Should I become a delegate in my BOUND, winner take all primary?

[jeremiahj13]

Should I seek to become a bound delegate in my neo-con state of Wisconsin in hopes of a brokered convention?

Chances are I will become bound to Mitt Romney and will have to vote for him unless there is a brokered convention. What are the chances of a brokered Convention?

[smartguy911]

YES

[rpwi]

Of course.

Reason #1: http://www.dailypaul.com/211757/republican-national-committee-rule-38-can-a-bound-candidate-vote-for-someone-other-than-the-winner-of-their-state-primary

Reason #2: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?365783-quot-Bound-quot-delegates-are-a-MYTH-RP-takes-it-ROUND-1

Reason #3: You'll get to vote on some party rules

Reason #4: You'll get to boo Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and the gang

Reason #5: You'll get to cheer for Paul and libertarian issues (looks good for the cameras)

Reason #6: You'll help to decide the party platform

So what's all involved in getting to be a Wisconsin delegate?

[sailingaway]

chances of a brokered convention are pretty good, I think.

[bluesc]

Absolutely, yes.

Try to get in touch with the head of the Paul campaign in your state (if there is one).

[Diashi]

Once you're at the national convention, as I've come to understand, you are not bound to a candidate as per national Republican Party rules, and can represent any candidate you wish.

[phill4paul]

Of course....nothing stopping you from stating 'no confidence' and walking out if it looks like a win for a non-conservative.........

[The Gold Standard]

Yes, become a delegate. And don't ever mention that you support Paul until you vote for him on the convention floor in Tampa.

[jeremiahj13]

OK. Will I be taken care of? I have a job, will I be given time off to attend this Convention? And I am also in the Army NG, will I be given time off for it?

[jeremiahj13]

http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n402/jeremyj13/ronpaulling.png

[opinionatedfool]

Yes, even better if it goes to an open convention.

[Suzu]

OK. Will I be taken care of? I have a job, will I be given time off to attend this Convention? And I am also in the Army NG, will I be given time off for it?
How the heck should anyone but you be able to find those answers?

[jeremiahj13]

How the heck should anyone but you be able to find those answers?

Maybe someone with experience knows?

[lib3rtarian]

Should I seek to become a bound delegate in my neo-con state of Wisconsin in hopes of a brokered convention?

Chances are I will become bound to Mitt Romney and will have to vote for him unless there is a brokered convention. What are the chances of a brokered Convention?

YES!

[malkusm]

Once you're at the national convention, as I've come to understand, you are not bound to a candidate as per national Republican Party rules, and can represent any candidate you wish.

Different states have different rules, but generally speaking, a "bound" delegate (as the OP would be) must vote for the candidate he's bound to in the first round of voting. If no candidate has a majority (i.e. a "brokered convention"), he would then be free to represent any candidate he wished.

[bobburn]

YES!

[thoughtomator]

a "bound" delegate (as the OP would be) must vote for the candidate he's bound to in the first round of voting.

Can we get some exact language from somewhere? Because a "must" without an "or else" clause is just an unenforceable suggestion.

[Maximus]

Yes, absolutely!

[lly4now]

I'm running as a delegate for NJ's 7th CD this June. I'm a bit concerned about not getting through because I'll appear under RP's name. I'm assuming Romney will take NJ and that people will just check all the delegate choices under Romney by default. I'm trying to figure out an approach to get through regardless...

[PaulConventionWV]

Should I seek to become a bound delegate in my neo-con state of Wisconsin in hopes of a brokered convention?

Chances are I will become bound to Mitt Romney and will have to vote for him unless there is a brokered convention. What are the chances of a brokered Convention?

Right now, chances are pretty good. I say do it. The act of voting for Romney isn't that bad if your intentions were good and you had ulterior motives for doing it.

[PaulConventionWV]

OK. Will I be taken care of? I have a job, will I be given time off to attend this Convention? And I am also in the Army NG, will I be given time off for it?

Um, only your employers can decide that. You have to decide if it is worth it to try and work it out between yourselves.

[PolicyReader]

OK. Will I be taken care of? I have a job, will I be given time off to attend this Convention? And I am also in the Army NG, will I be given time off for it?

If you request the time off in both cases well in advance and you make the case that this is part of being a patriot committed to this nation (I wouldn't mention a specific candidate ;) ) then you will likely be fine regarding have the time free. :)

[MelissaWV]

Faithless Delegates:

On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the U.S. presidential election of 1836, in which 23 Virginia electors conspired to change their vote together (see below).

...

Twenty-four states have laws to punish faithless electors.[1] While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of the state's right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, as well as to remove electors who refuse to pledge. Once the elector has voted, their vote can only be changed in states such as Michigan and Minnesota, where votes other than those pledged are rendered invalid. However, in all twenty-four states, a faithless elector may only be punished after he or she votes. The Supreme Court has ruled that, as electors are chosen via state elections, they act as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court.

To date, there has been only one occasion when faithless electors prevented an expected winner from winning the electoral college vote: in December 1836, twenty-three faithless electors prevented Richard Mentor Johnson, the expected candidate, from winning the Vice Presidency. However, Johnson was promptly elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate in February 1837; therefore, faithless electors have never changed the expected final outcome of the entire election process.

...

The Democratic Party nominated Richard Mentor Johnson of Kentucky as their vice presidential candidate. The 23 electors from Virginia refused to support Johnson with their votes because of the fact that he had previously lived with and fathered children with an African-American woman. As a result, although the Democratic presidential nominee Martin van Buren won a majority of electoral votes, no vice-presidential candidate won a majority. The decision was therefore made by the U.S. Senate. The Senate elected Johnson as the Vice President, including votes for Johnson by both of Virginia's senators

Add to this the fact that we really don't want to win based on faithless electors.

To the OP: Getting time off that far ahead of time is your responsibility. Try to become a National GOP delegate, and people will likely assist from there.

[digitaldean]

Everyone needs to become bound delegates to for Mitt/Newt/Santorum since they become unbound on the 2nd or 3rd vote in FL.

Delegate Info:
http://ronpauldelegates.wordpress.com/state-specific-info/

[Aratus]

colorful character http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Richard_M_Johnson.htm

[roversaurus]

Absolutely yes.
It's the only chance for Paul to get something at the convention. That something will hopefully be VP. And if the campaign would get off their butts and try to win Hawaii we could shoot for more.

[BrooklynZoo]

The statements on faithless electors refer to actual general elections, not primary elections, which are administered by the respective private political parties.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Faithless Delegates:

On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the U.S. presidential election of 1836, in which 23 Virginia electors conspired to change their vote together (see below).

...

Twenty-four states have laws to punish faithless electors.[1] While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of the state's right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, as well as to remove electors who refuse to pledge. Once the elector has voted, their vote can only be changed in states such as Michigan and Minnesota, where votes other than those pledged are rendered invalid. However, in all twenty-four states, a faithless elector may only be punished after he or she votes. The Supreme Court has ruled that, as electors are chosen via state elections, they act as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court.

To date, there has been only one occasion when faithless electors prevented an expected winner from winning the electoral college vote: in December 1836, twenty-three faithless electors prevented Richard Mentor Johnson, the expected candidate, from winning the Vice Presidency. However, Johnson was promptly elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate in February 1837; therefore, faithless electors have never changed the expected final outcome of the entire election process.

...

The Democratic Party nominated Richard Mentor Johnson of Kentucky as their vice presidential candidate. The 23 electors from Virginia refused to support Johnson with their votes because of the fact that he had previously lived with and fathered children with an African-American woman. As a result, although the Democratic presidential nominee Martin van Buren won a majority of electoral votes, no vice-presidential candidate won a majority. The decision was therefore made by the U.S. Senate. The Senate elected Johnson as the Vice President, including votes for Johnson by both of Virginia's senators

Add to this the fact that we really don't want to win based on faithless electors.

To the OP: Getting time off that far ahead of time is your responsibility. Try to become a National GOP delegate, and people will likely assist from there.

This type of coup is just what Ron Paul supporters could deliver on. The constant undermining of our efforts have driven us to do whatever it takes. If we are as well organized at this effort as we are at other actions on the ground, then nothing could stop us.

A successful coup engineered by our faithful would be the kind of stick-it-to-em revenge that so many are out to seek.

[J_White]

Yes, you should.
If we get a brokered convention, you would be unbound on 2nd or 3rd ballot, depending on your state.

[PaulConventionWV]

Absolutely yes.
It's the only chance for Paul to get something at the convention. That something will hopefully be VP. And if the campaign would get off their butts and try to win Hawaii we could shoot for more.

Why would we want VP? The VP can't do anything.

[Liberty74]

Why would we want VP? The VP can't do anything.

The VP can have behind the scene influence. That is totally up to the Administration.

[marcirvine]

I live in a state where the delegates are bound to the state primary vote proportionally for the first round. We do not vote until May, but our conventions are taking place early. I am already signed on as a county delegate to attend the district convention. Even though I am bound I want to go as far as I can up the chain as I can, even Tampa if possible. So, yes, I am taking a similar strategy as you. I know I may have to rep someone else the first round, but if all 4 stay in a brokered convention becomes much more likely. So, then, of course, me and you can be there to vote for Paul on a 2nd or 3rd vote. If the National GOP rules say, as we are hearing now that they do, that the delegates ARE free to vote for who they want on the FIRST round, then, of course we could make Paul the nominee right away!!

[Bern]

Re: OP - nothing ventured, nothing gained

[Travlyr]

The VP can have behind the scene influence. That is totally up to the Administration.
It is up to Ron Paul and there is no reason for him to take VP.

[JohnM]

Why would we want VP? The VP can't do anything.

Romney and Santorum are sick men. I only give them a couple of years to live. If that.

;)

[vechorik]

Yes -- go for it. If nothing else, we have to learn the ropes of the GOP.
I'm bound and I'm doing my best to go to convention -- this year and every convention from now on!

[Brian in Maryland]

Faithless Delegates:

On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the U.S. presidential election of 1836, in which 23 Virginia electors conspired to change their vote together (see below).

...

Twenty-four states have laws to punish faithless electors.[1] While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of the state's right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, as well as to remove electors who refuse to pledge. Once the elector has voted, their vote can only be changed in states such as Michigan and Minnesota, where votes other than those pledged are rendered invalid. However, in all twenty-four states, a faithless elector may only be punished after he or she votes. The Supreme Court has ruled that, as electors are chosen via state elections, they act as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court.

To date, there has been only one occasion when faithless electors prevented an expected winner from winning the electoral college vote: in December 1836, twenty-three faithless electors prevented Richard Mentor Johnson, the expected candidate, from winning the Vice Presidency. However, Johnson was promptly elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate in February 1837; therefore, faithless electors have never changed the expected final outcome of the entire election process.

...

The Democratic Party nominated Richard Mentor Johnson of Kentucky as their vice presidential candidate. The 23 electors from Virginia refused to support Johnson with their votes because of the fact that he had previously lived with and fathered children with an African-American woman. As a result, although the Democratic presidential nominee Martin van Buren won a majority of electoral votes, no vice-presidential candidate won a majority. The decision was therefore made by the U.S. Senate. The Senate elected Johnson as the Vice President, including votes for Johnson by both of Virginia's senators

Add to this the fact that we really don't want to win based on faithless electors.

To the OP: Getting time off that far ahead of time is your responsibility. Try to become a National GOP delegate, and people will likely assist from there.

This is referring to the general election and the electoral college, not to primaries which are party business not state business. This was discussed in this thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?365783-quot-Bound-quot-delegates-are-a-MYTH-RP-takes-it-ROUND-1

Rule 38 of the Republican National Committee states “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.”

unit rule
n.
A rule of procedure at a national politcal convention under which a state's entire vote must be cast for the candidate preferred by a majority of the state's delegates.

[hunter100]

Why would we want VP? The VP can't do anything.

Ummm...who is going to stop ManBearPig?

[Luciconsort]

Ummm...who is going to stop ManBearPig?

ManBearPig cannot be stopped.... he does what he wants.

[ronpaulhawaii]

YES! (getting time off with enough notice shouldn't be that difficult. You'll need to look into that)


Yes -- go for it. If nothing else, we have to learn the ropes of the GOP.
I'm bound and I'm doing my best to go to convention -- this year and every convention from now on!

^^^ #winning!

[carterm]

yeS!

[Monotaur]

Another "yes" vote from me. In fact, becoming a delegate, in my experience, is much easier in a state that produces bound delegates from a primary process since the caucus are less well attended. You may be bound on the first ballot, but if the convention goes brokered then your vote will count as much as anyone else's.

[unknown]

Yeah.

[jscoppe]

From http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WI-R


National Convention Delegates are bound by the results of the primary unless either released by the candidate or the candidate fails to receive at least 1/3 of the total votes cast in any vote for nomination.

So even if you have to vote for Romney, there's a small chance you could become unbound. There's an even better chance (I'd even call it a good chance) of this happening if Santorum wins.

[Matthew Zak]

Of course.

Reason #1: http://www.dailypaul.com/211757/republican-national-committee-rule-38-can-a-bound-candidate-vote-for-someone-other-than-the-winner-of-their-state-primary

Reason #2: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?365783-quot-Bound-quot-delegates-are-a-MYTH-RP-takes-it-ROUND-1

Reason #3: You'll get to vote on some party rules

Reason #4: You'll get to boo Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and the gang

Reason #5: You'll get to cheer for Paul and libertarian issues (looks good for the cameras)

Reason #6: You'll help to decide the party platform

So what's all involved in getting to be a Wisconsin delegate?

What he said. ^

[bunklocoempire]

:D:cool:

http://s17.postimage.org/pfrlsekxr/stickinspokes.jpg

[craezie]

Heck yeah.

I totally disagree with the people suggesting that you should be a "faithless" delegate on the first vote, though. As a representative of the voters of your state, you need to vote as your party rules proscribe. It is against the principles of the rule of law and representative government to do otherwise, despite how much we might disagree with the decision of the primary voters.

I think there is a GREAT chance that the first vote will not finalize, though, in which case we will need lots of stealth people on our side.

[amonasro]

Hypothetically, what happens if you become a bound delegate for Romney, then "accidentally" vote for Paul on the first ballot?

[puppetmaster]

yep then vote to unbind delegates......

[jeremiahj13]

Hypothetically, what happens if you become a bound delegate for Romney, then "accidentally" vote for Paul on the first ballot?

This, lol

[Xenophage]

There is no way I could do this... although I've entertained it. Think of all the lying that would be required of you. If you like to deceive people and cover your tracks, sure... but I can't.

Now, considering the other GOP members are attempting to use force on all of us, because they are all statists, and they are all a direct threat to all of our lives and prosperity, I don't see a moral issue with being a 'stealth' delegate because THEY are the aggressors. It's okay to lie to someone who has power over you, or seeks power over you.

But I don't know that:
A - It's prudent in this scenario and would yield the desired results (promotion of liberty + nomination of Ron Paul)
B - It's a realistic expectation of anyone, considering the deeply held convictions of so many of us
C - It's even guaranteed to take you to the convention. You could lie right up to State Convention and then fail to be voted in to national.

[vechorik]

There is no way I could do this... although I've entertained it. Think of all the lying that would be required of you. If you like to deceive people and cover your tracks, sure... but I can't.

Now, considering the other GOP members are attempting to use force on all of us, because they are all statists, and they are all a direct threat to all of our lives and prosperity, I don't see a moral issue with being a 'stealth' delegate because THEY are the aggressors. It's okay to lie to someone who has power over you, or seeks power over you.

But I don't know that:
A - It's prudent in this scenario and would yield the desired results (promotion of liberty + nomination of Ron Paul)
B - It's a realistic expectation of anyone, considering the deeply held convictions of so many of us
C - It's even guaranteed to take you to the convention. You could lie right up to State Convention and then fail to be voted in to national.

What lying?
Maybe you don't understand.
BOUND delegates in my state (MS) are bound to vote according to the primary %. RP doesn't get any delegates unless he gets 15% of the vote, or more.
Bound candidates MUST agree to vote the way the primary goes until released. ALL of them could be RP delegates, but vote according to the primary results.
Once released, candidates can vote how they want....and you know how RP delegates will vote.
There is no "lying" to it.

[Suzu]

There's no reason to not become a delegate because once the fraud in the Alaska vote count is addressed, there will be no delegates bound to Romney.

[Philman]

Well..it is not going to be brokered, but why NOT do it?


Seriously...everyone here would be better off to erase the phrase "brokered convention" from their minds entirely. It is a pipe dream. Even in the VERY small chance that Romney doesn't have 1144, which he will, there will be deals made BEFORE the voting to make sure there is no brokered convention. Just like the SEVERAL primaries before where it was close. Even closer than this.

Not to mention...there is simply ZERO chance that Ron Paul will walk in with about 200 earned delegates but have 914 or more stealth ones. The other andiates are not that stupid. So this notion that a brokered convention is an automatic Ron Paul win is also silly.

[jeremiahj13]

Well..it is not going to be brokered, but why NOT do it?


Seriously...everyone here would be better off to erase the phrase "brokered convention" from their minds entirely. It is a pipe dream. Even in the VERY small chance that Romney doesn't have 1144, which he will, there will be deals made BEFORE the voting to make sure there is no brokered convention. Just like the SEVERAL primaries before where it was close. Even closer than this.

Not to mention...there is simply ZERO chance that Ron Paul will walk in with about 200 earned delegates but have 914 or more stealth ones. The other andiates are not that stupid. So this notion that a brokered convention is an automatic Ron Paul win is also silly.

joined the forum to tell us this with your first post eh? Nice to meet you Mitt Romney, My name is Jeremy :)

[tony m]

Well..it is not going to be brokered, but why NOT do it?


Seriously...everyone here would be better off to erase the phrase "brokered convention" from their minds entirely. It is a pipe dream. Even in the VERY small chance that Romney doesn't have 1144, which he will, there will be deals made BEFORE the voting to make sure there is no brokered convention. Just like the SEVERAL primaries before where it was close. Even closer than this.

Not to mention...there is simply ZERO chance that Ron Paul will walk in with about 200 earned delegates but have 914 or more stealth ones. The other andiates are not that stupid. So this notion that a brokered convention is an automatic Ron Paul win is also silly.


Hi Philman. Ii have been a RP activist for over four years. I became a committeeman and was nominated for my town party's chair.

Tell us about yourself and what activism you are involved with? Which RP meetup group do you belong to ... and so forth.

We would like to get to know you better.

[Xenophage]

What lying?
Maybe you don't understand.
BOUND delegates in my state (MS) are bound to vote according to the primary %. RP doesn't get any delegates unless he gets 15% of the vote, or more.
Bound candidates MUST agree to vote the way the primary goes until released. ALL of them could be RP delegates, but vote according to the primary results.
Once released, candidates can vote how they want....and you know how RP delegates will vote.
There is no "lying" to it.

Don't you think you're rather unlikely to succeed in this endeavor if you are known as a Ron Paul supporter? How on Earth are you ever going to make it to national as a Ron Paul supporter who's bound to vote for Mitt Romney? You won't get elected.

And once you show up, you do NOT have to vote for Mitt Romney. You have to take a pledge in your state, but there is nothing illegal about voting for Ron Paul on the FIRST round at national. How could you do anything else? You'll have to break your pledge, or vote for Romney - neither option is going to rest easy on any decent person's conscience.

[vechorik]

Don't you think you're rather unlikely to succeed in this endeavor if you are known as a Ron Paul supporter? How on Earth are you ever going to make it to national as a Ron Paul supporter who's bound to vote for Mitt Romney? You won't get elected.

And once you show up, you do NOT have to vote for Mitt Romney. You have to take a pledge in your state, but there is nothing illegal about voting for Ron Paul on the FIRST round at national. How could you do anything else? You'll have to break your pledge, or vote for Romney - neither option is going to rest easy on any decent person's conscience.

I've been working within the GOP and I don't "preach Ron Paul" to them. I'm a generic Republican. I contribute $20 monthly to the State GOP group.
I'm a REPUBLICAN, not a Ron Paul delegate. There are about 6 Ron Paul supporters in my county GOP group.

Andy you're WRONG about not being bound. I studied the thread where the National GOP rules says that, but I know what my state bylaws say. It says that if a delegate breaks their pledge to vote as the primary goes, they are blackballed FOREVER IN the GOP, by Associated Press in newspapers of the state and nation.
I'm in this for the long-haul and hope to work my way up in the GOP. No way I'm "breaking any rules" for naught.

[badger4RP]

YES!!! though depending on where you are it could be too late. call your county GOP chair