PDA

View Full Version : So does this mean that Ron Paul will get no deligates from MI?




KEEF
03-02-2012, 08:17 AM
So does this mean that Ron Paul will get no deligates from MI?
I thought a couple were proportional? But I got this email this morning.




Update: Anzis Memo and Copy of Rules


The uproar over whether a delegate that had apparently been given to Rick Santorum, causing a tie in the final delgate count to shift to a 16-14 advantage for Romney, has not subsided. Saul Anuzis issued a statement late today, which you can read below. After the explanation is a copy of the rules that were sent to me. I cannot verify the accuracy of the rules, but my understanding is these are the rules that would apply to the allocation of the two at-large delegates. Please read Saul's memo and the rules. I will report, you can decide...

Statement by Saul Anuzis:
At the February 4th State Committee meeting held in Lansing, the Credentials Committee unanimously passed the procedures for allocating Michigan's delegates to the National Convention in the event that the RNC imposes the 50% penalty on our delegation.

We agreed that if only 30 delegates would be designated as voting delegates, the Michigan Republicans would send 2 from each congressional committee and 2 at large. We agreed that the two at large delegates would be taken from the top of the slated delegations as submitted by the candidate who received the most votes statewide.

Last night the Credentials Committee met via teleconference and voted to apply the rules as passed unanimously on February 4th which results in the 2 at large delegates be awarded to the statewide winner, Mitt Romney.

There were no changes in rules or procedures, the Credential Committee only ratified the existing rules as previously passed after some made erroneous claims to the media that the at-large delegates would be split.

There is no disagreement amongst the members that this was the intent of the Credential Committee and there is email traffic between the committee members and counsel discussing the same.

Regrettably, there was an error in the memo drafted and sent to the respective campaigns. There were questions raised at the time the memo was drafted as to whether the legal language used was accomplishing the goal of the committee and we were advised that it was, but now it is clear that the memo did not properly communicate the intent of the committee. The email traffic surrounding the drafting of the memo in early February makes explicitly clear what the intent of the committee was.

The committee convened again last night to affirm that the intent was clear and that the memo was inaccurate. That affirmation came in a 4-2 vote. While we all regret the error in the memo, it does not change what was voted on by the committee, which was to award the two at-large delegates to the statewide winner. It was premature for any candidate to be declaring the delegate count prior to an official announcement by the Michigan Republican Party.

This is much to do about nothing. The rules were set in place, in advance, by a unanimous vote. A press conference should not force Michigan Republicans to change the rules.
----------------------
Party Rules:

To further clarify the math regarding the "officially recognized" delegates, the math is added below. The Credentials Committee kept the method of calculation the same for the "Officially Recognized" Delegates as for the full at-Large Delegation, and accounted for this by simply substituting "Two" for "Fourteen" when doing the math.

The Credentials Committee Memo to the RNC states, on Page 4:
"Now, however, an at-large slate of two (2) National Convention delegates and alternates will also be selected to complete the "officially recognized" listing of 30 National Convention delegates and alternates from Michigan. The allocation of this "officially recognized" at-large slate of two (2) National Convention delegates and alternates shall be calculated in accordance with Rule No. 19C(2). of the State Rules by merely substituting "two (2)" for "fourteen(14)."

Follows the actual Rules as adopted by the Michigan Republican State Committee on August 13, 2011, and subsequently submitted to the RNC as the official process in a February 7, 2012 Memo. The math is as follows:
Vote is 410,523 Romney, 378,136 Santorum. Since no other candidate met the minimum threshold of 15%, these votes are the only ones tabulated for purposes of establishing the Statewide Proportional Allocation, per Rule 19.C(2) as provided below.
Thus, for PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION ONLY:
410,523 = 52.0533% Romney
378,136 = 47.9467% Santorum
788,659 = 100.0000% Total
Meaning:
14 At Large Delegates divide:
7.2875 Romney
6.7125 Santorum
Using the .5 rounding as detailed below (see bolded sentences for clarification) the award of the at-Large Delegates at the State Convention must be 7 Santorum, 7 Romney, with 1 each seated as authorized Delegates consistent with the statewide proportional allocation as detailed above.

Substituting "Two" for "Fourteen", per the February 7 Credentials Committee Memo as submitted to the RNC, the math is:
2 "Officially Recognized" Delegates:
52.0533% or 1.0411 Romney
47.9467% or .9589 Santorum
Again, using the .5 Rounding calculations in the Rule 19 C (2) as required below, the Total is:
1 Romney "Officially Recognized" Delegate
1 Santorum "Officially Recognized" Delegate

RULE 19 C (2) of the STATE RULES for the Michigan Republican Presidential Delegate Selection Process:
C. Determining the Number of Delegates and Alternate Delegates to be committed to Each Presidential Candidate Except as provided in Rule 19E, National Convention delegates and alternate delegates shall be elected based on the votes casts as uncommitted or for each respective Republican presidential candidate of the Republican Party's total statewide vote at the Presidential Preference Vote. The determination of these allocations shall be made as follows:

(1) The Republican presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) who receives the most votes in the Presidential Preference Vote for a congressional district shall be allocated the three (3) National Convention delegates and three (3) National Convention alternate delegates for that particular congressional district.

(2) National Convention at-large delegates and at-large alternate delegates shall be elected on a basis that insures that the proportion of the at-large National Convention delegation that is committed to each Republican presidential candidate equals, as nearly as is practicable, the proportion of the statewide vote that was cast for each respective presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) at the statewide Presidential Preference Vote. The determination of these proportions shall only include the votes cast for that particular Republican presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted), if the total vote cast for that particular Republican presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted), equals at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total statewide vote cast for all Republican presidential candidates (or, if applicable, uncommitted) at the Presidential Preference Vote (hereinafter the "Threshold Vote").

The State Party Chair shall assure that the proportion of the at-large National Convention delegation committed to a particular presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) is equal to the proportion of the statewide Presidential Preference Vote. That number shall be determined by dividing the total statewide Presidential Preference Vote received by each presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) by the total statewide Presidential Preference Vote cast for all Republican presidential candidates (or, if applicable, uncommitted), not including within the total statewide Presidential Preference Vote those votes cast for any candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) that did not equal or exceed the Threshold Vote. The resulting percentage for each candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) shall be multiplied by fourteen (14) and rounded to the nearest whole number (.5 and above rounds up, below .5 rounds down), which shall be the number of delegates and alternate delegates that that candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) shall receive from the at-large National Convention delegation.

If as a result of rounding off to the nearest whole number, there are more than fourteen (14) delegate and alternate positions assigned, the number of positions shall be decreased to fourteen (14) by subtracting the necessary number of positions from the Republican presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) receiving the fewest votes cast at the Presidential Preference Vote. If as a result of rounding off to the nearest whole number, there are less than fourteen (14) delegate and alternate positions assigned, the number of positions shall be increased to fourteen (14) by adding the necessary number of positions to the Republican presidential candidate (or, if applicable, uncommitted) receiving the most votes cast at the Presidential Preference Vote.

anewvoice
03-02-2012, 08:18 AM
I thought I had heard RP won Detroit...?

mczerone
03-02-2012, 08:26 AM
Yes, RP gets no bound delegates. Apparently if a candidate with bound delegates drops out before the convention they become unbound delegates.


I thought I had heard RP won Detroit...?

He won in the city of Detroit, but none of the Congressional Districts.

KEEF
03-02-2012, 08:27 AM
I thought I had heard RP won Detroit...?

He did, and that is why I ask. It looks like the MI GOP did a rule change and awarded all delegates to Mitt and Rick. I just might be reading it wrong though.

Article V
03-02-2012, 08:28 AM
Yes, apparently we spent lots of money on advertising in Michigan to win 0 delegates; and zero money on advertising in WY to win 6 of 26 delegates.

For some reason the campaign is tooting this strategy as a good thing as opposed to realizing that had they reallocated the Michigan funds to WY, they might very well have the majority of delegates in WY instead of only ~20%. Even if we're operating in a delegate-strategy, brokered-convention scenario, this is a big fail on our part as far as I'm concerned.

...Of course, I'm sure the mob will attack me for saying so.

anewvoice
03-02-2012, 08:35 AM
Being from MI myself, I wish they'd gone elsewhere. Yeah we had awesome rallies but this state was not setup for us to win. 20-20 of course but I would prefer more focus on WA!

opinionatedfool
03-02-2012, 12:17 PM
Being from MI myself, I wish they'd gone elsewhere. Yeah we had awesome rallies but this state was not setup for us to win. 20-20 of course but I would prefer more focus on WA!

I agree. I wasted a lot of time getting a lot of mi people to vote only to lose all districts. I'm still going to apply to be a delegate and all that crap, but that will only help for brokered convention when people become unbound.

Agorism
03-02-2012, 12:19 PM
You can choose if you want to keep the delegates or not.

If you suspend your campaign you keep them vs. if you drop out they become unbound.

sailingaway
03-02-2012, 12:21 PM
Yes, apparently we spent lots of money on advertising in Michigan to win 0 delegates; and zero money on advertising in WY to win 6 of 26 delegates.

For some reason the campaign is tooting this strategy as a good thing as opposed to realizing that had they reallocated the Michigan funds to WY, they might very well have the majority of delegates in WY instead of only ~20%. Even if we're operating in a delegate-strategy, brokered-convention scenario, this is a big fail on our part as far as I'm concerned.

...Of course, I'm sure the mob will attack me for saying so.

20 20 hindsight is perfect.

Onward.

sailingaway
03-02-2012, 12:22 PM
You can choose if you want to keep the delegates or not.

If you suspend your campaign you keep them vs. if you drop out they become unbound.

if you plan to give them to anyone else they have to be unbound. You can't 'deliver' the binded-ness

Agorism
03-02-2012, 12:46 PM
if you plan to give them to anyone else they have to be unbound. You can't 'deliver' the binded-ness

I mean if a candidate wants to drop out, he can choose which method he wants to do. Huntsman suspended his campaign so his delegates are still bound (at least in first round)

angelatc
03-02-2012, 01:04 PM
He did, and that is why I ask. It looks like the MI GOP did a rule change and awarded all delegates to Mitt and Rick. I just might be reading it wrong though.

The rule change screwed Santorum, not Paul. Paul didn't win any Congressionional districts, and therefore won no delegates in Michigan. The 2 delegates-at-large were to be awarded to the candidate who won the most districts. Romney and Santorum each won 14, so by the old rules they should have each received 1 delegate. However, in what was literally a late night backroom deal, the GOP decided to give both those delegates to Romney.

angelatc
03-02-2012, 01:10 PM
I agree. I wasted a lot of time getting a lot of mi people to vote only to lose all districts. I'm still going to apply to be a delegate and all that crap, but that will only help for brokered convention when people become unbound.

It's too late for you to be a delegate for this convention. You can run to be a delegate beginning in 2013.

I know the cheerleaders will have a stroke, but we didn't receive a single GOTV call from the campaign or the grassroots. There wasn't a single commercial on TV. Christ, Santorum was calling the Democrats asking for votes.

I didn't get invited to any Ron Paul functions from any of the other political groups I belong to, while several of those groups invited me to see Romney and Santorum in different venues.

The campaign was here only to preach to the choir.

angelatc
03-02-2012, 01:13 PM
if you plan to give them to anyone else they have to be unbound. You can't 'deliver' the binded-ness

He's right. A candidate can suspend a campaign, then re-enter the race later....the delegates that were bound to him would still be bound.

tbone717
03-02-2012, 01:17 PM
20 20 hindsight is perfect.

Onward.

In general though, people look at their past mistakes so they do not repeat them. So you cannot move onward without first assessing the failure of the past and determining whether or not the same strategy is viable or not. Time and money are a limited commodity and when you have many libertarian Republican candidates running for office in 2012, it is wise for people to assess what is the best use of their time and money.

In my opinion, the time and money spent of MI resulted in failure. If the same strategy is taken with other states, will they also result in failure? That is something we need to analyze and decide whether or not it is a good use of our personal resources and effort.

If the choice is between donating your time and money to the Paul campaign or donating it to a Congressional race people have to consider what is the best use of their resources so that this movement can continue to move forward. It is a harsh reality, but it is one that we inevitably have to face.

angelatc
03-02-2012, 01:18 PM
20 20 hindsight is perfect.

Onward.

This wasn't enitirely 20/20 hindsight thought. But you and the other campaign cheerleaders have created an environment where legitimate concerns are met only with immediate calls to resign from the forums.

You guys a nucking futz if you think we can win this in a brokered convention. A brokered deal will most likely be either result in a Romney/Santorum ticket (think Reagan / GHW Bush) or a dark horse - Jeb Bush.

Like it or not, Santorum delivers more GOP voters than we do. He's got the Evangelicals. We've got college kids who don't show up on election day.

francisco
03-02-2012, 01:20 PM
For some reason the campaign is tooting this strategy as a good thing as opposed to realizing that had they reallocated the Michigan funds to WY, they might very well have the majority of delegates in WY instead of only ~20%. Even if we're operating in a delegate-strategy, brokered-convention scenario, this is a big fail on our part as far as I'm concerned.


Did you notice all the free publicity that RP gained from the controversy over his alleged coordinated attack on Santorum in Michigan?

Did you notice all the free publicity from the press coverage of the large MI rallies, which people in ALL states saw?

Did you listen to what Doug Wead said on this?

tbone717
03-02-2012, 01:25 PM
He's right. A candidate can suspend a campaign, then re-enter the race later....the delegates that were bound to him would still be bound.

Depends on the state rules. As I read MI's rules once they suspend their delegates are automatically released. That was different that the wording on most other states, where suspension retains the delegates.

cornell
03-02-2012, 01:36 PM
If people think Ron Paul was campaigning in Michigan and actually expecting to obtain any delegates they are not looking at this the right way...

WD-NY
03-02-2012, 01:45 PM
This wasn't enitirely 20/20 hindsight thought. But you and the other campaign cheerleaders have created an environment where legitimate concerns are met only with immediate calls to resign from the forums.

You guys a nucking futz if you think we can win this in a brokered convention. A brokered deal will most likely be either result in a Romney/Santorum ticket (think Reagan / GHW Bush) or a dark horse - Jeb Bush.

Like it or not, Santorum delivers more GOP voters than we do. He's got the Evangelicals. We've got college kids who don't show up on election day.

This x100. Sailing = boss though so I don't agree with you that he's part of the cheerleader squad. His focus has been to surface all media coverage on the campaign - which is the gasoline that fuels people's spirits enough to continue slogging forward (despite all their frustrations with how the campaign is being run). It's a very important role and he really hasn't deviated from it or joined up with the "get lost if you have anything constructive/negative to say about the campaign" gang.

That said, your point remains. The cheerleaders are, in effect, distorting the market. They're like all the govn't officials saying "there is no housing crisis, the fed has everything under control... don't worry.. no need to start socking away your money... etc. etc." in the lead up to the market crash. They're dominating the discussion and as a result making it very difficult for campaign staffers/advisors/Ron who reads RPF and/or the DailyPaul to gauge the true health/general-feeling of the grassroots.

People like you, tbone and myself, are actually a lot like Ron. We're pointing on the gaps/faults in the system... and hoping someone in a position to do something, listens.

But that doesn't seem likely since anything constructive posted to the dailypaul (which is all Ron reads I suspect) gets buried by the cheerleader brigade - so when Ron reads through the comments, his thought process is probably: "hmmm, looks like a majority doesn't agree with that suggestion... oh well, guess I'll just keep doing the same since that's what they want."

C'est la vie

That said, I think Ron campaigning in Michigan was the right move tactically, because it kept Santorum from winning. And right now, Santorum = our #1 threat

Keith and stuff
03-02-2012, 01:53 PM
Yes, apparently we spent lots of money on advertising in Michigan to win 0 delegates; and zero money on advertising in WY to win 6 of 26 delegates.

...Of course, I'm sure the mob will attack me for saying so.

We didn't spend a lot of money on advertising in MI. I don't know where you got that information. The ad was incredibly useful. It became a news story that was played on TV, nationally, for free and covered by many reporters. It also helped Ron Paul in the AZ debate. It also helped show people that Ron Paul hasn't dropped out and is still trying to win.

Ron Paul won Detroit which has around 700,000 people. He likely wasn't incredibly far from winning a district.

tsai3904
03-02-2012, 02:06 PM
Ron Paul won Detroit which has around 700,000 people. He likely wasn't incredibly far from winning a district.

The closest we got was in the 13th CD.

http://www.migopprimary.com/CongressionalDistrict.asp?CongressionalDistrict=13

Santorum 36.04%
Romney 30.21%
Paul 23.97%

angelatc
03-02-2012, 02:25 PM
If people think Ron Paul was campaigning in Michigan and actually expecting to obtain any delegates they are not looking at this the right way...

What? In the weeks leading up to the Michigan primary, we were told over and over that while we were not going to win the state, it was a very good chance for us to pick up some delegates. Now you're saying that never happened?

Why the hell would a presidential campaign waste presidential campaign money in a state if they didn't think they could walk away with some delegates? If you tell me it was about spreading the message, I'm going to throw up. Not because it might not be true, but because you think it's ok.