This season of Republican discontent raises an interesting question: To whom should a political party be most responsive, its elite establishment leadership or the “rank and file” casting votes for its candidates?

          By this time, it is abundantly clear that after sitting on their collective thumbs through the first part of the nomination process, the movers and shakers within the GOP have come to the conclusion that, despite the fact he has garnered embarrassingly more votes than any other presidential hopeful, Donald Trump is unacceptable as the party’s standard-bearer.

          Having failed to successfully coalesce behind any of the 14 candidates who have bitten the dust since the nomination process began, what has come to be known as the “Stop Trump” movement is left with only two alternatives currently in the race, John Kasich or Ted Cruz.

          Governor Kasich is an interesting option. In Republican debates, he often appears to be the only adult on the stage. Well spoken, unfailingly upbeat, he is the sitting governor of a swing state that is seen as a “must win” for any candidate, irrespective of party.

          On the downside, he appears to be as popular with the party faithful as a trip to the dentist. (Not that there is anything wrong with going to the dentist, and don’t forget to floss!) He has only won a single state, his own, and has rarely been competitive elsewhere. He has fewer pledged delegates than Marco Rubio, who has been out of the race for weeks. Moreover, his shiny image is at least partially attributable to not having been perceived as a big enough player to have his narrative of events challenged. But when public safety employees in Ohio murmur about getting the short end of the stick when it comes to wages and benefits in order help shore up the state’s fiscal problems, and when city and town officials complain that millions of dollars have been diverted from their coffers for the same reason, you begin to suspect the dew might be coming off the rose. It could come off rather quickly if his record as governor were given the kind of scrutiny to which front runners are inevitably subjected.

          By default, the powers that be seem to be leaning towards Ted Cruz as the Donald Trump antidote. Which is ironic, because if The Donald is the most disliked candidate in living memory, the one coming in a close second is Ted Cruz. As the irrepressible Lindsey Graham put it back in late February: “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”

          Less than six weeks later, Lindsey hasn’t killed Ted, but he has endorsed him. When pressed to explain his change of heart, the best Senator Graham could come up with was that Ted Cruz was not Donald Trump.

          What gives?

          On many issues, Ted’s positions are every bit as out of the mainstream as Donald’s. The only difference (and it is a chilling difference) is that Ted really believes what he says. If the Republican brain trust’s collective wisdom if that The Donald is unelectable, what makes them think Ted is?

          Or maybe Ted’s electability has nothing to do with it.

          Ted Cruz is the only active candidate standing who can block The Donald from amassing the 1,237 delegates necessary to snare the presidential nomination on the first ballot at the Cleveland convention.

          But Ted Cruz won’t have 1,237 delegates either. You have an open convention.

          After the first ballot, all bets are off. Delegates are free to vote for anyone, and the majority of the delegates are party regulars, not candidate activists. Given the opportunity, they could defect from both The Donald and Ted.

          To John Kasich? Maybe. To someone not currently in the race?

          Hmmm.

          Watch the Convention Rules Committee.

Each convention makes up its own rules. If there is any movement toward opening up the nomination process to make it practical to entertain nominations from the floor of the convention, look for the establishment’s fingerprints.

Open things up and a Paul Ryan is possible. Heck, even a Jeb Bush might rejoin the land of the living.

Of course, there would be a price to be paid.

That price would be to tell those millions of party faithful – and crossovers and newcomers – who participated in the nomination process that their votes, their wishes, are irrelevant. When push comes to shove, the decision can be taken out of their hands by a privileged coterie of party elites.

Which brings us back to the original question. To whom should a party be most responsive? Its establishment elite, or its voters? Even if the voters’ wishes might appear to be self-destructive?

I wouldn’t presume to have the answer to that question, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out should that story line come to pass.