Breaking: Oklahoma District 4 Ron Paul Revolution Delegate Sweep!

[juvanya]

Well, let's see here. I am not entirely sure, but when someone said "electors," I believe it was meaning national delegates, including alternatives. I could be completely wrong, though. I wonder if "electors" means super delegates? Only one super delegate seat is up for grabs in Oklahoma, because James Dunn, the Paul supporter, is stepping down.

I have the answer! altho not one based on any law citation. I could try to dig that up if necessary.

In any case, per here and here, those were actual electors and alternate electors for November that were chosen. So, Ron Paul is guaranteed at least two electoral votes. Yes, you read that correctly. Ron Paul WILL have AT LEAST TWO electors. So pretend this were 2008, it would be Obama 365, McCain 171, Paul 2.

This is unreal.

 

[VAMole]

Oklahoma law requires an elector to take an oath to vote for their party's nominee. So unless these electors are going to violate the oath, which would be a misdemeanor, don't expect any surprises when the votes are counted.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I have the answer! altho not one based on any law citation. I could try to dig that up if necessary.

In any case, per here and here, those were actual electors and alternate electors for November that were chosen. So, Ron Paul is guaranteed at least two electoral votes. Yes, you read that correctly. Ron Paul WILL have AT LEAST TWO electors. So pretend this were 2008, it would be Obama 365, McCain 171, Paul 2.

This is unreal.

If that's true they could carry the weight of a small state! And if its a close election they would be vitally important, we could have Romney by the balls!

 

[juvanya]

Oklahoma law requires an elector to take an oath to vote for their party's nominee. So unless these electors are going to violate the oath, which would be a misdemeanor, don't expect any surprises when the votes are counted.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

That assumes they can be IDed and would probably be thrown out in court as a crock of BS.

I wonder if we couldve got more electors elected, including Democrat electors... :O That would be insane

 

[kathy88]

OKLAHOMA 2012



Numbers

43 Total Delegates

3 RNC, 15 CD and 25 AL


Selection Method

Primary/ Convention

Delegates bound until released

o 40 Bound

o 3 Unbound

Important Dates

Primary: 3/06/12

Precinct Meeting: 2/06/12

County Conventions: Before 3/17/12

CD Conventions: Before 4/21/12

State Convention: 5/11/2012 - 5/12/12


Selection Details

AL – Delegate allocation: Proportional allocation with 15% threshold; if candidate receives 50% plus, winner take all per statewide vote

Delegate election: At State Convention

CD – Delegate allocation: Proportional allocation with 15% threshold; if candidate receives 50% plus, winner take all per district vote

Delegate election: At CD Conventions

 

[sailingaway]

Oklahoma law requires an elector to take an oath to vote for their party's nominee. So unless these electors are going to violate the oath, which would be a misdemeanor, don't expect any surprises when the votes are counted.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

The RNC is what DETERMINES the nominee. I assume that just means that those becoming electors, should Ron not win, would have to hold their nose and vote for the nominee in NOVEMBER.

 

[juvanya]

The RNC is what DETERMINES the nominee. I assume that just means that those becoming electors, should Ron not win, would have to hold their nose and vote for the nominee in NOVEMBER.

In theory. If they are true RP supporters, theyll cast faithless votes anyway. I think its by secret ballot, so how can it even be found out. And its just a $1000 fine. Completely unenforceable.

 

[kathy88]

In theory. If they are true RP supporters, theyll cast faithless votes anyway. I think its by secret ballot, so how can it even be found out. And its just a $1000 fine. Completely unenforceable.

Who counts these "secret ballots?"

 

[juvanya]

Who counts these "secret ballots?"

It doesnt matter. Look at the history of faithless electors. a libertarian got a vote in 1970 something.

 

[sailingaway]

Our guys are saying they are going to follow the rules, when people vote on them. I am sure they will. Mind you sometimes the rules allow the rules to be changed under certain circumstances.