The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm unclear on how a candidate dropping out affects the delegates versus if they just suspend their campaigns. Doesn't that largely depend on the rules each state's GOP party has established for the delegates? Or are they all the same rule for when the candidate officially drops out?

Yes it depends on the state. Which is why I said might be unbound. Some states they are unbound automatically, at least one state they are bound, but the delegate(s) can vote to unbind themselves if a candidate suspends/drops out, others they are bound unless the candidate releases them. And I believe some states if a candidate drops out they become bound to the other candidate(s) either proportionally or winner take all.
Marco Rubio's Delegates: Where They'll Go

Suspend campaign: = delegates remain bound
Drop out = delegates unbound

Depends on the state, see above.

Isn't the rule about winning a minimum of 8 states still in play? If so, we're down to 2 people that qualify.

That rule is still in effect. But it can be changed by the rules committee at the convention.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Straw men are fun to demolish.

No straw. Just people that actually think "close enough" is enough.

Rudy Giuliani: Donald Trump should get nomination if he is close on delegates - POLITICO

Donald Trump should be awarded nomination if he is close

Donald Trump and Our Messy Nominating System - The New Yorker

Commentary: Why the GOP can't take the nomination from Donald Trump - CBS News

 

[T.Lex]

Here's the text. I think your summary text above is conflating the language for if only one candidate for VP is under consideration.

(If I'm reading it right, that is. )

My reading is, if you don't have the majority of delegates from 8 states, prior to 1 hour prior time to place the names for nomination, you're out of luck.

Well, I'm sure it made complete sense at the time, but they didn't predict this oddest of cycles.

I think (e) tries to resolve what happens if there isn't a first ballot winner:

(e) If no candidate shall have received such majority, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of the states be called again and shall repeat the calling of the roll until a candidate shall have received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention.

But that "candidate" still needs to comply with the 8 state requirement of (b). I think.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, so I ran my own modeling again. Basically using 40-25-15 percentage votes in the remaining states, with either Trump or Cruz getting the top, and Kasich always getting 15, Trump can win Indiana and New Mexico and still fall short - barely - of 1237. Cruz has to win all the other remaining west/northern border states, which certainly appears doable. (I have Trump winning all the remaining states on both coasts, including CA, by that 40-25 margin.)

So basically, Trump needs to do better than +15% over second place in some collection of remaining states to win the first ballot. IMHO.

ETA:
Digesting the map more, I can't help but notice that the "coast" values - east and west - are once again at odds with all of us in fly over country.

 

[olhorseman]

There are no rules for the 2016 convention until the Rules committee comes up with a list and the delegates vote on the rules at the start of the convention. Everyone seems to want to quote the rules for the 2012 convention which may or may not be in effect for the 2016 convention.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

There are no rules for the 2016 convention until the Rules committee comes up with a list and the delegates vote on the rules at the start of the convention. Everyone seems to want to quote the rules for the 2012 convention which may or may not be in effect for the 2016 convention.

Why should they be expected to change the rules? How often do the rules change? And why are people wanting to change the rules this time (in a manner that would only benefit Trump, this far in the race)?

Asking because I don't know how often rules change, and what prompts rule changes.

 

[T.Lex]

There are no rules for the 2016 convention until the Rules committee comes up with a list and the delegates vote on the rules at the start of the convention. Everyone seems to want to quote the rules for the 2012 convention which may or may not be in effect for the 2016 convention.

Well, they are in effect for any convention that might be held before they are amended. They are the "current" rules. There will be opportunities to amend them before the convention starts, but they still exist. They are what they are.

Given the crucible that is this campaign season, any proffered changes will be scrutinized, so there is a certain momentum to leaving them as-is. Nothing wrong with playing out the various scenarios under them, to help inform where it might make sense to change them - if anything, to keep certain understandings in place.

For instance, I think both pro- and anti-Trump people would support something clarifying whether the 8-state requirement applies to only the first ballot, or beyond that.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No, it's not. Mathematical elimination only applies to the first ballot.

If Trump also becomes mathematically eliminated, then the result is a contested convention. The root cause of a contested convention is every candidate being "mathematically eliminated" from receiving a majority of delegates, such as to ensure a first-ballot election.

That rule, also, only applies to the first ballot.

Yes mathematical elimination only applies to the first ballot, and as pointed out, Cruz isn't mathematically eliminated. It is impossible for him to get enough bound candidates to win on the first ballot, but it is possible for him to win it.

And cite please that that rule only applies to the first ballot.

 

[T.Lex]

Why should they be expected to change the rules? How often do the rules change? And why are people wanting to change the rules this time (in a manner that would only benefit Trump, this far in the race)?

Asking because I don't know how often rules change, and what prompts rule changes.

According to the document itself:

**AMENDED BY THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON APRIL 12,2013,JANUARY 24,2014,MAY 9,2014 & AUGUST 8,2014

The rules allow for the Convention Committee itself (different from the National Committee) to adopt different rules.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

And cite please that that rule only applies to the first ballot.

WIBC was discussing the 1st/2nd ballot thing recently... The 8-state thing has to apply to only the first... that's for sure. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Are you referring to 1237 on the other ballots? I only assume those further ballots need the same number... can someone clarify?

 

[T.Lex]

WIBC was discussing the 1st/2nd ballot thing recently... The 8-state thing has to apply to only the first... that's for sure. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.

I disagree. It acts as a sieve that would prevent a non-candidate from getting the nomination, like Romney. To be elected on ANY ballot, a candidate needs to have won a minimum of states. In this cycle, that would limit it to 2. The delegates would have to figure out which would be a better general election candidate, but it would be limited to nominees that actually won states.

Are you referring to 1237 on the other ballots? I only assume those further ballots need the same number... can someone clarify?

It is pretty clear that a "winner" has to get 1237 or more on any ballot. More than half of the total delegates.

 

[olhorseman]

Well, they are in effect for any convention that might be held before they are amended. They are the "current" rules. There will be opportunities to amend them before the convention starts, but they still exist. They are what they are.

Given the crucible that is this campaign season, any proffered changes will be scrutinized, so there is a certain momentum to leaving them as-is. Nothing wrong with playing out the various scenarios under them, to help inform where it might make sense to change them - if anything, to keep certain understandings in place.

For instance, I think both pro- and anti-Trump people would support something clarifying whether the 8-state requirement applies to only the first ballot, or beyond that.

The rules established for the 2012 convention are not "current" if you mean effective for the 2016 convention unless the rules committee includes them in the rules for 2016.

 

[T.Lex]

The rules established for the 2012 convention are not "current" if you mean effective for the 2016 convention unless the rules committee includes them in the rules for 2016.

Rule #30.

The Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States shall be the rules of the convention, except that the current authorized edition of Robert's Rules of Order: Newly Revised (“Robert's Rules of Order") shall be the rules for committees and subcommittees of the convention, insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the rules herein set forth; provided, however, that the convention may adopt its own rules concerning the reading of committee reports and resolutions.

Technically, the Rules of the HOR are the rules of the convention, as long as they don't conflict with the RNC rules. But, the convention may adopt its own rules.

Rule #32 does allow for suspension of the rules (whatever rules are applicable), so that's worth stating. A state delegation could move to suspend the 8-state rule, and it could pass if supported by 7 other states.

ETA:
Oh yeah, Rule #42:

Temporary Rules
Upon the adoption of the report of the Convention Committee on Rules and Order of Business, Rule Nos. 26-42 shall constitute the Standing Rules for this convention and the temporary rules for the next convention.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I disagree. It acts as a sieve that would prevent a non-candidate from getting the nomination, like Romney. To be elected on ANY ballot, a candidate needs to have won a minimum of states. In this cycle, that would limit it to 2. The delegates would have to figure out which would be a better general election candidate, but it would be limited to nominees that actually won states.


It is pretty clear that a "winner" has to get 1237 or more on any ballot. More than half of the total delegates.

For some reason, I thought every ballot after the first one was essentially "open convention"... where anyone could throw their hat into the ring

 

[T.Lex]

For some reason, I thought every ballot after the first one was essentially "open convention"... where anyone could throw their hat into the ring

IMHO, that's worse than having pre-qualifications.

This cycle sucks.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

WIBC was discussing the 1st/2nd ballot thing recently... The 8-state thing has to apply to only the first... that's for sure. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Are you referring to 1237 on the other ballots? I only assume those further ballots need the same number... can someone clarify?

See T. Lex's answer.

I disagree. It acts as a sieve that would prevent a non-candidate from getting the nomination, like Romney. To be elected on ANY ballot, a candidate needs to have won a minimum of states. In this cycle, that would limit it to 2. The delegates would have to figure out which would be a better general election candidate, but it would be limited to nominees that actually won states.


It is pretty clear that a "winner" has to get 1237 or more on any ballot. More than half of the total delegates.

The rules established for the 2012 convention are not "current" if you mean effective for the 2016 convention unless the rules committee includes them in the rules for 2016.

They are current unless the rules committee changes them.

Rule #30.

Technically, the Rules of the HOR are the rules of the convention, as long as they don't conflict with the RNC rules. But, the convention may adopt its own rules.

Rule #32 does allow for suspension of the rules (whatever rules are applicable), so that's worth stating. A state delegation could move to suspend the 8-state rule, and it could pass if supported by 7 other states.

ETA:
Oh yeah, Rule #42:

I don't read that the same way you do, I think. How it is ran, yes they follow the Robert's rules of order. But the rules they set don't have to follow HOR rules. Robert's rules of order is a framework of how the meetings have to be ran ie who can speak when, how votes are taken, etc, , not what they do.

This cycle sucks.

To channel Kirk, ALLEGEDLY. I won't say it sucks or doesn't but it does make it interesting.

 

[MisterChester]

IMHO, that's worse than having pre-qualifications.

This cycle sucks.

Part of me thinks it's supposed to be complicated and nonsensical, the other part of me thinks that there is virtually no oversight or consulting and out of incompetence it ended up this way. When it comes to government and political parties, I'm more willing to believe incompetence rather than hyper-competence.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't read that the same way you do, I think. How it is ran, yes they follow the Robert's rules of order. But the rules they set don't have to follow HOR rules. Robert's rules of order is a framework of how the meetings have to be ran ie who can speak when, how votes are taken, etc, , not what they do.

That's why I also bolded the "not inconsistent with" part. Between Rule #42 and that clause, the RNC rules ARE the convention rules until the convention rules committee convenes and adopts some rules. Those rules can adopt the current RNC rules completely, or modify them, or adopt new ones.

But, until then, these are the rules. The structure is set, although it can be changed.

To channel Kirk, ALLEGEDLY. I won't say it sucks or doesn't but it does make it interesting.

Ok, IMHO, this cycle (already) sucks.

 

[T.Lex]

When it comes to government and political parties, I'm more willing to believe incompetence rather than hyper-competence.

I'm somewhere in the middle, leaning toward incompetence. I doubt that any current RNC member seriously considered a contested convention. Maybe they should've, but it just wasn't something they thought about making rules for.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

RNC Figures Out How To Counter Complaints Of A 'Rigged' Delegate Process? | The Daily Caller