Republican Primary Bound Delegate Count

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by hoochymama
 


If he needs a source to prove that delegates are human and in turn have free will, that's a sad thought. I don't think whether they can abstain needs to be proved. The bigger questions are how many romney-bound delegates are secretly pledged to paul, and what happens to them if and when they do abstain? will they get kicked out? will the GOP switch up the RNC rules to some unexpected anti-paul predicament? And if they do, what happens if ron paul and all his supporters abandon the GOP?




posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
To assure the Victory they will kick them out probably. We will see.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
If RP's supporters are in as large numbers as many predict, the GOP will have a serious situation on their hands by deciding to throw em out. They may be seen as "Paul-bots" and optimistic idiots, but that's cool. As long as they stick to the conviction of not taking no for an answer, this election year just might be one to go down in the history books. Or kept out of em.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Just like the previous election the People will Finally have a Choice and fight for Liberty like what was promised the previous election.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




Oh come on...you know the Roberts Rules of Order do not trump the RNC rules. Wow...seriously...please don't tell me you don't believe that the Roberts Rules of Order....a book used to run meetings...trumps the rules set by the RNC. And again you are making a claim with no proof...show proof that a BOUND delegate abstained from voting in 2008.


Actually Roberts Rules of order DO trump the RNC rules. The first thing one have to do at any convention or gathering of people is accept the standing rules (which would be the RNC rules btw), if these are not accepted or need to be amended in some way, all it takes is a majority vote. One such amendment can be to unbind all the delegates. The delegates have the power to decide this themselves, all it takes is a majority of RP delegates to amend the rules for the convention. And it looks like that is highly likely to happen.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


And since you have been begging for proof, I figured I would go ahead and look up Montana's delegate laws just for your convenience so you don't have to waste your time arguing about "Source this and source that".


Under section B. Conventions in the delegate selection process taken from the Montana GOP official website.

Source: www.mtgop.org...



3) The results of any presidential primary election held in the state shall be advisory only and not binding upon delegates, unless otherwise provided by state law.


Nevada's GOP convention rules are conveniently missing online, or I would scan them as well to help my fellow posters out.
edit on 28-4-2012 by gwydionblack because: (no reason given)


That's great that you went through all that trouble...but you didn't have to...thegreenpapers has all that information right there for you.

www.thegreenpapers.com...


Delegates to the State Delegate Convention are elected from each county by the County Central Committee at least 10 days before the State Convention. [Montana Republican Party Bylaws. Section B - III. D]

Thursday 14 June - Saturday 16 June 2012: State Convention / State Delegate Convention. The convention elects the delegates to the Republican National Convention, and nominates Presidential Electors. [Section B - III. B. and F. 1) through 7)]

There is no formal system applied to relate the presidential preference of the participants to the choice of the delegates to the Republican Convention. The participants alone determine if presidential preference is to be a factor in such choice and, if so, how it is to be applied.
The 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of Montana's Republican Party, will by virtue of their position, attend the Republican National Convention as unbound delegates.


Which is why thy don't have ANY of Montana's delegates in the "hard count" column.


Seriously guys....this shouldn't be that hard of a concept....good grief.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You don't need to win the "hard delegates" or even the majority to become the candidate nominee. All you need is a specific number of votes to get to the Convention. If you don't drop out before the Convention the delegates at the Convention can sway the course of the nomination. So for instance if Ron Paul wins half the delegates in 3 more states, which he is projected to do, he automatically is on the ticket for the Convention in Tampa. There, if he can, he can sway the Delegates to vote for him instead of Romney which would give him the nomination. The last time that was done however was in 1920.. so it doesn't seem entirely likely..

The delegates specifically that promised to vote for candidates no longer running (Cain, Santorum, Gingrich etc) can freely move to Paul in protest of the RINO nominee presumptive.


He can not sway "bound" delegates to vote for him in the first round.

Santorum and Gingrich delegates can not vote for whoever they want unless the candidates officially release them...which is unlikely that they will do that until someone (romney) clinches the nomination with enough bound delegates.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by brettrix
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Are you aware of the RNC rule stating that any candidate that has won more than 5 states will be on the nominating ballot for the first round of voting... meaning even if Mitt "clinches" before the convention it seems inevitable that RP will be on the ballot for the first round of voting (He has won Iowa, Minnesota and Washington and seems sure to win in Maine and North Dakota - plus a few others)

That being a possibility, as a potential delegate to the RNC in Tampa from the great state of Arizona, I can tell you one thing is certain.... If i go as a delegate, I will cast my vote for RP on the first round even though Mitt won our state... and it won't be illegal or immoral in any way. It is within the rules of my state party and I love to play by the rules.. especially when it comes to throwing Goldman Sachs out of the White House...

I am sure many other ''hard' bound delegates have similar rules in different states.... and I know there are many delegates like myself who know that Liberty isn't anything people vote for.. Freedom doesn't mean anything to most people in America these days... but it's okay. It means a lot to me!

We're All for Paul!


I am fully aware of the rules to get on the ballot.

And no, you won't for Ron Paul in the first round because you won't even vote. They will call out Arizona in the roll call and the Arizona RNC chair will announce 29 delegates for Romney...you won't even have a say in the first round.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by brettrix
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



And no, you won't for Ron Paul in the first round because you won't even vote. They will call out Arizona in the roll call and the Arizona RNC chair will announce 29 delegates for Romney...you won't even have a say in the first round.


What if the delegates in Arizona decide to change the rules at the district caucus and state convention in May? If they vote to declare everyone unbound, that would take quite a few of the 29 Romney hard count votes away from him.

Face it. This is the New American Revolution. Did George Washington find a way to win? Did he find a way to keep the Revolution alive even if it meant doing things the British were crying in their soup about, calling it foul play or "he's not playing by the rules."?

This Revolution is moving to Tampa in August, for the whole world to see. If the majority of delegates at the convention support Ron Paul, then they will find a way of nominating him for president. If it means changing the rules of order to allow all delegates to become unbound and vote their conscience, then they will do it. Will the establishment react? Sure they will. It wouldn't surprise me if they brought in SWAT teams to try to intimidate the Ron Paul delegates.

Remember St. Charles Missouri. The caucus was shut down because of the Ron Paul supporters. One of them was arrested for trespassing because he tried to reconvene the caucus in the parking lot outside. Now he's the caucus chairman.

Face it. Us Ron Paul supporters are fighting for liberty. We don't give us. We keep fighting. The odds didn't look good for George Washington. But he didn't give up? He kept it alive.

Stay tune folks. The New American Revolution is just warming up.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GuidedKill
RON PAUL 2012

Either by election or force!!!


That's kind of the impression I get, too. Ron Paul supporters would use force to get him installed as President, just as this supporter says. This attitude can be seen in just about everything Ron Paul supporters do. In effect, you are advocating violence. And you know where that leads.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Yeah, that was pretty poor diction, but don't over-generalize just because one person exclaims "by force." If you really wanna argue semantics, although "force" is more usually associated with violence, it can generally mean intense energy.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by schuyler
 


Yeah, that was pretty poor diction, but don't over-generalize just because one person exclaims "by force." If you really wanna argue semantics, although "force" is more usually associated with violence, it can generally mean intense energy.


Freudian slips can realy mess you up, can't they?



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Perhaps. I imagine all the "anti-Paul" events that his supporters are perceiving is pretty upsetting.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
The way I see it, Ron Paul needs to win the majority delegates in as many states as possible. That way, the Ron Paul delegates can either 1) unbind delegates at their state convention, thus reducing Romney's hard count or 2) vote in a chairperson who will allow delegates bound to Romney to abstain in the first vote at the national convention.

I think it will be up to each state's chairperson to determine how they tally the delegate vote for that state. If you have a Romney supporter as chairperson, he's not going to allow any delegates committed to Romney to abstain. He'll just call the vote as is with all the Romney delegates going to Romney.

But in other states, where a Ron Paul supporter is voted in as chairperson, he may call for an individual vote of the delegates that would allow some to abstain.

Therefore, Ron Paul supporters should be avidly working at gaining the majority of delegates in a state, like they just did in Louisiana.

Having said that, I don't think there's any way you can claim an irrefutable hard count right now for Romney showing him unbeatable.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hab22
Having said that, I don't think there's any way you can claim an irrefutable hard count right now for Romney showing him unbeatable.


No, you can't, at least mathematically, as long as you ignore statistical trends. That's what is keeping this thing going. But the fact is that in order to win, Paul needs ALL (as in 100%) of the remaining delegates to be chosen, PLUS he needs delegates now committed to BOTH Santorum and Gingrich. That still is mathematically possible.

Now add to the mix the remaining primaries where people are actually allowed to vote. California comes to mind. So far, nationally, when people are allowed to vote, Paul winds up with about 11% of the vote. I(n states like Louisiana, where the Paulistas claim to have "won," Paul won 6% of the vote. It's a split state with some delegates chosen by the primary, some by the caucuses.

IMO, Paul doesn't have to lose very many delegates here to lose overall.

What we really have here is a means of entertainment for the next five or six weeks.
edit on 4/29/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by hab22
 



The way I see it, Ron Paul needs to win the majority delegates in as many states as possible. That way, the Ron Paul delegates can either 1) unbind delegates at their state convention, thus reducing Romney's hard count or 2) vote in a chairperson who will allow delegates bound to Romney to abstain in the first vote at the national convention.


This is the new delusion of the Ron Paul supporters.

Tell me...which states so far have voted to unbind their delegates???

Many have had their state conventions already....how many have done that???


And the abstain from voting thing...works fine if you aren't a bound delegate...not so much for bound delegates. The RNC has no power to overturn rules/laws set by the States that bound the delegates.


I'm not surprised though...the entire primary has been one excuse after another for Ron Paul supporters. I'm sure when he officially loses at the convention, they will claim that he actually did win....but we shifted dimensions.


But in other states, where a Ron Paul supporter is voted in as chairperson, he may call for an individual vote of the delegates that would allow some to abstain.


Um...the State Chairperson isn't voted in...they are already the chairperson for the state. They are usually very loyal Party members.



I'm not surprised though...the entire primary has been one excuse after another for Ron Paul supporters. I'm sure when he officially loses at the convention, they will claim that he actually did win....but we shifted dimensions.


Ummmm...yeah...you can kind of show the hard count because this fantasy about unbinding the delegates or having bound delegates abstain has no merit...it is just another dream from the Ron Paul camp.
edit on 29-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
So all delegates are bound ?
Are delegates still bound to Santorum and Gingrich ?
Or does Romney just get those delegates ?
I have explained this to you before OKS .
The rules to the republican primarys state, " Any state primary held before April 1 CAN NOT BE, a winner take all and lose 50% of their delegates at the convention. It happened to Florida in 2008.

Keep repeating those lies, there are those who will believe you.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
So all delegates are bound ?
Are delegates still bound to Santorum and Gingrich ?
Or does Romney just get those delegates ?
I have explained this to you before OKS .
The rules to the republican primarys state, " Any state primary held before April 1 CAN NOT BE, a winner take all and lose 50% of their delegates at the convention. It happened to Florida in 2008.

Keep repeating those lies, there are those who will believe you.


No, not all delegates are bound...the majority are, but not all of them.

Yes, delegates are still bound to Santorum and Gingrich and have to vote for him in the first round at the convention unless Santorume and Gingrich officiall release them.

Florida was penalized half of their delegates for being winner take all....what's your point???


Which "lies" am I repeating???



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


And again you play dumb to the real facts.
What is your real motivation ?
If Ron Paul does not have the delegates and is unelectable and can not get the nomination , why do you persist in beating a dead horse ? As you claim.
Personally I believe there is alot more life in the old boy.
And I'm gonna sit back and wait till the phoenix rises at the convention.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Hey Outkast:

I know you're rattling these chains cause you know Romney is an easier opponent for Obama! Fair enough, I agree!


But whether or not Ron Paul gets the nomination, I think in the end what matters is that his ideas and points will be heard on the main stage. The more votes behind him, the less the MSM can try to shuffle him away as crazy old Ron.

What Paul stands for is dangerous to the status quo because his ideas strip away the (r) and (d) behind everyone's thinking. They have too much control with those little (r)'s & (d)'s to let that happen.

If he got the nomination he would take many center-leaning democrats. Like it or not, he makes sense. We (America) ARE broke, we can't afford to keep up this socialist game and we can't afford to make war with any 3rd world dictator who farts in our general direction. It really is common sense, once a mind wakes up and hears it.

So yep, you're right about nomination numbers to date...but remember too that this IS American politics. Crazy things have happened before, they might happen again if the contestants play the right cards.
edit on 29-4-2012 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join