Attempts are made to game the delegate selection process in Louisiana

[sailingaway]

Rick Santorum asks Louisiana GOP to make sure 'bona fide' supporters represent him in Tampa

the primary says only 10 are bound to him, whereas the caucus says 17 are bound to Ron Paul, 5 to Romney, and the rest in play. So I have no idea why he thinks he even has influence on 20. And influence is all it would be since the rules nowhere say he gets to pick who goes as delegate.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/rick_santorum_asks_la_gop_to_m.html

in part:

Scott Sewell, Romney's coordinator in Louisiana, said all parties had agreed that they could fill those delegate slots as they see fit. Sewell estimated that, adding in officials and a few others delegates picked up in the caucuses, Romney will have 17 to 19 of the 46 Louisiana delegates to Tampa.

But at Saturday's state convention, at which the delegates to he national convention will be chosen, Paul forces will control 111 of the 180 delegates, according to Charlie Davis, who is directing the Paul effort in Louisiana, "Well have a clear majority on every committee and in every way possible," said Davis.

It is possible they could choose Paul backers to be Santorum delegates. They would vote for Santorum if he has not released them before the balloting, but support Paul in his efforts to otherwise influence the convention.

To avoid that, the state party executive committee on Thursday sent delegates and alternates to the state convention a draft of 16 pages of supplemental rules for the state convention.

"We're 48 hours from the convention and they are attempting to radically change the rules," said Davis. "That's a pretty big overreach."

 

[sailingaway]

you can retweet it with my adjusted headline here if you like: https://twitter.com/usernamenuse/status/208377730692169729

 

[Southerner]

How much you wanna bet that the majority of states will go to some "mandatory proportional" delegate selection process system for 2016?

 

[J_White]

more tricks ! not surprised.

 

[opinionatedfool]

How much you wanna bet that the majority of states will go to some "mandatory proportional" delegate selection process system for 2016?

Let's just take over the dang party and we won't have to worry about that.

 

[opinionatedfool]

I'm not surprised that they are trying crap in LA too. Disgusting, but not surprising.

I wonder how the MA issue has turned out. Anyone know?

 

[MarcusI]

This will surely be an exciting convention!

 

[[email protected]]

I say good luck to them since we have well over half the delegates. They can try to do as many tricks as possible. I have a feeling were up for the task

 

[Eisenhower]

More Louisiana bullshit again? Give me a break. Hopefully nothing comes out of this.

 

[paulbot24]

The establishment cronies sound like the novices and our people (the young and dumb of course) are the ones that have to keep telling them things like..."According to Article V, Section B, under the subheading 'Proportional Allocation of Delegates' it explicitly states".....SLAP....Wait a minute, isn't this your book?

 

[sailingaway]

The establishment cronies sound like the novices and our people (the young and dumb of course) are the ones that have to keep telling them things like..."According to Article V, Section B, under the subheading 'Proportional Allocation of Delegates' it explicitly states".....SLAP....Wait a minute, isn't this your book?

lol!

..... on second thought, it isn't funny. But it is true.

 

[jbauer]

Nothing, that is where it is all headed.

How much you wanna bet that the majority of states will go to some "mandatory proportional" delegate selection process system for 2016?

 

[aksmith]

Nothing, that is where it is all headed.

Obviously, the next election will not be about Ron Paul. But as a central committee member of my state, my first proposal will be to make all delegates unbound. And I think it will have a great chance of passage. Every state needs the flexibility to make those who are most interested in the process the ones who decide the final outcome. If that is not the case, then we should just go to a primary with no discretion and allow the campaigns to appoint their delegates in proportion to their votes.

Become members of your state central committees and open this process up. Don't let another election go by having to say coulda woulda shoulda. I'm pretty tired of blaming the party for everything when we can be the party instead of having to bitch and moan all the time. We can be counting the votes fairly instead of having people constantly whining about vote fraud.

 

[sailingaway]

yeah, but if the party had more than one decent candidate it would sure help attendance 'looking forward'. Club for Growth types do not excite idealists, and they are better than most of what the party offers.

We need to get rid of the two party system, I am increasingly believing. Obviously, until we do, we need to own it. but Ron Paul polls evenly with Obama nationwide when party affiliation is ignored. That is a LOT of people disenfranchised by the two party system.

 

[aksmith]

yeah, but if the party had more than one decent candidate it would sure help attendance 'looking forward'. Club for Growth types do not excite idealists, and they are better than most of what the party offers.

We need to get rid of the two party system, I am increasingly believing. Obviously, until we do, we need to own it. but Ron Paul polls evenly with Obama nationwide when party affiliation is ignored. That is a LOT of people disenfranchised by the two party system.

Yeah, a lot of people are not happy with the two party system. But they're not quite fed up yet because the vast majority of them haven't been paying attention at all. And the fact that most people have no clue what's already happened and merely wait for the parties to have their candidates before they may a "decision" means we are fighting an almost impossible battle to get them to pay attention earlier, and we have to ensure that we are paying attention and working through an open process to supply at least one of the parties with a candidate. Thus, I am working for unbound delegates all the way through.

 

[sailingaway]

Yeah, a lot of people are not happy with the two party system. But they're not quite fed up yet because the vast majority of them haven't been paying attention at all. And the fact that most people have no clue what's already happened and merely wait for the parties to have their candidates before they may a "decision" means we are fighting an almost impossible battle to get them to pay attention earlier, and we have to ensure that we are paying attention and working through an open process to supply at least one of the parties with a candidate. Thus, I am working for unbound delegates all the way through.

Oh, I absolutely agree we work for all delegates and fight the fight, I'm not about to give up before it is over, anyhow.

 

[aksmith]

Oh, I absolutely agree we work for all delegates and fight the fight, I'm not about to give up before it is over, anyhow.

And I do agree that our goal should be to do away with the two parties. They are a sham and a disgrace. I just don't know how to do it. A third party in this country is not going to fly. It's too difficult to run campaigns with the ridiculous ballot access laws and media-two party-opoly. I'd be happy to do some little things, such as making the state parties pay for their own primaries. I don't see why taxpayers should pay for private parties to have elections any more than they should pay for me to elect the chairman of my bowling league. And of course, we should make the criteria for getting on any ballot the same for everyone. If that means they have to make it harder for the major party candidates to get on the ballot, well friggin' boo hoo.