• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you supportive of a brokered convention(s)?

Are you supportive of a brokered convention(s)?

  • No, This flies in the face of democracy.

    Votes: 11 52.4%

  • Yes, but only a GOP brokered convention

    Votes: 2 9.5%

  • Yes, but only a DNC brokered convention

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes for both party conventions

    Votes: 4 19.0%

  • other, such as political parties are not in the constitution

    Votes: 4 19.0%
  • Total voters
    21
Redress said:
The only way, short of changing the rules, republicans have a brokered convention is if Trump does not get a majority of delegates. That means the rank and file could not decide on one person.
Click to expand...

Whooooosh!!!

My whole point goes right over your head.

sigh...
 
Carjosse said:
Then you just get unofficial parties.
Click to expand...

forcing them underground with no legal protection or ability to game the system is fine with me, and every penny that goes to any candidate should be trackable on a public website. the two party system is a failure, and it's time to address that. i don't see a way to do it without a reboot of the US political system.
 
Mycroft said:
Whooooosh!!!

My whole point goes right over your head.

sigh...
Click to expand...

If your point is about some imaginary scenario that isn't happening, then who cares about it? If your point is about what is happening, the question is whether Trump can get 1237 delegates. If he can't, he is not the choice of the majority of the rank and file.
 
Redress said:
If your point is about some imaginary scenario that isn't happening, then who cares about it? If your point is about what is happening, the question is whether Trump can get 1237 delegates. If he can't, he is not the choice of the majority of the rank and file.
Click to expand...

sigh...

My point is about a real scenario that is happening as we speak. It's about the GOP Elite doing everything they can to take the ability of rank and file party members to choose their own candidate in favor of installing their own, chosen nominee...and by them using the brokered convention rule as their means to do this.

Look...I don't know if, absent the GOP Elite actions, Trump can get the necessary delegates but it should be left up to the party members who actually vote and caucus to determine if he does...not the bigwigs in the party.
 
Redress said:
Currently, if no candidate gets 50% of the delegates, the convention is brokered. It is not a "tactic", but how the rules are written. If a convention is brokered under those rules, would you consider it "the members just can't decide on one person"? If not, how would you change the rules?
Click to expand...

I thought there was some kind of rule that at a brokered GOP convention, no one could be in the running for the nomination unless they had won at least eight states.
 
Smeagol said:
There's some buzz going around right now suggesting the GOP primary/caucus results might be scrapped and instead allow party delegates to pick a GOP nominee of their own choosing. I'll be honest, I don't feel great about opting against the will of the people and letting the insiders choose instead but I also don't like the direction the GOP is going either. However, in fairness, a GOP brokered convention is likely only to happen if one candidate (Donald Trump) doesn't receive the minimum number of delegate needed to have not just more than anther candidate but a 50% +1 majority of candidates. Nobody thinks anyone but trump can win the primaries at this point but it is possible for him not to get the minimum, which will trigger a brokered convention. At that point, the whole thing is up for grabs: any candidate now running as well as any Republican including McCain or Romney could be become the nominee.

Not being talked about is the possibility of a Democratic Party brokered convention. It does seem like Hillary Clinton will become the nominee however I'm thinking the email issue has at minimum an outside chance of keeping her from running in the general election. Someone in the position to know details was recently granted immunity from prosecution for testifying against her. What happens if she can't run AFTER winning the nomination? I see two possibilities:

1. Make the second-place finisher the nominee
or 2. Have a DNC brokered convention.

In any event, we should have an interesting election cycle!
Click to expand...

I will not be supportive of a brokered convention.It basically says **** you to the voters.
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

My point is about a real scenario that is happening as we speak. It's about the GOP Elite doing everything they can to take the ability of rank and file party members to choose their own candidate in favor of installing their own, chosen nominee...and by them using the brokered convention rule as their means to do this.

Look...I don't know if, absent the GOP Elite actions, Trump can get the necessary delegates but it should be left up to the party members who actually vote and caucus to determine if he does...not the bigwigs in the party.
Click to expand...

The rank and file are speaking. It is really simple, they support him enough to get him 1237 delegates, or he is not the majority choice. It is really simple. There are no shenanigans. The 'elites" are not installing any one. RIght now the rank and file are talking, and sending mixed messages.
 
Moderate Right said:
I thought there was some kind of rule that at a brokered GOP convention, no one could be in the running for the nomination unless they had won at least eight states.
Click to expand...

Close. That is rule 40(b) from the GOP. https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf

Basically, to be considered, a candidate has to have the majority of delegates from at least 8 states. Cruz and Trump look like they will probably hit that mark. It is also possible the rule could be changed prior to the convention, but that would get really ugly really fast. I do not think they would go down that road, but this election has been weird, I would not rule out anything.
 
Redress said:
The rank and file are speaking. It is really simple, they support him enough to get him 1237 delegates, or he is not the majority choice. It is really simple. There are no shenanigans. The 'elites" are not installing any one. RIght now the rank and file are talking, and sending mixed messages.
Click to expand...

I find it odd that you will deny any "shenanigans" by the elites while you talk about the possibility of shenanigans concerning Rule 40. Also, are you aware that the shenanigans of the elite occurred a couple years ago when they changed rule 40...among other rules...to increase the number of states required from 5 to 8?

Oh, well...I'm not going to argue with you. Believe what you want...I'll do the same.
 
Mycroft said:
I find it odd that you will deny any "shenanigans" by the elites while you talk about the possibility of shenanigans concerning Rule 40. Also, are you aware that the shenanigans of the elite occurred a couple years ago when they changed rule 40...among other rules...to increase the number of states required from 5 to 8?

Oh, well...I'm not going to argue with you. Believe what you want...I'll do the same.
Click to expand...

I did not say shenanigans where impossible, only that there is no evidence they are happening now.
 
Redress said:
I did not say shenanigans where impossible, only that there is no evidence they are happening now.
Click to expand...

Oh...the evidence is there.

But it's okay if you choose to ignore it. In your reality, you are correct.
 
Helix said:
other. i'm for a phase out of political parties. and by phase out, i mean as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

Interesting view.

Now my mind is crammed full of different scenarios of how things would work in the Congress and Senate!

I wish you wouldn't have posted it. ;)
 
RetiredUSN said:
Interesting view.

Now my mind is crammed full of different scenarios of how things would work in the Congress and Senate!

I wish you wouldn't have posted it. ;)
Click to expand...

it would shake things up, for sure. i'm wondering how leadership roles would be determined in a congress full of independents, but i'm not wary of the idea at all. what makes this a complete fantasy is that it would require several constitutional tweaks, and that's not going to happen. an idea like this isn't even on the average voter's radar. however, this is a message board, and we're allowed to brainstorm better alternatives, even if they are unlikely alternatives. i like that. i also like the idea of parties losing their power to gerrymander and work with moneyed interests to hold candidates and constituents hostage. special interests should have their positions heard, but they shouldn't be the only rocket propellent available for a candidate who wants to be elected to an office.
 
Redress said:
Currently, if no candidate gets 50% of the delegates, the convention is brokered. It is not a "tactic", but how the rules are written. If a convention is brokered under those rules, would you consider it "the members just can't decide on one person"? If not, how would you change the rules?
Click to expand...

I find this delegate business complete nonsense, and the rules should be rewritten. Let the voters decide. If none of them gets 50%, or whatever might be the case, leave them on the ballot for the general.
Why do we even bother to vote, if by this time of the year, most of us us won't even can't even choose from the original list of candidates? Are we short on paper or people who can write a few more names on the ballot? What's the big deal?
Who figured out this primary nonsense, and why? It is only March, and the list of candidates has shrunk down to a minimum. This makes me so mad.
 
Lovebug said:
I find this delegate business complete nonsense, and the rules should be rewritten. Let the voters decide. If none of them gets 50%, or whatever might be the case, leave them on the ballot for the general.
Why do we even bother to vote, if by this time of the year, most of us us won't even can't even choose from the original list of candidates? Are we short on paper or people who can write a few more names on the ballot? What's the big deal?
Who figured out this primary nonsense, and why? It is only March, and the list of candidates has shrunk down to a minimum. This makes me so mad.
Click to expand...

This is why I'm not a member of any Party.

I won't align with and give money to a group who will only use me...who doesn't care about me enough to give me anything other than the choices THEY want me to have. The world is full of dictators who held free and open elections with only one candidate...themselves. I choose not to be a part of such things in the US.
 
If Trump wins the most votes/delegates in the primaries and the establishment picks someone else to be the nominee, it will be the end of the Republican Party.

I don't want Trump to win the nomination, but you have to respect the will of the base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom