Republican Primary Bound Delegate Count

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Show where the rules state this.

If you claim the "rules already state this" then show where they do.

That is unless you are just basing all of your words off of heresay. Do the research and if you truly want to do the right thing, quit asking people to prove a negative and show in these "rules" where it says that delegates are NOT allowed to abstain from voting.

The rules and laws are from each state...the state or the state party binds them.

Honestly...why are you being willfully ignorant on this...acting like bound delegates don't exist???

Do you want me to define "bound" for you too...or how about "vote"...maybe we should define "vote" and find some asinine excuse as to why it doesn't apply to Ron Paul supporters.

You and other Ron Paul supporters have gone from denying the results, to just questioning them, to now just claiming crazy things like "bound" doesn't mean "bound". I honestly give up...how am I to have a rational discussion with people who live in an alternate reality where definitions don't matter???

It appears facts and Ron Paul supporters are like oil and water.


So...since you can't prove that any rule allows a bound delegate to abstain...why do you continue to claim it?

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

What rules? Quote the exact wording and source of that claim. If you're talking about state GOP rules, then their irrelevant to the national convention. What penalties will delegates face from their state GOP officials if they don't vote for the committed delegate(after the convention is over) and how will the state officials even know who voted for whom?

Yes, the state GOP rules or state laws...that is what binds them.

The State RNC chairperson will be the one reporting the results, he will have a list of who is bound to which candidate...he will be in charge making sure the bound delegates are reported accurately. There will be no penalties because they just don't have the opportunity to not vote for them...the chairperson will just "count" them as a bound delegate for that candidate and announce the counts during the roll call. For the unbound delegates, the chairperson will record who they have decided to support and include that in the count during roll call.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You apparently didn't read or chose to ignore an earlier post of mine where I quoted from the 2008 GOP national convention rules that state that any delegate, who disagrees with the state chairman's vote total, can ask to have each delegate from that state polled individually. What state party chairman is going risk looking dishonest or stupid by declaring a vote breakdown that he or she's knows isn't correct, when any delegate can challenge his totals? You still haven't quoted specific rules to back up your claims. I have quoted specific rules to back up my claims.

OutKast, you have done an excellent job of presenting the facts and explaining the procedures. Thanks. After having dealt with the Ron Paul supporters both this election and last, the only conclusion I can draw is that many of them have completely drunk the Kool Aid. They are not rational. They are wide-eyed believers who are following their Savior. ANYTHING that gets in their way or even hints they might be wrong is treated as an enemy to be destroyed.

Ron Paul supporters don't care what the rules are. They don't care what the definitions are. They will change them at will and become very angry if someone else doesn't go along with them. There's an exchange up there a bit where I remarked on a supporter claiming they would make Paul POTUS "by force." Someone else came on and suggested "by force" didn't really mean "by force," but actually meant "by energy," trying to take the sting out of the comment. I've never heard of "by force" mean anything but "by force," myself. I believe the original poster at face value. The Paul supporters intend to make Paul POTUS "by force."

It won't work, of course. Anyone who looks at this situation objectively can easily see that. When we get to popular support Paul is doing a dismal 11%, far less than many 3rd party candidates have done in the past. People, on the whole, really don't like him all that much. I would maintain that one central reason they don't like him is because of the demeanor of his supporters who act like immature brats. Does anyone really want these people running things? The thought is abhorrant. In other words, if his supporters acted in a more rational and polite way, he would be doing better. Instead, we are subjected to the screaming and shouting, as we see displayed here.

All we can do is continue to point out the numbers at every turn and let the Paul supporters continue to make fools of themselves as they rush into every conversation attempting to reassure themselves that they are somehow not all that delusional. In the end we know their conclusion will be that everything was rigged against them and that they were robbed. It's a good definition of what they themselves have been attempting to do. "Winning" Louisiana with a mere 6% of the popular vote is a good example. The whole system is rigged in Paul's favor, and they still won't be able to pull it off.

The bottom line is that they need all 770 remaining delegates, plus all of Santorum's, plus all of Gingrichs's, to squeak over the finish line. That's not going to happen, and they're not going to win. Romney will win on the first ballot. It's just that we will have to endure a lot of noise until then.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


You and Outkast Searcher have clearly decided that you know what you know and you aren't going to let anyone tell you any differently. If you can't see that Ron Paul is not just another fringe candidate then you are blind to what's really going on. Forget poll numbers Look at the videos of Ron Paul meetings. Look at the size of the audiences and at their enthusiasm. Show me another video of a similar crowd with the same kind of energy and motivation for any other candidate. you can't because there are none. Ron Paul's ideas are spreading like wildfire at the grassroots level. What I'm seeing reminds me of the scene in the movie Network, where people open their windows and shout that they're sick and tired and they're not going to take it anymore.

I'm sorry if we Ron Paul supporters aren't behaving as civilized as you'd like us to be. (I'm being sarcastic in case you didn't get it). Who are you to judge us? If the grassroots majority flex their muscles and stage an upset at the convention, that's democracy in action whether either of you like it or not.

I'm done with this thread. You two can play with each other if you want too. I've got a revolution to join.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Bound means to say that if they vote, they have to vote for their said "bound" candidate. But where does it say they HAVE to vote? Where does it say they cannot abstain from voting?

But as for ignorance- you just got this turned around on you and you are the ignorant one.

You are treading water on this because you have been caught with your pants down in the same scenario you are throwing at Paul supporters to provide you with such rules, yet you don't even have these "rules" yourself. You just assume they exist. You've taken so much time out of your life to troll Paul supporters, but you can't even take the time to look through these precious rules that you keep citing and provide the details as to why they are so apparent and undeniable.

Stop changing the subject. You know damn well how laws and rules work in this country. There is no law saying I cannot build a table in my backyard, therefore I can build I table in my backyard. Unless there is a rule stating that first round voters at the National Convention cannot abstain from voting, then sir - they better start adding some because they certainly can.

PROVIDE YOUR SOURCE.

reply to post by gwydionblack


Which state would you like?

For an example, here is the Georgia GOP rules that bind delegates. Emphasis added by me.

www.gagop.org...

7.3 ELECTION OF NATIONAL CONVENTION DELEGATES
5 A) In accordance with these Rules, the Call of the Republican National Committee and
6 as allowed by the Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Act, as amended, the Delegates and
7 Alternates to the National Convention shall be elected from the Districts at the respective District
8 Conventions and the Delegates and Alternates to the National Convention from the State at large
9 shall be elected at the State Convention and shall be bound to vote for the Presidential nominee
10 elected in the Georgia Presidential Primary, as provided in the Georgia Presidential Preference
11 Primary Act, as amended. (See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-190, et seq. The GRP does not, therefore,
12 choose to elect any of its Delegates and Alternates to the Republican National Convention by
13 primary.

And, here is the part of the Georgia Code that also binds delegates

law.justia.com...

Any person selected as a delegate or delegate alternate to such national convention shall file a qualification oath with the Secretary of State pledging support at the convention to the candidate of their political party or body for the office of President of the United States for whom they are selected to support. The oath shall state that the delegate or delegate alternate affirms to support such candidate until the candidate is either nominated by such convention or receives less than 35 percent of the votes for nomination by such convention during any balloting, or until the candidate releases the delegates from such pledge. No delegate shall be required to vote for such candidate after two convention nominating ballots have been completed.

Are we done with this little game where you act ignorant to commonly known information??? Or would you like another set of state rules while I hold your hand as you pretend to be clueless???

Bound means bound...your games of semantics are a bit pathetic.

Now let's see your proof that bound doesn't mean bound but means you can abstain

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Legalese is an interesting language.

Any person selected as a delegate or delegate alternate to such national convention shall file a qualification oath with the Secretary of State pledging support at the convention to the candidate of their political party or body for the office of President of the United States for whom they are selected to support. The oath shall state that the delegate or delegate alternate affirms to support such candidate until the candidate is either nominated by such convention or receives less than 35 percent of the votes for nomination by such convention during any balloting, or until the candidate releases the delegates from such pledge. No delegate shall be required to vote for such candidate after two convention nominating ballots have been completed.

Nowhere in that code does it say that the bound delegates must vote for them, but that they must support them, meaning that they cannot support another candidate. One can still remain support of said candidate while abstaining from voting.

Once again though, you have failed to show where it says that you are not allowed to abstain from voting. You have spouted the same banter you have been for page after page and provided not what I asked for, but what YOU think is proof when it is not.

It does not say anywhere in there that delegates cannot abstain from voting. As I said before - rules are boundaries, guidelines set to limit what bodies can do in given situations. It is assumed that unless something is stated as outlawed in the rules, it would be allowed. This is how the entire political system of the United States works - certainly you can understand this. Rules and laws are not assumed - they are listed, voted on, and assigned - plainly, so that they are clear for all involved parties.

Show me, and everyone else, anywhere, where it says that candidates cannot abstain from voting, considering in any other polling process, abstaining is a common term and process that is handled accordingly and is allowed by all parties.

Until then, I will rest my case that it is viable and allowed for bound delegates to abstain from voting at the Republican National Convention.

In fact, in the GOP convention official rules, the only thing they say about voting is this.

RULE NO. 29 Voting (a) Each delegate to the convention shall be entitled to one (1) vote, which may be cast by an alternate delegate in the absence of the delegate, and an individual holding more than one (1) of the following positions: national committeeman; national committeewoman; or state chairman of any state, shall not be entitled to more than one (1) delegate seat and shall not be entitled to more than one (1) vote.

It says that each delegate is entitled to 1 vote and no more. Never in the document in that paragraph or any to follow, does it say that any delegate is required to vote.

There are also many interesting things in there about your claims that there would simply just be a roll call. If a majority of delegates from 6 states request a roll call vote, then the rest of the states will be roll call as well. I think it is pretty safe to say that with Paul supporters, we are going to see a roll call vote all around at the convention.

GOP 2008 Rules

Feel free to carouse them yourself, and when you find the part about not being able to abstain from voting, you let us know. Instead, keep pretending that you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

reply to post by gwydionblack


Within a minute of searching on Google I was able to turn up such examples as these from Massachusetts and New Jersey.

Massachusetts:

Each nominee for election as a pledged Congressional District delegate or alternate delegate shall express a commitment to a qualifying Presidential candidate and agree to be bound to vote for that candidate on the first such roll-call unless released by such candidate, as required by law.
.....
If there is a roll call vote for President at the Convention, all delegates and alternate delegates whose selection is made subject by the Plan to qualifying Presidential Primary Candidates defined by Section 4.2 of the Plan, shall vote on the first such roll call for that presidential candidate unless released by such candidate. (G.L. c.53, §70I)

New Jersey:

"The Delegate understands that he/she is bound by the results of the June 5th primary and must vote for [presidential candidate's name] on the first ballot at the national convention unless that candidate publicly announces that he/she no longer seeks the nomination." [Primary Election Petition to the Republican National Convention]

These explicitly state that the delegate must vote for the candidate they are bound to in the first round.

The problem is OKS is the GOP national committee over rides the GOP state committees, regardless what the states say.
AGAIN ! Refering to the states moving up primary elections. The national committee over rides the GOP state committees by ruling any state that holds its primary BEFORE April 1 can not have a winner take all election AND
any state who does hold a primary before April 1 , WILL lose 50% of their delegates
So what you are quoting are the states rules , which WILL be over ruled at the national level at the convention.

Keep repeating the lies.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Besides your copy and paste, can you please provides links to your sources? I'd like to know where you got those rules from. Thank you.

If they do end up being credible sources, congratulations. Only need to provide that for 48 more states and as OLD HIPPY DUDE said, prove that the National Convention Rules to not trump state rules. I don't think they do, but I do believe they coincide with them. With that said, NCR rules don't say anything about not being allowed to abstain from a roll call vote or any punishment for doing so.

reply to post by gwydionblack


Massachusetts

As for Jersey I have seen the petition I cited cited at a number of other sites but I'm still trying to turn up a direct link to it. In the mean time here is an older copy of the rules governing delegates from New Jersey at the RNC.

Rules Governing the Selection of Delegates to the Republican National Convention

reply to post by gwydionblack


I have given you examples...but you are an expert lawyer, smarter than all lawyers the GOP has.

You are so deep in your delusions you are honestly questioning what "bound" means and what "support" means.

I expect these type of conversations with children...not with rational adults.

You have provided no evidence that delegates can abstain and that they aren't really bound...and you are the one making the claim that they can abstain and aren't "really" bound. I thought I would be nice and give you some examples that show they are indeed bound to save you some embarresment...but you are way too far gone for that. You asked for a source, I gave you a source...you turned into a lawyer and claimed you know what it is REALLY saying.

Tell me...what is your excuse going to be when Ron Paul loses...I know you will have one.


If you can't provide sources or information to back up your claim...then that is your own fault. I'm not here to prove negatives and try to prove that they can't abstain...I thought I would show you an example...but that was pointless because you have chosen to be willfully ignorant. I can't help you when you choose that...you are deep in the delusion and nothing but waiting until August and seeing that you are wrong will satisfy you (even then...I'm sure you will have an excuse or claim the GOP cheated).

reply to post by Xcalibur254


It honestly isn't worth it...they are so deluded they don't care about facts anymore.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
The problem is OKS is the GOP national committee over rides the GOP state committees, regardless what the states say.
AGAIN ! Refering to the states moving up primary elections. The national committee over rides the GOP state committees by ruling any state that holds its primary BEFORE April 1 can not have a winner take all election AND
any state who does hold a primary before April 1 , WILL lose 50% of their delegates
So what you are quoting are the states rules , which WILL be over ruled at the national level at the convention.

Keep repeating the lies.

Whatever you say...you guys are the experts.


Do you have a prepared excuse for when this doesn't happen...or will you just make one up on the fly???

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

It honestly isn't worth it...they are so deluded they don't care about facts anymore.

I too doubted that a delegate HAD to vote, but on researching it's clear you are right. The only way for a second round to happen is if Romney fails to get the remaining 400 or so bound delegates he needs for certain victory.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I'm not a lawyer. But the clarity in your example was clearly lacking. You don't have to explain to me what "bound" means, I will do it for you.

bound
adjective
1.
tied; in bonds: a bound prisoner.
2.
made fast as if by a band or bond: She is bound to her family.
3.
secured within a cover, as a book.
4.
under a legal or moral obligation: He is bound by the terms of the contract.
5.
destined; sure; certain: It is bound to happen.

I highlighted the definition we are looking for here. Glad we cleared that up. Now what we need to do is clear two definitions up for you, which you clear seem to be unable to differentiate.

vote
noun
1.
a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.
2.
the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc.
3.
the right to such expression: to give women the vote.
4.
the decision reached by voting, as by a majority of ballots cast: The vote was for the resolution.
5.
a collective expression of will as inferred from a number of votes: the labor vote.

AND

support
verb (used with object)
1.
to bear or hold up (a load, mass, structure, part, etc.); serve as a foundation for.
2.
to sustain or withstand (weight, pressure, strain, etc.) without giving way; serve as a prop for.
3.
to undergo or endure, especially with patience or submission; tolerate.
4.
to sustain (a person, the mind, spirits, courage, etc.) under trial or affliction: They supported him throughout his ordeal.
5.
to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for: to support a family.

ALL CREDIT TO DICTIONARY.COM


Now as you can see - the terms "support" and "vote" have two very different meanings. The source you gave says, as I told you - that such "bound" (see definition above) delegates are required to "support" (definition also above) the candidate chosen by popular vote. Never once does it state that the candidate is "bound" (definition above) to "vote" (definition above) for said candidate.

If you think you need a legal degree to see that common sense, then maybe you should simply go back to grade school or perhaps, lower your standards. It truly isn't that difficult to comprehend.


And now, as to your comments about me being a lawyer, no my credentials there are lacking. But as seems to be gaining ground in another topic - the RNC's very own legal team from 2008 seem to have an official answer to settle your comments once and for all.

“[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.”

Fairvote.org

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Do you have a prepared excuse for when this doesn't happen...or will you just make one up on the fly???

It will be something along these lines.

1. The MSM cheated by ignoring us.
2. All the state elections were fraudulent and Ron Paul won every one of them.
3. the entire process is rigged.

Now this last one is an interesting one and worth some commentary. In the Louisiana primary election Paul got 6% of the popular vote, but because of the caucus system, delegates are apportioned between the popular election and the caucuses, where Paul does traditionally well because of superior organization. Paul supporters are claiming they "won" Louisiana and, indeed, Paul will have the majority of delegates--with only 6% of the vote. If he gets all the caucus votes he will have 26 out of 46 delegates.

This Paul supporters deem as a "fair" election.

The same sort of thing is falling out in Washington, where there is no primary this year. To quote UKTruth from here

He lost the "popular" vote by 13% to Romney, but has swept over half the delegates. Is this strategy working?

By "popular vote" I'm not sure what he means here, but it could have been based on a straw poll. In any case, you don't see any sense of unfairness here. To a Paul supporter, this is all very fair: Lose the popular vote by a substantial margin and still win the election.

When you look at this situation, the only conclusion you can reach is that the caucus system is de facto stacked in the favor of Paul. Why? Becase they are very organized at the caucus level. Couldn't other candidates have been organized, too? Sure, but that begs the question. They weren't and Paul has taken advantage of it. Should they have been? After 2008, yes. For sure. Stupid that they weren't.

Now that begs the question of whether Paul "wins" Washington, but so far the greensheets has given Romney 30 delegates, and five each to Santorum and Paul out of a total 43. These are "soft" delegates using Outkast's terms, and the convention isn't until May 31st in Tacoma, so we have a month's worth of arguments to endure until this is settled. Nevertheless, Paul claims to have already "won" Washington.

In any case, you can see that the idea of "fairness" is relative when it comes to Paul's supporters. They can lie, cheat and steal and do whatever thaey want to, and they consider it fair. If anyone else looks cross-eyed at them, that is unfair and evidence of fraud. Rest assured that when they lose, they will be claiming widespread fraud. The only thing they will fail to tell you is that they are the ones who committed it.

I expect these type of conversations with children...not with rational adults.

Funny thats how I feel.

Who knows how a board or commitee operates, under what rules ?
It's called, "Roberts rule of order."
Now how many know , what it is , and how it works ?
It is a manual on how to contol a meeting, a how to book of rules on how to take legal control and keep and maintain control. Which can be used by all sides, usually used by board or commitee members who see they are losing control of a meeting and quickly shut down the meeting.
Which is the case in many of the states primary elections, this is why Ron Paul is picking up delegates.
The states primary election commitees are shutting down meetings right after elections and over riding the voters
and declaring winners and appointing their own delegates. They are violating there own rules and this is how Ron Paul is getting delegates by making the party follow it's own rules.
After a state election and all the smoke is cleared and after the MSM lies on who they declare won, the real truth comes out and Ron Paul has turned out to be the real winner in several states.

Moving on to delegates.
Who knows how to become a delegate for consideration ?
Who knows how many selections a delegate goes through before the national convention ?
Who knows who selects delegate at each level ?