Virginia Legislators To Try And Change The Rules To Get Gingrich On Ballot!

[virginiakid]

http://www.nbc29.com/story/16390374/state-lawmakers-could-change-ballot-rules-to-let-gingrich-in-primary

Alright everyone, time to do some politics and call your legislators and urge them not to go through with this possible emergency legislation that would change the rules and allow Gingrich and Perry on the ballot in March. They would never do this for Ron Paul or for any other possible candidate seeking election, why should they do it for them? If they want to change the rules, fine, but not until July 1, when all other bills go into effect.

These people would stop at nothing to destroy Ron Paul and the political process, they are all about preservation, and if it means breaking the rules, the so be it. Quite disgusted.

[lakerssuck92]

Toscano says changing the rules is easier said than done. "An emergency clause legislation, which would take effect immediately, would require 80 percent of those voting to approve, and it's hard to know whether you could get 80 percent," he said.

Hmm....they may not succeed, at least I hope they don't...

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The lawmakers are the lawbreakers :( Emergency legislation? Oh no, an honest man might win the primary, DIAL 911! I don't see men. I see subhumans scurrying to try and keep their tentacles twisted over our wallets and throats.

[braane]

The rules are the same for everyone, it's really childish of these campaigns to complain. Two of the candidates got people out there to get signatures, they should be rewarded for it.

I am all for loosening the standards, but it should be done for the next election. Changing the rules in the middle isn't fair.

[nbhadja]

Newt, Perry, Bachman, Sanctorum= fringe candidates that are unelectable. If you can't even get on one state's ballot (home state for Newt) then you have no shot at winning the primary, let alone beating Obama.

It's time these fringe candidates that are unelectable drop out. Also Wolf should ask them if they are gonna run 3rd party.

[virginiakid]

Gingrich and Perry both had over 10,000 signatures. But over a thousand of those signatures were not legit, therefore, they were not certified to be on the ballot. Everyone knows in VA that you have to get at least 15,000, if not 20,000 signatures to be sure of a spot. rash.Paul, probably just made it.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The rules are the same for everyone, it's really childish of these campaigns to complain. Two of the candidates got people out there to get signatures, they should be rewarded for it.

I am all for loosing the standards, but it should be done for the next election. Changing the rules in the middle isn't fair.
They did this last primary cycle when they changed the rules last second to shut out Ron Paul delegates in Nevada. We need citizens of Virginia to go out and contact the legislators, letting them know changing the rules because they don't like the candidate is unacceptable and won't be forgotten.

[Travlyr]

I loathe making predictions. Yet, I predict that Newt will be on the Virginia ballot for 2012, no matter what.

[Agorism]

Paul should have been the only candidate on Louisiana last time but then they just changed the rules to "fix" it.

[Endthefednow]

LOL, it is so comical. We must vote for who we are told to do so. The Establishment will show us paulbots who run this game ;)

[virginiakid]

The Virginia legislators let in January. Not sure what day though. That is when you will see the bill. I am sure it will be like fast and furious.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

e-mails phone numbers?

[Condor Bastadon]

No worries. I would think that Gingrich splits a lot more votes from Romney than he does from Paul.

[Sublyminal]

This will be an embarrassment for Virginia as a whole, if this happens.

[economics102]

I think the Paul and Romney campaigns should go on the attack and claim that this is "campaign welfare" and that it's unfair to bend the rules for them when Paul and Romney had to put the hard work in to qualify.

[virginiakid]

e-mails phone numbers?

Here is the list of VA Delegates http://dela.state.va.us/dela/MemBios.nsf/MWebsiteTL?OpenView

Here is the list of VA Senators http://sov.state.va.us/SenatorDB.nsf/$$Viewtemplate+for+WMembershipHome?OpenForm

[milo10]

Let them do it. I don't want Gingrich to have any pretext for dropping out before we're ready.

[Sublyminal]

I think the Paul and Romney campaigns should go on the attack and claim that this is "campaign welfare" and that it's unfair to bend the rules for them when Paul and Romney had to put the hard work in to qualify.



If I were able to give rep, you'd be getting a +1 right now for this.

[Bama Boy]

This works to our advantage. RELAX!

[Heman5up]

I actually think that a GOOd NEWS. The damage is already done. This embarrasement for NewtG and RickP is top news everywhere and will stick for some time. For voting day advantage, more contender could work in our favor given the complex delegate rules in Viginia (winner take all only for 51% majority; otherwise proportionate distribution of delagates).

[unknown]

Newt, Perry, Bachman, Sanctorum= fringe candidates that are unelectable. If you can't even get on one state's ballot (home state for Newt) then you have no shot at winning the primary, let alone beating Obama.

It's time these fringe candidates that are unelectable drop out. Also Wolf should ask them if they are gonna run 3rd party.

Ding ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Virginia is Newt's home state? Hahahahah.

[virginiakid]

Maybe, but for me it's about principle. Why give a bunch of candidates that couldn't make the ballot, be on the ballot? If I were to run for governor and had to get the 10,000 signature and didn't make it, they wouldn't change the rules for me. Well, you know , I might just run for the heck of it, not get the 10,000 signatures (even though I would certainly try), and then sue the state for unfairness, after all, they let others who didn't have the amount on the ballot in other elections.

[milo10]

For voting day advantage, more contender could work in our favor given the complex delegate rules in Viginia (winner take all only for 51% majority; otherwise proportionate distribution of delagates).

I didn't know that. Even more reason to have Gingrich in Virgina, even if I think his campaign will have fizzled by then.

[John of Des Moines]

After reading the Virginia Constitution it seems they need a 4/5's vote to change it before July:


Article IV
Section 13. Effective date of laws.

All laws enacted at a regular session, including laws which are enacted by reason of actions taken during the reconvened session following a regular session, but excluding a general appropriation law, shall take effect on the first day of July following the adjournment of the session of the General Assembly at which it has been enacted; and all laws enacted at a special session, including laws which are enacted by reason of actions taken during the reconvened session following a special session but excluding a general appropriation law, shall take effect on the first day of the fourth month following the month of adjournment of the special session; unless in the case of an emergency (which emergency shall be expressed in the body of the bill) the General Assembly shall specify an earlier date by a vote of four-fifths of the members voting in each house, the name of each member voting and how he voted to be recorded in the journal, or unless a subsequent date is specified in the body of the bill or by general law.

[dvalukis]

This works to our advantage. RELAX!

Virginia is majority- winner take all. Plurality winner means delegate's are divided to each candidate. So if it's Romney and Paul it means that whoever gets over 51% gets all of Virginia's delegets sent to Tampa's RNC. If Newt hops in, it'll split the Romney vote and it looks like nobody would get 51%. So then the delegates would be broken up proportionally to each candidate which is better for us. Unless you think Ron Paul will get 51% in Virginia, then in that case, this is bad.

edit: sorry, didn't see this was already explained

[69360]

Virginia is majority- winner take all. Plurality winner means delegate's are divided to each candidate. So if it's Romney and Paul it means that whoever gets over 51% gets all of Virginia's delegets sent to Tampa's RNC. If Newt hops in, it'll split the Romney vote and it looks like nobody would get 51%. So then the delegates would be broken up proportionally to each candidate which is better for us. Unless you think Ron Paul will get 51% in Virginia, then in that case, this is bad.

edit: sorry, didn't see this was already explained

That's not correct. That only applies to the at large delegates. The CD delegates are awarded to the winner no matter the statewide total.

So either Ron or Mitt get all 13 at large. The rest are awarded to the winner of each district on a winner take all system. As in you get 3 for each district you win.

[parocks]

No worries. I would think that Gingrich splits a lot more votes from Romney than he does from Paul.

Someone mentioned that if the winner gets 51% or more, it's a winner take all scenario. If the winner gets less than 50%, it's a proportional scenario.

I'm not sure that's right, but if it is, it's something to think about.

[69360]

Someone mentioned that if the winner gets 51% or more, it's a winner take all scenario. If the winner gets less than 50%, it's a proportional scenario.

I'm not sure that's right, but if it is, it's something to think about.

Not right. I explained it in the post above.

[hueylong]

We WANT Newt on the ballot. Beating Romney head to head in Virginia will be tough and its a Winner Take All primary. One of the few. Having Newt on the ballot gives us a significantly better chance to win there. Just sayin'.

[Hook]

They will succeed. Just like they did last time in 2008 when one of the "mainstream" candidates didn't file in time.

Of course, Ron wouldn't have the same privilege.

[bbartlog]

The establishment (most of it) is actually behind Romney. I don't think they'll get 80% to vote to let Newt on. Especially after his tantrum.

[rockandrollsouls]

Double edged sword. At least the legislation should help more freedom candidates get on the ballot next time around. We have them running scared....so much that they are changing the rules they wrote to keep the little guy out of the race. It will come back to bite them. It always does.

[sailingaway]

On the one hand, I think ballot rules should be easy enough to just create annoyance for frivolous candidates, not to ban people who truly want to run. On the other hand, no way would they have changed their rules for Ron or the others, so this is pretty tacky.

[69360]

They would need 80% of the legislature to vote for it. The Romney campaign would push hard to not let that happen.

Also the way I read the statutes, they couldn't put new laws into effect until July.

[virginiakid]

True, it would be very difficult for them to do it. But I am willing to bet they could get the 80% across party lines.

[GunnyFreedom]

Does anybody know why the RNC ruling on proportional delegate allotment does not apply to Virginia? Aren't states supposed to lose something like 50% of their delegates if they ignore the RNC ruling?

[MrTudo]

How much sleazier can it get?

[pacu44]

Paul should have been the only candidate on Louisiana last time but then they just changed the rules to "fix" it.

Yeah, lots of 'interesting' things happen in Louisiana when it comes to politics... I know, lived here all my life...

[Feelgood]

Does anybody know why the RNC ruling on proportional delegate allotment does not apply to Virginia? Aren't states supposed to lose something like 50% of their delegates if they ignore the RNC ruling?

Like in Florida? :rolleyes:

[GunnyFreedom]

Like in Florida? :rolleyes:

Yes, exactly

[69360]

Does anybody know why the RNC ruling on proportional delegate allotment does not apply to Virginia? Aren't states supposed to lose something like 50% of their delegates if they ignore the RNC ruling?

The at large are proportional unless somebody gets 51%, they probably didn't expect to have 2 candidates. The district delegates are winner take all in each district I think 3 per district, not winner take all statewide. I'd guess that was good enough for the RNC?

[braane]

The at large are proportional unless somebody gets 51%, they probably didn't expect to have 2 candidates. The district delegates are winner take all in each district I think 3 per district, not winner take all statewide. I'd guess that was good enough for the RNC?
Beat me to it.

[bluesc]

Saw this coming a mile away. Whatever.

[james1906]

Yeah, lots of 'interesting' things happen in Louisiana when it comes to politics... I know, lived here all my life...

As bad as the legal loopholes are in your state, it does allow booze to be served at a drive through.

[GunnyFreedom]

The at large are proportional unless somebody gets 51%, they probably didn't expect to have 2 candidates. The district delegates are winner take all in each district I think 3 per district, not winner take all statewide. I'd guess that was good enough for the RNC?

I didn't think the RNC ruling was that ambiguous. I may have to go look again, but I'm pretty sure it was simply "all primaries from Feb 1 to April 1 must be proportional or you lose a big chunk of delegates at the convention."

In my experience, when such a body makes such a rule it doesn't tend to later get ignored by the same rulemaking body...

[69360]

I didn't think the RNC ruling was that ambiguous. I may have to go look again, but I'm pretty sure it was simply "all primaries from Feb 1 to April 1 must be proportional or you lose a big chunk of delegates at the convention."

In my experience, when such a body makes such a rule it doesn't tend to later get ignored by the same rulemaking body...

It seems like awarding the district delegates as winner takes all 3 per district is good enough to satisfy the RNC proportional requirement and probably they didn't expect there would only be 2 on the ballot for the at large so it snuck past. That's just my take on it.