The entire nation is living through a gigantic civics lesson on how presidential nominees are selected to represent their parties on the ballot. Isn't it just a matter of states holding primary elections and delegates representing candidates with the majority going to the national convention and casting their votes for the winning candidate - a foregone conclusion?
It would surely appear that way, usually anyway, a sort of "laying-on-of-hands" ceremony, formalizing a decision that has already been made. Party delegates spend from $2,000 to $6,000 to go to the big city, attend cocktail parties, listen to the powerful and partake in the nationally televised dog-and-pony show. Routine party business is conducted, but the big celebration is to formally nominate and anoint the candidate who has already been selected.
It has been decades since a major party candidate has not been selected prior to its party's convention. But this year, Republican delegates may actually select the nominee at the convention.
Even those of us who have followed politics most of our adult lives, have participated in party politics, and have run the gauntlet to get our name on the ballot for partisan political office, find it enlightening. The broadcast media nitwits are consistently demonstrating their past ignorance of the process. The typical citizen whose only political involvement is listening to trashy campaign ads and a trip to the voting booth can be forgiven for not understanding the process.
Political parties are not "the government." They set their national party rules, and 50 states, the District of Columbia, and six American territories set their specific rules on how they select delegates that nominate their party's candidate. Some rely on primary elections for selecting delegates, some with winner take all, and some apportion them based on winners of congressional districts. States have varying rules regarding binding their delegates to a specific candidate. In a contested convention, delegates may favor a specific candidate but be bound by state party rules to vote for someone they don't favor, at least for one or two rounds.
In a "normal" year, these varying rules are inconsequential as a candidate has the nomination locked up prior to the national convention. This year, as a candidate will likely not have it locked up, the rules matter.
Nobody can possibly know everything. Not knowing what you don't know can be perilous, possibly costing the leading candidate the nomination for the presidency.
Donald Trump is obviously a very smart, successful business man. In business he is astute enough to know what he doesn't know. He hires an army of lawyers, accountants and other professionals to advise him. He openly acknowledges, even boasts, of using tax laws, eminent domain and bankruptcy laws to his advantage. He acknowledges his financial contributions to politicians of both parties.
Trump has achieved impressive financial success under American capitalism, a system that he understands, and is astute enough to engage experts to assist him to navigate through its complexities. It's not too cynical to suggest that the rules and laws under which he operates are written by and for people favorable to corporate and big business interests - "rigged," so to speak to favor people of his ilk.
So in 2016, Trump throws his hat in the ring for the presidency. He's a smart, successful guy who sees politicians running the country as a bunch of incompetent idiots. Surely, he believes, he can triumph over those losers.
And doesn't success in business ensure success in politics? Well, there are some common elements; singular ambition, high energy, hard driving personalities, focus on the ultimate objective and ability to motivate people.
So he announces his candidacy and makes a big splash with controversial statements. He quickly wraps the fawning sycophants of the broadcast media around his little finger, gaining tons of free media time that his rivals would kill for. He easily knocks out the well-financed, colorless Gov. Walker; the heir-apparent, Jeb Bush; and all the rest except for Sen. Cruz and Gov. Kasich.
Naturally, he must be doing something right; he's accustomed to winning.
But here's the catch: Politics is a different game; the national party has a set of rules, augmented by separate sets of rules for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and six American territories. Those multiple sets of rules governing selection of delegates that select the party's presidential nominee are not designed for Donald Trump.
A majority of a state's popular votes may not correlate perfectly with that state's delegate votes for a candidate at the convention, especially after two or three rounds of voting; it depends on the rules for delegates of that particular state. It may sound counter-intuitive and even undemocratic. But no politician can blame "the other party." Each party sets its own rules.
So now Trump complains that the system is "rigged" and unfair. But Trump, as a smart guy wading into an unfamiliar game, was not astute enough to know what he didn't know.
Wading into a new game, he could not have expected to know the rules of all the states and territories. But one would expect a man of his experience to know that he didn't know it all, and assign his staff to do the homework for him and advise him. He failed to do his homework and failed to have someone do that homework for him.
Trump is apparently being out-hustled by Cruz, who masquerades as an outsider, but really is a canny insider who understands the system. Cruz is working it to attain delegates ultimately dedicated to Cruz, including unbound delegates and those who, by rule, are initially bound to Trump, but are independent if Trump does not succeed on the first ballot.
Is it too late for Trump to compensate for his false assumptions and naiveté? We will find out soon.
Next week: More on "the system."
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
It would surely appear that way, usually anyway, a sort of "laying-on-of-hands" ceremony, formalizing a decision that has already been made. Party delegates spend from $2,000 to $6,000 to go to the big city, attend cocktail parties, listen to the powerful and partake in the nationally televised dog-and-pony show. Routine party business is conducted, but the big celebration is to formally nominate and anoint the candidate who has already been selected.
It has been decades since a major party candidate has not been selected prior to its party's convention. But this year, Republican delegates may actually select the nominee at the convention.
Even those of us who have followed politics most of our adult lives, have participated in party politics, and have run the gauntlet to get our name on the ballot for partisan political office, find it enlightening. The broadcast media nitwits are consistently demonstrating their past ignorance of the process. The typical citizen whose only political involvement is listening to trashy campaign ads and a trip to the voting booth can be forgiven for not understanding the process.
Political parties are not "the government." They set their national party rules, and 50 states, the District of Columbia, and six American territories set their specific rules on how they select delegates that nominate their party's candidate. Some rely on primary elections for selecting delegates, some with winner take all, and some apportion them based on winners of congressional districts. States have varying rules regarding binding their delegates to a specific candidate. In a contested convention, delegates may favor a specific candidate but be bound by state party rules to vote for someone they don't favor, at least for one or two rounds.
In a "normal" year, these varying rules are inconsequential as a candidate has the nomination locked up prior to the national convention. This year, as a candidate will likely not have it locked up, the rules matter.
Nobody can possibly know everything. Not knowing what you don't know can be perilous, possibly costing the leading candidate the nomination for the presidency.
Donald Trump is obviously a very smart, successful business man. In business he is astute enough to know what he doesn't know. He hires an army of lawyers, accountants and other professionals to advise him. He openly acknowledges, even boasts, of using tax laws, eminent domain and bankruptcy laws to his advantage. He acknowledges his financial contributions to politicians of both parties.
Trump has achieved impressive financial success under American capitalism, a system that he understands, and is astute enough to engage experts to assist him to navigate through its complexities. It's not too cynical to suggest that the rules and laws under which he operates are written by and for people favorable to corporate and big business interests - "rigged," so to speak to favor people of his ilk.
So in 2016, Trump throws his hat in the ring for the presidency. He's a smart, successful guy who sees politicians running the country as a bunch of incompetent idiots. Surely, he believes, he can triumph over those losers.
And doesn't success in business ensure success in politics? Well, there are some common elements; singular ambition, high energy, hard driving personalities, focus on the ultimate objective and ability to motivate people.
So he announces his candidacy and makes a big splash with controversial statements. He quickly wraps the fawning sycophants of the broadcast media around his little finger, gaining tons of free media time that his rivals would kill for. He easily knocks out the well-financed, colorless Gov. Walker; the heir-apparent, Jeb Bush; and all the rest except for Sen. Cruz and Gov. Kasich.
Naturally, he must be doing something right; he's accustomed to winning.
But here's the catch: Politics is a different game; the national party has a set of rules, augmented by separate sets of rules for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and six American territories. Those multiple sets of rules governing selection of delegates that select the party's presidential nominee are not designed for Donald Trump.
A majority of a state's popular votes may not correlate perfectly with that state's delegate votes for a candidate at the convention, especially after two or three rounds of voting; it depends on the rules for delegates of that particular state. It may sound counter-intuitive and even undemocratic. But no politician can blame "the other party." Each party sets its own rules.
So now Trump complains that the system is "rigged" and unfair. But Trump, as a smart guy wading into an unfamiliar game, was not astute enough to know what he didn't know.
Wading into a new game, he could not have expected to know the rules of all the states and territories. But one would expect a man of his experience to know that he didn't know it all, and assign his staff to do the homework for him and advise him. He failed to do his homework and failed to have someone do that homework for him.
Trump is apparently being out-hustled by Cruz, who masquerades as an outsider, but really is a canny insider who understands the system. Cruz is working it to attain delegates ultimately dedicated to Cruz, including unbound delegates and those who, by rule, are initially bound to Trump, but are independent if Trump does not succeed on the first ballot.
Is it too late for Trump to compensate for his false assumptions and naiveté? We will find out soon.
Next week: More on "the system."
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
