- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

How Republicans Can Still Say No to Trump

Donald Trump may now be the presumed Republican candidate, but the party convention is not scheduled to close until July 21, and there will not be a nominee until then. Two and a half months is an eternity in this 24/7 media environment. There have been 22 contested party conventions since 1876, one lasting 103 ballots. The fat lady has not sung.

The GOP has survived Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, Progressive Teddy, and George W. Bush—and it will survive Trump too.

The Republican Party is an independent association recognized by the Supreme Court as such, able to set its own rules and procedures. And its ultimate rule is that the delegates elected to its convention every four years are in charge, just as state electoral votes are in the general election.

Trump will undoubtedly have 1,237 delegates pledged to him beforehand but that must be confirmed by actual votes from delegates.

Advertisement

After Indiana, the AP has Trump with 1,053 delegates. Forty or so of these are unbound to him and could change their mind. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich have 905 delegates, none of whom have been released. The AP cannot figure how another 69 elected delegates will vote. There are 445 delegates yet to be selected.

It is no secret that Cruz has been electing delegates in many states where Trump won the presidential preference but was too lordly to recruit mere party delegates. One estimate is that a third or more of Trump’s delegates really want someone else, giving the anti-Trumps a strong majority of delegates at the convention. Most are conservative or party activists who neither Trump nor the party establishment can control.

Does not Republican Rule 16(a)(2) say that if a delegate tries to vote for someone other than the candidate that won a binding primary that vote shall “not be recognized” by the secretary of the convention? Yes, but the delegates select the secretary.

Rules expert Republican National Committeeman Curly Haugland believes that Rule 37(b) trumps (sorry) 16(a) so that delegates can demand a roll call and vote any way they want. Who will decide? The chairman of the convention, who also is selected by the delegates, will make that decision.

The current rules moreover are only the temporary rules of the convention. Who decides what the permanent rules will be? The delegates do, of course.

Delegates control the credentials committee too. In 1952 Dwight Eisenhower establishment forces challenged three state delegations and that was enough to sink traditionalist conservative Sen. Robert Taft. Maybe turnabout would be fair play.

There would be riots? When the Democrats did that to Hubert Humphrey in 1968, he almost won the election anyway.

That may be unlikely but the delegates could easily choose whomever they desired for vice president, no matter what the nominee wanted, and they should. Liberal Democrat Adlai Stevenson was forced to accept conservative Sen. John Sparkman as vice presidential nominee in 1952 and threw the VP nomination open in 1956 too.

Just as important, the convention should set its own platform for this convention and at least the rules for the next convention as well. And they should insist upon featuring House and Senate candidates in prime time in the hope of minimizing Trump taking down Congress with him in the coming loss in November.

Won’t all this be fought by Trump and party forces? Yes, but party activists defeated even a sitting president on rules in 1972 and won major concessions on platform and rules in 1976 from another. In both cases fear of bad TV and the threat of a walkout led those interested in the presidency to concede the lesser evil of letting the delegates have their way.

A party convention is not bean bag and delegates should not blink at the challenge. It matters who sits in the White House and Congress especially in these days of supine legislatures and overactive courts.

An open convention in Cleveland with the Republican activist base in charge would be real party democracy at work, and it would be great spectacle too.

Relax. It is too early for hara-kiri. I was in the middle of the action at both of the last contested GOP convention votes and it took a few years—but there was a happy ending in the nomination of Ronald Reagan.

Donald Devine is senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies, the author of America’s Way Back: Reclaiming Freedom, Tradition and Constitution [1], [1] and was Ronald Reagan’s director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management during his first term and was a senior consultant for his presidential campaigns.

48 Comments (Open | Close)

48 Comments To "How Republicans Can Still Say No to Trump"

#1 Comment By Mogden On May 5, 2016 @ 1:54 am

If the rule is as you state:

… if a delegate tries to vote for someone other than the candidate that won a binding primary that vote shall “not be recognized” by the secretary of the convention…

then doesn’t a pledged Trump delegate voting for someone else nullify a Trump vote, even if it doesn’t count for that someone?

#2 Comment By EngineerScotty On May 5, 2016 @ 2:49 am

If the delegates can decide not to be bound by the outcome of the primaries and caucuses, then why have them? Why not just return to the smoke-filled rooms of yore (minus the smoke, of course)? Perhaps Trump is a special case–and I won’t disagree that he’s a terrible nominee–but this is a horse that if let out of the barn, won’t go back in easily.

#3 Comment By Richard Parker On May 5, 2016 @ 3:12 am

You have got to be kidding! Trump (who I do not like) has played by the rules and deserves the nomination. To play silly games to deny him the nomination will collapse the party. The base will stay home and not vote period. Trump doesn’t get the nomination, I will not vote for one Republican.

You still don’t get it! Reminds me of the silly parliamentary games I use to see played at College Young Republican conventions which permanently turned me off of organized politics.

#4 Comment By SDS On May 5, 2016 @ 6:02 am

Yes, we must remember that what the voters want is irrelevant… A dog and pony show, but; does it matter?
Don’t be absurd!

Yes, the game is rigged…

#5 Comment By Thaddeus On May 5, 2016 @ 7:37 am

Yeah, that’s one way to go — steal the convention by backroom chicanery. And make the U.S. truly look like a banana republic. And if the GOP wants to commit suicide as a party.

Or the GOP could, you know, actually listen to the plurality (and lately, the MAJORITY) of GOP voters, and give Trump his shot.

Not to mention, start coming around to his positions — nationalism, protectionism, and a sane foreign policy — which are what the voters actually want.

#6 Comment By Nick Valentine On May 5, 2016 @ 7:49 am

I find it hard to believe that anyone still sees a winning strategy in a contested convention.

If Trump is denied the nomination at the convention, that will rupture the GOP forever. This isn’t 1876, or 1976, or whenever. The stakes are higher, and the electorate is in an unprecedented anti-establishment mood.

The only conclusion one can draw from the idea of denying Trump the nomination in Cleveland is that those who propose it are utterly delusional about the inevitable fallout, or would rather see Hillary win than have Trump as the nominee.

Trump is not yet the official nominee, but that’s now just a matter of time. It’s time that Republicans accept this fact.

#7 Comment By Mel Profit On May 5, 2016 @ 7:49 am

The Republican Party is all but extinguished. If it wishes to incite a riot; drive millions of voters away, probably permanently; and ensure a Democratic presidency for the next quarter century, then it should consider the gentleman’s proposed alternative.

Death throes are never pretty. But it is the denial and desperation that make them hideous…and comical.

#8 Comment By Justin Raimondo On May 5, 2016 @ 8:28 am

This article is an absolute disgrace.

#9 Comment By SteveM On May 5, 2016 @ 9:03 am

Re: “An open convention in Cleveland with the Republican activist base in charge would be real party democracy at work

Right, steamroll the millions of primary voters who had cast ballots for Trump in order to wire in some illusory Reagan needle sitting in the haystack of sclerotic Republican party Elites.

Sounds like real democracy at work to me…

#10 Comment By JLF On May 5, 2016 @ 9:45 am

Yeah, that’s gonna happen. Delegates, Americans all and raised from the cradle to seek the plaudits of their peers, are going to stand against the nomination of the one they were elected to serve and vote a rule change allowing them to cast their vote for another. Yeah, that’s gonna happen.

Trump denied, the convention (or the rump of same) will turn to . . . Cruz? Kasich? Ryan? Mitt? The chaos that will ensue from a Trump exodus will make that exodus seem like a papal procession in St. Peters.

And that it will never happen could not be more certainly evidenced by looking at the responses to this posting so far. In a medium sympathetic to the anti-Trump movement, the unanimous (so far) response to Devine’s suggestion is everything from “no” to “hell no”.

Face it. Trump is the Republican nominee for better (for years of hell under Hillary) or worse (an apocalyptic wasteland that inevitably follows Trump’s inability to deliver on any of his promises.)

#11 Comment By CDK On May 5, 2016 @ 9:59 am

For that matter, you could apply the same logic to any presidential candidate for the last two centuries. There’s a reason this never happens, namely that parties actually like to win elections. Now that Cruz and Kasich have dropped out, what you’re really talking about is some kind of Deep State subversion of the electoral process. I don’t see that happening at this juncture at least, not without some kind of intervening crisis. Right now I think a lot of people in the Republican party are looking past the Trump candidacy to make sure the party remains a viable political force, which it obviously cannot be if its leadership undermines its own primary process. The Republican party, it should be remembered, is built on the ashes of the Whig party which preceded it. As long as we’re indulging historical analogies, why shouldn’t its successor go the same way in the scenario painted here?

#12 Comment By Johann On May 5, 2016 @ 10:25 am

Bringing sleaze to an entirely new level eh?

The best way to protect against a possible Presidential disaster is for Congress to take back a lot of the powers they gave the executive branch. Maybe a Trump Presidency will scare them into doing just that. I’m not saying Trump will necessarily turn out to be a disaster, should he win the general election, but I fully understand the concern.

#13 Comment By Fred Bowman On May 5, 2016 @ 10:28 am

I’m not a Trump supporter, but if Trump doesn’t get the nomination, then it will seriously weaken all other Republican candidates running in other races this election season. With Hillary likely to win the Presidency, then it become very important that Republicans to be able to control at least one side of Congress.

#14 Comment By Kurt Gayle On May 5, 2016 @ 10:43 am

What Justin Raimondo said.

#15 Comment By John On May 5, 2016 @ 10:55 am

As a Democrat, I’d love it.

Republicans do not have any good options for winning the general election for President, “good” being defined as candidates who seem capable of winning state elections that Barack Obama won in 2008 and 2012. That has as much to do with the party’s platform and changing voter demographics as it does with the individual candidates themselves.

The sub rosa goal of this convention is to minimize damage to turnout, especially in GOP-held House districts that are tossups or lean Democratic. If you push out Donald Trump with a plurality of pledged delegates and popular votes, he organizes a third party run by noon the next day, and the damage to turnout gets that much worse because fewer and fewer people vote split tickets. And what is the benefit there? To make Ted Cruz your nominee? There aren’t any affable former B-movie stars in the stable this year, guys.

A plurality of Republican voters most likely to turn out for the general election have chosen Trump. You would be fools to disregard their wishes.

#16 Comment By Montana Marvin On May 5, 2016 @ 11:23 am

I presume that TAC has a great deal of credibility with thinking people. But you won’t if you keep publishing screeds like this one.

#17 Comment By Clint On May 5, 2016 @ 11:49 am

Sounds like another GOP Policy Wonk Geek talkin’ some final smack talk after Trump has already won.

It’s because of Neocon phony conservatives and GOP bloviating Geek wWnks that The Trump Rebellion kicked their fat rumps.

#18 Comment By Calvin On May 5, 2016 @ 12:08 pm

In the words of Lord Cornwallis from The Patriot – “you dream, general.”

This would be the absolute worst outcome for the GOP. If Trump is somehow denied the nomination, then your base will stay home on election day, and why not? You will have already proven that their votes mean nothing to you.

Coming from a Democrat who can’t stand Donald Trump – this is a terrible idea.

#19 Comment By ML On May 5, 2016 @ 12:38 pm

Delegates would need leadership to do something like this. The most plausible would-be leader, Sen. Cruz, threw in the towel already.

#20 Comment By Richard Ong On May 5, 2016 @ 2:03 pm

Really?

Would that Republicans employed such hard ball tactics against like, oh, Democrats.

And who is the man person on horseback waiting in the wings that will carry the Republican standard to victory? Every one of the other luminaries (16!) who contended for the crown were soft, evasive, and ambiguous on the ONE issue of this election, immigration. They each and every one deserved to fade into a footnote of a tome by some presidential historian. But apparently there’s a killer duo no one ever, ever thought of who will trounce Hillary “It’s My Turn” Clinton. If only they had thought to run in the primaries.

Goodbye GOP if anyone dares to try this kind of maneuvering at the convention.

This kind of scheming is worthy of the very best of any apparatchiki ever. Long live party democracy! Long live the party leaders! Long live the Party! Long live democratic centralism!

#21 Comment By Donald Devine On May 5, 2016 @ 2:19 pm

The point is not so much to stop Trump but to get control of the party platform, machinery and vice presidency for the next time–to prepare for a future after the wipeout in November, which will come from the voters not conservatives.

#22 Comment By Gladys Pemberton On May 5, 2016 @ 2:51 pm

IT IS OVER. I AM SO TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT WAYS TO STOP TRUMP. I WANT TO SEE SOME UNITY AS WE NEED TO WIN IN NOVEMBER, EVEN WITH HIM, SO WE CAN HAVE A SAY WITH THE SUPREME COURT NOMINEES, AD INFINITUM. I hope you are wrong and that the delegates will be wanting to be on board due to the momentum Trump has going.
The pundits could not figure out how he was winning and they still can’t figure out that he will win in November.

#23 Comment By Carl On May 5, 2016 @ 3:19 pm

I get it. Party activists, not elected officials, are actually the establishment elite which gets to decide who the masses get to vote for, irrespective of the opinion of the masses. Regardless of the historical precedent, I doubt it will be well received in the present climate.

The two party system isn’t constitutionally dictated. It just evolved that way, probably because it worked well enough for much of the history of the country. But if we end up with two parties, both dominated by vocal minorities (hard right conservatives, and far left liberal/progressives), and they begin to serve up candidates that are not acceptable to those in middle, then it isn’t going to work so well.

Republican activists may indeed be entitled to run the party the way they see fit. They are not entitled to be one of the two major parties. They better not forget that.

#24 Comment By Bill On May 5, 2016 @ 3:30 pm

What is the point of this article? We all know that the convention delegates make the rules and can do anything they want. They can nominate Oprah if they wish to do so.

What Mr. Devine fails to explain is why the GOP should do this. Absolutely no question exists that such a move would destroy the already precarious reputation/authority of the GOP leadership and “establishment.” Does he really think that voters would be fine with this and would just come back? The likely result would either be the replacement of the GOP with a new party, or, perhaps worse, many years of a limping, zero-credibility, largely unelectable GOP.

I see that Mr. Devine has now provided his rationale, in a comment: “The point is not so much to stop Trump but to get control of the party platform, machinery and vice presidency for the next time–to prepare for a future after the wipeout in November, which will come from the voters not conservatives.”

I am amazed that this is TAC and not National Review or the Weekly Standard (or RedState!) that I’m reading. First, a wipeout by Trump is by no means assured — unless the neocons, big-money donors, and “GOP Establishment” go through with their threats to take all possible steps to make sure that happens. Second, who is it who is going to “get control” of the GOP? The same crowd that has been controlling the GOP for years, correct? The same crowd that TAC and its readings routinely complain about, right? The neocons and the Chamber of Commerce, right? This is Mr. Devine’s goal? Why, precisely?

#25 Comment By Richard Ong On May 5, 2016 @ 3:33 pm

You write “Trump will undoubtedly have 1,237 delegates pledged to him beforehand but that must be confirmed by actual votes from delegates.” There’s nothing about that that accepts a Trump candidacy; it’s an observation that clear voter choice can be defeated this time by “actual votes” from “delegates,” the mechanism for doing so you proceed to discuss. When you also write “An open convention in Cleveland with the Republican activist base in charge” would be a great spectacle, you are talking about stopping Trump.

Even if you’re still talking about wise party “leaders” getting control of future platform, machinery and the vice presidency, Republican elite have been useless as Ryan’s flaccid approach to the recent spending bill (with its abject surrender to Obama’s immigration initiatives) demonstrates. The last thing I personally want to see is people like him trying to manipulate the nomination process. The party is not some disembodied entity floating above the voters who are an afterthought in the electoral process.

Trump has garnered incredible support and it’s far from clear that he’ll lose to the Clinton dynastic offering. The party needs to stop trying to get its thumb on the scales and make the interests of the American voters its priority. We need different party “activists” much more than we need voters who need to be shown the error of their ways.

If voters are like me, they’re sick of the useless, sellout, posturing Republican Party.

#26 Comment By David Helveticka On May 5, 2016 @ 3:56 pm

I remember Good Ol’ Dr. Devine, was the YAF facility sponsor at UMD back in the Vietnam era. And I loved his refusal for standing applause for GWBush because of his hubris justifying the invasion of Iraq. But on that was then and this is now. He’s dead wrong if he is really encouraging a anti-Trump revolt at the convention.

The Republican Party “activists” are the WORSE people to determine the direction of the GOP. The evidence is the popular vote for Trump. They are caught in a time warp of the 1980’s, or they are as ideologically pure (and lost to reality) as Chinese Maoists!!!

Trump will get elected if he can swing the White working class vote, and it at the same time, Hillary continues to be so negative with the Democrat base, the Democrat turnout falters. Both are required if the Republicans are to remain relevant.

Pursuing an anti-Trump fight into the convention will assure a Hillary victory.

#27 Comment By Myron Hudson On May 5, 2016 @ 4:19 pm

This is a fantastic idea, if the intent is to lose the general election and alienate GOP voters for a long time running.

#28 Comment By Steve Krune On May 5, 2016 @ 5:09 pm

If the GOP does this, they’re done as a national entity. As of today, Trump has surpassed Romney’s 2012 primary vote totals, and the people who have supported him have braved social ostracism, and at times even physical violence to do so.

If you expect those people to sit down meekly and say something in the vein of “shucks, wow, I didn’t realize that Rule 37(b) could be interpreted that way,” then you don’t have the first clue about human nature.

#29 Comment By Viking LS On May 6, 2016 @ 2:03 am

If the GOP denied Trump the nomination at the convention there would be no next time.

#30 Comment By jk On May 6, 2016 @ 3:48 am

I remember NRO was dead serious when they told it was the Electoral Colleges duty to follow the compromised Florida count during Bush-Gore.

Funny how standards change.

#31 Comment By jetty On May 6, 2016 @ 7:41 am

I said “No” to the Republican party last year. I left. They were handed majorities in 2010 and 2014, yet still whined that they were powerless. The GOP has no convictions other than to get re-elected, get on Sunday morning talk shows, and attack conservatives. What is really pathetic is that the GOP leadership still doesn’t understand that they are responsible for Trump. Idiots.

#32 Comment By TheMadKingII On May 6, 2016 @ 8:48 am

Say no to Trump and Yes to Hillary. This shows you how Animal Farm DC has become, Dems and Reps all feasting at the same taxpayer trough. They would rather keep access to the gubmint gravy train of corruption than risk Trump derailing it as he has promised. It also shows that these detestable self-obsessed people have no regard whatsoever for the will of the voters, and that now goes for both sides.

#33 Comment By Karen Grube On May 6, 2016 @ 12:09 pm

What everyone has to remember is that a majority of Republicans have rejected Trump. He only has the delegates he has because dems voted for him in open primaries. The Republican Party cannot be stupid enough to let him be the nominee.

#34 Comment By Connecticut Farmer On May 6, 2016 @ 3:28 pm

While I am still on the fence with regard to Trump, if he were to be denied the nomination the GOP would in essence be conceding the election to H. Clinton. The Republican Party would not survive such a betrayal. Only time will tell if this scenario plays out but if it does, it will mark the beginning of the end of the two-party system in America.

#35 Comment By Mark F. On May 6, 2016 @ 6:26 pm

I loathe Trump, but to tell the people who voted for him that they were essentially a bunch of chumps whose wishes we will disregard–no, no a million times no.

#36 Comment By Sean Scallon On May 6, 2016 @ 7:48 pm

“I was in the middle of the action at both of the last contested GOP convention votes and it took a few years—but there was a happy ending in the nomination of Ronald Reagan.”

Back then the conservative movement was a strapping young lad. Today it’s in hospice care. A movement which cared about what stood for and who led it would not have allowed Donald Trump to have over 1,000 convention delegates in the first place and for it to summon the strength for one last stand in Cleveland is asking too much at this point.

Yes it is possible that those delegates selected in congressional district caucuses and state conventions could change the rules to deny Trump the nomination. The question is would they and should they? And if they do what’s the alternative candidate and how do they reconcile those Trump supporters who took the time to vote in the primaries only to watch Trump lose the nomination that won through said elections to the nominee to someone who entered no primaries and walked away with a brokered nomination?

I think most of the delegates know the answer to those questions and quite frankly don’t even want to think about them. They know they’re still in control of the party and know Trump is a flash in the pan, nothing more. Why risk a permanent rupture when there’s a good chance you won’t see him after November? They also know if the #neverTrump crowd couldn’t organize themselves to stop Trump in the primaries, stopping on the convention floor would be virtually impossible. The only way such harebrained schemes would work is if Trump was polling at 20 percent and Hillary was carrying Texas. I’m afraid the brokered convention fantasy is once again, shelved for another four years. There are simply too many primaries no powerbrokers with lots of delegates and no favorite sons for it to ever happen again.

#37 Comment By Karen On May 6, 2016 @ 9:11 pm

I’m a Dem who would love this to happen.

But even I know that Trump would sue the GOP’s ass and he’d be justified in doing so.

#38 Comment By fast jimmy On May 7, 2016 @ 11:17 am

As Trump acts more and more like a conventional politician, nonsense like this reveals more about the people dreaming it up than Donald Trump.

#39 Comment By david helveticka On May 7, 2016 @ 11:18 am

The three questions of the election are: 1) What are we going to do about “free trade” that is destroying American sovereignty, while strangling economic growth; 2) How are we going to sustain the unending wars in the Mideast in an stagnant economy and huge budget deficits; 3) How can the people who constitute the Republican base sustain the invasion of low wage third world workers, while big business imports low wage high tech H1B visa workers to replace Americans?

In all three issues, the Republican Party establishment answered these questions the wrong way! Trump answered them correctly and he won the vote.

Now you want to overturn the vote, and go back to trickle down economics, endless militarism and warmongering, and open borders like under the Bushes?

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. The GOP of Donald Devine is dead, because the issues have changed. The party must change if it wants to survive.

#40 Comment By AlbertJ On May 7, 2016 @ 3:12 pm

To paraphrase the Federation President in Star Trek VI: “Just because we can do such a thing, doesn’t mean we should do such a thing.”

#41 Comment By Neal On May 8, 2016 @ 12:07 pm

Caucuses, closed primaries, open primaries… This nomination process belong to the party not the people. A party decides its agenda and its candidates not people with no interest or concern for the party.

The GOP has had its nomination process corrupted because it is poorly designed. To inflict upon its supporters a candidate and an agenda that is incoherent and irresponsible is foolish.

Dump Trump.

#42 Comment By Andrew On May 8, 2016 @ 6:22 pm

Raimondo’s short and to the point six words pretty much sum this up perfectly. Are the power-hungry little neoconservative globalists in this party so crazy, so absolutely suicidal to their own future’s very existence that they would do something that, no matter who else would be nominated besides Trump, it wouldn’t matter, something that would guarantee Hillary would win 50 states and the Left would cement a politicized judiciary for the next 40 or more years? Would they really do such a thing? If so, it would be the end of them, and anyone who doubts that is delusional. The country would be pretty scary ten years from now with the culturally marxist left having that much dominance. I doubt I’d want to be here to see it.

#43 Comment By Steve Krune On May 8, 2016 @ 8:49 pm

Caucuses, closed primaries, open primaries… This nomination process belong to the party not the people. A party decides its agenda and its candidates not people with no interest or concern for the party.

The GOP has had its nomination process corrupted because it is poorly designed. To inflict upon its supporters a candidate and an agenda that is incoherent and irresponsible is foolish.

Dump Trump.

Closed and open primary states had this in common in 2016; Trump won a majority of both.

The GOP is a private entity, and in theory, they can choose their candidate however they like. For example, they could auction their presidential nomination off to the highest bidder. They could draw straws. They could let the GOP caucuses of the House and Senate vote, and go with that.

They don’t do any of those things, and the reason why not is that they expect the public to back their candidate in the general election, and letting that same public choose the nominee is the best gauge of who’s popular enough to win the presidency. Another factor is that Americans like being listened to better than being ignored.

Trump reflects the opinions of most who showed an interest in the GOP in 2016; nobody else does, or else they would have beat him. This is so obvious that it hurts to type. Paul Ryan is going to get primaried for his antics, just as Eric Cantor did for his. Thumbing your nose at Buchananites is a good way to become irrelevant fast.

#44 Comment By slk On May 8, 2016 @ 8:55 pm

All the trumpbots are muddying the waters. Usually the presidential preference polls are just that, a poll of “preferences.” This time the GOPe tried to rig the rules to force delegates to support the candidate they thought was going to win the polls, & they made the results binding. But the scheme backfired because Republicans are tired of lying establishment pols.

Delegates are delegated authority by the caucus-goers & convention attendees to *represent* them. Delegates are not mouthpieces of the voting attendees; we do not choose our candidates by plebiscite. The delegates are charged with choosing the nominee.

Delegates have the right to change the rules to allow them to vote their consciences because the “binding rules’ are an infringement of their function as delegates, and contrary to republican principles. Changing the rules does not give the choice to backroom politicians & deal-makers. It gives the choice to the delegates. And coincidentally, makes it a Republican choice. (It is noteworthy that the *huge* majority of DT’s wins came in open primary states, which means Democrats & independents were choosing the Republican candidate, which is a twisted state of affairs.

Rules 16(a)(1) & 16(a)(2) should be repealed to let delegates vote according to their consciences, and to let Republicans direct their own party.

#45 Comment By Anna On May 8, 2016 @ 10:03 pm

I have been an active Republican since 1977, but switched to the Constitution Party last week. Why? Trump.
My current plan is to vote for the Constitution candidate in November, or write in Ted Cruz.
If *just one more* Trump supporter pulls their “I hate you! Don’t leave me!” borderline personality disorder mentality on me by demanding I vote for Trump, I will vote for Hillary.
My vote is MINE and I may just have some fun with it since to do anything else at this point is meaningless.

#46 Comment By Potato On May 9, 2016 @ 8:42 am

Go ahead. As a Democrat I hope you do.

What better way to demonstrate that Trump was right when he said the elites and party leaders do not care about the people?

If this happens there won’t be a Republican Party the next time around.

#47 Comment By Julia On May 9, 2016 @ 11:14 am

Yes, Republicans can still say NO to Trump.
But they cannot say no to the sentiments behind his rise. If there were no Trump those sentiments would still exist.

At this point the person of Trump makes no difference whatsoever. Surely the party is not so dense as to not understand this.

#48 Comment By George On May 9, 2016 @ 1:21 pm

Washington warned us about the adverse consequences of the concept of ‘party’ in his farewell address, which we should re-read from time to time: “I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, … Let me now … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.
This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.”