Preventing Trump's Appointment - Aligning with the Intentions of the Original Founders

In the tumultuous political landscape of 2016, the Republican Party finds itself in a predicament reminiscent of one that the Founding Fathers had feared. With Donald Trump as the frontrunner, the GOP faces a challenging decision: engage in a contested national convention to block Trump or risk allowing him to become the party's standardbearer, potentially leading to a loss of control over the Senate to the Democrats.

The nominating process, far from adhering to the ideal of "one man, one vote," has never been a pure democracy, according to Georg Vanberg, a professor of political science at Duke University. This is evident in the complexities of the process, which includes the Rules Committee, a body composed of party officials and state representatives, with the authority to amend convention rules and potentially influence the nomination process.

The Rules Committee for the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, for instance, was made up of about 112 members. While specific names of members from 2016 are not publicly detailed in available sources, the committee wields enormous power to erect obstacles to a Trump nomination at the convention.

One such obstacle could be the Haugland proposal, which suggests that delegates are not bound by the outcomes of the state primaries and caucuses. Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, proposed a rule change that would allow any candidate who earns at least one delegate during the nominating process to submit his or her name for nomination at this summer's convention.

Another proposed change is the end of the winner-take-all basis for awarding delegates in some states. This could potentially level the playing field for candidates who may have performed poorly in large states but have strong support in smaller ones.

However, the nominating process is not without its own inconsistencies. For instance, caucuses, which are far less democratic than primaries, do not distinguish delegate distribution based on each state's type of voting process. Additionally, some primaries are limited to party loyalists, shutting out independents who represent the nation's largest voting bloc.

The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of political parties, and the Founding Fathers expressed abhorrence at the prospect of parties controlling federal elections. Yet, today, the electors don't dare deviate from the electorate's choice, a far cry from the early decades of the republic when candidates paid scant attention to vote totals and instead focused on the Electoral College outcome.

The GOP's predicament has sparked impassioned pleas from political observers like Ross Douthat, a resident conservative at the New York Times' Op-Ed page, who urges the party to rise up to stop Trump. Ben Ginsberg, a Romney ally, echoes this sentiment, stating that the rules panel can adjust the number of states required wherever it wants to.

As the nominating process unfolds, it remains to be seen how the Republican Party will navigate these complexities and whether they will be able to prevent a Trump nomination or adapt to the changing political landscape. One thing is certain: the 2016 presidential nominating process is shaping up to be one of the most unpredictable in American history.

Preventing Trump's Appointment - Aligning with the Intentions of the Original Founders