Debate Now If you are a GOP voter, will you consider the top GOP primary vote "getter" to be "legit?"

[320 Years of History]

I am not a registered Republican.

Before I get into the heart of the post, by "legit" in the thread title, I mean the person whom you and the rest of the party indeed wanted to stand for you in the 2016 Presidential election.

This year's GOP primaries have what are, to me, inordinately complex rules for apportioning delegates from the primaries up to March 15th. From March 15th onward, it's "winner take all" in each GOP primary. In contrast, Democrats assign primary delegates proportionally all the way through.

The impact of the differences is pretty clear: the GOP delegate allocation methodology makes it all but pointless for folks who don't win the primaries to continue in running for the nomination. Why, because GOP primary winners need pluralities, not majorities in order to claim all the delegates of the "winner take all" states, which amounts to all of them after "Super Tuesday."

The "plurality matter" and general delegate allocation methodology notwithstanding, the GOP also have what, for lack of a better term, I'll call "recondite delegate math" over and above the "basics" of voters casting ballots in state primaries/caucuses delegates being assigned accordingly. You can read about that here. Now that article was written sympathetically for Mr. Trump, and that's fine, but the same prospects and realities apply to all his GOP rivals. All that may differ is that if Mr. Trump wins the most voted-for delegates a potential revolt will come from the party's "elite," whereas for other "malcontents" in the party, it would have to be a "bottom up inspired" sort of thing.

Given the GOP "laws of the land," as it were, if you are a registered Republican, and your preferred GOP candidate wins the popularly elected delegates but still does not garner the GOP nomination due to the convention being "brokered," will you consider the man to legitimately be the GOP candidate and as a result support him?

Discussion Guidelines:

1. In your first post in this thread, you must identify whether you are or are not a registered Republican. You don't need to be one to comment, you just need to identify whether you are or are not a registered member of the Republican party. Given the topic, I think it's obvious why that fact is relevant to your remarks.
2. Zone 2 rules are in effect. You must stay on topic with your remarks and comments. This is not the thread for discussing anything not directly related to the Republican Presidential Primaries and Convention.
3. Zone 1 rules are in effect.

 

[DarkFury]

I AM a registered Republican.
I will support the TRUE winner and the TRUE winner ONLY.
If they "broker" that away I WILL vote AGAINST every Republican for the rest of my life.

 

[320 Years of History]

I AM a registered Republican.
I will support the TRUE winner and the TRUE winner ONLY.
If they "broker" that away I WILL vote AGAINST every Republican for the rest of my life.

TY for your honest reply. I'm not sure what "true winner" means precisely, but I suspect I get the gist of it.

TY again for participating.

 

[DarkFury]

I AM a registered Republican.
I will support the TRUE winner and the TRUE winner ONLY.
If they "broker" that away I WILL vote AGAINST every Republican for the rest of my life.

TY for your honest reply. I'm not sure what "true winner" means precisely, but I suspect I get the gist of it.

TY again for participating.

If Trump has the majority of delegates then its Trump.
I am TIRED of crooked politics.
If the GOP hijacks the true winner then I AM done with them.

 

[320 Years of History]

I AM a registered Republican.
I will support the TRUE winner and the TRUE winner ONLY.
If they "broker" that away I WILL vote AGAINST every Republican for the rest of my life.

TY for your honest reply. I'm not sure what "true winner" means precisely, but I suspect I get the gist of it.

TY again for participating.

If Trump has the majority of delegates then its Trump.
I am TIRED of crooked politics.
If the GOP hijacks the true winner then I AM done with them.

In light of the rules the Republican party has that define and allocate multiple "classes" of delegates, and that it's possible for a GOP candidate not to obtain enough of them -- the minimum required quantity of them -- from the votes cast in primary elections/caucuses, that certainly isn't what I expected you to say. There's no question that whoever earns/wins the GOP nomination will have the majority of (as well as the minimum required quantity) of delegates.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am not a registered republican. In fact, the voters registration form in my state does not have registration by party. I live in a red state (SC) and I usually vote republican, but sometimes I go third party. I don't think I've ever voted democrat.

I would be okay with brokered republican convection is no candidate receives 50% or more of the delegate votes the first round.

On a side note, it would be a nice alternative if there could be a national runoff election with the top two candidates if there is no winner with more than half the delegate votes as determined by the first round of primaries. However, this would be very expensive to do.

The way things are now, the candidate that "wins" the convention with a plurality of the vote could also be the candidate most likely to be voted against in a two candidate race.

 

[Foxfyre]

I AM a registered Republican.
I will support the TRUE winner and the TRUE winner ONLY.
If they "broker" that away I WILL vote AGAINST every Republican for the rest of my life.

When I am polled and asked my political affiliation, I always say "Independent" as that is how I see myself. I no longer feel much charity toward the Republican Party, but I am registered Republican as it is necessary to declare a political party in order to vote in our state primary election. I consider the Republicans marginally more acceptable than the Democrats. And those are the only two parties with any chance of winning a national election.

While I am not ready to take a pledge that I will NEVER vote Republican again, I also will stand strongly against a brokered convention that would try to unseat the people's choice no matter who that is. (And we all know we are talking about Trump.) The last time that happened was in I think 1964--one of the nastiest conventions in my memory. The GOP establishment hated Goldwater and used every trick in the book to discredit him. It is said that everyone associated with the Goldwater campaign was thoroughly coached to watch for the sabotage efforts--everything from bribes to entrapment to the advances of lovely women, etc.

Though damaged, ultimately Goldwater prevailed and, and succumbed to a very popular John Kennedy legacy along with some last minute dirty tricks by the Democrats.

If the Republican establishment tries to do the same in this election, and so weaken the people's choice, we all better get used to saying President Clinton again.

 

[320 Years of History]

I AM a registered Republican.
I will support the TRUE winner and the TRUE winner ONLY.
If they "broker" that away I WILL vote AGAINST every Republican for the rest of my life.

When I am polled and asked my political affiliation, I always say "Independent" as that is how I see myself. I no longer feel much charity toward the Republican Party, but I am registered Republican as it is necessary to declare a political party in order to vote in our state primary election. I consider the Republicans marginally more acceptable than the Democrats. And those are the only two parties with any chance of winning a national election.

While I am not ready to take a pledge that I will NEVER vote Republican again, I also will stand strongly against a brokered convention that would try to unseat the people's choice no matter who that is. (And we all know we are talking about Trump.) The last time that happened was in I think 1964--one of the nastiest conventions in my memory. The GOP establishment hated him and used every trick in the book to discredit him. It is said that everyone associated with the Goldwater campaign was thoroughly coached to watch for the sabotage efforts--everything from bribes to entrapment to the advances of lovely women, etc.

Though damaged, ultimately Goldwater prevailed and, and succumbed to a very popular John Kennedy legacy along with some last minute dirty tricks by the Democrats.

If the Republican establishment tries to do the same in this election, and so weaken the people's choice, we all better get used to saying President Clinton again.

There's no denying that Mr. Trump is the only 2016 GOP candidate whose primary performance may lead to a brokered GOP convention. I am, however, equally interested in comments about the complexity of the GOP nominating process, the principle of brokering to arrive at a nominee, and other concepts that are "on topic" re: the GOP nominating/convention/primary process and events.

Certainly if folks are only able/willing to consider the immediate impacts as it pertains to Mr. Trump, well, okay. I can "roll with" that as well. It's a somewhat narrow scope for a discussion, but it'll be what it'll be....

 

[Foxfyre]

I AM a registered Republican.
I will support the TRUE winner and the TRUE winner ONLY.
If they "broker" that away I WILL vote AGAINST every Republican for the rest of my life.

When I am polled and asked my political affiliation, I always say "Independent" as that is how I see myself. I no longer feel much charity toward the Republican Party, but I am registered Republican as it is necessary to declare a political party in order to vote in our state primary election. I consider the Republicans marginally more acceptable than the Democrats. And those are the only two parties with any chance of winning a national election.

While I am not ready to take a pledge that I will NEVER vote Republican again, I also will stand strongly against a brokered convention that would try to unseat the people's choice no matter who that is. (And we all know we are talking about Trump.) The last time that happened was in I think 1964--one of the nastiest conventions in my memory. The GOP establishment hated him and used every trick in the book to discredit him. It is said that everyone associated with the Goldwater campaign was thoroughly coached to watch for the sabotage efforts--everything from bribes to entrapment to the advances of lovely women, etc.

Though damaged, ultimately Goldwater prevailed and, and succumbed to a very popular John Kennedy legacy along with some last minute dirty tricks by the Democrats.

If the Republican establishment tries to do the same in this election, and so weaken the people's choice, we all better get used to saying President Clinton again.

There's no denying that Mr. Trump is the only 2016 GOP candidate whose primary performance may lead to a brokered GOP convention. I am, however, equally interested in comments about the complexity of the GOP nominating process, the principle of brokering to arrive at a nominee, and other concepts that are "on topic" re: the GOP nominating/convention/primary process and events.

Certainly if folks are only able/willing to consider the immediate impacts as it pertains to Mr. Trump, well, okay. I can "roll with" that as well. It's a somewhat narrow scope for a discussion, but it'll be what it'll be....

There is no other name on the list that the GOP establishment is terrified of though of course they are not supporting Cruz either. And though Rubio is obviously their poster boy for this election cycle, they would support anybody other than Trump who is the nominee via the primary process, probably even Cruz. I don't know if they would support somebody like Fiorina or Carson but neither of those has acquired enough traction to be a concern.

It has been so long since we have seen a brokered convention, most of the members at DP aren't even that old and have no concept or really much interest in how that works. But perhaps they could be educated here?

Technically a brokered convention happens when no candidate has acquired the required number of delegates at the time of the convention. The delegates are bound by the people's vote to cast the people's choice on the first vote at convention. Then, if nobody wins, the delegates are free to vote for any candidate of record that they want to. And that's when it can get really tense and ugly.

There is some speculation, mostly in the underground press at this time, that the GOP establishment could be so opposed to Trump that they are suggesting that the rules at convention be set aside if Trump wins and they go to a brokered convention at which they will most likely put up Mitt Romney as the party's choice of candidate. And if Trump was sufficiently offended he would then likely go independent and take an awful lot of general election votes with him. . . .

and again we would all have to get used to saying President Clinton again.

Or the delegates could thumb their collective noses at the establishment and make Trump the absolute victor. What happens then?

 

[Foxfyre]

And noting that I haven't precisely answered the question posed by the thread title, I am a dedicated constitutionalist. If the elections are open and honestly conducted, and there is no blatant unethical sabotage, how could I not consider the people's choice legit?

There are a lot of 'if's' in there though aren't there? And they came to me only as I was typing out my post. Some provocative considerations to be made there.

 

[I amso IR]

I am a registered "non affiliated" voter.
I am 76 years old and up until the past three General Elections have been registered as a Republican.
I have never considered registering Democrat or any other of the garden type affiliations.

Having stated the above, I also, am not of the opinion that the Constitution was written, by the original "Framers", to be a non living document. In my way of thinking, those folks understood change would be required as time moved on. Hence, a mechanism was provided for such change. The entire line of thought forged into that document evolved during a period of active change with the British system for governing. For that reason we are not a member of the Commonwealth to our north tho of the same general stock, in the beginning.

The Democrat party, which is not entirely democratic, has embraced the idea of change to a degree not welcomed by many self proclaimed Republican advocates. As a result, some two hundred plus years later, we, Americans stand divided, again. During the second half of the 1800's we also were divided and the results of that division were catastrophic and yes, immoral. Most immoral, if you will, was the conflict of brother destroying brother and family. This must never happen again and all Americans should wish to prevent that from happening and any one person standing today should and must realize that fact.

I will vote, however distasteful that may be. Even tho I find none of the current candidates acceptable, I will vote. There is nothing written or stated which proclaims that a candidate for our Presidency must be a politician of any stripe. In fact, the U.S. Constitution states exactly the opposite in that it demands only age and American birth."Joe the Plumber" is as qualified as any other assuming "Joe" meets the established requirements outlined in the Constitution. However it does make sense, should you be in need of a plumber, it might be better to hire Joe, than say, Mr. Obama!

Mr. Trump is a human of many stripes. The one area he excel's is that of business and it's related aspects. He has excelled if the measure of monetary growth is the only indicator, which it is not! His attitudes and mannerisms are a breath of fresh air to some and poison to others. But then, name a President who has not been the same.

Mr. Sanders is the champion of many Americans who wish to see a change towards another form of government which is currently failing elsewhere on the planet. I cannot support that direction as I spent the best years of my life combating that form of government using the term combating in it's pure sense. That term dictates that I do not vote for Mr. Sanders.

 

[I amso IR]

My apologizes, it seems I screwed up as I had not completed my post. To continue;

Mrs. Clinton is in my opinion, not at all trustworthy. It seems where ever she goes and what ever she is involved with there are irregularities. We do not in my opinion need four or eight years of more irregularity.

Mr. Cruz is also a powder keg looking for a place to explode.

As there are no other candidates, not even one, on the horizon, I have a problem which is simple to solve. Vote for the least objectionable, objection being offered.

As for the Republican theatrics at the National convention. "They" are simply being what they are, obstructionist. It is the old mind over matter syndrome, "you" folks do not mind because it is "we" that matter." In this case the will of the people are "you". The desire of the party heads are "we". And never the two shall meet in this instance, perhaps.

 

[jwoodie]

I am not a registered Republican.

Before I get into the heart of the post, by "legit" in the thread title, I mean the person whom you and the rest of the party indeed wanted to stand for you in the 2016 Presidential election.

This year's GOP primaries have what are, to me, inordinately complex rules for apportioning delegates from the primaries up to March 15th. From March 15th onward, it's "winner take all" in each GOP primary. In contrast, Democrats assign primary delegates proportionally all the way through.

The impact of the differences is pretty clear: the GOP delegate allocation methodology makes it all but pointless for folks who don't win the primaries to continue in running for the nomination. Why, because GOP primary winners need pluralities, not majorities in order to claim all the delegates of the "winner take all" states, which amounts to all of them after "Super Tuesday."

The "plurality matter" and general delegate allocation methodology notwithstanding, the GOP also have what, for lack of a better term, I'll call "recondite delegate math" over and above the "basics" of voters casting ballots in state primaries/caucuses delegates being assigned accordingly. You can read about that here. Now that article was written sympathetically for Mr. Trump, and that's fine, but the same prospects and realities apply to all his GOP rivals. All that may differ is that if Mr. Trump wins the most voted-for delegates a potential revolt will come from the party's "elite," whereas for other "malcontents" in the party, it would have to be a "bottom up inspired" sort of thing.

Given the GOP "laws of the land," as it were, if you are a registered Republican, and your preferred GOP candidate wins the popularly elected delegates but still does not garner the GOP nomination due to the convention being "brokered," will you consider the man to legitimately be the GOP candidate and as a result support him?

Discussion Guidelines:

1. In your first post in this thread, you must identify whether you are or are not a registered Republican. You don't need to be one to comment, you just need to identify whether you are or are not a registered member of the Republican party. Given the topic, I think it's obvious why that fact is relevant to your remarks.
2. Zone 2 rules are in effect. You must stay on topic with your remarks and comments. This is not the thread for discussing anything not directly related to the Republican Presidential Primaries and Convention.
3. Zone 1 rules are in effect.

1. I am not a registered Republican, but have almost always voted for Republicans in the past.

2. Your definition of "legit" seems to conflict with your criticism of GOP "winner take all" primaries (which, in comparison with a "super delegate" system, are still much more "democratic").

3. I believe that delegates should be awarded on the basis of popular vote, whether it be by precinct, congressional district, statewide or a combination thereof. However, I am not opposed to a winner-takes-all system if a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, nor to a minimum vote threshold (e.g., 20%). Otherwise, I favor proportional representation as the best way to reflect the will of the voters.

I think that these types of rules should be set in place at least 18 months before the next primary election is held.