Abstaining on the first vote is legal according to delegate selection expert

anarchy

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
351
Paul’s forces are not bound to make it easy for Romney to coast to victory, as delegate selection expert Josh Putnam, a Davidson College political scientist, writes on his Frontloading HQ blog.

Paul’s highly organized campaign continues to amass what Mr. Putnam labels “stealth delegates” – delegates pledged to Romney, or one of the withdrawn GOP candidates – who are personally in favor of the libertarian congressman from Texas. It’s hard to determine how many such folks Paul has, or what they’ll do in Tampa.

For instance, what if Paul supporters who are bound to vote for Romney in the first round by state rules simply abstain from casting their ballots? That might keep Romney under the 1,144 votes he needs to win the nomination – even if he actually (sort of) has those votes in hand!

“This is a tricky maneuver, but not one that is prohibited by the Republican Party delegate selection rules,” writes Putnam in a lengthy post devoted to the ways Paul could make trouble for Romney.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...l-s-big-wins-in-Maine-and-Nevada-matter-video

From his blog:

That triggers the second part of the strategy: Paul-supportive but Romney-bound delegates abstaining on the first vote. This is a tricky maneuver, but not one that is prohibited by the Republican Party delegate selection rules. It does, however, run up against state-level delegate rules that in some cases legally bind delegates to a particular candidate through one or more ballots at the national convention. But that is uncharted waters in this process. How does one take such a challenge of the rules to court in a way that resolves the issue expeditiously within the window of time in which the party is meeting in Tampa? It doesn't. The result is probably a huge embarrassment for Mitt Romney and the Republican Party; not something it wants when attempting to successfully challenge a vulnerable incumbent president.

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/
 
Last edited:
Groovy. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee, is campaigning in Michigan today. You know, I've crossed the rubicon and have turned off talk radio in favor of just news radio, yet I've been getting bombarded all evening during drive time with this crap. Next up, I'll be turning to sports talk radio where I don't have to hear any of this claptrap.
 
In Nevada, the State GOP Secretary said that if delegates abstain, they will be replaced by alternates. The rules are probably different for every state.
Yeah most of the state delegation chairmen would do EXACTLY that. But that's also part of why Romney is challenging the Massachusetts results. He does not want the Paulites to nominate their own chairmen who could aquiesce to abstentions.
 
Yes, it can be done as it was done in 2008. Here's a history of the 08 National Convention:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?373110-History-of-2008-Republican-National-Convention

In Nevada, the State GOP Secretary said that if delegates abstain, they will be replaced by alternates. The rules are probably different for every state.
y'know..... I just thought of something...m we control the delegates and the alternates in Nevada, so why not have our first delegates abstain on the first ballot, stop Romney from tting his 1144 then the delegates are unbound and the alternates (also Paul supporters) will be free to vote for Ron!!!! An thos? Am I crazy or would that work??
 
y'know..... I just thought of something...m we control the delegates and the alternates in Nevada, so why not have our first delegates abstain on the first ballot, stop Romney from tting his 1144 then the delegates are unbound and the alternates (also Paul supporters) will be free to vote for Ron!!!! An thos? Am I crazy or would that work??
That sounds like it could work for that one state, but if we can find a way to get all the other states with our delegates to abstain then it would be more likely for us to make it to a second ballot.
 
3p6fjz.jpg
 
y'know..... I just thought of something...m we control the delegates and the alternates in Nevada, so why not have our first delegates abstain on the first ballot, stop Romney from tting his 1144 then the delegates are unbound and the alternates (also Paul supporters) will be free to vote for Ron!!!! An thos? Am I crazy or would that work??

We do NOT control the alternate delegates in Nevada. The way the Party arranged things (to benefit the establishment in this sort of situation) is that delegates and alternates were all voted on together as one list of candidates, all arranged from top to bottom vote-getter. Once the slots were filled up for delegates, the alternates are the ones who had fewer votes, which in three out of four CDs is Romney's slate. Thus replacing the delegates with alternates would give all of Nevada to Romney.

The CD2 delegates are the Romney delegates, so they would not abstain and not be replaced with the 4th, 5th and 6th place vote-getters, the CD2 Paul slate. Romney would get all delegates if they succeeded in replacing them with alternates
 
Lets hope and pray not. Besides I'm sure that side is to arrogant to play such a strategy. In their minds Mitt had it all along and Ron didn't have a chance in hell. Literally.
 
y'know..... I just thought of something...m we control the delegates and the alternates in Nevada, so why not have our first delegates abstain on the first ballot, stop Romney from tting his 1144 then the delegates are unbound and the alternates (also Paul supporters) will be free to vote for Ron!!!! An thos? Am I crazy or would that work??

Not going to work. Virtually every alternate is a Romney delegate. We only got one vote, so we had to concentrate on the delegates and forget about the alternates.
 
In Nevada, the State GOP Secretary said that if delegates abstain, they will be replaced by alternates. The rules are probably different for every state.
This seems like bullshit. How is that even enforceable?
 
This seems like bullshit. How is that even enforceable?

Easy, the head of the Nevada delegate congregation would take a look at all the votes the delegation and null the Paul votes, the Romney camp has too many tricks up his sleeves; they always play dirty.
 
interesting. need more in depth knowledge about rules regarding this.
but then again, Mitt's spies here would have informed their campaign, that this is in the works.
maybe thats why they are scared a bit and want to control all the delegations.
because if he was so sure he will get all the votes, then why care about these 50 delegates ?
 
This is amazing... we should capitalize on the fact that Regan did this.

And that Ron Paul was one of the delegates for Reagan in 1976 himself.

And that Reagan/Paul in 1976 would have been better than Ford/Dole, who lost to Carter.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top