PDA

View Full Version : Brokered convention misunderstandings




Bradley in DC
01-29-2008, 09:34 AM
There are repeated posts about Dr. Paul becoming the Republican presidential nominee in a brokered convention. Most of them are promoting bad information. Here are the actual rules (http://www.gop.com/images/2008_Call_FINAL.pdf):

Rules "binding" delegates are determined by the states (http://www.gop.com/images/Press_State_Summaries.pdf): some delegates are not bound at all, others for the first few votes (first, second or third), while other states bind their delegates until they are released.

In order to be eligible to be nominated at all [RNC Rule 40(b) (http://www.gop.com/About/Rules31-41.htm)], one requirement is to win the majority of delegates in five states (including DC and territories, RNC Rule 27 (http://www.gop.com/About/Rules21-30.htm)).

Badger Paul
01-29-2008, 09:37 AM
I doubt if RP could be a nominee in a brokered convention, but he could certain deliver a nomination if Romney or McCain would be willing to deal with us (Romney being the most likely).

I think some are hoping that the convention would nominate an entirely new candidate on the sidelines right now if there's a dealock.

We'll see. Romney has to win today and Huckabee has to win four or five states on Super Tuesday for their to be a brokered convention

Bradley in DC
01-29-2008, 09:46 AM
I think some are hoping that the convention would nominate an entirely new candidate on the sidelines right now if there's a dealock.

We'll see. Romney has to win today and Huckabee has to win four or five states on Super Tuesday for their to be a brokered convention

As I pointed out, the RNC rules stipulate that one must win the majority of delegates from five states in order to be eligible to be nominated.

jdmetz
01-29-2008, 09:55 AM
I think Ron Paul could win a brokered convention, as long as he meets the 5 states rule. (How would someone on the sidelines get around that rule?). He could make a very compelling case that he 1) is the only one who actually and convincingly meets the Republican party platform, and 2) is the only one with a chance of beating the Dem nominee.

As long as when delegates were released they actually switched over to him, he would eventually win, even if it took 10 rounds of balloting.

Anyway, I'd prefer for Ron Paul to get the 1191 delegates needed to win outright.

Matt Collins
01-29-2008, 10:21 AM
Our best bet will to have one of the McRomneys drop out soon (along with the others).

After that happens it will only be 2 people at the convention. Since Ron can go head to head on a conservative record with ANY of either of those (but I don't think he can take both on at once), he has a good chance of winning.

brandon
01-29-2008, 10:31 AM
In order to be eligible to be nominated at all [RNC Rule 40(b) (http://www.gop.com/About/Rules31-41.htm)], one requirement is to win the majority of delegates in five states (including DC and territories, RNC Rule 27 (http://www.gop.com/About/Rules21-30.htm)).

I have heard this before, and I am hoping for some clarification. By "win the majority of delegates", does that just simply mean that in the first round of voting at the RNC the majority of delegates from a state vote for Paul?

Bradley in DC
01-29-2008, 10:37 AM
I have heard this before, and I am hoping for some clarification. By "win the majority of delegates", does that just simply mean that in the first round of voting at the RNC the majority of delegates from a state vote for Paul?

Rule 40(b) sets the qualifications to be eligible to be nominated in the first place before ANY round of voting (and before all rounds of voting).


RULE NO. 40
Nominations
(a) In making the nominations for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States and voting thereon, the roll of the states shall be called separately in each case; provided, however, that if there is only one candidate for nomination for Vice President of the United States who has demonstrated the support required by paragraph (b) of this rule, a motion to nominate for such office by acclamation shall be in order and no calling of the roll with respect to such office shall be required.

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

brandon
01-29-2008, 10:43 AM
Rule 40(b) sets the qualifications to be eligible to be nominated in the first place before ANY round of voting (and before all rounds of voting).


RULE NO. 40
Nominations
(a) In making the nominations for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States and voting thereon, the roll of the states shall be called separately in each case; provided, however, that if there is only one candidate for nomination for Vice President of the United States who has demonstrated the support required by paragraph (b) of this rule, a motion to nominate for such office by acclamation shall be in order and no calling of the roll with respect to such office shall be required.

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

Hmm. What about states where all of the delegates are unbound from the very beginning? For example in my state, PA. Say Paul gets 3rd place in the primary straw poll, but collects the most delegates. These delegates are unbound and do not have to declare support for any candidate at any point in time. How can the GOP determine who wins the most delegates in PA before any rounds of voting at the RNC?

Bradley in DC
01-29-2008, 11:03 AM
Hmm. What about states where all of the delegates are unbound from the very beginning? For example in my state, PA. Say Paul gets 3rd place in the primary straw poll, but collects the most delegates. These delegates are unbound and do not have to declare support for any candidate at any point in time. How can the GOP determine who wins the most delegates in PA before any rounds of voting at the RNC?

Brandon,

I've never been part of the RNC (but I can read their rules online ;)). Dr. Paul needs to "demonstrate" support from a majority of delegates from five states. Given the Paul campaign, I suspect in our case that would be a YouTube video from Aravoth with a majority of the delegates voicing support for Dr. Paul. :D

noztnac
01-29-2008, 11:05 AM
This is how I see Ron Paul making his case at such a convention:

If you nominate me you will get small government, free markets, and low taxes and I am the only candidate who can beat the democrats on the war issue in a general election. I also, by being a doctor, nullify any advantage they may seem to have on the issue of health care.

If you nominate any other candidate you will lose because I will run as a third party candidate and will split the republican base.

My loyalty is to the principles of the Republican Party. If the party abandons its principles I will abandon the party and so will most other true conservatives.

So you need to carefully consider your selection. Do you want me or the democratic nominee?

Sauron
01-29-2008, 11:06 AM
Anyway, I'd prefer for Ron Paul to get the 1191 delegates needed to win outright.
That wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun, nor as interesting, as a brokered convention.

brandon
01-29-2008, 11:27 AM
Brandon,

Given the Paul campaign, I suspect in our case that would be a YouTube video from Aravoth with a majority of the delegates voicing support for Dr. Paul. :D

haha!

Matt Collins
01-29-2008, 12:16 PM
This is how I see Ron Paul making his case at such a convention:

If you nominate me you will get small government, free markets, and low taxes and I am the only candidate who can beat the democrats on the war issue in a general election. I also, by being a doctor, nullify any advantage they may seem to have on the issue of health care.

If you nominate any other candidate you will lose because I will run as a third party candidate and will split the republican base.

My loyalty is to the principles of the Republican Party. If the party abandons its principles I will abandon the party and so will most other true conservatives.

So you need to carefully consider your selection. Do you want me or the democratic nominee?

I wonder if that much of a hard and honest stance would piss off the delegates and turn them away from voting for him.

Bradley in DC
01-29-2008, 02:34 PM
Since I get asked about this repeatedly, there is a rule to suspend the rules, but honestly people, PLEASE don't count on this to get Dr. Paul the nomination.

We'd need the same support to suspend the rules as we would to qualify to get Dr. Paul nominated in the first place.


RULE NO. 32 (http://www.gop.com/About/Rules31-41.htm)
Suspension of Rules
A motion to suspend the rules shall always be in order, but only when made by authority of a majority of the delegates from any state and seconded by a majority of the delegates from each of five (5) or more other states severally.

noztnac
01-29-2008, 04:00 PM
I wonder if that much of a hard and honest stance would piss off the delegates and turn them away from voting for him.

I actually wonder too. I hope it doesn't come to that but I think that as a last resort he should always keep that option open. It's sort of an all in situation like you see in high stakes poster. If they call your bluff you have to be willing to carry through and try to win with whatever hand you hold at that moment.

Matt Collins
01-29-2008, 04:11 PM
there is a rule to suspend the rules, Wait. I see a problem here. If there is a rule to suspend the rules, won't the rule that allow the rules to be suspended be abolished once we implement the rule that actually suspends the rules? Oh crikey I've gone cross-eyed :p

TurtleBurger
01-30-2008, 09:09 AM
The most likely scenario I see is Romney and McCain teaming up against Paul at a brokered convention, like in Louisiana. Each of them would much rather lose to another neocon than to play ball with us.

Bradley in DC
01-30-2008, 09:56 AM
The most likely scenario I see is Romney and McCain teaming up against Paul at a brokered convention, like in Louisiana. Each of them would much rather lose to another neocon than to play ball with us.

Maybe, maybe not. If we can stay positive with no personal attacks and they go for each other's throats, then (maybe) their bruised egos would get them to support Paul in a grudge match with the other guy. ;)

nate895
01-30-2008, 11:42 AM
Rule 40(b) sets the qualifications to be eligible to be nominated in the first place before ANY round of voting (and before all rounds of voting).


RULE NO. 40
Nominations
(a) In making the nominations for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States and voting thereon, the roll of the states shall be called separately in each case; provided, however, that if there is only one candidate for nomination for Vice President of the United States who has demonstrated the support required by paragraph (b) of this rule, a motion to nominate for such office by acclamation shall be in order and no calling of the roll with respect to such office shall be required.

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

Can we get nominated to be nominated after the first ballot?

IPSecure
01-30-2008, 11:57 AM
No wonder why the Louisana GOP is not releasing the real results...

Bradley in DC
01-31-2008, 09:50 AM
Can we get nominated to be nominated after the first ballot?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Before each and every vote, me thinks, one has to demonstrate support from a majority of delegates in five states. Does that answer your question?

majinkoola
02-05-2008, 11:20 PM
Well, if another candidate drops out before then, couldn't a majority of delegates from 5 or more states still vote for RP? I don't think him not winning a primary/caucus matters.

Liberté
02-05-2008, 11:22 PM
There are repeated posts about Dr. Paul becoming the Republican presidential nominee in a brokered convention. Most of them are promoting bad information. Here are the actual rules (http://www.gop.com/images/2008_Call_FINAL.pdf):

Rules "binding" delegates are determined by the states (http://www.gop.com/images/Press_State_Summaries.pdf): some delegates are not bound at all, others for the first few votes (first, second or third), while other states bind their delegates until they are released.

In order to be eligible to be nominated at all [RNC Rule 40(b) (http://www.gop.com/About/Rules31-41.htm)], one requirement is to win the majority of delegates in five states (including DC and territories, RNC Rule 27 (http://www.gop.com/About/Rules21-30.htm)).

After tonights Super Tuesday it seems likely that McCain will be the nominee and no brokered convention will happen. :confused: Now what?

dawnbt
02-05-2008, 11:28 PM
As I pointed out, the RNC rules stipulate that one must win the majority of delegates from five states in order to be eligible to be nominated.

Do we have any under our belt? If so, how many?

demidog
02-05-2008, 11:36 PM
This is meaningless at this point. The real delegates to the national conventions are selected at the state conventions. How does the GOP stop a state from selecting Paul as their nominee at the state convention? How does it stop Paul delegates from being elected as delegates to the national convention if the majority of delegate candidates are Ron Paul supporters?

If the delegates refuse to vote for Romney or McCain at the state level, or simply get elected as delegates to the national convention and then vote for Ron Paul when they get there, what does the party do? Shoot the delegates? Poison them? Throw them in jail?

The GOP isn't a state body. It's a private body. Who stayed after the primaries and did their homework and got elected as delegates to their county and state conventions?

demidog
02-05-2008, 11:40 PM
The most likely scenario I see is Romney and McCain teaming up against Paul at a brokered convention, like in Louisiana. Each of them would much rather lose to another neocon than to play ball with us.

You guys just aren't thinking this through. The delegates that show up at the national convention, even if "committed" to Romney or McCain, became delegates because they supported Ron Paul and got involved. Do you really think they'll be pissed off if they become unbound and can openly support the only conservative on the stage?

Romney and McCain are not going to have many real supporters there. That's the beauty of the Ron Paul campaign strategy. Boots on the ground.

Perry
02-06-2008, 12:22 AM
We will have one state in an hours time. Damnit I'm going to deliver Alaska to you on a platter. The other four states are up to everyone else.

Bradley in DC
02-06-2008, 12:29 AM
We will have one state in an hours time. Damnit I'm going to deliver Alaska to you on a platter. The other four states are up to everyone else.

+1!!!!

MrZach
02-06-2008, 12:33 AM
As I pointed out, the RNC rules stipulate that one must win the majority of delegates from five states in order to be eligible to be nominated.

If this is case, why is Ron Paul's campaign touting the strategy to get a brokered convention? Which 5 states are they planning on winning?

MrZach
02-06-2008, 12:37 AM
This is how I see Ron Paul making his case at such a convention:

If you nominate me you will get small government, free markets, and low taxes and I am the only candidate who can beat the democrats on the war issue in a general election. I also, by being a doctor, nullify any advantage they may seem to have on the issue of health care.

If you nominate any other candidate you will lose because I will run as a third party candidate and will split the republican base.

My loyalty is to the principles of the Republican Party. If the party abandons its principles I will abandon the party and so will most other true conservatives.

So you need to carefully consider your selection. Do you want me or the democratic nominee?

If anything even REMOTELY close to that went down at the RNC, I would LOVE to be there!!!! lol...

Bradley in DC
02-06-2008, 12:39 AM
If this is case, why is Ron Paul's campaign touting the strategy to get a brokered convention? Which 5 states are they planning on winning?

I'm at a loss to explain most of what the official campaign does.

The00viper
02-06-2008, 01:02 AM
If this is case, why is Ron Paul's campaign touting the strategy to get a brokered convention? Which 5 states are they planning on winning?

Is there not a big difference between "win 5 states" and "get a majority of delegates in 5 states" ?

Edit: I think they're completely different.

Bradley in DC
02-06-2008, 01:04 AM
Is there not a big difference between "win 5 states" and "get a majority of delegates in 5 states" ?

I didn't think so, but I'm not trying to cause unnecessary angst either. The rule language is what governs the question.

MrZach
02-06-2008, 04:09 AM
ttt

IndieRocker79
02-06-2008, 05:02 AM
Let me attempt as best I can to clarify the legal mumbo jumbo since I'm familiar with this sort of talk from my work with volunteer organizations, Robert's Rules of Order, etc.

To "demonstrate the majority of delegates in at least 5 states" means that prior to the nomination, Dr. Paul must clearly hold the majority of committed delegates in 5 states. There's no other real way to interpret that. If there are uncommitted delegates in a state that hold the majority, and they are unwilling or disallowed to commit to Dr. Paul, I don't believe he can "demonstrate" that they are committed to him. I firmly believe in the case of this language that "demonstrate a clear majority" = have the majority of committed delegates.

On a side note, that would mean for instance if 3 delegates are committed Paul, 2 for McCain, and 43 are uncommitted, this would still not demonstrate a clear majority; sorry. He would have to hold 25 committed delegates, IMO.

As for suspension of the rules, this would honestly be EASIER to get pushed through, provided the majority of bound and uncommitted delegates were actually Ron Paul supporters. In this case, if say the delegates from New Hampshire were all actually Dr. Paul supporters, along with 4 other states where other candidates won the majority or the majority was uncommitted, but they want to nominate Paul, the vote to suspend the rules could be taken. The vote would still have to pass, however, which might require a lot of secret Dr. Paul supporters.

I hope this helps. Keep in mind it's only an educated guess, but much better than taking pot shots at it.

Bradley in DC
02-06-2008, 10:16 AM
Let me attempt as best I can to clarify the legal mumbo jumbo since I'm familiar with this sort of talk from my work with volunteer organizations, Robert's Rules of Order, etc.

To "demonstrate the majority of delegates in at least 5 states" means that prior to the nomination, Dr. Paul must clearly hold the majority of committed delegates in 5 states. There's no other real way to interpret that. If there are uncommitted delegates in a state that hold the majority, and they are unwilling or disallowed to commit to Dr. Paul, I don't believe he can "demonstrate" that they are committed to him. I firmly believe in the case of this language that "demonstrate a clear majority" = have the majority of committed delegates.

On a side note, that would mean for instance if 3 delegates are committed Paul, 2 for McCain, and 43 are uncommitted, this would still not demonstrate a clear majority; sorry. He would have to hold 25 committed delegates, IMO.

As for suspension of the rules, this would honestly be EASIER to get pushed through, provided the majority of bound and uncommitted delegates were actually Ron Paul supporters. In this case, if say the delegates from New Hampshire were all actually Dr. Paul supporters, along with 4 other states where other candidates won the majority or the majority was uncommitted, but they want to nominate Paul, the vote to suspend the rules could be taken. The vote would still have to pass, however, which might require a lot of secret Dr. Paul supporters.

I hope this helps. Keep in mind it's only an educated guess, but much better than taking pot shots at it.

Let me be clear: I don't know. That said, I don't "think" that's right. My guess would be that while some delegates are elected nominally uncommitted and others unbound, if they were to, say, sign a statement of their delegation expressing their intention to vote for Dr. Paul (or another candidate) then that would qualify as "demonstrating" support. There is reason to think that we may have a friend or two among the "unelected" superdelegates and certainly among those elected as "uncommitted" (which might be required by state law) and possibly among those elected in support of a candidate who as dropped out and have been released.

No matter what, this is a good discussion. Thanks!

Bruce4Ron
02-06-2008, 10:37 AM
Someone explain to me what an "uncommitted" delegate is because I've read every post here and I'm at a loss as to who they are and why they are categorized as such.

Bruce4Ron
02-06-2008, 10:51 AM
I looked a bit more into this and I think an uncommitted delegate is someone who is not "assigned" to a specific candidate yes? In the sense of a brokered convention, a delegate may have gone to Romney for example in the primary but is now free to vote for anyone therefore being "uncommitted"?

Do "winner takes all" states have these types of delegates?

MrZach
02-06-2008, 11:27 AM
Someone explain to me what an "uncommitted" delegate is because I've read every post here and I'm at a loss as to who they are and why they are categorized as such.

All uncommitted means is that they don't HAVE to vote for anyone in particular. An uncommitted delegate can "come out" and declare a preference for one candidate or another. This would count towards the necessary "majority" in 5 states - therefore uncommitted delegates, while not bound by rules to vote one way or the other, could still push Dr. Paul over the top by declaring.

JulioForPaul
02-06-2008, 11:31 AM
How committed are "committed" delegates? What is the point of this whole delegate system if they are not allowed to change their vote. They might as well be "paper" delegates if they are treated as such. Will they go to jail if they change their mind?

cjhowe
02-06-2008, 11:42 AM
This rule, on it's face, doesn't appear to have anything to do with being "pledged" delegates or bound by any state rule. By the reading of the rule, it would appear the process is "Hey Florida, who would you like to nominate for president"...Floridians get together and if a majority wish to nominate someone they say who they nominate. If a majority cannot be reached, they don't nominate anyone. This appears to be the people in the room type thing, not a who they have to vote for for.

Continuing the example, it would appear that Floridians could say: "We nominate Huckabee for president" and then when it comes time to vote, if McCain is a nominee, they are bound to vote for McCain, even though they were able to nominate Huckabee.

MrZach
02-06-2008, 11:43 AM
No, but you are right - they ARE paper delegates. Also known as "virtual" delegates. =o)

During the first round of voting the actual person doesn't matter... it is after they become "released" in subsequent rounds that they matter...

JulioForPaul
02-06-2008, 11:50 AM
So at some point in a brokered convention there is no such thing as a "committed" delegate? They are ALL released?

mketcher
02-06-2008, 12:05 PM
There are repeated posts about Dr. Paul becoming the Republican presidential nominee in a brokered convention. Most of them are promoting bad information. Here are the actual rules (http://www.gop.com/images/2008_Call_FINAL.pdf):

Rules "binding" delegates are determined by the states (http://www.gop.com/images/Press_State_Summaries.pdf): some delegates are not bound at all, others for the first few votes (first, second or third), while other states bind their delegates until they are released.

In order to be eligible to be nominated at all [RNC Rule 40(b) (http://www.gop.com/About/Rules31-41.htm)], one requirement is to win the majority of delegates in five states (including DC and territories, RNC Rule 27 (http://www.gop.com/About/Rules21-30.htm)).

The national campaign -- and Dr. Paul himself -- believes that a brokered convention is Dr. Paul's best chance, by far. All of the rules cited above could even be thrown out the window. None of these rules has the force of law, and motions could be made -- and passed -- to change them. For example, a motion could be made -- and passed -- that all delegates be released from their obligations -- and allowed to vote for whomever they please. If that happens, then if Ron Paul has a lot of delegates at the convention supporting him, he could come out in very good shape -- and start gaining some momentum.

The third party option would probably be viable if it becomes clear that McCain will will the nomination on a first ballot. Dr. knows about third parties -- had he been running as a third party candidate all this time, the MSM would have totally shut him out, he would have raised almost no money, and he wouldn't have this huge grassroots movement.

The truth is that nobody knows what will happen in a brokered convention, because it so rarely happens. All that we do know is that it will likely be utter chaos (as was the Democratic convention in 1968), when Hubert Humphrey, who didn't even run in the primaries, was nominated. Eugene McCarthy, who was the anti-war candidate for the Democrats (their Ron Paul) lost. Even though he lost the nomination, it drastically changed the Democratic Party's nominating process. There is a chance that Dr. Paul will be able to take advantage of the chaos of a brokered convention. The Republican establishment definitely doesn't want a brokered convention, because they, too, don't know what would happen -- and they could lose control of it.

Dary
02-06-2008, 07:03 PM
Is it possible for a candidate to drop out and pledge his delegates to another candidate before the convention?

Bradley in DC
02-06-2008, 07:06 PM
Is it possible for a candidate to drop out and pledge his delegates to another candidate before the convention?

It's possible to drop out and "release" their delegates and urge them to support another candidate.

Bradley in DC
02-06-2008, 07:08 PM
No, but you are right - they ARE paper delegates. Also known as "virtual" delegates. =o)

During the first round of voting the actual person doesn't matter... it is after they become "released" in subsequent rounds that they matter...

What the hell are you talking about? What do you think paper delegates and "virtual" delegates are? Stop the delusions, learn the rules and play the game. There are no "virtual" delegates.

Bradley in DC
02-06-2008, 07:10 PM
All of the rules cited above could even be thrown out the window. None of these rules has the force of law, and motions could be made -- and passed -- to change them.

If you read the actual rules that will govern the convention (force of law or not), it is easier to get nominated than change the rules.

Just learn the rules, play the game, stop the delusions.

Bradley in DC
02-06-2008, 07:16 PM
This rule, on it's face, doesn't appear to have anything to do with being "pledged" delegates or bound by any state rule.

Continuing the example, it would appear that Floridians could say: "We nominate Huckabee for president" and then when it comes time to vote, if McCain is a nominee, they are bound to vote for McCain, even though they were able to nominate Huckabee.

RNC rules and state election law are separate, yes. Violating state election law binding most delegates (at least for some, if not all votes) may bring consequences (jail and/or fines). Realistically, though, why would McCain choose delegates that support Huckabee? Why would Dr. Paul choose delegate candidates to stand for him that don't support him? If the "secret strategy" is to have delegates that vied to support another candidate then jump to Dr. Paul, then we need a better strategy--like winning more of our own delegates.

Basilieus
02-06-2008, 07:34 PM
If you nominate any other candidate you will lose because I will run as a third party candidate and will split the republican base.

My loyalty is to the principles of the Republican Party. If the party abandons its principles I will abandon the party and so will most other true conservatives.



ROFL a threat about the republicans countered with loyalty for republicans. haha.

No1ButPaul08
02-06-2008, 11:00 PM
RNC rules and state election law are separate, yes. Violating state election law binding most delegates (at least for some, if not all votes) may bring consequences (jail and/or fines). Realistically, though, why would McCain choose delegates that support Huckabee? Why would Dr. Paul choose delegate candidates to stand for him that don't support him? If the "secret strategy" is to have delegates that vied to support another candidate then jump to Dr. Paul, then we need a better strategy--like winning more of our own delegates.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the candidate appoints the delegates in most states. I believe most people run for delegate and then are "pledged" to the winner. However, if the convention is brokered, they can nominate (and support) whatever candidate they choose. I think I read someone on this site became a delegate in his state, and is currently "pledged" to another candidate, but if the convention were brokered he could nominate and support RP. Is this wrong?

cjhowe
02-06-2008, 11:33 PM
RNC rules and state election law are separate, yes. Violating state election law binding most delegates (at least for some, if not all votes) may bring consequences (jail and/or fines). Realistically, though, why would McCain choose delegates that support Huckabee? Why would Dr. Paul choose delegate candidates to stand for him that don't support him? If the "secret strategy" is to have delegates that vied to support another candidate then jump to Dr. Paul, then we need a better strategy--like winning more of our own delegates.

I wasn't referring to state election law. But this isn't the electoral college, the candidate does not choose the slate of delegates. I certainly haven't read the rules for every state, but the state delegation generally chooses the actual membership of the delegation, both the congressional delegates and the at large, though you may caucus differently at the state convention. In addition, there are scenarios where a non leading candidate may want additional names to be nominated in order to prevent the leading candidate from taking a majority.

No1ButPaul08
02-06-2008, 11:37 PM
I wasn't referring to state election law. But this isn't the electoral college, the candidate does not choose the slate of delegates. I certainly haven't read the rules for every state, but the state delegation generally chooses the actual membership of the delegation, both the congressional delegates and the at large, though you may caucus differently at the state convention. In addition, there are scenarios where a non leading candidate may want additional names to be nominated in order to prevent the leading candidate from taking a majority.

This is what I was thinking. If this is true, I'm going to go through state by state and come up with a plan that could broker the convention. If this is the case, we could make RP a player at the convention. Not necessarily win, but a player

polomertz
02-07-2008, 12:02 AM
IF somebody needs to "win" 5 states, then how could some random other person jump in and win at the convention, as some have suggested could happen?
I DO look forward to the massive rally that would surely take place outside.

No1ButPaul08
02-07-2008, 12:04 AM
IF somebody needs to "win" 5 states, then how could some random other person jump in and win at the convention, as some have suggested could happen?
I DO look forward to the massive rally that would surely take place outside.

For one, the rules can change, which is very hard.

Also, delegates can change their mind or be originally pledged to another candidate and become unpledged as the process goes along, and nominate another candidate. I'm still trying to get clarification at this point

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 12:07 AM
I may be wrong, but I don't think the candidate appoints the delegates in most states. I believe most people run for delegate and then are "pledged" to the winner. Is this wrong?

Yes, it is wrong, at least in primary states.

No, the candidate does not appoint the "delegates" in any states. In many (most?) states, he does appoint his slate of "delegate candidates" to represent him at the convention if he wins the primary (not sure about caucus states). These slates are then filed with the state secretary of state. In some states, the "delegate candidate" names even appear on the ballot.

For example in DC, I helped recruit Ron Paul supporters to be on his slate of "delegate candidates" to compete with the slate of delegate candidates from Rudy, McCain, Huck and Romney. Whoever wins the DC primary sends their slate of now "delegates" to the convention. This is typical for primary states. This is why the "Trojan" approach is a load of crap.

Again, rules vary by state.

No1ButPaul08
02-07-2008, 12:12 AM
Yes, it is wrong, at least in primary states.

No, the candidate does not appoint the "delegates" in any states. In many (most?) states, he does appoint his slate of "delegate candidates" to represent him at the convention if he wins the primary (not sure about caucus states). These slates are then filed with the state secretary of state. In some states, the "delegate candidate" names even appear on the ballot.

For example in DC, I helped recruit Ron Paul supporters to be on his slate of "delegate candidates" to compete with the slate of delegate candidates from Rudy, McCain, Huck and Romney. Whoever wins the DC primary sends their slate of now "delegates" to the convention. This is typical for primary states. This is why the "Trojan" approach is a load of crap.

Again, rules vary by state.

Thanks...cjhowe your thoughts as this is pretty much direct conflict of what you said on the slate of delegates point. I'm going to go through the remaining states and see how it's done

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 12:18 AM
I wasn't referring to state election law. But this isn't the electoral college, the candidate does not choose the slate of delegates.

No, in most states, the candidate DOES choose his slate of "delegate candidates" that compete with the slate of delegate candidates for the other presidential contenders. The one who wins the primary sends his slate of (now) "delegates" to the national nominating convention.

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 12:20 AM
So at some point in a brokered convention there is no such thing as a "committed" delegate? They are ALL released?

As I explain in the OP, in some states, no delegates are bound. In most states, the delegates are bound for the first few specified votes (first, second or third). In some states, the delegates are bound until released. Check the state by state rules in the links if interested.

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 12:24 AM
IF somebody needs to "win" 5 states, then how could some random other person jump in and win at the convention, as some have suggested could happen?

By "win" I was being too casual: a prospective nominee must demonstrate support from a majority of delegates from five states. McCain, Romney and Huckabee can now "demonstrate" the required support by winning five states already. If we get to a brokered convention with more delegates getting released, we'll see what happens.

LibertasPraesidium
02-07-2008, 12:26 AM
so we go from precincts and into our county caucus in mn then we go to district caucus and finally state caucus and then THE RNC, in minnesota no delegates are bound to vote for anyone, they are to persuade others to vote for them at the next round of voting eventually making it to the national convention if we dont already have this accomplished. The process is why we needed so many delegates, and we got enough but we have to keep going each day is wasted without action, the delegates in your precinct could all vote for paul come NOV.

This is important.

RON PAUL FOR THE WIN

mketcher
02-07-2008, 12:48 AM
If you read the actual rules that will govern the convention (force of law or not), it is easier to get nominated than change the rules.

Just learn the rules, play the game, stop the delusions.

The point is that in a brokered convention anything could happen. It will be utter chaos. The Republicans haven't had a brokered convention in decades, since Dewey. The Democrats had one in 68 and the guy who got nominated didn't even run in the primaries. Likewise when Garfield was nominated at a brokered convention, after some 37 ballots, he wasn't even a presidential candidate. He was simply the only person that a majority could agree on.

You can bet that the Republican establishment doesn't want a brokered convention, because they could lose control of the nominating process. The goal of every political party is to go into the convention with the nominee already decided -- and to present a show of unity to the public.

Obviously, the official Paul campaign thinks that they could do well in a brokered convention. After the first ballot, if no one wins, then the balance of power could shift markedly on the second ballot, and shift again on the third, and so on. In a brokered convention, Romney and McCain, both of whom are unacceptable to a large number of Republicans, could find themselves diminishing after each successive ballot, as deals are made, as rules change, as delegates hear more about the candidates' positions, etc. Dr. Paul, who has been planning for a brokered convention all along, might be the one best positioned to take advantage. Or it might be someone no one has ever heard of who gets the nomination.

In short, if McCain doesn't win on the first ballot, it's a whole new ballgame.

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 12:52 AM
The point is that in a brokered convention anything could happen. It will be utter chaos.

No, not chaos. They will follow the rules. The rules were adopted four years ago at the last convention. I posted them in the first post. Learn the rules, play the game.

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 12:56 AM
so we go from precincts and into our county caucus in mn then we go to district caucus and finally state caucus and then THE RNC, in minnesota no delegates are bound to vote for anyone, they are to persuade others to vote for them at the next round of voting eventually making it to the national convention if we dont already have this accomplished. The process is why we needed so many delegates, and we got enough but we have to keep going each day is wasted without action, the delegates in your precinct could all vote for paul come NOV.

This is important.

RON PAUL FOR THE WIN

Caucus and primary states are very different. In primary states, the presidential contenders choose their slate of "delegate candidates" to represent them against the competing slates of "delegate candidates" for each of the other presidential contenders on the ballot. The slate of "delegate candidates" of winner of the primary then become "delegates" to the national nominating convention. This is why the Trojan/stealth/poser approach is a load of crap.

sfws09
02-07-2008, 12:57 AM
if we do not win 5 states it doesnt matter!:eek:

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 01:01 AM
if we do not win 5 states it doesnt matter!:eek:

Not exactly. The rules say demonstrate support from a majority of delegates in five states. I was using the word "win" too casually.

No1ButPaul08
02-07-2008, 02:11 AM
Caucus and primary states are very different. In primary states, the presidential contenders choose their slate of "delegate candidates" to represent them against the competing slates of "delegate candidates" for each of the other presidential contenders on the ballot. The slate of "delegate candidates" of winner of the primary then become "delegates" to the national nominating convention. This is why the Trojan/stealth/poser approach is a load of crap.

Bradley, you're very knowledgable on this for sure, but i've done the research and only 17 of the 36 primary states, and 2 caucus states, do the candidate file slates, or they are bound forever until released (no hope). The other 31 usually have district conventions, or a caucus to elect delegates. In these states they are unbound, or bound from 1-3 ballots (mostly 1-2). I'm going to make a detailed plan on how this possibly can be done to broker the convention and make RP a player, maybe not win, but a player

Hook
02-07-2008, 03:03 AM
Caucus and primary states are very different. In primary states, the presidential contenders choose their slate of "delegate candidates" to represent them against the competing slates of "delegate candidates" for each of the other presidential contenders on the ballot. The slate of "delegate candidates" of winner of the primary then become "delegates" to the national nominating convention. This is why the Trojan/stealth/poser approach is a load of crap.

Actually, here in Utah it is a primary state. But there isn't a "delegate candidate" slate for each candidate.
From the Utah GOP constitution section 3 part B:

In each presidential election year, the state nominating convention shall also choose presidential electors and the delegates and alternates to the national Party convention

Pretty clear that the precinct then county then state delegates get to choose national delegates here. They are bound for the first round, but are free afterwords. So at least in our state, the stealth method is quite legitimate.

As such, I am going to volunteer to be a precinct delegate and try to find other Paul supporters all the way up through the process.

Neopaulitan
02-07-2008, 07:25 AM
In our state, the 30 district delegates are only bound for the first vote. After that they are unbound. Now, if we were to win delegate positions by supporting Romney (Paul didn't get the required 15% here to win any delegates), and the voting goes to a second round, can we then vote for Paul? The meetup group seem to think so and are planning this by putting together a list of Paul delegates.

Now it sounds like a good strategy, but - is it legal?? It seems too obvious and like there should be rules in place against this, though I've not been able to find any.

Thanks to anyone who can help clear this up - we want to do anything we can for Ron Paul, but we also want to follow the rules doing it.

liberteebell
02-07-2008, 07:39 AM
I used to think I was a reasonably intelligent person until I started trying to understand this delegate process. Now my head is about to explode. I am soooo confused! :confused:

liberteebell
02-07-2008, 07:40 AM
What about this post??

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=114681

cjhowe
02-07-2008, 08:10 AM
Bradley, you're very knowledgable on this for sure, but i've done the research and only 17 of the 36 primary states, and 2 caucus states, do the candidate file slates, or they are bound forever until released (no hope). The other 31 usually have district conventions, or a caucus to elect delegates. In these states they are unbound, or bound from 1-3 ballots (mostly 1-2). I'm going to make a detailed plan on how this possibly can be done to broker the convention and make RP a player, maybe not win, but a player

Keep in mind that that in many of those 17 where the candidate files a slate, the state delegation has to approve that slate. The state delegation can keep rejecting the nominated slates until one comes up that is palatable to them. There is much more to a state convention than simply electing delegates to the national convention. You will find that the people that actually participate in party politics care much more about who is on a committee than who is the presidential nominee of the party. If you can bring the people to the state convention that will give a state player the votes needed to determine committee membership, they may be willing to put your people on the slate representing another candidate.

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 08:33 AM
Keep in mind that that in many of those 17 where the candidate files a slate, the state delegation has to approve that slate. The state delegation can keep rejecting the nominated slates until one comes up that is palatable to them. There is much more to a state convention than simply electing delegates to the national convention. You will find that the people that actually participate in party politics care much more about who is on a committee than who is the presidential nominee of the party. If you can bring the people to the state convention that will give a state player the votes needed to determine committee membership, they may be willing to put your people on the slate representing another candidate.

What you don't seem to the get is that there is NO state convention in primary states that will mythically approve the slate.

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 08:34 AM
Actually, here in Utah it is a primary state. But there isn't a "delegate candidate" slate for each candidate.
From the Utah GOP constitution section 3 part B:

In each presidential election year, the state nominating convention shall also choose presidential electors and the delegates and alternates to the national Party convention

Pretty clear that the precinct then county then state delegates get to choose national delegates here. They are bound for the first round, but are free afterwords. So at least in our state, the stealth method is quite legitimate.

As such, I am going to volunteer to be a precinct delegate and try to find other Paul supporters all the way up through the process.

As you explain it, Utah is NOT a straight primary state but uses a hybrid of methods.

No1ButPaul08
02-07-2008, 08:37 AM
As you explain it, Utah is NOT a straight primary state but uses a hybrid of methods.

About half the primary states are like this

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 08:43 AM
What about this post??

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=114681

Thanks, I'd not seen that thread. Without double-checking any of it, the basic approach to understanding the process is dead on (though I quibbled with the understanding about changing the rules binding delegates--the national convention can't vote to change state election laws).

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 08:45 AM
About half the primary states are like this

Yes, as you've analyzed, there is a variety of processes including many states with hybrid systems.

Neopaulitan
02-07-2008, 09:09 AM
So could any of you smart people answer this for me? :D


In our state, the 30 district delegates are only bound for the first vote. After that they are unbound. Now, if we were to win delegate positions by supporting Romney (Paul didn't get the required 15% here to win any delegates), and the voting goes to a second round, can we then vote for Paul? The meetup group seem to think so and are planning this by putting together a list of Paul delegates.

Now it sounds like a good strategy, but - is it legal?? It seems too obvious and like there should be rules in place against this, though I've not been able to find any.

Thanks to anyone who can help clear this up - we want to do anything we can for Ron Paul, but we also want to follow the rules doing it.

Melissa
02-07-2008, 09:11 AM
So could any of you smart people answer this for me? :D

how can a list of names be Illegal

Neopaulitan
02-07-2008, 09:16 AM
how can a list of names be Illegal

Not the list part - the pretending you will be a delegate for one candidate when in fact you intend on voting for another part.

Melissa
02-07-2008, 09:18 AM
Not the list part - the pretending you will be a delegate for one candidate when in fact you intend on voting for another part.

you are not pretending anything-take my state if I win a delegate spot but Mccain wins the state then on my first ballot I have to vote Mccain--but if there is no clear winner I am unbound and get to choose who me 2nd vote is for --not illegal they made the rules we are just using them

Neopaulitan
02-07-2008, 09:28 AM
Ok, gotcha.

However, in my state Ron Paul didn't even win a delegate (you need 15% of the popular vote to get one). Romney and McCain got them all. Therefore, in order to be a delegate here, we would have to be a McCain or Romney delegate with the later intention of voting for Paul. This is what the meetup group are proposing.

Does that make any sense? (They sure don't make this easy! :rolleyes:)

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 09:33 AM
So could any of you smart people answer this for me? :D

Please, please, please, take state-specific discussions to your respective state subforum. One of the biggest sources of confusion has come from people trying to understand the rules of one state by listening to someon explaining another one's rules.

No1ButPaul08
02-07-2008, 10:01 AM
Please, please, please, take state-specific discussions to your respective state subforum. One of the biggest sources of confusion has come from people trying to understand the rules of one state by listening to someon explaining another one's rules.

It's funny, our platform is basically states rights and legalizing the tenth amendment, yet most people can't grasp this concept here

Neopaulitan
02-07-2008, 10:08 AM
Please, please, please, take state-specific discussions to your respective state subforum. One of the biggest sources of confusion has come from people trying to understand the rules of one state by listening to someon explaining another one's rules.

Sorry! I'm not trying to make this any more confusing, believe me. I thought what I was asking was a general question for any state as they could all potentially have this issue.

My bad.

Melissa
02-07-2008, 10:11 AM
Sorry! I'm not trying to make this any more confusing, believe me. I thought what I was asking was a general question for any state as they could all potentially have this issue.

My bad.

dont worry I agree that you were asking a general question and not state specific some here get picky but dont let them bother you we all want the same thing-Dr. paul to win

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 10:49 AM
Sorry! I'm not trying to make this any more confusing, believe me. I thought what I was asking was a general question for any state as they could all potentially have this issue.

My bad.

No worries, I'm sorry about that, just a bit sensitive on it. I've seen so many discussions here where people know one state and think everywhere else is the same which causes so many problems. The more we can get vibrant state discussions going, the better.

enjerth
02-07-2008, 11:46 AM
Is there not a big difference between "win 5 states" and "get a majority of delegates in 5 states" ?

Edit: I think they're completely different.

In winner-take-all states, there's no difference. However, if you win with a 30% plurality and you are awarded 30% of the delegates, that is still not a majority of delegates.

Bradley in DC
02-07-2008, 12:02 PM
In winner-take-all states, there's no difference. However, if you win with a 30% plurality and you are awarded 30% of the delegates, that is still not a majority of delegates.

For the "elected" portion of the delegates, that's right, but with the "unelected" or superdelegates, one might still be able to make a majority of the delegation.

cjhowe
02-07-2008, 07:40 PM
What you don't seem to the get is that there is NO state convention in primary states that will mythically approve the slate.

A cursory look shows that there are 14 states + D.C. that do not choose national delegates by state or congressional delegation.


AL, IL, MD NJ, PA, RI, and TN the national delegates are voted for on the primary ballot

CA, CT, D.C., ID, NY, OH, WV, and WI the winning candidate submits the slate.

Every other state, some other delegation decides (State convention, Congressional Convention, Congressional Caucus, etc).

No1ButPaul08
02-07-2008, 07:53 PM
A cursory look shows that there are 14 states + D.C. that do not choose national delegates by state or congressional delegation.


AL, IL, MD NJ, PA, RI, and TN the national delegates are voted for on the primary ballot

CA, CT, D.C., ID, NY, OH, WV, and WI the winning candidate submits the slate.

Every other state, some other delegation decides (State convention, Congressional Convention, Congressional Caucus, etc).

Cj, have you seen my post on this same convention forum. I think you would be interested...we're on the same track with regard to the rules...until someone shows more, you, me, and bradley have the most knowledge here with regard to rules. krippy also seems to have a pretty good grasp

mketcher
02-08-2008, 12:07 PM
Since I get asked about this repeatedly, there is a rule to suspend the rules, but honestly people, PLEASE don't count on this to get Dr. Paul the nomination.

We'd need the same support to suspend the rules as we would to qualify to get Dr. Paul nominated in the first place.


RULE NO. 32 (http://www.gop.com/About/Rules31-41.htm)
Suspension of Rules
A motion to suspend the rules shall always be in order, but only when made by authority of a majority of the delegates from any state and seconded by a majority of the delegates from each of five (5) or more other states severally.

Suspending the rules is just one option. There are many Republicans who are dissatisfied with McCain, so there are probably other people besides Paul supporters who would like to suspend the rules. We could see other names being mentioned for the nomination -- names that haven't even come up yet.

Bradley in DC
02-08-2008, 12:11 PM
Suspending the rules is just one option. There are many Republicans who are dissatisfied with McCain, so there are probably other people besides Paul supporters who would like to suspend the rules. We could see other names being mentioned for the nomination -- names that haven't even come up yet.

What other "options" do you see besides following the actual rules or following the rule to suspend the rules? Stop the nonsense.

It is easier to get nominated (majority of delegates from five states) than to suspend the rules (majority of delegates from six states).

"Many Republicans"? It's a vote of the delegates at the national convention. McCain has the most delegates so far.

suzypotaka
02-23-2008, 12:08 AM
<<<In many (most?) states, he does appoint his slate of "delegate candidates" to represent him at the convention if he wins the primary (not sure about caucus states).>>>

Here are where the rules vary state-to-state. I am in a caucus state (not disclosing where as there is MUCH time left & planning is crucial for our next wave)

Our GOP rules state we can go *undeclared* (TG!) So in our case the *trojan horse* does apply. It's just a matter of all RP'rs knowing in advance who we are & who we are voting for on our slate!! It's called pre-organizing! And a lot of phone calls etc....(if you have an HQ person professing *bling* for goodness sake IGNORE them--you will NOT get your delegates at State!!) KNOW who they are in advance!!

PLAN AHEAD!! KNOW your people! KNOW your slate!!

People you HAVE got to really read your State GOP rules!!! No *one* person here on the boards can assist everyone in a "one size fits all". Yet IF you have your GOP rules & have questions--by all means post the the rule...& then the question!

Yet anyone reading from another state has GOT to understand it may not apply to YOU!!

Bradley-- GREAT thread!!!!

Drsteveparent
04-06-2008, 10:48 AM
For the "elected" portion of the delegates, that's right, but with the "unelected" or superdelegates, one might still be able to make a majority of the delegation.



What Super delegates? The republicans do not have super delegates and Bradley why don't you stop telling people they are wrong when you say yourself in many posts that you believe.

I need a straight jacket? You need to understand your own parties process and it is clear you really don't understand how the delegated process works

So instead of fighting against my posts about how the delegate process works contact me yourself and i will gladly explain it to you.

By the way i have never seen 1 STATE law that require delegates to be bound or go to jail you are confusing STATE law with party rule and there is a big difference.

Please get your facts straight before you attack my facts for you are only making my job harder because 10 times i day i have to explain to people why i am right and you have been either wrong or mistaken either way you are hurting all i have tried to do for Dr. Paul

Banana
04-06-2008, 10:52 AM
DSP,

What about this post: Someone cited a law in Georgia (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1297499#post1297499)

Corydoras
04-06-2008, 01:45 PM
Massachusetts does not specify a penalty, but delegates are bound by state law.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/53-70i.htm

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE VIII. ELECTIONS

CHAPTER 53. NOMINATIONS, QUESTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS, PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES

PROVISIONS APPLYING TO PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

Chapter 53: Section 70I. Delegates and alternate delegates to national conventions; voting for president on first roll call

Section 70I. If there is a roll call vote for president at the national convention of a political party, all delegates and alternate delegates whose selection is subject by party rule to the approval of a presidential candidate shall vote on the first such roll call for that presidential candidate unless released by such candidate.

brandon
04-06-2008, 02:01 PM
What Super delegates? The republicans do not have super delegates and Bradley why don't you stop telling people they are wrong when you say yourself in many posts that you believe.




Technically, the democrats dont have "superdelegates" either. "Superdelegate" is nothing more that a catchy buzzword the media created, it is not an official term by any means. The republican party sends delegates to the RNC that essentially are picked the same as the democrat superdelegates. Many states send high ranking committeemen to the RNC completely unbound without the people ever voting them in. What is the difference between this and a "superdelegate?"



By the way i have never seen 1 STATE law that require delegates to be bound or go to jail you are confusing STATE law with party rule and there is a big difference.
There are several of these laws listed in this thread. Most states make the laws that the political parties must follow. The state decides when the primary will be held, the locations people can vote at, the deadlines to file, etc. Many of the functions that you would expect to be left to the private political parties are actually handled by the state.

As far as going to jail, no I dont think any state will send you to jail.



10 times i day i have to explain to people why i am right

You sure have a big head for someone who was wrong about several things just in this thread.

On another note, congrats on getting a Ph.D., but do you really need to flaunt it in your handle on a message board? I can't stand that level of condecension. What was your thesis work in? Certainly not English, as your sentence structure is sub-par and you seem unfamiliar with even the most basic rules of punctuation and capitalization.