How a nearly 150-year-old Ohio law could determine the Republican nominee
If Donald Trump doesn’t get 1,237 delegates before the convention, all hell could break loose
The speculation surrounding a “contested” Republican convention has reached a high point. The drama started in Wisconsin, where Ted Cruz won by double-digits over front-runner Donald Trump. Then in Colorado, Cruz won and received 34 delegates to Trump’s resounding zero, causing the business mogul to graciously accept defeat.
What once looked etched in stone (a Trump nomination) is not surely guaranteed, even after Trump’s massive win in New York Tuesday. If Trump’s not able to receive the necessary 1,237 delegates to clinch the nomination, then all hell could break loose at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.
I say this because of a recently unearthed story on an obscure Ohio law passed in 1871 and later amended in 1874 on the eve of the 1876 Republican National Convention in Cincinnati. Revised code section 3599.01 bars “any candidate for nomination to any office before any convention” from offering delegates any monetary benefits in exchange for their vote. Doing so would result in bribery charges, a fourth-degree felony.
So let’s say by the time the GOP heads to Cleveland, Trump falls short of the magic number of 1,237. Let’s say he has between 1,172 and 1,255. And that according to estimates, there will be between 130 and 200 uncommitted delegates in Cleveland. What does Trump do? Does he follow this rarely applied law and try to get those delegates in the most “ethical” way? Or does he say Fuck It!, bribe a few party drones, get the nomination, be forced to forfeit the nomination, and claim the GOP was once again trying to screw him over?
The potential for Trump losing the nomination brings two sides to this issue. If any of this does happen, it will bring about sunshines and unicorns to a great percentage of the American public, and understandably so. But what does it say about the political system when a candidate could receive the majority of votes from party voters, fall short of an arbitrary/arcane number, and fail to win after party operatives pick the “establishment” guy? How could a candidate overcome this – especially when one option is to break an outdated law?
If this comes to fruition, none of those questions will answered, since the candidate in question is this guy: