Yes, the delegates can decide
Fri, 2016-04-08 15:02 News Staff
-- Column --
Donald Trump has made his first threat to sue over the procedures for selecting delegates to the Republican convention. It surely won’t be his last.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Ted Cruz may come out of Louisiana with as many as 10 more delegates than Trump, even though the mogul narrowly beat Cruz in the popular vote there. In a tweet, Trump pronounced it “unfair,” and worthy of litigation.
The Louisiana delegate picture isn’t evidence of anything untoward. Trump and Cruz both won 18 delegates on election night. Marco Rubio, since dropped out, won five, and another five are uncommitted. The Cruz campaign has done the nitty-gritty work to see that those delegates are likely Cruz supporters. The only scandal here is that the Cruz campaign, built on grass-roots organizing muscle, knows the process and is working hard for every advantage. Trump’s plaint is a little like showing up at a cricket match and crying foul because the opposing team knows the rules and all you know is that you swing a bat.
The Louisiana flap is a window into the intricate, state-bystate process of picking delegates to a convention in Cleveland where the allegiance of every last delegate might matter. If there is an open convention, Trump will argue that the voters should rule, not delegates no one has heard of, selected at obscure precinct, county, district and state meetings. He will, in short, declare the entire exercise of a contested convention illegitimate.
Is it? We are used to the voters directly deciding, and should Trump perform strongly enough to win a majority of delegates, 1,237, they, in effect, will. But if he falls short, the delegates enter the picture.
If Trump has only won a plurality of delegates, a badly divided party would be nominating a candidate who couldn’t reach a majority and, so far, has shown no general-election appeal. In this circumstance, delegates would be justified in looking to someone else better suited to win an election and protect the party’s interests.
It’s not unheard of for top votegetters in America to fall short of the top prize. Otherwise, there would have been a Gore administration. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but still fell short of George W. Bush, who won the Electoral College.
If you count Michigan, where Barack Obama’s name didn’t appear on the ballot, Hillary Clinton very narrowly won the most votes in the 2008 primaries. That was good enough for an appointment as secretary of state -- under President Obama, who understood the delegate-allocation rules much better.
Trump has thrived so far without an extensive, traditional political operation. But politics isn’t only about TV interviews and big rallies. There is a reason that the system also rewards candidates who can motivate and muster people to do the grass-roots activism involved in winning small victories at local meetings. This is literally getting people involved in the process, and it could take on an outsized significance in deciding the immediate future of the Republican Party.
Trump would be well-served to complain less about the rules, and learn more.
Rich Lowry is editor of the National