Politics Magazine

Political Parties–Not the Primary Voters–Choose Their Nominees II

Posted on the 17 March 2016 by Adask

Maybe Not [courtesy Google Images]

Maybe Not
[courtesy Google Images]

Political Parties–Not the Primary Voters–Choose Their Nominees

That first article was based on a CNBC video interview of Republican National Committee (RNC) member Curly Haugland who explained a rule of the “Republican Party” (an entity whose precise meaning and membership is not commonly known, but does not include all of the “riff-raff” who voted in the Republican primary elections).  According to Mr. Haugland, the “Republican Party” (whatever that is) will decide who’ll be the Republican candidate for President while the Republican primary election voters’ preferences will carry no real authority.  I.e., the primary elections don’t count.

Assuming Mr. Haugland’s admission legally accurate, it is explosive.  He has almost certainly ignited a political revolution.

Y’say Y’want a Rev-o-lu-tion?

RNC-member Haugland has unwittingly opened a can of worms that won’t be easily closed or forgotten.  Just today—just one day after CNBC posted Mr. Haugland’s original video-interview—The Washington Times published an article entitled “RNC weighs scrapping convention rule book to head off anti-Trump maneuvers“.*

That article declares in part, that:

“Top Republicans will try to force more transparency at the party’s national convention in July, aiming to scrap their 1,500-page rule book in favor of simpler procedures that they hope will head off arcane maneuvers designed to deny Donald Trump the presidential nomination.”

Bunk.  These “top Republicans” aren’t hoping to “head off arcane maneuvers designed to deny Donald Trump the presidential nomination.”  They’re hoping to “head off” the political firestorm that will follow Mr. Haugland’s admission that  the Republican voters’ votes at the Republican primary elections don’t really carry any authority; and his implied admission that the “Republican Party” is some tiny elite that does not include rank-and-file “Republican voters”.

News that the “Republican Party” doesn’t include the “Republican voters” is so explosive that it could destroy the “Republican Party”.  That news is what the “top Republicans” are trying to “head off” with the article in The Washington Times.

Scrap the Rule Book?!

“Top Republicans will try to force more transparency at the party’s national convention in July, aiming to scrap their 1,500-page rule book in favor of simpler procedures that they hope will head off arcane maneuvers designed to deny Donald Trump the presidential nomination.

More bunk—and big-time “bunk,” at that.

Does anyone really believe that ( just four months before the Republican National Convention) these “top Republicans”are really willing to “scrap” their entire “1,500-page rule book” just to create “more transparency”?

Or, is it more likely that the “top Republicans” are actually willing to “scrap” their entire 1,500-page haystack of rules in order to quietly dispose of whatever “needles” (like the rule that says the primary voters’ votes don’t matter and a description of the real “Republican Party”) that are hidden in that haystack?

I’m betting that these “top Republicans” are so terrified by the thought of the public finding the rule that says that their primary votes don’t really matter, that the “top Republicans” are willing to burn the entire rule book to conceal that crime.

The move to “scrap” 1,500 pages of rules is no small thing.  This is tantamount to the Methodist Church burning all copies of the Bible because there’s a verse hidden in there, somewhere, that exposes the Methodist Church as some sort of ungodly fraud.

Think about it.  The “top Republicans” aren’t saying that they need to tweak one or two rules.  They’re saying that they need to “scrap” all 1,500 pages.  This is evidence of panic.  This is evidence of revolution.

Ain’t It Revoltin’?

“RNC committee members across the country echoed that sentiment. They said an attempt by Republican insiders to manipulate the process would spark a revolt.”

“Revolt,” my ass.

If the “Republican Party” (whatever that is) refuses to honor the votes and authority of the “Republican voters” at Republican primary elections, there won’t be a revolt.  There’ll be a death sentence for the “Republican Party”.   It will be executed by its own shifty rules.  It will virtually cease to exist and probably be unable to win another presidential election for years into the future.  It may even have to change its moniker from “GOP” (Grand Old Party) to “GOA” (Grand Old Aristocracy).


Gee!  What a Coincidence!

The Washington Times article made no express reference to Mr. Haugland and/or his admission that the “Republican Party” (whatever that is) controls who will be nominated for President without regard for the Republican voters’ preferences expressed at the Republican primaries.

Nevertheless, I can’t believe that it’s only a coincidence that The Washington Times article was published just one day after RNC-member Haugland let the cat out of the bag.

The RNC knows that Mr. Haugland has exposed explosive information that could destroy the “Republican Party” forever.  The RNC’s only escape (if any is even possible) will require the “Republican Party” to repudiate whatever specific rules and/or their entire 1,500-page rule book that render primary voting (and primary voters) to be irrelevant, null, void and of no legal authority or effect.

Write-In Candidates

One of my readers responded to my first article about Mr. Haugland’s admissions.  He recommending we use “write-in” candidates rather than vote for the person nominated by the elite of the “Republican Party”.

I doubt that a national write-in candidate could win election.  If there could be one write-in candidate, why not two, twenty, or two hundred?

We can fantasize that, if he’s denied the Republican nomination, Donald Trump could run as a “write-in candidate”.  But so could Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Mitt Romney.  So, could I, for that matter.  Does anyone believe that Marco Rubio wouldn’t run as a write-in candidate if he thought there was one chance in a hundred that he could win?

If we pushed the write-in candidacy idea, there’d be so many write-in contenders that they’d tend to cancel each other out and no one would win a majority of the vote. The best write-in candidate would be unlikely to field more than 5% of the vote.  How could a man who received only 5% of the vote effectively govern?

Third Party

A better solution might be to start a Third Political Party that advertised from the beginning that:

1) it would be absolutely bound by the preferences of its supporters as expressed at their primary elections; and

 2) that the “party” included all rank and file voters who voted in the primaries and/or perhaps all others who merely contributed, say, $5 (or maybe $20) to get a party “membership” ID card.

How ’bout that?  How ’bout a third political party that absolutely represented the will of the people rather than the will of the establishment, major corporations and/or an aristocratic elite?

RNC member Haugland has revealed what may turn out to be the single most explosive issue of the A.D. 2016 election–even bigger than Trump, himself.  I doubt that any party can publicly justify any party rules that allow the primary voters’ votes to be effectively cancelled or at least ignored.  I’ll bet that every political party’s rules will now become the focus of much attention, analysis, criticism and even rage.

Incidentally, Mr. Haugland seemed to imply in his interview that some, most, or all other “political parties” (including the Democrats) are operating under the same rules that allow them to ignore the preferences of primary voters.

If it’s true that Dem’s also recognize no authority in the votes cast at Democrat primary elections . . . then this might be a perfect time for Mr. Trump to attack both parties for refusing to honor primary voters’ preferences and start a third party that, among other things would guarantee to honor its primary voters’ votes.

Once again, Trump is in a position to cause revolutionary changes in American politics.  Like him or hate him, you have to admit that he’s come into the “garden” of American politics like the first “Adam”.  Now, that he’s here, there’s gonna be some big, big changes.

Too Smart For Their Own Good

The “Republican Party” and/or “elitists” and/or “establishment” thought that they were so smart that they could use their “rules” to defy the primary voters’ preference and prevent Trump from being nominated.

The smart guys in the “Republican Party” conspired to use their weight, brains and “secret” rules to deny Trump’s nomination from behind the scenes.  But, these under-cover “smart guys” forgot that there are no secrets in the Internet Age.  By plotting to use “secret” rules to prevent Trump’s nomination, they called public attention to their heretofore “secret” rules.

Result?  Their scheme has not simply blown up in their faces, it’s created a controversy that might yet destroy the “Republican Party” itself.


The very survival of the “Republican Party” is now at risk.  It may well be that Mr. Haugland’s admissions will be enough to destroy the “Republican Party” no matter how many rules or rule books the “top Republicans” scrap to mitigate the damage.

As a result, I’ll bet that the “Republican Party” will no longer dare to oppose Trump’s nomination.  Trump has the only viable band wagon at this point.  The “Republican Party’s” only hope of survival is to jump on Trump’s band wagon and become Trump’s BFF.

From here on until November election, if RNC-member Haugland’s description of the “Republican Party’s” rules is accurate, I suspect that Trump will rule the Republican Party because, if Trump really wants to push, he can destroy it.

In fact, if the Democrat Party’s rules are as aristocratic as the Republicans’, Trump might even be able to push hard enough to destroy the Democrat Party.

If that turns out to be true, even Hillary might be forced to “play nice”.

RNC-member Haugland’s public admissions have quite probably given Trump the “Republican Party’s” nomination.  He may even have given Trump the Presidency.

Love him or hate him, Trump is the 800-pound gorilla in this year’s election.  He is a nuclear-powered, political wrecking ball.

When was the last time you saw an American presidential candidate whose political effects were as profound as Trump’s?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

Is Trump another Roosevelt?

Or is Trump the anti-Roosevelt and beginning of a counter-revolutionary remedy for the New Deal?


One last point.  The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is responsible for “Administering and Enforcing Federal Campaign Finance Laws”.  I haven’t yet researched the relevant laws or the FEC.  Still, I wonder what FEC laws justify allowing any political party to collect campaign contributions for presidential candidates during the presidential primary elections if the votes cast in the primary elections carry no legal weight.  Could it be that political campaign contributions (money) counts and votes don’t?  Does the FEC sanction the voter fraud that’s inherent in ignoring votes case by primary election voters?

I don’t know what FEC laws, if any, relate to primary elections.  I assume that some federal laws govern the primary elections.  But I could be wrong.  Given that each primary election takes place within a single “state,” it may be that only “state” (not federal) laws govern each state’s primary elections.

Still, it seems certain that either “state” or federal laws govern the conduct of primary elections.

How could any governmental entity’s laws not simply govern but effectively sanction the primary election process if the votes of those voting in primaries could be rendered void by some party elite or “establishment”?

All of which implies that there are laws at the state and/or federal level that allow political parties to host fraudulent primary elections that can ignore the votes cast by voters but still collect political campaign contributions.  What sort of firestorm do you suppose we’ll see when those laws are identified and exposed?

This primary election controversy may be a long ways from being over.

If you’ve previously suspected that the major political parties are ignoring your votes, it turns out that your suspicions may have been legally accurate.


*  When I first watched RNC-member Haugland’s video interview, it struck me odd that he was often wearing an fixed grin.  I didn’t connect the dots at the time, but it now occurs to me that Mr. Haugland may’ve been about half-snockered when he was interviewed.

If he was sober, how do you explain him making those extraordinary admissions?  If he was sober, he was either angry at the RNC and wanted to screw ‘em big time, or he’s a political moron who had no idea of the explosive implications of what he was saying.

If Haugland was intoxicated at the interview, then the “Republican Party” may be destroyed by one RNC-member having had a “liquid lunch”.

This is all so improbable and yet so explosive that it’s almost as if we’re seeing evidence of the Hand of God working in American politics.

I’m not arguing that Trump is God’s anointed-choice for President any more than I’d argue that Rameses was God’s anointed-choice for Pharaoh in the face-off with Moses.

I’m not arguing that if Trump is elected, America will once again “get right with God”.

But, I am arguing that something is going on in this year’s presidential election that’s so exciting, divisive and explosive that it can’t be easily explained as “bidness as usual”.  Whatever’s going on may not truly be inspired by the supernatural, but that sure looks like that’s a possibility.  And, whatever forces may be at work, they seem to all swirl around Trump.

??? [courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog