Republican Primary Bound Delegate Count

Here is the rule for delegate voting at the GOP convention.

In the balloting, the vote of each state shall be announced by the chairman of such state’s delegation, or his or her designee; and in case the vote of any state shall be divided, the chairman shall announce the number of votes for each candidate, or for or against any proposition; but if exception is taken by any delegate from that state to the correctness of such announcement by the chairman of that delegation, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of members of such delegation to be called, and the result shall be recorded in accordance with the vote of the several delegates in such delegation.

So if I understand this rule correctly, delegates who may have been chosen as committed delegates but have changed their minds, can if necessary, insist on a roll call vote. I did not find anything in the rules regarding penalties for committed delegates not voting for their committed candidate.

reply to post by hab22

Florida, Arizona, and Puerto Rico could be changed to proportional rather than Winner Take All. They broke RNC rules by going winner take all before the window and therefore RNC Members and/or the convention could enforce the rules and make the delegations proportional.

They were punished by losing half of their delegates already...they aren't going to punish them again. And with Santorum and Gingrich out...no one is going to petition them to do this. Do you honestly think the party leaders are going to do this to help out Ron Paul and cause more chaos in their own party???

Plus the 22 in Wyoming that are really unpledged though counted as pledged by your website.

Can you please give a source for this information...give some links or copy the text. Just you saying this doesn't make it true...please show me how you came to this conclusion that they are unpledged.

Now let's say Ron Paul wins Texas which gives him big momentum moving forward, causing him to win California which is winner take all with 172 delegates. Romney will win all of NJ (50) and all of Utah (40), giving him 742. But let's say Ron Paul wins the conservative state of Indiana with a winner take all haul of 46.

That would mean Romney would need to pick up much more than 40% of the remaining delegates on a proportional and caucas basis.

You can say Ron Paul will win every primary from now on...but again it doesn't make it true. The latest poll out of Texas has Ron Paul polling at 14%....to just assume he is going to win and springboard him into CA to win that is not very realistic.

Let's stay realistic in this thread, use data and facts and not just our hopes and wishes.

reply to post by UKTruth

Indeed. The website quoted is not accurate - at least not entirely. State by State analysis confirms this.

Then point them out...every single one people have point out that they aren't "accurate" I have shown a detailed explanation as to exactly how they are accurate.


The self dishonesty in this thread is staggering.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


No you have not.
As I said a second ago, you were wrong about Colorado. I provided source alongside a better version of your own source. The delegate count is off, unless you just want to say it hasn't been updated since they have changed the count and they have failed to include delegates that belong to Paul.

So this is my proof that most Americans are sheep and/or dumb. The fact that Ron Paul will not be president in 2012 proves this.

reply to post by hab22

I found another inaccuracy. Massachusetts is a proportional state yet this greenpapers website has all 38 delegates going to Romney. So knock 30% of those 38 delegates off of Romney's hard count. So even though Romney will certainly win all of New Jersey and Utah, he still will need to find a way to win at least 400 delegates.

A proportional primary doesn't mean they break out the delegates based off the exact percentages of the vote.

For MA, a candidate has to get at least 15% of the statewide vote to qualify for the proportional allocation of delegates....only Romney got above 15% in the MA election.

This is straight from the Massachussetts GOP website for their primary rules.

4.2 The Allocation Committee shall study the votes received in the Republican Primary of each presidential candidate and shall allocate all delegates based on a formula. A candidate in the Presidential Primary shall not qualify for allocation of any delegates unless the candidate receives at least 15% of the “final net Republican vote” statewide. The percentage of delegates and alternates allocated to a qualifying candidate shall be determined by taking the number of votes cast for the qualifying candidate divided by the total number of votes cast for all qualifying candidates. The votes for non qualifying candidates shall not be used in this calculation. This percentage shall be applied to the total number of delegates and alternates allocated to the state delegation to determine the number

So again...there is no inaccuracy in the numbers being reported...just confusion about how the individual states work and assign their delegates.

reply to post by swoopaloop


Can't blame all of us. Informed voters support Ron Paul. He has a lot of support for a guy that has to make his own buzz and rely on supporters to spread his message since the MSM wont.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I'm very leery of poll results that show that Ron Paul only has 15% support in Texas. He's from Texas and has been reelected to the House of Representatives 11 times in his district. Are Texans REALLY more likely to vote for a rich guy from the east coast instead of one of their own, especially given the difference in their platforms? Texans pride themselves on being independent. They don't like the Federal government which means the establishment and Romney is seen as the establishment candidate. If the vote count in Texas isn't rigged, then I think Ron Paul will do very well there.

I only have the polls to go by...every poll in Texas that has been done shows Ron Paul polling under 15%.

www.realclearpolitics.com...


There has been no poll done since Gingrich dropped out, so I would think we will see new numbers sometime next week.


But I don't speculate or make assumptions...I just use the data that is available.

reply to post by DelMarvel


The fact that he is the only damn candidate that has been doing this. It is pretty simple logic. When the other candidates don't really care and just wing it, obviously they aren't going to turn up the same results. When one candidate gets a large group of people to mass push themselves into delegate positions as Paul has been doing, then the case is that the majority of delegates nationwide are Ron Paul supporters.

Try following the campaign at the grass roots level and look at some of the news coming out of each state. You would soon realize that what I am saying is quite true. This has been the game plan from the very beginning.



reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I'm saying it is close to impossible for Ron Paul to get 60% of the remaining delegates.

And I am saying your numbers are still, quite wrong. You claim the Ron Paul needs 60% of the delegates from here on out but that is just ridiculous mind screwing coming from you. Once again, Ron Paul doesn't need anything,

And here is where your numbers are wrong which I am sure you just copied from somewhere. In the coming 15 states left to hold primaries and caucuses, 713 bound delegates are up for grabs. Only 3 of those states are winner-take-all states, the rest are proportional, which means Ron Paul will definitely be walking away with some of those delegates. There are 106 delegates from that states that are unbound. Seeing as how Ron Paul has taking the majority of almost all unbound delegates in each state to come across, I think it is safe to say he will at least be seeing half, if not more of those unbound delegates, with the possibility of nearly ALL of them being Ron Paul supporters.

Even if Romney wins all three winner-take-all states, he will receive just 259 delegates, which sure, is obviously a big chunk needed in the right direction, but not enough to clinch the vote. Considering Ron Paul support in Utah, one of those such states, I'm not exactly sure Romney is going to "run away" with those 40 delegates now that Santorum and Gingrich are out. It could very well come down to Utah to decide it all.

You make it SOUND impossible for Ron Paul to reach such a drastic number, but when delegates are allocated via proportional means, it isn't that hard of a feat at all, especially when you only have two statistics. You like to skew everything to make it sound great in your favor, but in reality - Ron Paul does indeed still have a very good chance of making it to the convention and getting the nomination whether you want to admit it or not.

reply to post by phishfriar47

and havent we all been hearing about the magic little choice of abstaining from voting during the first round? So how does that play into your numbers OutKast Searcher? You addressed the 'projection' part of the argument, but what about simply not voting on the first round to keep Romney from the 1144. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is still a glimmer of hope. Like I said in the last thread I posted in, everyone needs to chill until August because thats what will count unless someone else drops which isnt likely at this point. Romney has the perceived 'win' at the moment, and Paul has a mission to get to the White House if at all possible. So we will see what happens.

Legally bound delegates can not abstain from voting...they are legally bound to vote in the first round for who they are bound to. The unpledged delegates can abstaing...but this site is not counting those in the "hard count".

The problem with "chilling" until August is that if people don't see these hard counts now and have in their head the propaganda counts from the Paul campaign thinking he currently has 200+ delegates...they will all cry fraud in August when he loses. So that is why I'm showing that these bound counts show that Paul truly is very far behind in the delegate count.

And the point the Ron Paulites are trying to make is that the "available" data isn't so trust worthy.
You've been on this site for hours trolling the name Ron Paul almost as if you're getting paid to ?
(:
It's chill though.

I love the way the only time many of your sources will even dare mention Ron Paul's name is when he's supposedly far behind like he's Voldemort or something.
Taboo

wouldn't wanna get their Jewish trust funds revoked!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Can you provide a source on this info OS? I am legit asking, I couldnt find that and I searched for a little bit. Most I came up with was conjecture. But you also failed to address the second part of my response too.

What happens if they break the party rules and dont do what they are 'supposed' to or 'projected' to do? We cant just very well start over, and Paul does have the support of several delegates, thats undeniable, even probably some RP supporters bound as Romney delegates. They cant throw everybody out and start over as it is too late for that, there wont be any laws broken as its a private party (so just rules will be broken which has happened in the past), and they cant afford to disenfranchise the whole party from a bad convention. Paul could care less how the GOP treats him at this point, his political career is coming to a close, but Romney has an up and coming reputation to uphold, so like I said, chill until the convention, it will all get sorted out there.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Everything I am seeing says they are wrong. Even if you want to say they aren't bound, then the soft count is wrong, but in reality I believe it is actually both counts. The whole thing.

n Colorado, supporters of the 12-term Congressman from Texas won 12 delegates and 13 alternate delegates. Paul’s state operation is confident that it can win over more of the Rick Santorum delegates to its side who were elected on a combined Paul-Santorum slate.

Source

Yet if you look at this from your source, and I suggest everyone does since it gives more info than OP's picture, it shows that he has no hard delegates and only 2 soft. It us undeniably incorrect, even if you just want to say it's the soft number (though you and I know it's more than that).
SOURCE

edit on 28-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I gave you a very detailed explanation on Colorado already...I even gave you the names of each delegate. Why didn't you respond to that post? Why quote an article from Examiner...do you know who writes for Examiner....anyone who wants to.

Here is another source for the district delegates and who they are pledged to...maybe you will trust this one...it is the official Colorado GOP website.

www.cologop.org...

Delegates to the Republican National Convention:
· Congressional District 1
o Nancy McKiernanm, Santorum
o Celement Koerber Jr., Unpledged
o Florence Sebern, Unpledged
· Congressional District 2
o Timothy Leonard, Unpledged
o Sue Sharkey, Santorum
o Solomon Martinez, Unpledged
· Congressional District 3
o Todd King, Unpledged
o Luke Kirk, Unpledged
o Frieda Wallison, Romney
· Congressional District 4
o Guy Short, Unpledged
o Sean Conway, Santorum
o Karen Pelzer, Unpledged
· Congressional District 5
o John Suthers, Romney
o Robin Coran, Santorum
o Kent Lambert, Santorum
· Congressional District 6
o John Carson, Romney
o Ted Harvey, Unpledged
o Erik Hansen, Romney
· Congressional District 7
o Pete Coors, Romney
o Anil Mathai, Santorum
o Jeremy Strand, Unpledged

They are exactly the same as my source.

I don't know why you are ignoring facts so much...these are estimates, these arne't projections...these are the actual delegates...their real names...and who they are pledged to.

I'm sorry it doesn't match up with what a completely random Examiner reporter is telling you...but these are the facts and in the first round of voting at the GOP convention, Romney will have at least 14 delegates vote for him. All those uncommited votes (16) very well all vote for Ron Paul...but they are not bound so they can not be counted in the HARD COUNT.

I know you are intelligent, I know you understand what I am explaining....I don't know why you are ignoring facts.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
Here is the rule for delegate voting at the GOP convention.

In the balloting, the vote of each state shall be announced by the chairman of such state’s delegation, or his or her designee; and in case the vote of any state shall be divided, the chairman shall announce the number of votes for each candidate, or for or against any proposition; but if exception is taken by any delegate from that state to the correctness of such announcement by the chairman of that delegation, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of members of such delegation to be called, and the result shall be recorded in accordance with the vote of the several delegates in such delegation.

So if I understand this rule correctly, delegates who may have been chosen as committed delegates but have changed their minds, can if necessary, insist on a roll call vote. I did not find anything in the rules regarding penalties for committed delegates not voting for their committed candidate.

No, the bound delegates can not change their vote during the first round.

Many states have unbound delegates though, so if they feel like the count the chairperson gives isn't accurate, they can ask for a roll call of all delegates. The bound delegates are BOUND to still vote for the candidate they are bound to in that roll call (the chairperson will have a list of who they are bound to and will make sure of this). The unbound delegates can vote for whoever they want even if 1 minute ago they told the chairperson something else.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


From OutKast Searcher "The problem with "chilling" until August is that if people don't see these hard counts now and have in their head the propaganda counts from the Paul campaign thinking he currently has 200+ delegates...they will all cry fraud in August when he loses. So that is why I'm showing that these bound counts show that Paul truly is very far behind in the delegate count"


So what you are telling me is that you are trying to soften the blow of a Ron Paul loss to us supporters? Why? Why do you care that much about us supporters to show how wrong you think we are, in order for us not to feel like fraud has taken place. Do you really care about us that much? And if you are that concerned for us, why dont you join our cause, duh? I mean since you care about us sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much. We all know there is a very large chance Paul wont make it, none of us have denied that, but we havent lost hope nor quit neither. I am prepared to accept his loss, but it wont mean freedom and liberty will stop being in our hearts, it just means we have to work harder for the changes we want to see.

But like i said, its obvious its going to the convention, with both Romney and Paul, so yeah man, chill out and just wait and see what happens.

And thank you for being a concerned individual about the supporters, it really means alot that you care enough about us to take your precious time and show us how our hope for a better future is in fact wrong. According to your analysis anyway.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

No you have not.
As I said a second ago, you were wrong about Colorado. I provided source alongside a better version of your own source. The delegate count is off, unless you just want to say it hasn't been updated since they have changed the count and they have failed to include delegates that belong to Paul.

I just provided you with tons of information from two independent source with the names of the delegates and who they are bound to.

Where is your source giving detailed information of which delegates are bound to Paul???


I'm sorry if you have been fed false information...I have been warning all of you that you have been...but I am accused of being a troll for doing so.

Romney WILL have at least 14 delegates from Colorado....Paul MIGHT have up to 18...but they are NOT BOUND. Only 2 out of those 18 uncommited delegates have openly DECLARED for Ron Paul...so that is why he gets 2 in the soft count. Now it might be that the Paul campaign sees those 18 as "paul supporters" so they count them as Paul delegates. But this website is being UNBIASED...unless the delegates are officially and legally BOUND...they don't get put in the hard count. If they openly and publicly declare for a candidate but aren't bound, they are put in the soft count. All others are counted as uncommitted.


That is why I wanted everyone to only focus on the HARD COUNT and ignore the soft count...the HARD COUNT will only increase.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


That's why I said "most" lol. The real shame is that it's not only Americans but pretty much the world population.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by swoopaloop

 

Can't blame all of us. Informed voters support Ron Paul. He has a lot of support for a guy that has to make his own buzz and rely on supporters to spread his message since the MSM wont.

Again with the "Ron Paul supporters are right...all others are wrong".

Do you guys not see how ignorant that is???

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
Here is the rule for delegate voting at the GOP convention.

In the balloting, the vote of each state shall be announced by the chairman of such state’s delegation, or his or her designee; and in case the vote of any state shall be divided, the chairman shall announce the number of votes for each candidate, or for or against any proposition; but if exception is taken by any delegate from that state to the correctness of such announcement by the chairman of that delegation, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of members of such delegation to be called, and the result shall be recorded in accordance with the vote of the several delegates in such delegation.

So if I understand this rule correctly, delegates who may have been chosen as committed delegates but have changed their minds, can if necessary, insist on a roll call vote. I did not find anything in the rules regarding penalties for committed delegates not voting for their committed candidate.

No, the bound delegates can not change their vote during the first round.

Many states have unbound delegates though, so if they feel like the count the chairperson gives isn't accurate, they can ask for a roll call of all delegates. The bound delegates are BOUND to still vote for the candidate they are bound to in that roll call (the chairperson will have a list of who they are bound to and will make sure of this). The unbound delegates can vote for whoever they want even if 1 minute ago they told the chairperson something else.

And who is going to stop them from not voting their 'bound' candidate,are the GOP Police going to do something about it? You are forgetting its a private party, so yes they could make arrests on trespassing or something like that I guess, but just imagine the chaos if most of the delegates support Paul, vote accordingly, then get tossed out. We wont be having an election most likely if thats the case. Again, like I said, wait until the convention, where all will be answered. There are too many unknowns to be trying to give an authoritative OPINION on the matter, even the pros and the GOP have no idea whats likely to happen at this point, they are just trying to paint everything as being hunky-dory to keep the appearance of everything being OK.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


It isn't ignorant at all.

Anyone who is against individual liberties is just wrong. Enforcing public opinion on an individual used to go by another name, what was it? Ah, slavery.