Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

GOP open convention likely

From a Fox News article today, "House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday it’s looking “more likely” the Republican Party will face an open convention in July – meaning, a floor fight to pick a nominee – and that Donald Trump and the party might want to accept that “reality.”

Ryan discussed the possibility with reporters as he noted he’s the chairman of the convention and will have to “bone up on all the rules.” He openly acknowledged that – even as Trump puts away another round of primary victories – a convention where no candidate has reached the necessary 1,237 delegates could actually happen this year."

So if no candidate reaches the 1,237 delegates needed to win the GOP nom, then in an open/brokered convention, "Under Rule 40b of the Republican National Convention rules, a candidate must have the support of a majority of the delegates of at least eight states in order to get the nomination. Rule 40e then states that if no candidate has received the majority of votes, "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."

DH said that Paul Ryan spoke on this as a way to hopefully get Cruz and Kasich to stick it out in the race. If they drop out, then by process of elimination, Trump has to be the nom. But, if they stay in and it does head to an open convention, then the delegates who voted for other candidates in prior primaries would get to recast their votes.

So, even if you don't love Kasich or Cruz, and you know people who haven't had their primaries yet, still encourage them to vote for either of those guys (if they don't like Trump) because positive results for them would keep them in the race and thus, we would get ever closer to an open convention.

For people like me who dislike Trump, this is very appealing. U.S. history has seen these conventions for both parties over time, yet I also feel like it is somewhat not fair to the people who did already vote in the early voting states and their delegates already voted too. But, I suppose if there is no clear majority winner for the 1,237 delegates, then this is the best thing.

Right? Wrong? Indifferent?


Re: GOP open convention likely

  • I voted on Tuesday. I voted for delegates and alternate delegates. Each delegate had a candidate listed next to their name. It was my understanding that the delegates do the voting at the convention. If no one wins the majority at the first vote, then the delegates vote again. I heard it took 40 votes before Wilson was finally made their nominee.
  • my issue with this is the loyalty pledge they had Trump sign. I'm not a Trump fan but it goes to show that the only thing the party has been consistent about in recent years is saying one thing and doing another
    [-(

    I guess only Trump has to be loyal to the party but the party doesn't have to be loyal to it's members?

    On one level I wish for a 100% better candidate, however crap like this is part of the reason I don't know that I can support any Republican candidates anymore.
    image
    vlagrl29
  • snp605 said:
    my issue with this is the loyalty pledge they had Trump sign. I'm not a Trump fan but it goes to show that the only thing the party has been consistent about in recent years is saying one thing and doing another
    [-(

    I guess only Trump has to be loyal to the party but the party doesn't have to be loyal to it's members?

    On one level I wish for a 100% better candidate, however crap like this is part of the reason I don't know that I can support any Republican candidates anymore.


    agree with you as well.  If it really does end up open convention its going to get ugly.  Anyone watching house of cards right now?
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • But if the candidates are part of the gop, they abide by the gop pre established rules for conventions. The rules state if no candidate gets 1,237 delegates they do the brokered convention. So if those are the rules, and Trump doesn't get 1,237 delegates, how would it be fair to not do a brokered convention?
  • I think a brokered convention is fine, since that is what the rules are.  But, unless a particular area's candidate has dropped out, I don't understand why delegates would change their vote.  If candidate Y is who was chosen by their area, than that's what I think they should abide by.

    Which brings me back to my soapbox of, for any elections related to the Presidential office, WHY can't all the votes from everyone in the country just be tallied together and whoever has the most votes wins?  But no.  We have "delegates" for the party nomination choice and the "electoral college" for the Presidential election.  We've had the technology for decades to decide the Presidency by the popular vote.  The amendment in the Constitution for the electoral college should have been stricken out years ago, because it is now ridiculous and totally outdated.

    There is nothing, no law at all, that even requires electoral members to vote the way their state wants them to.  It is literally a group of 50 people who, if they wanted to, could go out for drinks the night before and decide as a very small group who will be President.  While that has never happened (at least to our knowledge, hmph!), just the fact that it could is dangerous territory.

    als1982
  • snp605 said:
    my issue with this is the loyalty pledge they had Trump sign. I'm not a Trump fan but it goes to show that the only thing the party has been consistent about in recent years is saying one thing and doing another
    [-(

    I guess only Trump has to be loyal to the party but the party doesn't have to be loyal to it's members?

    On one level I wish for a 100% better candidate, however crap like this is part of the reason I don't know that I can support any Republican candidates anymore.
    Yes, and crap like trying not to go through the proper Supreme Court nominee procedure.
  • My parents are super excited at the prospect of an open convention. They say it's very exciting to watch. It used to be the norm. That loyalty pledge was just that Trump would be treated fairly. He had been and will continue to be treated fairly. It is the delegate's job to pick the best candidate to win for the party in the case of an open convention. This isn't a matter of fairness or democracy. Democracy comes in the general election. The entire point of primaries is to determine the party nominees. The way this party had structured their rules, if there is no clear consensus from the primary it reverts to the old way of doing things- the delegates choose who they believe is the best candidate. This isn't underhanded or manipulative or against any laws or spirit of those laws. It's the way it was always done until the mid 20th century and now it's only done this way as a last resort if the people don't come up with a decisive decision. I don't see this as a problem. Hell even if I loved Trump I wouldn't see the problem
  • BlueBirdMBBlueBirdMB
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    member
    edited March 2016
    But if the candidates are part of the gop, they abide by the gop pre established rules for conventions. The rules state if no candidate gets 1,237 delegates they do the brokered convention. So if those are the rules, and Trump doesn't get 1,237 delegates, how would it be fair to not do a brokered convention?

    Exactly. I'm confused why everyone is upset about this. Don't like the rules? Join another party because they all have different rules. Or advocate for these rules to change but as of this year, everyone is just following the current rules and doing their job. They knew the rules when they decided to run as republicans. Say the GOP changed the rules mid way, then they'd be screwing over a candidate.
  • Did it ever occur to anyone that the convention may decide Trump is the best candidate? He could be because most people will view the open convention the way some of you do and will then be so upset with the GOP that they vote for someone else. It's perfectly possible the convention will decide Trump is most electable
  • I'd like to see an open convention, because I hope Trump wouldn't win it, but also because I've never seen it before (I'm only 34) and I am curious. I did some looking into the history of them. We have come close to them before in other election cycles.
  • I think a brokered convention is fine, since that is what the rules are.  But, unless a particular area's candidate has dropped out, I don't understand why delegates would change their vote.  If candidate Y is who was chosen by their area, than that's what I think they should abide by.

    Which brings me back to my soapbox of, for any elections related to the Presidential office, WHY can't all the votes from everyone in the country just be tallied together and whoever has the most votes wins?  But no.  We have "delegates" for the party nomination choice and the "electoral college" for the Presidential election.  We've had the technology for decades to decide the Presidency by the popular vote.  The amendment in the Constitution for the electoral college should have been stricken out years ago, because it is now ridiculous and totally outdated.

    There is nothing, no law at all, that even requires electoral members to vote the way their state wants them to.  It is literally a group of 50 people who, if they wanted to, could go out for drinks the night before and decide as a very small group who will be President.  While that has never happened (at least to our knowledge, hmph!), just the fact that it could is dangerous territory.

    I discovered I knew very little about the Electoral College so I visited their website. What I didn't know is that it was started by the Founding Fathers and it's written into the U.S. Constitution.

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#whyec

    So, theoretically, all of our presidents dating back to the earliest POTUS could have been/could be decided the night before over drinks.

    http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

    I found both these links helpful. The second one actually explains the 2 reasons why the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College.


    short+sassy
  • In one of Trump's recent interviews he seem to acknowledge the possibility of an open convention too (while insulting Romney again, of course). He also complained about how unfair the rules are, but he ran with knowledge of those rules. If he can't get the majority of the delegates in just the primary, then it can't be expected that he could get the majority of delegates in the general election. I think that is why the rules are what they are, and I think they are fair.

  • short+sassyshort+sassy
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper
    member
    edited March 2016

    I think a brokered convention is fine, since that is what the rules are.  But, unless a particular area's candidate has dropped out, I don't understand why delegates would change their vote.  If candidate Y is who was chosen by their area, than that's what I think they should abide by.

    Which brings me back to my soapbox of, for any elections related to the Presidential office, WHY can't all the votes from everyone in the country just be tallied together and whoever has the most votes wins?  But no.  We have "delegates" for the party nomination choice and the "electoral college" for the Presidential election.  We've had the technology for decades to decide the Presidency by the popular vote.  The amendment in the Constitution for the electoral college should have been stricken out years ago, because it is now ridiculous and totally outdated.

    There is nothing, no law at all, that even requires electoral members to vote the way their state wants them to.  It is literally a group of 50 people who, if they wanted to, could go out for drinks the night before and decide as a very small group who will be President.  While that has never happened (at least to our knowledge, hmph!), just the fact that it could is dangerous territory.

    I discovered I knew very little about the Electoral College so I visited their website. What I didn't know is that it was started by the Founding Fathers and it's written into the U.S. Constitution.

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#whyec

    So, theoretically, all of our presidents dating back to the earliest POTUS could have been/could be decided the night before over drinks.

    http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

    I found both these links helpful. The second one actually explains the 2 reasons why the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College.


    Thanks for the links.  I'm pretty familiar with it, but it is good information about the EC that most people aren't aware of.

    Yes, sadly, because it is in the Constitution and gives smaller population states a huge unfair advantage...so those senators aren't going to vote for an amendment to remove it...it is extremely unlikely it will ever be changed.  I can't remember where I saw it, but I came across a chart that outlined how much a person's vote counted for President, depending on what state they lived in.  Everyone's vote should be 1.  It is totally messed up that it is not.  I think the range was between .6-1.8, with voters in small states at the high end and voters in large states at the low end.

    I was hoping after Bush won, even though Gore won the popular vote, that there would have been more outcry to change this outdated and ridiculous system that steals the power of voting for the President away from its citizens.  Not saying Gore should have won (though I personally despise G.W. Bush more than any other pres. in history)...because that was not the system we had in place at the time...just that it should be changed for the future.  But no.  And if it didn't happen after an event like that, it never will.  I believe that was the second time in our nation's history the popular vote and electoral vote were different.

    At least making it a tempered system, instead of an all or nothing system, would improve things somewhat.  But only two states have done that.  The heavy hitters with large populations, like CA and TX, can have 50.1% for one candidate and 49.9% for the other candidate but ALL their electoral votes go for the 50.1% candidate.  But states don't want to ever change to this system because it is never in the favor of whatever party happens to be in charge at the time.

    The second link doesn't outline the third reason.  Two hundred years ago, it was substantially more difficult to count every single vote.  And would have taken weeks.  But even their other two reasons are awful.  Because the general populace is too stupid to be able to choose the President themselves, so we need to make sure there is a system in place to step in and keep the popular choice from winning.  A little understandable at the time, because these were people who were used to kings and despots ruling countries, but an appalling attitude in today's world.

    And to give smaller states more power.  Perhaps, at the time, it was part of the negotiations between the states.  Because this is why we have Congress and the Senate.  It was a compromise between big vs. small population states.  But I don't agree citizens in small states get more say in who becomes President than citizens in large states.  It's just wrong. 

  • I think it's unfair to characterize smaller states as having an advantage. Look at the difference between somewhere like New York with intense urban population densities and somewhere like Wyoming with more a rural, agricultural population. While the New Yorkers are more people their way of life and priorities are going to be different. You could get people passing laws that make sense in a fast pace of life urban setting that make no sense for a rural farming population. Both have a place and provide vital services to our country. If we let New Yorkers set the pace and policy for the whole country you'd see problems arise that would not happen with more of a balance. In the same vein you might not want a state that has no state taxes being almost solely responsible for picking the person who sets the tone and pace for federal tax policy term after term. Another example might be a states with dense youthful populations picking the person the lead the charge for the whole country vs lower populated states with mostly retired persons. Basically, it enhances the status for minority groups whether they be racial, economic, age based etc.
    image
  • snp605 said:
    I think it's unfair to characterize smaller states as having an advantage. Look at the difference between somewhere like New York with intense urban population densities and somewhere like Wyoming with more a rural, agricultural population. While the New Yorkers are more people their way of life and priorities are going to be different. You could get people passing laws that make sense in a fast pace of life urban setting that make no sense for a rural farming population. Both have a place and provide vital services to our country. If we let New Yorkers set the pace and policy for the whole country you'd see problems arise that would not happen with more of a balance. In the same vein you might not want a state that has no state taxes being almost solely responsible for picking the person who sets the tone and pace for federal tax policy term after term. Another example might be a states with dense youthful populations picking the person the lead the charge for the whole country vs lower populated states with mostly retired persons. Basically, it enhances the status for minority groups whether they be racial, economic, age based etc.
    I agree with this. For that reason, I do not disagree with the Electoral College's existence. I know it seems like we're so enlightened these days and would never be swayed by a crazy, tyrannical leader and vote him/her into office. But it wasn't all that long ago that major European nations had dictators in power (Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia). There are still nations today that have dictators. And while he likely isn't a dictator, I think we can use Trump as a reason why the EC is still a good idea.

  • I agree with this. For that reason, I do not disagree with the Electoral College's existence. I know it seems like we're so enlightened these days and would never be swayed by a crazy, tyrannical leader and vote him/her into office. But it wasn't all that long ago that major European nations had dictators in power (Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia). There are still nations today that have dictators. And while he likely isn't a dictator, I think we can use Trump as a reason why the EC is still a good idea.

    Just to be clear, though.  The EC doesn't have anything to do with choosing the presidential candidates.

    The party delegates chose their candidate.  Who, at least from what I am picking up, typically vote for the candidate their state wants them to choose.  But, in a brokered convention, may not.

    But I can certainly see where the confusion comes in because both the EC and the party delegates essentially work the same way.  They are "middle people" who essentially block Americans from voting directly for whom they think the best party candidate is (delegates) and who they think should be President (EC).

    I mean, really, with the current EC system.  Unless you are in a swing state or one of the two states that will break up their electorates, your vote doesn't count one whit.  For example, I'm in Louisiana.  We're an extremely red state.  For the last 35 years, with the exception of both Clinton terms, our electoral votes have always gone to the Republican candidate.  So, if I vote for Democrat, I'm one of the (on average) 40% of the state who votes Democrat.  So my vote doesn't matter, because it's such a wide margin.  And if I vote Republican, I'm one of the 60% of the state voting Republican.  So, again, my vote doesn't matter because historically we just have large margins between the two parties and are not a swing state. 

  • ^There has been talk of splitting California into 2 states for this very reason. It'll never happen, but every couple of years some Republican who is tired of never having a say writes a proposal. The Central Valley (where I live) and Orange County/San Diego are very red, but San Francisco and Los Angeles have huge populations and are extremely blue. I actually have never voted in a presidential election before because it's kind of pointless in California.
  • Illinois is the same way. Chicago vs downstate.
  • ^There has been talk of splitting California into 2 states for this very reason. It'll never happen, but every couple of years some Republican who is tired of never having a say writes a proposal. The Central Valley (where I live) and Orange County/San Diego are very red, but San Francisco and Los Angeles have huge populations and are extremely blue. I actually have never voted in a presidential election before because it's kind of pointless in California.

    I grew up in Orange County.  It's always interesting when every once in awhile the northern part of the state wants to split with the south.  I actually didn't realize until recently that there is already even a name for the "new" state they want.  Jefferson.

    And, yes, of all the states that really needs to split up their electoral votes, it is CA.  They have the highest population and the most electorates, but have areas that swing drastically from one way to the other.  Yet, with the exception of Reagan...cause he was their boy!...their electorates have usually been for the Democratic candidate since the 50s.

    As an aside and having grow up there, those OC people are some of the most conservative, Republican people ever.  They make Newt Gingrich look like a liberal, lol. 

Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards