those countries. It seems that the USA likes to propagate this type system in foreign countries because it serves the purpose of organising feuds when the economic markets require it. There is hardly any of these Democratic countries which are not is warlike conditions with opposing parties harassing each other for podium position and economic oppulance for the one percent. I wish all countries in the world would adopt a Federal system with rights for minorities. Minorities all over the world are being exterminated because of the “Democracy Legacy”. I do however dissagree with the way politicians within the system, and mostly Lawmakers, are abusing the system you have in place. Somehow it leaves an even worce taste in the mouth than Baltic hypocracy, when we as foreigners hear of so many autrocities entitled to one person. I INCLUDE one of many such REFERENCEs AND CONFESS THAT EVERYTHING MAY NOT BE TRUE, OR IS IT? http://www.anonews.co/hillary-clinton-exposed/. Thanks again for your valuable contribution to the political spectrum.

    Like

  19. I understand the process of electing delegates. The question is should delegates represent the will of the people and not necessarily the will of just the GOP/RNC? In other words if a candidate got 60% of a states overall vote, should delegates take this into consideration?
    The biggest issue wit delegates is exactly who they are. This is especially true this year as the clear division inside the GOP between establishment and outsiders. The vast majority of delegates are elected officials. Meaning they are most likely to follow what the GOP advises them to do. Completely disregarding the results of primaries and caucuses.

    Like

    1. Each campaign selects its own delegates. Trump has selected his delegates and Cruz and Kasich have selected their delegates. Whoever wins the state, or, in some cases, the Congressional District sends the delegates that they have selected. So if Trump wins, Trump-selected delegates go to the convention, and the same with each candidate.

      Like

      1. If each candidate selects their own delegates, then why would they change their vote at the convention if they become unbound? The “why” is what really needs to be discussed. Because it would certainly appear that the RNC will have more than a say into how these unbound delegates vote. Again I realize it’s not a democracy and instead a republic but would the RNC knowlngly anger voters by steering delegates as they see fit?

        Like

      2. That is the purpose of the convention, Eric. The delegates are supposed to elect a candidate. If they see that the candidate they are bound to on the first ballot has no chance, they are supposed to support another candidate on the second or third ballot to help a candidate reach a majority. I don’t see how the RNC can “steer” delegates to vote a certain way. Every delegate has to follow his conscience and vote according to what his candidate wants. For example, I will vote for Sen. Cruz on every ballot, unless and until he says that his delegates should vote for another candidate. The RNC has nothing to do with it.

        Like

      3. I respectfully disagree with you on the RNC having no influence on the delegates. It had been stated numerous times that if this was any other normal candidate leading like Trump has, the RNC would have backed that person 100% and anointed them as the presumptive nominee. This year the clear intention of the GOP/RNC is to bring about a contested convention. If delegates voted their conscious then why has each candidate hired professionals who are experts at either retaining delegates or swaying delegates to change their mind. To believe the RNC has no ulterior motive in the current nomination process is naive. Promises will be made, and lord knows what else will be propositioned to delegates. I commend your support based on your conscious but I fear you are in a minority. As a matter of fact, Mr. Cruz as well as Mr. Trump could both end up on the outside looking in when all is said and done. In any case I believe the GOP will have a very different look come November.

        Like

      4. You are giving the RNC too much credit. The RNC can’t anoint anyone. The only person who can be the candidate is someone who gets 50%+1 delegates (a majority). The RNC can do nothing to bring about a contested convention. A contested convention will happen if no candidate gets a majority. Anyone can assume any conspiracy theory they want, but the process is pretty open. Voters determine if a candidate gets a majority of votes or not.

        Like

      5. By “anointing” I am basically saying that if a candidate like Jeb Bush would have won New Hampshire and then South Carolina like Trump did, the RNC chairman would have been on TV proclaiming Bush the presumptive nominee. Then when Rubio asked his supporters to support Kasich in Ohio, why didn’t the RNC/GOP discourage it? Now with Kasich trailing hopelessly and mathematically impossible to win the necessary 1237 delegates why isn’t the GOP asking him to step aside? I have no doubt the GOP is indirectly trying to cause a contested convention. Never in our history has a political party attacked it’s own frontrunner to the presidential nomination. The answers are numerous as to why though.

        Like

      6. I understand how you can feel that way, but in fact the RNC has very little persuasive power over candidates. Candidates typically make their own decisions about their campaigns and often don’t listen to the RNC or, in some cases, to their own campaign advisors. I have advised campaigns before and the most frustrating part of being a campaign manager is when the candidate doesn’t listen to you, thinks they know best, and of course, they are usually wrong. The GOP can ask a candidate to step aside, but if he doesn’t want to, they can’t do anything about it.

        Like

  20. I hope you are right about the RNC/GOP Gary. But what do you think about people like George Soros, the Koch brothers and the SCOTUS ruling for the McCutcheon vs. FEC? All of which has resulted in a lot of money for campaigns. Money that is donated with a return on investment expected.

    Like

    1. Eric, this is a topic I, like you, am very concerned about. I was one of the backers of Proposition 32 in California a few years ago which would have eliminated all funds from political campaigns other than funds that come from individuals, with a cap. I am all for eliminating funds from PACS, SuperPACS, corporations, unions and all other funds other than direct contributions from individual donors, with a limit, say, of $25,000 per donor. I know candidates say that can’t raise enough money that way to run a national campaign, buy TV ads, etc., and that would mean that wealthy candidates would have an advantage. There aren’t simple solutions, but I think it could be worked out.

      Like

  21. It is time to re think our Constitution on the matter of the delegates the People will revolt! Just Like when they Revolt from the Kings and Queens of England? If you think that the People are stupid or peasants the Republican Party will Be Done as we Know it . It will be so fractured like Humpty Dumpty and even Paul Ryan wont be able to put back together again. Do you think that another Party won”t come from all this educational information (you the Party) only arrive at? You know that you can change the rules to what ever you want at the Rules committee meeting? and it could say the one with the most delegates on the first round is the Nominee ? or the one that won the Most States wins the Nomination. Or You Could say you must win 20 states to Qualify to be a nominee? Like you did With Ron Paul? So these things can be done? because it has been done in the Past. Don”t say I am stupid when you think your so smart. What I am seeing is that you are stealing the Delegates because of the Party RULES that You can change at a Drop of a Hat! To me it like a Dictatorship the Republican do as I say or we will re write the Rules! So if I had my choice I rather be a Democracy than be under a Dictators Rule!

    Like

  22. While the GOP may be suggesting Kasich to step aside, they cannot force him. If delegates weren’t released, the convention might never choose a candidate. I don’t think it’s disenfranchising anyone when delegates switch. Delegates stay true believers. But at some point, it becomes clear their candidate will not win. So they have to decide which candidate comes closest to their guy has a chance to win. Simple as that. Trump is trying to cause problems with a system he already knows, because unlike Cruz, or any other candidate, for that matter, he only has one shot. Due to his abrasive style and lack of support from other candidate (I don’t care if they’ve endorsed him like Carson and Christie have for a possible position in his administration) Trump will only lose support as the balloting proceeds. Do you really see any Christie delegate, throwing his support to Trump? I don’t. And certainly no Bush or Rubio delegates! Trump should have ran as a democrat. It would have been more honest. But I do think there’s a strong possibility he’s a Judas sheep for Hillary!

    Like

Comments are closed.