What can Delegates do who Support Ron Paul but are Bound to Another?

I just watched this video today. Was wondering what others opinion on the matter was.
Go Ron Paul

Please hold... the next available shill will be with you in a moment.

I was reading an article recently which might help clear things up for some people or make things more confusing, depending on how one might view the topic.

an excerpt:

According to one source, the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.”

So it would seem, according to RNC rules, or the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008's interpretation, whether a delegate is "bound" or not means very little. It seems as though the State "rules" mean little when it comes to the national convention "rules". Abstaining from voting "might" not even be necessary, that is, if you believe the Legal counsel for the RNC from 2008. Who knows what they say this election cycle though.

As far as anyone saying that delegates are "legally" bound, well that is just hot air.

Legally - by law; conforming to the law.

There are no laws that bound any delegate to any particular candidate, there are state GOP rules and national convention GOP rules. No "Laws"

The article goes into much more detail and is worth the read for anybody who is interested in this topic.

www.fairvote.org...

Also
a story from a person who attempted to vote against his bound status at the 2008 convention

Wednesday came. Brian had told the president of the the Utah delegation (Jon Huntsman) he wanted his vote recorded correctly–not simply cast for McCain against his will. The president did not help. The Republican Party Chairman did not help. The time for the roll call vote drew near.

Brian Jenkins brought the convention sergeant-at-arms and a security officer under the sergeant’s direction, and Stan Lockhart, Utah’s Republican Party Chairman, together for a conversation.

“This man would like to make sure his vote is recorded correctly,” said the sergeant at arms to Chairman Lockhart.

“I am instructed to remove anyone from the floor who votes contrary to the Utah State Central Committee’s instructions,” replied Stan. Brian looked at the Sergeant-at-arms and said

“The meeting where the State Central Committee ruled Utah delegates must vote for McCain was illegal. And the RNC specifies that delegates may vote for whomever they wish.” Then he instructed the Sergeant-at-arms,

“Please check and see if Stan can remove me from the floor under these circumstances.”

The sergeant-at-arms told Brian to remain where he was, and that he would look into the matter. Neither he nor his assistant returned.

However, shortly thereafter, Ivan Dubois, an employee of the Utah Republican Party, polled Brian and several other national delegates as to whom they wished to vote for. Brian, a Ron Paul supporter, directed Ivan to cast his vote for Mitt Romney because the party rule in place at the time of the primary required delegates to vote for Utah’s first-place selection in the presidential primary. Thus, his vote was cast for Mitt Romney instead of Ron Paul (whom he intended to support, but did not for fear of being removed from the floor of the convention).

So it would seem partly, that it depends on whether or not delegates hold the GOP to the rules of the RNC or if they fail to intimidation or misinformation. It would also depend on the interpretation of the rules by the person who has the power to remove delegates from the floor and their willingness to do so.

utahcountygop.com...

reply to post by sageofmonticello


Excellent find. I found it fascinating.

It appears, then, that there are no bound delegates according to RNC rules. That puts a whole new spin on the ball. I'm sure the RP campaign managers are aware of this.

Plus, this gives me a whole new box of ammunition for people claiming the bound delegate count puts Romney ahead.

reply to post by N3k9Ni


Thanks, I found it quite fascinating as well. I would imagine you are correct and that The Ron Paul camp is well aware of this and I would also imagine that this has been the strategy since day one.

Plus, this gives me a whole new box of ammunition for people claiming the bound delegate count puts Romney ahead.

That is the entire reason I bookmarked the link. It seems to be a bit of a grey area but if it is true that many of the reported Romney delegates (based on media guesses) are actually Ron Paul delegates than this is very good news for Ron Paul backers.

Of course rules are only as good as the persons interpretation of the rules who is charged with enforcing them. It should be an interesting national convention though.

Hey SHILLS WTF where are you!!! Please debunk this because if this is true... well ROMNEY LOSES!!! hahahaha


If this is true Ron Paul will win hands down....

Well don't this just beat all.

Second line.

so ron paul supporters are cool with all those voters being betrayed, as long as the betrayal benefits paul ?

wait, I thought he was different ?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so ron paul supporters are cool with all those voters being betrayed, as long as the betrayal benefits paul ?

wait, I thought he was different ?

How are voters being betrayed you fool. In winner takes all states, the voters (in the majority in some cases) are represented by delegates that are bound to a candidate they would never vote for in a million years. In Florida Romney took 46% of the vote - thats right he didnt win a majority. Most Floridians dont want him. yet he has all the delegates.

You need to think before posting.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so ron paul supporters are cool with all those voters being betrayed, as long as the betrayal benefits paul ?

wait, I thought he was different ?

the only betrayal they're worried about is what has been happening for the past 4 years or longer....

seriously though if abstention is in the rule book, then it's in the rule book for a reason.

Originally posted by Doalrite
Hey SHILLS WTF where are you!!! Please debunk this because if this is true... well ROMNEY LOSES!!! hahahaha


If this is true Ron Paul will win hands down....

Doesn't really matter.

Ron Paul won't win and his cult members will cry "rigged".

Reality is Romney already has this nomination locked up. But reality is something Ron Paul fans just don't get.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so ron paul supporters are cool with all those voters being betrayed, as long as the betrayal benefits paul ?

wait, I thought he was different ?

All is fair in war and politics. Besides, it wasn't RP supporters that voted that rule in. Oh, wait... maybe it was.
You can thank us later.

reply to post by syrinx high priest

so ron paul supporters are cool with all those voters being betrayed, as long as the betrayal benefits paul ?

I am not sure what you mean? These delegates were voted for, to be delegates of the candidate they publicly support. They were voted in as Ron Paul delegates. Nobody was pretending to support somebody else in order to vote for Ron Paul at the convention. No betrayal to voters exists in this instance so your comment is confusing.

I vote for a candidate. lets just say gingrich, and he wins my district or county.

delegates are assigned based on how the people voted to represent the will of the people at the convention

delegate goes to the convention, votes for ron paul DESPITE what the voters wanted

how can this be anything but a betrayal, and how could anyone support this ?

what a total joke this campaign is

total joke

reply to post by syrinx high priest

delegates are assigned based on how the people voted to represent the will of the people at the convention

This is not exactly true. Which State is it that you are making this accusation for? Which states voters are being betrayed? Some states have delegates awarded by the vote, some have a different vote for the delegates. You seem to be talking about the former while we here are talking about the latter.


ETA:
The only case in which what you are talking about applies to this conversation is in winner take all states as in the other states the delegates are either awarded proportionality or there is a separate vote for delegates than for candidates.

So say we have the theoretical state of "Example". In Example, all the delegates are awarded to whoever has the highest percentage of votes.

Lets say in Example, Romney got 35% of the vote, Paul got 30% , Santorum got 25% and Gingrich got 10%. Well, that would mean that 65% of the voters are being betrayed by the delegates and that 35% got 100% of the delegates. Would not this be a better example of voters being betrayed?

What you are saying is that the 65% of voters in "Example" who didn't vote for Romney are being betrayed because their delegates do not support Romney? That is why your comment is confusing as the only betrayal is that 65% of the people aren't getting a delegate that they voted for. Does that make sense?

Anyhow. Even if you disagree with everything I just said. The fact of the matter is that the RNC rules are that "bound" delegates do not actually exist and that any delegate can vote as they see fit. I would imagine these rules exist because many things can happen between a primary/caucus and the national convention. The delegates are not just elected to vote "the will of the people" they are voted for their ability to make sound decisions and their ability to make sound judgments with all available knowledge when the actual nomination vote takes place many months later.

There is a reason popular vote is not the deciding factor. A delegate system is used for a reason, both major parties use a delegate system.

For an example, Lets take Santorum, should his "bound" delegates still be forced to vote for him, despite the fact that he has left the race? Or lets stay theoretical and say Romney gets thrown in jail next month for a felony, should his "bound" delegates still be forced to vote for him despite the fact that he is no longer eligible?

Endless scenarios could be envisioned.

Delegates are elected. Who the delegates back is public knowledge. No betrayal is taking place, if you think there is then you really need to explain yourself better and cite something specific as an example.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I vote for a candidate. lets just say gingrich, and he wins my district or county.

delegates are assigned based on how the people voted to represent the will of the people at the convention

delegate goes to the convention, votes for ron paul DESPITE what the voters wanted

how can this be anything but a betrayal, and how could anyone support this ?

Because it's not against the rules. Take it up with the GOP if you have a problem because they made the rules.

Now all we need to do is show all the Romney delegates how much support Ron Paul really has. And if he ran 3rd party that he would pull enough votes for Obama to win. Therefore if the delegates really want to beat Obama (best interest for the party) they should vote for Paul.