Humanities desk
< March 2	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 3

Could the Republicans choose not to run a candidate?

There has been a lot of news lately about how Donald Trump is opposed by Republican party leadership. I even saw someone on CNN recently discussing the notion that Mitt Romney could file to run as an independent candidate. Question: in such a scenario, is it possible for the RNC to intentionally decide not to nominate a candidate, or alternatively for Republican party leadership, despite having a nomination in hand, not to file paperwork for the candidate to run in the election? Presumably leaving the independent candidate to run against the Democrats. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is hypothetically possible - though it isn't going to happen. There are actually 50 separate elections (one in each state), so it would be necessary for the Republican Party in each and every state to agree not to put the chosen candidate on their local ballot.109.150.174.93 (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot access is not directly controlled by the RNC or DNC; rather, it is a function of state law. Sometimes state-law gives certain privileges to state or local party organizations (for example, "automatic ballot access"—the right to appear on the ballot without paying a fee or collecting signatures on a petition, or the right to automatically substitute a candidate to replace a candidate who dies before the election). There are also complex legal rules about to the extent to which state law may regulate internal party operations. But generally, it is the candidate who files the paperwork to run, not the party.

There have been occasions in the past where a candidate not wanted by the party has nevertheless appeared on the general-election ballot under that party label. For example, in 2012, Kesha Rogers (a member of the insane LaRouche movement) narrowly won a Democratic primary for a congressional sheet. She was promptly disavowed by the state and national party, but it appears they could not remove her "D" sign from the ballot. (There are other, perhaps less bizarre primary wins: Alvin Greene in South Carolina and Robert Gray in Mississippi come to mind, see here). See also Comparative Politics: Nations and Theories in a Changing World (2nd ed. 1996), p. 101 "the American parties have little control over their individual members ... in popular primaries ... people can acquire the party nomination while disavowing all principles and policies for which the party seems to stand." Neutrality^talk 16:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OR here, but I would presume that what the Republican party does is controlled by a majority of the delegates to the convention--if the majority of delegates are loyal to Trump, then presumably they would nominate Trump. It's inconceivable to me (or am I wrong here?) that the RNC could block the delegates from voting for a nominee. Loraof (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue would arise if Trump were to have a plurality but not a majority of candidates, leading to a brokered convention where one of the other candidates could pull enough support to overtake Trump. This has happened in the past, where dark horse candidates, as they are sometimes called, have come out of brokered conventions and ended up even winning the Presidency. See this article which explains the brokered convention, as well as the complex delegate assignment and voting rules in the Republican party. --Jayron 32 17:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On that point, see also Smoke-filled room. Matt Deres (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the candidates (or more likely, their staff) actually file the paperwork to run, as opposed to the Party filing it ? If so, the only involvement of the Party would be if they disputed that the candidate was actually the nominee of their Party. If they won this dispute, presumably the candidate would still be on the general election ballot, but without a Party designation. And in states that allow a straight-party-vote lever, this would no longer select that candidate. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not really very clear on who does what to claim a party's special perks for getting a candidate nominated without getting a bazillion signatures. But it looks like my scenario is off from what is being mooted here, which is the brokered-convention model. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charity oversight in the USA

Does the USA, or do the individual states, have some sort of equivalent of the Charity Commission to oversee charities? DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They might, but you may find the IRS page on applying for tax-exempt status interesting.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's any one entity that governs charities in the US, but there are several watchdog groups that publish reports on how productive charities are. Basically, they break down how much donated money actually goes to the cause the charity supports and how much goes to salaries or whatever. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 01:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it seems to be up to the media to root out unethically operated charities, such as the recent "Wounded Warriors" exposé.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Reports watches watchdogs watch charity, and says three of them matter the most. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

: If only I was allowed without restrictions, the word NGO would've meant something...

-- Apostle (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]