Trump gets obliterated by Cruz forces in Georgia's District Conventions

[Erc]

Trump only got 39% in the state, compared to 48% for Cruz + Rubio.  Obviously those sorts of numbers games are generally specious, but keep that in mind.

Trump can't command a majority of support anywhere outside the tri-state area and the Marianas, and the vast majority of non-Trump voters have resoundingly said they don't want him as their nominee.

The system is such that if no one commands a clear majority going into the convention, the delegates get to decide.  Those delegates are chosen through processes like these, which admittedly favors party activists and committed Republicans over your average D-grade voter (to borrow a phrase from Howard Dean).  Voters overall have been against Trump, and the committed Republicans are definitely against Trump.

In the end, the GOP is a private organization, and while they've mostly deferred the decision to the people, in cases like this where there is no clear decision from the people, they get to choose the nominee themselves.

Compare this to the system in the Electoral College, where there's a similar multi-tiered system if no one wins a majority.  The election is thrown to the House, where they vote (by state) to elect the President.  The representatives are not obliged to vote in the same way their state did.  Of course, congressmen are elected on the same ballot as the President (unlike delegates in most states), and there's no possibility of a dark horse emerging in the House, but there's a rough analogy there.

[Erc]

It honestly matters more for the imminent Cruz vs. not-Cruz fight.  It's Kasich supporters that should be worried more than anything, and in cases where they are picking delegates who are already bound on the first ballot, anti-Cruz people should openly be working with Trump supporters, if necessary.  Trump's clearly going to lose support on the second ballot, so if you help elect an actual Trump delegate, you're not really helping Trump, you're hurting Cruz.

[Erc]

The system is rigged. This will cause a popular outrage among the Trump supporters and only help Trump win the required 1237 delegates the regular way and win on the first ballot.

If the system is rigged it's in Trump's favor. He's getting a higher percentage of free media than he does with the vote, and he gets a higher percentage of delegates than votes. The latter has helped him more than it has other candidates.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/despite-complaints-delegate-system-has-given-trump-22-percent-bonus-n553801

Regardless, what makes a more compelling, easier to understand narrative?

"Trump is getting a disproportionately high number of delegates! He should be winning, but not by this much!"

-or-

"Ted Cruz is trying to steal the nomination! He's sweeping delegates in states where they cancelled the election, and getting his own delegates elected as Trump delegates in order to override the will of voters!"

Regardless of anything, I think the second narrative will dominate. For most people, getting the most votes means you win, regardless of the actual "rules." Just think how many Democrats are still angry about 2000, even after several post-election recounts have shown Gore's recount strategy still would have had Bush win.

It's the responsibility of people who know better to get the facts right. Presumably, everyone on a politics message board knows better.

This is so frustrating to watch.  I'm not a Trump supporter by any means but what's happening is deeply unfair.  To those who say "it's part of the game", do you remember Romney or McCain or W having to go back to elections they had already won and re-fight them, not to win votes, but to outmanouver local party activists abusing the rulebook to put up delegates who support the guy who lost instead of the guy who won?  It's insane that this can happen.

It's happening because Trump is weaker than Romney or McCain. If Trump was on track to win all the delegates, it wouldn't be an issue.

Well, the strategic consideration for Republicans at this point should be whether it's better to nominate Trump and have about a 5% chance of winning the election and about a 50/50 chance of the next 1964, or to nominate Cruz, who has perhaps a 20% chance of winning the election (and that might be generous) but is very unlikely to get <45% of the vote in any scenario.  But a contested convention in which Cruz "steals" the nomination from Trump, although it is technically within the rules, will probably be a Remember the Alamo moment for Trump supporters.  The odds that Trump recruits an ambitious 45 year old to run on his platform and raise hell into the 2020's go way up.  It goes without saying that the damage would be even worse if they give the nomination to someone who didn't even run, like Romney or Ryan.  

I've changed my tune on this a bit.  It's now much less likely that Trump could actually win the general than it was in December.  Might it be better in the long run for Republicans to let him run and lose badly so that they can purge the party of his influence for good than to invite a long run struggle by taking the nomination from him?  Of course, Cruz would be back in 2020, but as long as the establishment unites next time, they should be able to hold him off and nominate someone stronger.

Pretty sure Trump is not interested in starting a "movement" to follow him.  Someone may try to pick up his mantle, but it's not like there's going to be an explicitly Trumpista movement led by Trump going forward.

The best way to stop Trump and his ideas going forward is to make sure he loses the nomination, not by surrendering it to him.

It's a real shame that that means that Ted Cruz is the nominee.  But we're losing this election anyway, and, uh...well I can't bring myself to say anything nice about Ted Cruz either.

[Erc]

It's a little alarming to see people in this thread implying that a better understanding of the rules of the convention process would or should be all it would take obviate people's concerns about the perceived fundamental justice or injustice of one candidate getting the most votes but another winning. FPTP is a horrible, horrible system, but it's still a damn sight more democratic than ~ninja delegates~.

I agree that we haven't really had a similar situation in American democracy since 1824.  1912 and 1968 (and perhaps some other conventions) come close, but none of them really had the same expectation of a democratic process.