A Brokered Convention
I’ve been hearing from pundits and diehard Trump supporters that a brokered convention would be unacceptable in a democratic system. I am confused by these statements.
Perhaps we are forgetting some important things.
First, the origin of the Republican Party as a viable alternative to the Democratic Party, began with a brokered convention in Chicago in 1860. Abraham Lincoln never achieved more than a plurality of votes in the Republican primaries. William Seward received far more votes than Lincoln, but when all was said and done, more delegates overall believed that Lincoln was the stronger candidate because his appeal was broader among Edward Bates’ delegates and Salmon Chase’s delegates. These other candidates were more disposed to vote Lincoln than Seward.
Abe Lincoln and an ascendant Republican Party were the products of a brokered convention.
Second, by way of explanation, if a candidate cannot garner over 50% of the Republican vote he does not represent a consensus in the party. The purpose of having a primary is to determine the “center of gravity” among those who are represented by a party affiliation. If 40% of Republicans prefer X, but 60% do not like X, then, clearly, someone other than X must be chosen.
The point of a primary process and/or a brokered convention is to get the MAXIMAL number of Republicans to agree on a candidate—so that the candidate has the support of the majority of the party.
Without strong support from the party, the candidate’s chances of winning a national election are radically diminished.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing undemocratic about a brokered convention. Indeed, this how a democracy chooses the best candidate. Functional representative government does not work like the Areopagus of ancient Greece (whoever gets the most votes); it works by committees and by the complexities of finding consensus. Remember that our republic “hedges” majority rule, by attempting to find a center of gravity that closely reflects the will of a majority of voters. Often the center of gravity is someone or set of policies that we do not completely agree with—but, of the which, we are willing to tolerate more than the alternative.
The process of selecting a candidate who only receives a plurality is exactly how Germany got into trouble in 1933.
In American presidential politics candidates must win in an electoral college, not by raw popular vote. When state primaries assign delegates, this is a crude way of forecasting the results of the electoral college in November. Not perfect, but it is an attempt to presage the outcome of the general election. There are problems with it, but it is certainly and absolutely better than allowing a plurality candidate to run as if he or she reflects the majority will. Brokered conventions provide a means of addressing this problem when there is no clear consensus.
Just a thought.
