Republican Primary Bound Delegate Count

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
The states choose/ elect their own state commitee for the party.
The state then sends their commitee members to the National Commitee meetings.
All state commitee members VOTE on the RNC rules.
And the RNC rules are in effect at the convention.
Every state representative agreed to the rules and voted for the rules.
So all states that held their primarys BEFORE April 1, will according to theGOP's own rules will :
1. Not have a winner take all primary but a proportional election.
2 Will lose 50% of their delegates.

So if all the states that held their primarys before April 1 are proportional and lose 50% of their delegates, (that means they will not be allowed onto the convention floor for the first vote .)
That means you hard and soft count are null and void.
Which all comes down to the first round of votes from the convention floor.
Which could mean no candidate will have enough delegates to win the first round.

Wow, you are completely confused.

The only states that lose delegates are those that were winner take all and before April 1st. That is only Florida...states that were before April 1st and were proportional have no penalty.

So sorry..but the counts are accurate no matter how many excuses you guys try to make.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Tell me what you make of this article. I am curious what your thoughts are on this.

ROGUE GOP CONVENTION2012

www.fairvote.org...

Now this is very interesting.

Hypothethetical situation if delegates abstain from voting and what would happen:

www.thegreenpapers.com...

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Which could mean no candidate will have enough delegates to win the first round.

Ignoring your misinformation on the 50% issue for the moment, that last sentence is still operative, and the important word is "could." You're right on that. If the first ballot does not produce a winner, then all bets are off. That appears to be what the Paulistas are hanging their hats on. Now let's take a look at what has to happen for this to come to pass:

Paul must win all the remaining delegates. ALL of them. Now I know that according to the Paulistas there are quite a few Zombie or Stealth delegates out there that can somehow unbind or abstain themselves from voting for Romney, but I have yet to see any credible information that this is true either in any State law or state GOP rule or national GOP rule. It appears to be smoke & mirrors and the usual disinformation we have come to expect from the Paulistas. They bring up an arcane point no one has ever heard of before, and while people feel compelled to address yet another fabrication the Paulistas move on to yet another misinterpretation. We should realize by now this is all in the Paul Play Book. This is how they do business: Obfuscate, mis-direct, confuse, and yell loudly.

The fact is Romney needs less than 300 delegates to clinch and Paul needs 1,000. I don't think Romney can claim he's over the top, and by my reckoning he can't do that until after the California primary, where Paul will likely fair poorly. Paul does fine in straw polls where the Paulistas can stuff the ballot box, but he polls at about 11% in elections which are real. California is a primary state where real people vote, and that should spell curtains for the Paul campaign.

reply to post by schuyler

Paul must win all the remaining delegates. ALL of them.

God where do you keep getting this cock and bull from. NO HE MUST NOT. That doesn't even make sense. You are just making crap up.

"All" the delegates. Such a ridiculous statement.




And there you go - Romney only need "300" to clinch, based on what numbers? The Associated Press again? And you again claiming that Paul has any intention of getting the amount of delegates... it is ridiculous.

Couple that with the RNC lawyers from last years saying that bound delegates aren't recognized as bound at the National Convention.

Couple that with the fact that no one has STILL provided any proof that voters cannot abstain from voting in the first round - and you sir are grasping at more straws that any Paul supporter could hope to.

Even if "theoretically" Romney does get the number of delegates before the convention "bound" to him, considering what I just said, and considering the sources that have come out over the past few days to vouch for what I just said, and considering that the majority of all delegates - bound, unbound, undecided, whatever have you - are all part of Paul's game and are Ron Paul supporters - then all bets are off.

This thing is going to the convention, and unless the GOP changes the rules until then, there is DEFINITELY going to be a second vote at this point. If they TRY to change the rules while there, which in case they would need majority approval from the delegates, they would be walking up a vertical hill trying to get a room of Ron Paul supporters to change rules to go against their favor.

The point is - you continue to spout off, much like Outkast who has since abandon my original request because he has nothing. The RNC legal team THEMSELVES have said it, the RNC rulebook itself does not say anything about being REQUIRED to vote in the first round - so you are all nothing but a bunch of balloons being refilled with the same regurgitated air and blowing it into each others mouths for the fun of it.

Time to move on and get over yourself.s

Originally posted by Julie Washington
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Tell me what you make of this article. I am curious what your thoughts are on this.

ROGUE GOP CONVENTION2012

www.fairvote.org...

Wow - each day it appears there are conflicting sources on the rules/options for bound delegates. Maybe there is a loop hole here after all?

I hope this article helps everyone.
No real answer till convention.

www.rollcall.com...

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by schuyler

 

God where do you keep getting this cock and bull from. NO HE MUST NOT. That doesn't even make sense. You are just making crap up.

"All" the delegates. Such a ridiculous statement.

And there you go - Romney only need "300" to clinch, based on what numbers? The Associated Press again? And you again claiming that Paul has any intention of getting the amount of delegates... it is ridiculous.

If anyone is ridiculous, it's the Paulistas and their Zombie numbers no one else in the entire world seems to have except them. The numbers are at the beginning of this thread and many other places. Read them and weep. Given people to believe, I don't believe Paulistas. Why? Because they don't care about truth. I believe them to be completely amoral when it comes to politics and this race. They will do ANYTHING to get Paul elected.

NOTHING they have claimed in the past has held up to scutiny. Nothing for the last six years.

You have no assurances at all that this will go to a second ballot. None. You're living in a dream world of your own making. You guys remind me of Hitler moving phantom armies around the board at the close of WW II, armies that did not exist. You guys are moving phantom delegates around the same way, delegates you don't have, delegates that don't exist. You dismiss everyone else's tallies, but don't produce one yourselves. We're just supposed to take it on faith that those Zombie phantom delegates for Ron Paul are out there invisibly waiting.

You stuff a straw poll with a call to action, then have the temerity to actually believe the results. That kind of behavior is delusional.

lmao this argument is at a stalemate and it's actually pretty funny to read. Looking forward to seeing who the winner is lmao.

If by some miracle Ron Paul were to win at the convention, the Republican party would wind up horribly fractured and Obama would win in a 1972 style landslide. .

Originally posted by Julie Washington
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Tell me what you make of this article. I am curious what your thoughts are on this.

ROGUE GOP CONVENTION2012

www.fairvote.org...

My thoughts are that they have taken "Rule 38" out of context because it only applies to "The Unit Rule" where every single delegate from the state votes as a unit.

I also think that this rule simple states that the RNC doesn't bind the delegates and doesn't have a rule of their own binding them. It doesn't say it releases them from being bound by state rules or laws. The delegates are part of the State GOP party, not the RNC...so the RNC really has no control over them anyway.

Any state using a winner-take-all process before April 1 that isn’t protected by the February carve-out could easily generate an unwelcome credential fight at the 2012 convention, quite possibly, for example, by the supporters of presidential hopeful Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who always seem ready for a fight.

www.rollcall.com...

Look you liberal zombies, yes RP delegates bound to Romney can abstain. You asked for proof that bound delegates have abstained at RNC conventions. Okay, lets go back to 1912.

from wikipedia:

"Taft controlled the Republican National Committee, which had the power to make decisions on contested delegates. They awarded 235 of the contested delegates to Taft and 19 to Roosevelt. As a result, Roosevelt's delegates abstained from voting at his request.

Results:

William Howard Taft — 561 votes
Theodore Roosevelt — 107 votes
Robert La Follette — ~36 votes
Abstained — 322 votes

Then go to 1976. Seventy bound delegates to Gerald Ford were supporters of Reagan. They promised to abstain in order to help Reagan, but since it didn't make a difference in the final outcome, they went along with the vote.

In 2008, 14 delegates refused to vote for McCain. If they were unbound delegates, they would have voted for who they wanted Why did they abstain. Because they were bound to McCain!

The floor of the convention follows the Rules of The House of Representatives. These rules allow abstaining. If there needs to be further clarification, the Convention Rules have to be approved by the body of the convention before any voting takes place or any other business can occur. If there are enough delegates to change the rules, or amend a rule into a new rule, then it shall be done. So if anti-Romney delegates represent 51% of the delegates on the floor, they can call for a vote that would force each state to caucus its delegates, allowing abstention. The reason for this is simple. If 50% of the delegates on the floor do not support Romney, then he should not get the nomination. So if all the Paul, Gingrich and Santorum delegates along with any or all Romney delegates who don't like Romney put their heads together before the convention, and they see they have the votes to turn the convention over and block Romney, THEY WILL DO IT!

They can also challenge all the bound Romney delegates who support Paul, Santorum or Gingrich, forcing them out of the voting until after their credentials are cleared. These delegates can refuse to show up to the credentials committee until after the first ballot.

So you see. There's all kinds of strategies that can occur. Thus your hard count theory goes down in a trail of smoke. Nice try, liberal zombies. We know why you want Romney to win in Tampa. BECAUSE YOU KNOW AS WELL AS US THAT HE CANT BEAT OBAMA.

.

Originally posted by Julie Washington
Now this is very interesting.

Hypothethetical situation if delegates abstain from voting and what would happen:

www.thegreenpapers.com...

Yes, that is a good read and I was going to bring up acclamation before...but I didn't have the energy to try to explain that process to the Paul supporters.

So now they can go read it for themselves...even if they are allowed to abstain....which I honestly don't think they can...a Romney delegate will call for a vote by acclamation....Boenher as the chairman of the convention and a Romney supporter, will confirm the Ayes have it and Romney will be the nominee.

OMG, I can't believe Outkast finally conceded that bound delegates can abstain!!!! I claim victory on this one.

So now its onto the "Acclamation" theory. If Romney doesn't REALLY have a majority of delegates who support him, but thinks he deserves the nomination anyway, he then gets with Boehner, who chairs the convention, and Boehner calls for a vote of Acclamation. According to this theory, Boehner would then claim the Ayes have it and announce Romney as the nominee.

This of course would start a revolt right on the floor of the convention that ultimately would lead to a win for Obama. Which is why I think thegreenpapers is floating this theory. (They are a bunch of Obama-bots.) I don't think Boehner would be dumb enough to call for an Acclamation vote. He's from Cincinnati which is "tea party" territory. It would be the end of his political career if he single-handedly coronated Romney as nominee.

It's getting painfully obvious that Romney is trying to buy this nomination. Now that Gingrich is deep in debt, it looks like the pandering Gingrich will throw his support to Romney in exchange for...$$$$$. So much for conservative principles, Mr. Gingrich.

It should be obvious to you, Mr. Outkast, that your man Obama is just as much a pandering puppet to the super rich oligarchy on Wall Street. So much for hope and change for the common man.

The revolution will continue no matter what happens in Tampa. But I'm hoping and praying that a majority of delegates that show up there will unite to block Romney from getting the nomination. If not, then what have we got to lose, but push for Ron Paul to continue running as a third party independent.

reply to post by hab22

I don't think Boehner would be dumb enough to call for an Acclamation vote. He's from Cincinnati which is "tea party" territory. It would be the end of his political career if he single-handedly coronated Romney as nominee.

Except Romney won Ohio with 38% of the vote while Paul only had 9%. In Hamilton County specifically Romney took 49% of the vote and Paul took 8%. Why do you think his constituency would be angry when he is representing the interests they expressed?

Originally posted by UKTruth

Originally posted by Julie Washington
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Tell me what you make of this article. I am curious what your thoughts are on this.

ROGUE GOP CONVENTION2012

www.fairvote.org...

Wow - each day it appears there are conflicting sources on the rules/options for bound delegates. Maybe there is a loop hole here after all?

There is no loop hole. Rule 38 is VERY specific. And it does just the OPPOSITE of what the RonPaulian Cult thinks/wants it to. It is designed to PREVENT the disenfranchising of voters, not allow RonPaulian cult members to do just that. The wording is not even ambiguous. It says that a state chairman can't ARBITARILY decide to award all the delegate to one candidate if he didn't earn them in the voting or state convention. So basically...a state like Colorado couldn't just say "we want to give all our delegate to Mitt Romney." It has NOTHING to do with states that had in their rules that they were winner take all, and especially not like Massachusetts which wasn't even winner take all..just that Romney got them all.

Some member of the Ron Paul (Suicide) Cult please explain to me WHY the GOP would put a rule in the books that basically says that the ENTIRE primary season is meaningless? All that money spent on the primaries...for nothing. Yeah...riiiight. (I guess when you are desperate, you grasp for any straw you can see.)

The best part of all this is that RonPaulian Cult Members freely ADMIT that they were not into politicis until a couple months ago...and now they think that they are experts on GOP Convention rules. Not realizing that not only are they interpreting the rules they DO know laughably wrong, but there are plenty of rules that they DON'T know (after all, they didn't know about Rule 38 just two weeks ago) that are designed to prevent disenfranchising voters since hat would lead to a DISASTROUS general election. (In this case, Obama would get a sweep in the electoral collegem with over65% of the vote. And Romney would likely get more votes as a write in than the GOP candidate Ron Paul, since we have clearly seen for the past 4 months that Romney has 4-5 times a many supporters as Paul.

Originally posted by hab22
OMG, I can't believe Outkast finally conceded that bound delegates can abstain!!!! I claim victory on this one.

So now its onto the "Acclamation" theory. If Romney doesn't REALLY have a majority of delegates who support him, but thinks he deserves the nomination anyway, he then gets with Boehner, who chairs the convention, and Boehner calls for a vote of Acclamation. According to this theory, Boehner would then claim the Ayes have it and announce Romney as the nominee.

This of course would start a revolt right on the floor of the convention that ultimately would lead to a win for Obama. Which is why I think thegreenpapers is floating this theory. (They are a bunch of Obama-bots.) I don't think Boehner would be dumb enough to call for an Acclamation vote. He's from Cincinnati which is "tea party" territory. It would be the end of his political career if he single-handedly coronated Romney as nominee.

It's getting painfully obvious that Romney is trying to buy this nomination. Now that Gingrich is deep in debt, it looks like the pandering Gingrich will throw his support to Romney in exchange for...$$$$$. So much for conservative principles, Mr. Gingrich.

It should be obvious to you, Mr. Outkast, that your man Obama is just as much a pandering puppet to the super rich oligarchy on Wall Street. So much for hope and change for the common man.

The revolution will continue no matter what happens in Tampa. But I'm hoping and praying that a majority of delegates that show up there will unite to block Romney from getting the nomination. If not, then what have we got to lose, but push for Ron Paul to continue running as a third party independent.

What woudl lead to an automatic win for Obasma would be telling 50% of the GOP voters that their vote does not matter and instead putting a man who got less than 15% all priamry season as the nominee.

As for your silly REvolution. The only thing that will happen after August is a mass suicide...like all other good cult mmebers. You have ALL the makings of one. Like Jim Jones did, you are having a "festival" named after your perceived God. And like the Branch Davidians, it is not hard to find several instances online where RonPaulians replace "god" with "Paul" in quotes. Like "Go with Paul" or "In Paul we Trust"

There WILL be Kool Aid served at the Paul Festival. And you will drink it. And not one single person in your family will be sad.

reply to post by Lakawak


RNC Unit Rule Debate, 1964

p. 66

All any delegate has to do is stand up and say, I want a poll of the delegation and his vote be recorded in accordance with his wishes regardless of any attempt on the part of any delegation either at a state convention, by state law, or by the state delegation to impose upon him a position or person he does not wish to support

I don't think we're the ones reading it wrong. Hateful, much? You'll get far in life with that attitude

You should go see a doctor for some opiates to manage that butthurt.

Wish you the best.