RNC passes rule binding all delegates to popular vote for future elections

[tsai3904]

Delegates will also have to be approved by the Presidential candidate they are bound to (meaning no stealth delegates).


Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, led by top Romney lawyer Ben Ginsberg, forced through a major change the GOP nominating process on Friday in response to Ron Paul supporters' efforts to win delegates to the Republican National Committee..

The Republican National Convention Committee voted 56-40 to make it impossible for supporters of one presidential candidate to override the will of voters at a state convention, as Ron Paul supporters did in Iowa and Nevada.

The purpose of the change, Ginsberg said, was "to correct what we saw as a damaging flaw in the presidential election process in 2012."

The rule forces statewide presidential primaries or caucuses to determine the ultimate allocation of delegates, preventing takeovers like Paul executed in Iowa by eliminating unbound delegates in statewide contests. States would be allowed to decide whether to give all their delegates to the winner of the primary or caucus, or distribute them proportionally according to the results.

"Iowa will have to change the way they do it," said a GOP official.

A second component of the amendment would require delegates to be approved by presidential candidates, lessening the chances of technically pledged delegates voting for a different candidate.

The original amendment would have removed the carve-out for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, but Ginsberg later clarified that was an error, after sparking a panic among early states.

Virginia delegate Morton Blackwell objected that the rule would have a "damaging effect on our presidential candidate Mitt Romney."

"There are very large numbers of people who supported other candidates, in particular Ron Paul, who will see this as an attack on their behavior," he said, warning that they could vote for the Libertarian party.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-campaign-radically-changes-gop-nominating-p

http://i48.tinypic.com/339mx5i.jpg

[ClydeCoulter]

Would this go into effect next election cycle (2014?) if passed?

[tsai3904]

Would this go into effect next election cycle (2014?) if passed?

I'm pretty sure if this rule passes, it will be in effect for the 2016 Presidential race. It will not affect this year's race.

[Monotaur]

They will have unity, rules be damned.

Now is this only for 2012?

[Monotaur]

They will have unity, rules be damned.

Now is this only for 2012?

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm pretty sure if this rule passes, it will be in effect for the 2016 Presidential race. It will not affect this year's race.

So, that would put us closer and closer to a democracy, popular vote, and therefore the media will have a better handle on who gets in. It would make it harder for grassroots organizations to effect change.

[tsai3904]

So, that would put us closer and closer to a democracy, popular vote, and therefore the media will have a better handle on who gets in. It would make it harder for grassroots organizations to effect change.

Yea I agree. I also think that if this rule doesn't pass, many individual state GOPs will change their own delegate selection rules and go this route.

[tsai3904]

This rule passed:

Peter Hamby ‏@PeterHambyCNN
The Romney-backed amendment passes. State conventions about to get a lot less interesting.

This is big news as it will significantly affect future Presidential elections.

[tsai3904]

James Hohmann ‏@jameshohmann
The RNC just passed a Romney-backed rule that forces states to make their primaries and caucuses binding. Huge change.

[jointhefightforfreedom]

why even bother having an election,

The should just have a coronation instead !

[sailingaway]

The 2008 rules were changed again at the 2010 convention. There will be another convention in 2014.

[PointsOfOrder]

Isn't there a Federal law that says they cannot do this?

[tsai3904]

Isn't there a Federal law that says they cannot do this?

I'm not sure but the Democrats have this kind of system.

[tsai3904]

The 2008 rules were changed again at the 2010 convention. There will be another convention in 2014.

Yea but if we don't have the numbers now, I doubt we'll have the numbers in two years.

[DeMintConservative]

I told you this was going to happen. Check a discussion about this we had a few months ago. I even nailed the exact solution. With all due respect, you have no one to blame but yourselves. Overfocusing on the short-term generally leads to pyrrhic victories.

[The Gold Standard]

How ironic is it that the Republican party is doing away with the last remaining remnants of a republican government. Only mob rule from now on.

[jmdrake]

Isn't there a Federal law that says they cannot do this?

No. Why should there be?

[Root]

So when Romney loses in Nov, this will help set him up nicely in 2016.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I'm not sure but the Democrats have this kind of system.

True, but the Democrats do not have any "winner take all" primaries/caucuses. Everything is proportional, assuming a 15% threshhold.

I would actually have NO PROBLEM with this, assuming the threshhold is reduced to 10% and every state is proportional. That would give EVERY CANDIDATE some voice at the National Convention.

[Badger Paul]

The Democrats do the same exact thing. Republicans had generally let the states decide how to allocate delegates because as you all know they are the party of
"states rights".

Not anymore.

[tsai3904]

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, led by top Romney lawyer Ben Ginsberg, forced through a major change the GOP nominating process on Friday in response to Ron Paul supporters' efforts to win delegates to the Republican National Committee..

The Republican National Convention Committee voted 56-40 to make it impossible for supporters of one presidential candidate to override the will of voters at a state convention, as Ron Paul supporters did in Iowa and Nevada.

The purpose of the change, Ginsberg said, was "to correct what we saw as a damaging flaw in the presidential election process in 2012."

The rule forces statewide presidential primaries or caucuses to determine the ultimate allocation of delegates, preventing takeovers like Paul executed in Iowa by eliminating unbound delegates in statewide contests. States would be allowed to decide whether to give all their delegates to the winner of the primary or caucus, or distribute them proportionally according to the results.

"Iowa will have to change the way they do it," said a GOP official.

A second component of the amendment would require delegates to be approved by presidential candidates, lessening the chances of technically pledged delegates voting for a different candidate.

The original amendment would have removed the carve-out for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, but Ginsberg later clarified that was an error, after sparking a panic among early states.

Virginia delegate Morton Blackwell objected that the rule would have a "damaging effect on our presidential candidate Mitt Romney."

"There are very large numbers of people who supported other candidates, in particular Ron Paul, who will see this as an attack on their behavior," he said, warning that they could vote for the Libertarian party.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-campaign-radically-changes-gop-nominating-p

[low preference guy]

So when Romney loses in Nov, this will help set him up nicely in 2016.

I don't think that those who lose the general election tend to run in the next primary.

[gte811i]

I told you this was going to happen. Check a discussion about this we had a few months ago. I even nailed the exact solution. With all due respect, you have no one to blame but yourselves. Overfocusing on the short-term generally leads to pyrrhic victories.

Sorry this was going to happen regardless. It sucks, but it was going to happen. I'm involved at the local level and we made compromises as part of an olive branch and we are spurned away. It is unfortunate but there are some people involved at the head positions who are just plain evil, disgusting human beings. They will lie, cheat, steal and basically do anything and everything they can to hold onto their power.

The only way to have prevented this would have been to not be involved. . . but who will be the leaders of the GOP in 20 years; if we continue to get involved we will be the leaders.

I do wonder what this means for Iowa . . . the whole point of a caucus is that no one wins the night of. I don't see how you can do a binding of a caucus . . .otherwise the caucus turns into a primary.

[green73]

Romney Campaign Radically Changes GOP Nominating Process After Ron Paul Takeovers
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-campaign-radically-changes-gop-nominating-p

[tsai3904]

This may affect Iowa's first in the nation status:


The RNC rules committee, meeting today in Tampa, approved a proposed rule from the Romney campaign’s national counsel that could jeopardize Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses.

Republican Party of Iowa Chairman A.J. Spiker, in a brief phone interview from Tampa, sounded the alarm during debate: “I’m shocked the Romney campaign would seek to divide Republicans just before the convention,” he said.

The proposed rule still needs approval from the full convention on Monday. It would require all states to use their presidential preference votes – either in primaries or caucuses — to bind delegates. The proposal does not make any exceptions. Iowa’s caucuses do not bind delegates, who are chosen through a convention process.

More at link:
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/08/24/rnc-rules-vote-could-jeopardize-iowa-caucuses-first-in-the-nation-status/

[SovereignMN]

Well that's it. They just completed their rigging of the game. All results are based off of elections whose results are either fradulent or pre-determined by the media.

[sailingaway]

This may affect Iowa's first in the nation status:



More at link:
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/08/24/rnc-rules-vote-could-jeopardize-iowa-caucuses-first-in-the-nation-status/

that has nothing to do with first in the nation, they are just so used to using that talking point... so long as Iowa remains a CAUCUS not a primary, they have just as much likelihood as before of being first. NH LAST time threatened to go first, there is never a guaranty.

[tsai3904]

that has nothing to do with first in the nation, they are just so used to using that talking point...

What do you mean?

[tsai3904]

The RNC also just passed a rule removing the proportionality requirement for states that vote before April.

All states can now choose proportional or winner take all.

Edit: I believe all these rules need to be approved by the entire RNC later in the week. Not 100% sure.

[Lightweis]

I am going to challenge this on Monday for sure

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Well that's it. They just completed their rigging of the game. All results are based off of elections whose results are either fradulent or pre-determined by the media.

Unless we can defeat it on the floor Monday, or force a proportional clause in it, our fight focuses on State-level positions.

[DeMintConservative]

You're trying to fight against injecting more democracy in the process. Good luck with that. And I say this as a fierce opponent of the primary system (and a 17th-er). The idea of giving more power to the people is just too appealing these days.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I am going to challenge this on Monday for sure

Do you need a second? I'll back you up immediately.

[sailingaway]

What do you mean?

I mean that they have been wringing their hands about Ron Paul supporters taking over the GOP there (with other conservatives) as jeapardizing Iowa's first in the nation status, ad nauseum. It was why they were pressuring people to nominate Romney delegates even though he didn't win Iowa, either. Seems to me representing Iowa would be more important than order of primaries, but I digress.

Iowa NH and the other usual states are still allowed to 'go early'. Iowa can still be the first caucus, they just have to bind their votes. THIS year NH threatened to go first, nothing guarantees it won't happen under any circumstances, but NH rules only say they have to be the first 'primary' not caucus. And the rule may be changed in any event in 2014 which I would certainly hope would happen. Between presidential elections different concerns come to the fore.

[sailingaway]

You're trying to fight against injecting more democracy in the process. Good luck with that. And I say this as a fierce opponent of the primary system (and a 17th-er). The idea of giving more power to the people is just too appealing these days.

The party machines themselves don't want it. THey may pass it for a while, they have before, but it always goes away in time.

Besides, the rules required democracy by DELEGATES, in other words, a Republican form of government. And Ron won that and the credentials committee isn't even really pretending to evaluate the rules. they are simply 'knocking out Ron Paul majorities in states'. That is cheating, and they have no pretence to be representative.

And there were very fishy vote counts in Iowa and Maine, at minimum. Where is the representation if you can't see the people voting? Delegate selection by convention is more provable if someone cheats. I really hope we take the fraud to court. I'm afraid people may drop it after Tampa but I think it should be outed.

[tsai3904]

I am going to challenge this on Monday for sure

Do you know if all delegates will get to vote on all the rules? Are there rules that only the RNC members (National Committeemen/women and State GOP Chairs) can vote on?

[jmdrake]

I don't think that those who lose the general election tend to run in the next primary.

That. If Romney can't beat a floundering sitting president with a bad economy he will not in 2016 be able to say "But I'm the only one who can beat the democrat".

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

You're trying to fight against injecting more democracy in the process. Good luck with that. And I say this as a fierce opponent of the primary system (and a 17th-er). The idea of giving more power to the people is just too appealing these days.

The only way any democracy gets added is if they ADDED proportional allocation requirements. All this does is eliminate any grass-roots candidate before the process even starts. This would have eliminated Bachmann, Cain, and Palin before the race even started. This isn't just a slap at Ron Paul, this is a slap at the entire Tea Party.

All this does, if Romney loses, is foist Marco Rubio and Chris Christie to front runner status in July 2013. Rand has NO CHANCE under these rules, unless it's proportional.

[gte811i]

You're trying to fight against injecting more democracy in the process. Good luck with that. And I say this as a fierce opponent of the primary system (and a 17th-er). The idea of giving more power to the people is just too appealing these days.

Unfortunately, you are actually taking away power from the people. I think bounding to a primary vote sucks but whatever. Having a presidential candidate pre-certify delegates is absolutely taking power away. The people at state conventions determine the delegates, not the Presidential Candidate.

If the candidate has to pre-certify delegates, just do away with state conventions have the candidate pick them directly. Shoot that is the way this whole country is going more top-down control. Why even have a convention?? Save everyone time and money.

There is no need for delegates anymore. It's just numbers. Then the candidate can have his group of people pick the platform, etc. Let's face it conventions in 30 years will go the way of the dinosaurs and we will just have the candidate choosing people to attend a coronation for the next dictator.

[DeMintConservative]

The party machines themselves don't want it. THey may pass it for a while, they have before, but it always goes away in time.

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused. What exactly is that the party machines don't want? What are you calling party machines?

[gte811i]

Do you need a second? I'll back you up immediately.

Write out your arguments for when the debate comes . . . and give 'em hell. A impassioned speech; if the candidate can pick his delegates (or "certify" them) why have a convention!!

[DeMintConservative]

Unfortunately, you are actually taking away power from the people. I think bounding to a primary vote sucks but whatever. Having a presidential candidate pre-certify delegates is absolutely taking power away. The people at state conventions determine the delegates, not the Presidential Candidate.

If the candidate has to pre-certify delegates, just do away with state conventions have the candidate pick them directly. Shoot that is the way this whole country is going more top-down control. Why even have a convention?? Save everyone time and money.

There is no need for delegates anymore. It's just numbers. Then the candidate can have his group of people pick the platform, etc. Let's face it conventions in 30 years will go the way of the dinosaurs and we will just have the candidate choosing people to attend a coronation for the next dictator.

Well, it's giving power to the people: whoever wins the popular vote in the primary, wins the nomination. It makes impossible that a candidate gets the support of only 10% or so of the Republicans participating in the primary process and then puts himself in position to win the nomination.

[sailingaway]

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused. What exactly is that the party machines don't want? What are you calling party machines?

the state GOP establishments which were using 'deaf chair' and other rules violations repeatedly to get their way because they held the gavel going into the room. And breaking bones of duly elected Rules Chair who objected and having a duly elected replacement chair taken away by ambulance with injury to his newly implanted prosthetic hip, and losing an entire county of votes that voted for Ron in Maine then on recount having Ron and ONLY Ron's votes go down in other areas...

Those party machines.

[DeMintConservative]

the state GOP establishments which were using 'deaf chair' and other rules violations repeatedly to get their way because they held the gavel going into the room. And breaking bones of duly elected Rules Chair who objected and having a duly elected replacement chair taken away by ambulance with injury to his newly implanted prosthetic hip, and losing an entire county of votes that voted for Ron in Maine then on recount having Ron and ONLY Ron's votes go down in other areas...

Those party machines.

But this takes away power from that people. They will matter no more.

[sailingaway]

Well, it's giving power to the people: whoever wins the popular vote in the primary, wins the nomination. It makes impossible that a candidate gets the support of only 10% or so of the Republicans participating in the primary process and then puts himself in position to win the nomination.

If the vote changes as in Maine and Iowa and is simply not subject to visible review elsewhere, how does that appear more fair? Sounds more like Stalin.

[sailingaway]

But this takes away power from that people. They will matter no more.

That is what I said, so they will change the rules back -- after a while. Whether in 2014 or after, I don't know. But this isn't more fair because one of those I mentioned (and of course Iowa, which flipped winners and had very fishy changes of county wins from Ron to Romney AFTER the 100% of votes were in the other way) both show the count out of sight is not to be trusted. Delegate selection in convention is visible and much more accountable. They don't like it, because then we get video, but secrecy to hide the shenanigans isn't more fair.

[jkr]

voting is now confirmed to be meaningless...
this whole country is a sham

[gte811i]

Well, it's giving power to the people: whoever wins the popular vote in the primary, wins the nomination. It makes impossible that a candidate gets the support of only 10% or so of the Republicans participating in the primary process and then puts himself in position to win the nomination.

Did you even read the entire thing? Yes it is taking away power . . . have you been through the convention process? If the candidate gets to "certify" which delegates get to go to the national delegate then there is absolutely no point or need to have state conventions. I'm not talking about binding . . . I'm talking about certifying--that is very, very bad news. That means only party hacks will ever be elected to be national delegates, only Yes men who take orders from above. That means the system will become even more corrupt.

As seen here, voting for the nominee is just one part of the national convention. Voting on platform, rules, etc. are extremely important. If the candidate gets to "certify" then the whole exercise is moot. Just declare that we have a dictator of the Party and be done with it. Why go through the charade of "representation"?

[gte811i]

But this takes away power from that people. They will matter no more.

You are dead wrong. This give MORE power to those people!!

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Well, it's giving power to the people: whoever wins the popular vote in the primary, wins the nomination. It makes impossible that a candidate gets the support of only 10% or so of the Republicans participating in the primary process and then puts himself in position to win the nomination.

Lord Jesus you don't get it, do you?

Do you REALLY believe that all these Republican voters went out and voted for Mitt Romney in their primaries because they thought he was so great?

Do you REALLY believe that the media is not at all biased against certain candidates and props up others?

Do you REALLY believe that every primary voter is well-informed enough to make the "right" decision?

I'm all for letting the voters decide, but I have a fundamental problem with 34% of 15% of a state's Republicans being enough to give a candidate control of all that state's delegates.

Make it proportional with a low threshhold, I can live with this, because it gives a grass-roots candidate some delegates in every contest, and keeps the front-runners more honest.

[erowe1]

If Ron Paul had won the Iowa caucuses, as he nearly did, then they'd be changing the rules some other way and still saying, "Iowa will have to change the way they do it."

[Lightweis]

Now i am going to Tampa to bring hell!

[rockandrollsouls]

My thoughts exactly. This is a damaging blow to our republic. I wonder if there are legal grounds to challenge this.....


So, that would put us closer and closer to a democracy, popular vote, and therefore the media will have a better handle on who gets in. It would make it harder for grassroots organizations to effect change.

[DeMintConservative]

That is what I said, so they will change the rules back -- after a while. Whether in 2014 or after, I don't know. But this isn't more fair because one of those I mentioned (and of course Iowa, which flipped winners and had very fishy changes of county wins from Ron to Romney AFTER the 100% of votes were in the other way) both show the count out of sight is not to be trusted. Delegate selection in convention is visible and much more accountable. They don't like it, because then we get video, but secrecy to hide the shenanigans isn't more fair.

I doubt it. I wish they would, but history has showed us that it's easy to add more democracy to the political and institutional mechanisms but almost impossible to subtract it.

Can you imagine the clamour if they go from a process entirely based on a popular vote back to the "smoke-filled rooms"?

[gte811i]

But this takes away power from that people. They will matter no more.

The party hacks, the ones who break bones, bend rules, etc. They are the ones who can be counted on to be certified. They are the Yes men. You have to be a loyal Party member for 30-40 years to get to go to the National Convention. Do you think a candidate is going to certify any grassroots supporters? I don't think so, maybe one or two special ones, but not a chance.

This rule is done by the party hacks to protect their positions. Having dealt with these individuals, they have no ideals. Their loyalty is to the Party and the Party only. They would vote for Hitler as long as his name had an R by it.

[tsai3904]

What is an ideal nominating process? Should there be a uniform rule or should we let each state decide?

Iowa has a caucus system and New Hampshire binds their delegates to the primary and lets the Presidential candidates choose their delegates. If we let each state decide and all choose the New Hampshire route, would we be ok with that?

[wgadget]

The Republic is dead.

RON, PLEASE announce a third party run at the RNC.

[DeMintConservative]

Did you even read the entire thing? Yes it is taking away power . . . have you been through the convention process? If the candidate gets to "certify" which delegates get to go to the national delegate then there is absolutely no point or need to have state conventions. I'm not talking about binding . . . I'm talking about certifying--that is very, very bad news. That means only party hacks will ever be elected to be national delegates, only Yes men who take orders from above. That means the system will become even more corrupt.

As seen here, voting for the nominee is just one part of the national convention. Voting on platform, rules, etc. are extremely important. If the candidate gets to "certify" then the whole exercise is moot. Just declare that we have a dictator of the Party and be done with it. Why go through the charade of "representation"?

Yes. It's already like that in some states.

The national convention is nothing but a glorified infomercial.

Why are you against respecting the will of the primary voters? Do you think it's fair that grassroot Republicans in one state indicate that they support one candidate for president but then party insiders and activists at the convention decide to support someone else?

[UtahApocalypse]

I need help writing a resolution denouncing this to bring to the Michigan State convention.

[gte811i]

Lord Jesus you don't get it, do you?

Do you REALLY believe that all these Republican voters went out and voted for Mitt Romney in their primaries because they thought he was so great?

Do you REALLY believe that the media is not at all biased against certain candidates and props up others?

Do you REALLY believe that every primary voter is well-informed enough to make the "right" decision?

I'm all for letting the voters decide, but I have a fundamental problem with 34% of 15% of a state's Republicans being enough to give a candidate control of all that state's delegates.

Make it proportional with a low threshhold, I can live with this, because it gives a grass-roots candidate some delegates in every contest, and keeps the front-runners more honest.

I agree with most of this, except that the certification part is worse than the binding. Certification means the candidate will hand-pick their delegates, eliminating any possibility of grassroots involvement. If they want to bind the actual vote for the nominee fine, I can live with that; but as we see here a lot more goes on besides the vote for the nominee. Platform, rules, etc. With certification there would be no "audit the fed" plank in the platform b/c the delegates who support that wouldn't have been "certified".

[DeMintConservative]

The party hacks, the ones who break bones, bend rules, etc. They are the ones who can be counted on to be certified. They are the Yes men. You have to be a loyal Party member for 30-40 years to get to go to the National Convention. Do you think a candidate is going to certify any grassroots supporters? I don't think so, maybe one or two special ones, but not a chance.

This rule is done by the party hacks to protect their positions. Having dealt with these individuals, they have no ideals. Their loyalty is to the Party and the Party only. They would vote for Hitler as long as his name had an R by it.

No, you don't understand how it works. If, say, Ron Paul wins the popular primary vote he'll certify whoever he wants. Same for other candidates.

Now, what you can't keep doing is getting a majority of the delegates to the convention in states where the majority of the primary voters picked another candidate.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I doubt it. I wish they would, but history has showed us that it's easy to add more democracy to the political and institutional mechanisms but almost impossible to subtract it.

Can you imagine the clamour if they go from a process entirely based on a popular vote back to the "smoke-filled rooms"?

We are NOT A DEMOCRACY! We are (were) a Constitutional Republic with a built in mechanism for the rights of the minority to be heard. and to affect change.

The smoke-filled rooms were actually "fairer" than a cabal of a misinformed electorate whipped up into a frenzy over some minor misstatement or a total misunderstanding (or an intentional incorrect analysis by media pundits) of a candidate's positions.

[gte811i]

Yes. It's already like that in some states.

The national convention is nothing but a glorified infomercial.

Why are you against respecting the will of the primary voters? Do you think it's fair that grassroot Republicans in one state indicate that they support one candidate for president but then party insiders and activists at the convention decide to support someone else?

Cut out the BS strawman and learn to use logic in your debating: "Why are you against respecting the will of the primary voters?"

[tsai3904]

Why are you against respecting the will of the primary voters? Do you think it's fair that grassroot Republicans in one state indicate that they support one candidate for president but then party insiders and activists at the convention decide to support someone else?

I think letting each state decide would be the way to go. If one state feels the caucus process will best represent the choice of their people, then let them do it that way. If New Hampshire wants to keep binding their delegates to their primary, then that's fine too. People within their state should have the ability to change the rules for their own state.

The nomination process evolves and some candidates drop out, which is why it's important to elect delegates in a caucus process who share your views and will be able to support another like-minded candidate (if original candidate drops out).

[DeMintConservative]

With certification there would be no "audit the fed" plank in the platform b/c the delegates who support that wouldn't have been "certified".

You can't be serious. The audit the fed bill passed the House with the unanimous support of Republican congressmen except Hannah. It's probably supported by 95% of the Republicans.

[gte811i]

No, you don't understand how it works. If, say, Ron Paul wins the popular primary vote he'll certify whoever he wants. Same for other candidates.

Now, what you can't keep doing is getting a majority of the delegates to the convention in states where the majority of the primary voters picked another candidate.

Either you are a party hack or you've never been involved in this process to understand how this stuff works.

[DeMintConservative]

We are NOT A DEMOCRACY! We are (were) a Constitutional Republic with a built in mechanism for the rights of the minority to be heard. and to affect change.

The smoke-filled rooms were actually "fairer" than a cabal of a misinformed electorate whipped up into a frenzy over some minor misstatement or a total misunderstanding (or an intentional incorrect analysis by media pundits) of a candidate's positions.

Check my former posts. I'm all for ending the entire primary process and go back to the smoke-filled rooms. I'm just saying this is a hopeless cause for the time being.

[gte811i]

You can't be serious. The audit the fed bill passed the House with the unanimous support of Republican congressmen except Hannah. It's probably supported by 95% of the Republicans.

Yes I am dead serious. Audit the Fed wouldn't have been a bill without Ron Paul, it wouldn't have been a plank without Ron Paul delegates.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I agree with most of this, except that the certification part is worse than the binding. Certification means the candidate will hand-pick their delegates, eliminating any possibility of grassroots involvement. If they want to bind the actual vote for the nominee fine, I can live with that; but as we see here a lot more goes on besides the vote for the nominee. Platform, rules, etc. With certification there would be no "audit the fed" plank in the platform b/c the delegates who support that wouldn't have been "certified".

Not necessarily, because the county/district/state delegates are still elected the same way. What would need to happen is each Presidential candidate's campaign would need to vet people wishing to be a delegate for that candidate. We still would have gotten some excellent Paul delegates.

But yes, you do make an excellent point that some people got to go to National because of the unbinding and actual election at State Convention.

[DeMintConservative]

Yes I am dead serious. Audit the Fed wouldn't have been a bill without Ron Paul, it wouldn't have been a plank without Ron Paul delegates.

Well, he certainly authored it and fought for it more than anyone else. I'm not questioning that. But that's a position now shared by the large majority of the GOP. It has gone mainstream.

Do you want to bet that an audit the fed bill will be quickly introduced in the next Congress and immediately co-sponsored by dozens of Republicans?

[gte811i]

I don't see why this is so incredibly hard to understand. Binding a delegate to vote for a candidate is very different than certifying a delegate. Binding a delegate just means they have to cast one vote for the nominee. Certifying eliminates any type of discussion at conventions. It ensures that the delegates who attend think like, act like, and will pass any platform that the nominee supports. It eliminates any free-thinking ability. It ensures we have more of a king rather than a president.

[John F Kennedy III]

//////////

[gte811i]

Well, he certainly authored it and fought for it more than anyone else. I'm not questioning that. But that's a position now shared by the large majority of the GOP. It has gone mainstream.

Do you want to bet that an audit the fed bill will be quickly introduced in the next Congress and immediately co-sponsored by dozens of Republicans?

Without a Justin Amash or other liberty minded candidates, no it will not be re-introduced. And yes I would bet on it.

[John F Kennedy III]

why even bother having an election,

The should just have a coronation instead !

That's all any election will be now. One long year and a half coronation with a handpicked globalist puppet as the nominee.

[gte811i]

Well, he certainly authored it and fought for it more than anyone else. I'm not questioning that. But that's a position now shared by the large majority of the GOP. It has gone mainstream.

Do you want to bet that an audit the fed bill will be quickly introduced in the next Congress and immediately co-sponsored by dozens of Republicans?

Who would spearhead it? There are leaders, followers and opponents. Ron Paul is a leader in Audit the Fed. The Republicans have gone from opponents to followers on this issue. There are no other leaders on Audit the Fed right now (except for a few liberty candidates).

[Badger Paul]

"Let's face it conventions in 30 years will go the way of the dinosaurs and we will just have the candidate choosing people to attend a coronation for the next dictator. "

Well that's what the RNC guy from Tennessee wanted and these rules will ensure it happens.

[brandon]

Are you fucking kidding me? THe national GOP thinks they have the power to subvert every state party and force direct democracy on them over their own systems? WTF?

[DeMintConservative]

Who would spearhead it? There are leaders, followers and opponents. Ron Paul is a leader in Audit the Fed. The Republicans have gone from opponents to followers on this issue. There are no other leaders on Audit the Fed right now (except for a few liberty candidates).


Without a Justin Amash or other liberty minded candidates, no it will not be re-introduced. And yes I would bet on it.

Jim DeMint had a Federal Reserve audit in his platform the first time he ran for congress back in 1998. And he's introduced audit the fed bills and amendment in the Senate once he moved there. Just because other congressmen defer to Ron Paul and rightly so considering that's been his pet bill for so long, it doesn't mean they wouldn't introduce the bill themselves if he wasn't there.

[gte811i]

Are you fucking kidding me? THe national GOP thinks they have the power to subvert every state party and force direct democracy on them over their own systems? WTF?

Yes they do have that power. The delegates, which represent the state GOPs will later on pass this. Barring an amazing turn of events, the state GOPs will give up their power to the national GOP. The state GOPs elected the delegates who will pass this to represent them and this is the representation they get.

This is just a microcosm of what happens in the actual Government. States cede power willingly to the Federal Government. It is no different.

[brandon]

This is really sickening. They are taking all the fun out of politics. Squashing every last reason to be involved and every last avenue for the minority to represent themselves.

[gte811i]

Jim DeMint had a Federal Reserve audit in his platform the first time he ran for congress back in 1998. And he's introduced audit the fed bills and amendment in the Senate once he moved there. Just because other congressmen defer to Ron Paul and rightly so considering that's been his pet bill for so long, it doesn't mean they wouldn't introduce the bill themselves if he wasn't there.

In 1998, when he 1st ran for Congress. That was 16 years ago, news flash it's 2012. Please get back to me next year when Jim Demint reintroduces an Audit the Fed bill. Not gonna happen. 16 years is long enough to become corrupted by the system.

Besides this conversation is devolving, considering my original point was that without Ron Paul delegates at the National Convention an Audit the Fed plank would not be in the platform. Please prove me wrong.

[sailingaway]

Jim DeMint had a Federal Reserve audit in his platform the first time he ran for congress back in 1998. And he's introduced audit the fed bills and amendment in the Senate once he moved there. Just because other congressmen defer to Ron Paul and rightly so considering that's been his pet bill for so long, it doesn't mean they wouldn't introduce the bill themselves if he wasn't there.

De Mint fought for the REAL audit the fed bill in 2010 as an amendment when Sanders gutted the one people had already gone on record in support of so they could be supporting something toothless when Obama opposed it. We tweeted and asked him to and he immediately said he would and was as good as his word. De Mint is pretty good on that. Most in the Senate won't push audit of monetary policy and Romney's 'endorsement' avoids that. So does the new GOP plank in the version I saw it.

That was when we started pushing De Mint. We had already put a bot into a nationally advertised online poll for him -- we didn't cheat first but Romney supporters put in bots against the ones we were pushing which was Ron first and De Mint second, so our guys took screen shots making it very clear they were cheating first and put in bots against them and reported to the guy running the poll exactly what they had done with screenshots. Ron won with De Mint second. Ron was discounted because he always is (he was winning by far before the bot wars) but De Mint being second surprised some people.

Meanwhile the guy who ran the poll was mollified, possibly due to the literally MILLIONS of hits he got on the poll.

[gte811i]

De Mint fought for the REAL audit the fed bill in 2010 as an amendment when Sanders gutted the one people had already gone on record in support of so they could be supporting something toothless when Obama opposed it. We tweeted and asked him to and he immediately said he would and was as good as his word. De Mint is pretty good on that. Most in the Senate won't push audit of monetary policy and Romney's 'endorsement' avoids that. So does the new GOP plank in the version I saw it.

That was when we started pushing De Mint. We had already put a bot into a nationally advertised online poll for him -- we didn't cheat first but Romney supporters put in bots against the ones we were pushing which was Ron first and De Mint second, so our guys took screen shots making it very clear they were cheating first and put in bots against them and reported to the guy running the poll exactly what they had done with screenshots. Ron won with De Mint second. Ron was discounted because he always is (he was winning by far before the bot wars) but De Mint being second surprised some people.

Meanwhile the guy who ran the poll was mollified, possibly due to the literally MILLIONS of hits he got on the poll.

So I was wrong. I apologize.

[puppetmaster]

why even bother having an election,

The should just have a coronation instead !

guess we can hope for a mainstream television liberty media outlet to balance things.......

[TheGrinch]

But this takes away power from that people. They will matter no more.
Not when the media controls the narratives that the mass amounts of people buy into.

You're correct that in principal the entire electoral college should have been thrown out a long time ago, but the problem here is that they've been using it as a tool to maintain power for hundreds of years, and now when it threatens their gravy train, they decide that they want "democracy" from the system that they've already set up to their advantage.

If this is giving power to the people, then that power is counteracted by the power and control that they've already established.

[Brian4Liberty]

Well, the GOP is a private organization, so they can choose their Presidential candidate any way they want. I prefer letting monkeys decide. :toady:

http://www.planebuzz.com/Monkey_Office_1A.jpg

[affa]

I told you this was going to happen. Check a discussion about this we had a few months ago. I even nailed the exact solution. With all due respect, you have no one to blame but yourselves. Overfocusing on the short-term generally leads to pyrrhic victories.

hogwash. first, i'm glad you separate yourself from us. second, blaming us for using their rules is just plain ridiculous.

[affa]

Well, he certainly authored it and fought for it more than anyone else. I'm not questioning that. But that's a position now shared by the large majority of the GOP. It has gone mainstream.

Do you want to bet that an audit the fed bill will be quickly introduced in the next Congress and immediately co-sponsored by dozens of Republicans?

Do you want to bet that without Ron Paul, any audit will be a sham job? It will expose just enough selected issues to make people feel good about themselves for auditing the fed, then using the resulant controversy to further insulate the banksters rather than actually fix things.

[gjdavis60]

Yea I agree. I also think that if this rule doesn't pass, many individual state GOPs will change their own delegate selection rules and go this route.

But doesn't a rule like this cut both ways, making it more difficult for the party leadership to allocate the delegates as they please (which is what they have enjoyed for so many years)? A populist movement with some traction would leave them with very few options when delegate selection time came around.

[alucard13mmfmj]

wow. GOP sees us as a threat that they gotta do this? LOL.

great, we get to be ruled by the mob.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

We should force them to change their name to something other than Republicans. In my opinion. If they wanna' be a mob rule party, their label should reflect that.

[sailingaway]

In 2014 there will be another convention and the rules can be changed again. Meanwhile these seem likely to be brought up on the floor.

[tsai3904]

But doesn't a rule like this cut both ways, making it more difficult for the party leadership to allocate the delegates as they please (which is what they have enjoyed for so many years)? A populist movement with some traction would leave them with very few options when delegate selection time came around.

Yes it does cut both ways but currently, there are more states that have a caucus system for electing delegates, which favors the grassroots.

[RonRules]

What about the Civil Rights Voting act?

Paging Richard Gilbert!

[Natural Citizen]

You're trying to fight against injecting more democracy in the process. Good luck with that. And I say this as a fierce opponent of the primary system (and a 17th-er). The idea of giving more power to the people is just too appealing these days.

What are you talking about? It's absolutely for the "people". Says the private RNC who acts on behalf of the lug that made it a specific point to mention that oh, yes... corporations are people too, my friend. so...yeah.

Folks need to take back their citizenship...or at the very least define it with what these politicians and whomever.inc says they are and this will stop. Amend your 14th amendment...sometime or another.

[TheGrinch]

But doesn't a rule like this cut both ways, making it more difficult for the party leadership to allocate the delegates as they please (which is what they have enjoyed for so many years)? A populist movement with some traction would leave them with very few options when delegate selection time came around.
They still have Diebold machines for that.... I've already seen calls for ending caucuses in favor of them, because of the "issues" they had with the caucuses, which were really because of them cheating.

So what's their solution? To help ensure that any cheating isn't so transparent like it is in the caucus states.

[low preference guy]

Paging Richard Gilbert!

sorry for being culturally bereft. who is Richard Gilbert?

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

sorry for being culturally bereft. who is Richard Gilbert?

The head lawyer on the Lawyers for Ron Paul campaign.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, he certainly authored it and fought for it more than anyone else. I'm not questioning that. But that's a position now shared by the large majority of the GOP. It has gone mainstream.

Do you want to bet that an audit the fed bill will be quickly introduced in the next Congress and immediately co-sponsored by dozens of Republicans?

If they do not audit monetary policy it is a worthless audit.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand's really going to have to pander to win in 2016, now. Can't rely on Paul forces to take delegates from state conventions anymore.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Well, he certainly authored it and fought for it more than anyone else. I'm not questioning that. But that's a position now shared by the large majority of the GOP. It has gone mainstream.

Do you want to bet that an audit the fed bill will be quickly introduced in the next Congress and immediately co-sponsored by dozens of Republicans?

The audit language in the GOP platform is not identical, or even close, to Ron Paul's position.

[Agorism]

Keep in mind we lost Iowa by 3000 votes.

So in that state this probably won't matter much.


Rand's really going to have to pander to win in 2016, now. Can't rely on Paul forces to take delegates from state conventions anymore.

He could have in Iowa. We went from 11000 votes to 27000+ thousand. If we improve at all in 2016, we would be in winning position there.

[Agorism]

bump

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

But doesn't a rule like this cut both ways, making it more difficult for the party leadership to allocate the delegates as they please (which is what they have enjoyed for so many years)? A populist movement with some traction would leave them with very few options when delegate selection time came around.

No, they own the media.

[Professor8000]

This rule passed:

Peter Hamby ‏@PeterHambyCNN
The Romney-backed amendment passes. State conventions about to get a lot less interesting.

This is big news as it will significantly affect future Presidential elections.

you forget that the Delegates still have to approve this