Brokered RNC?

MommyLiberty5013

Have you all been following this? What do you think?

vlagrl29

no can you explain?

nkjacobsma

I'm not exactly clear on what a brokered convention is, but from my understanding, if there is no clear winner in the primaries (one candidate doesn't get 50% of the delegates), then a brokered convention happens, and delegates have more flexibility in who they "vote" for. So, a brokered convention would make it possible for the GOP to block Donald Trump because at this point, they don't think is representing the GOP well.

I'm kind of neutral on it. On the one hand, primaries weren't even a thing until the 1970's. Before that, the delegates in each state chose the candidates for general election. Donald Trump is not a good representative of the Republican party and they can't get rid of him. On the other hand, primaries were put in place because of inequality in choosing candidates, and I feel it is more "American" to have them fairly.

BlueBirdMB

I have the same understanding as the above.  My other understanding is that because primaries weren't a thing until the 70's, that they never really changed a lot of the delegate rules.  I believe that in many states, their delegates can choose to change their votes still regardless of the outcome of the primary- I don't believe the Republican Party ever adopted a binding primary, correct? Meaning they can decide if Trump is out or not.  It doesn't bother me in the least actually.  Parties always chose the best person even when there were some primaries- primaries were more "suggestions" rather than mandates until modern history.  Conventions used to be pure chaos with people running around changing votes, etc.  My parents say they were very exciting to watch.  Even if there is a binding primary (don't think so), if there isn't a clear winner, of course they have to choose someone.  Just seems like logic.

I think Carson thinks he's being very righteous here, but he's misinformed about the history of the system.  There have actually been many variations of the system and only until very modern history have the people had control over choosing the nominee and I don't believe there are any rules that bind us to this system.  The only reason why we moved to our current way of doing things was because of a convention in the late 60's (I believe) that was pure insanity and the Dems almost didn't come up with a nominee.  I say let him run third party if he wants to be so righteous.  He doesn't have Trump's name recognition- people will forget he exists in five seconds 

nkjacobsma

@Bluebird - from what I've read, binding primaries are up to the states. Some states do have binding primaries, but many of them don't for the reasons you have above. I think these non-binding primaries are the ones that allow for a brokered convention. I also read that the term "brokered convention" comes up nearly every election. I was only 15 when Obama was first elected though, so I'm not sure if that's true.

BlueBirdMB

nkjacobsma said:

@Bluebird - from what I've read, binding primaries are up to the states. Some states do have binding primaries, but many of them don't for the reasons you have above. I think these non-binding primaries are the ones that allow for a brokered convention. I also read that the term "brokered convention" comes up nearly every election. I was only 15 when Obama was first elected though, so I'm not sure if that's true.

You're probably right about it being up to the states.  I believe the DNC is more universal about their process, but the RNC has left things up to the states.  It should be interesting.  

short+sassy

On a bit of different topic, do you all know that there is no rule the members of the electoral college have to vote their electoral votes the way their representative state voted?  In other words, if Joe Schmo Electoral College voter for Montana decides that he wants to throw Montana's electoral votes for the Democratic candidate instead of for the Republican candidate the state voted for, he can do that.

I'm surprised there wasn't more call for getting rid of the electoral college completely after the GW Bush vs. Al Gore election, where the popular vote was different from the electoral vote.  But apparently that bizarre and totally outdated system continues to live on for no reason.

Sorry to go off topic, but this brokered conventions dealio reminded me of the electoral college and its many faults.  

nkjacobsma

short+sassy said:

On a bit of different topic, do you all know that there is no rule the members of the electoral college have to vote their electoral votes the way their representative state voted?  In other words, if Joe Schmo Electoral College voter for Montana decides that he wants to throw Montana's electoral votes for the Democratic candidate instead of for the Republican candidate the state voted for, he can do that.

I'm surprised there wasn't more call for getting rid of the electoral college completely after the GW Bush vs. Al Gore election, where the popular vote was different from the electoral vote.  But apparently that bizarre and totally outdated system continues to live on for no reason.

Sorry to go off topic, but this brokered conventions dealio reminded me of the electoral college and its many faults.  

When I first learned about the electoral college back in high school it never made much sense to me. Apparently, it's supposed to keep the power away from big cities, but as a Californian living in a very Republican area, my vote literally counts for nothing with the electoral college. There is almost no point in me voting for president because the overwhelming number of Democrats in LA and SF means that the California delegate votes will go to the Democrat no matter who it is. It's frustrating and sad for my community.