Brokered convention misunderstandings

[Bradley in DC]

Can we get nominated to be nominated after the first ballot?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Before each and every vote, me thinks, one has to demonstrate support from a majority of delegates in five states. Does that answer your question?

 

[majinkoola]

Well, if another candidate drops out before then, couldn't a majority of delegates from 5 or more states still vote for RP? I don't think him not winning a primary/caucus matters.

 

[Liberté]

There are repeated posts about Dr. Paul becoming the Republican presidential nominee in a brokered convention. Most of them are promoting bad information. Here are the actual rules:

Rules "binding" delegates are determined by the states: some delegates are not bound at all, others for the first few votes (first, second or third), while other states bind their delegates until they are released.

In order to be eligible to be nominated at all [RNC Rule 40(b)], one requirement is to win the majority of delegates in five states (including DC and territories, RNC Rule 27).

After tonights Super Tuesday it seems likely that McCain will be the nominee and no brokered convention will happen. Now what?

 

[dawnbt]

As I pointed out, the RNC rules stipulate that one must win the majority of delegates from five states in order to be eligible to be nominated.

Do we have any under our belt? If so, how many?

 

[demidog]

This is meaningless at this point. The real delegates to the national conventions are selected at the state conventions. How does the GOP stop a state from selecting Paul as their nominee at the state convention? How does it stop Paul delegates from being elected as delegates to the national convention if the majority of delegate candidates are Ron Paul supporters?

If the delegates refuse to vote for Romney or McCain at the state level, or simply get elected as delegates to the national convention and then vote for Ron Paul when they get there, what does the party do? Shoot the delegates? Poison them? Throw them in jail?

The GOP isn't a state body. It's a private body. Who stayed after the primaries and did their homework and got elected as delegates to their county and state conventions?

 

[demidog]

The most likely scenario I see is Romney and McCain teaming up against Paul at a brokered convention, like in Louisiana. Each of them would much rather lose to another neocon than to play ball with us.

You guys just aren't thinking this through. The delegates that show up at the national convention, even if "committed" to Romney or McCain, became delegates because they supported Ron Paul and got involved. Do you really think they'll be pissed off if they become unbound and can openly support the only conservative on the stage?

Romney and McCain are not going to have many real supporters there. That's the beauty of the Ron Paul campaign strategy. Boots on the ground.

 

[Perry]

We will have one state in an hours time. Damnit I'm going to deliver Alaska to you on a platter. The other four states are up to everyone else.

 

[Bradley in DC]

We will have one state in an hours time. Damnit I'm going to deliver Alaska to you on a platter. The other four states are up to everyone else.

+1!!!!

 

[MrZach]

As I pointed out, the RNC rules stipulate that one must win the majority of delegates from five states in order to be eligible to be nominated.

If this is case, why is Ron Paul's campaign touting the strategy to get a brokered convention? Which 5 states are they planning on winning?

 

[MrZach]

This is how I see Ron Paul making his case at such a convention:

If you nominate me you will get small government, free markets, and low taxes and I am the only candidate who can beat the democrats on the war issue in a general election. I also, by being a doctor, nullify any advantage they may seem to have on the issue of health care.

If you nominate any other candidate you will lose because I will run as a third party candidate and will split the republican base.

My loyalty is to the principles of the Republican Party. If the party abandons its principles I will abandon the party and so will most other true conservatives.

So you need to carefully consider your selection. Do you want me or the democratic nominee?

If anything even REMOTELY close to that went down at the RNC, I would LOVE to be there!!!! lol...

 

[Bradley in DC]

If this is case, why is Ron Paul's campaign touting the strategy to get a brokered convention? Which 5 states are they planning on winning?

I'm at a loss to explain most of what the official campaign does.

 

[The00viper]

If this is case, why is Ron Paul's campaign touting the strategy to get a brokered convention? Which 5 states are they planning on winning?

Is there not a big difference between "win 5 states" and "get a majority of delegates in 5 states" ?

Edit: I think they're completely different.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Is there not a big difference between "win 5 states" and "get a majority of delegates in 5 states" ?

I didn't think so, but I'm not trying to cause unnecessary angst either. The rule language is what governs the question.

 

[MrZach]

ttt

 

[IndieRocker79]

Let me attempt as best I can to clarify the legal mumbo jumbo since I'm familiar with this sort of talk from my work with volunteer organizations, Robert's Rules of Order, etc.

To "demonstrate the majority of delegates in at least 5 states" means that prior to the nomination, Dr. Paul must clearly hold the majority of committed delegates in 5 states. There's no other real way to interpret that. If there are uncommitted delegates in a state that hold the majority, and they are unwilling or disallowed to commit to Dr. Paul, I don't believe he can "demonstrate" that they are committed to him. I firmly believe in the case of this language that "demonstrate a clear majority" = have the majority of committed delegates.

On a side note, that would mean for instance if 3 delegates are committed Paul, 2 for McCain, and 43 are uncommitted, this would still not demonstrate a clear majority; sorry. He would have to hold 25 committed delegates, IMO.

As for suspension of the rules, this would honestly be EASIER to get pushed through, provided the majority of bound and uncommitted delegates were actually Ron Paul supporters. In this case, if say the delegates from New Hampshire were all actually Dr. Paul supporters, along with 4 other states where other candidates won the majority or the majority was uncommitted, but they want to nominate Paul, the vote to suspend the rules could be taken. The vote would still have to pass, however, which might require a lot of secret Dr. Paul supporters.

I hope this helps. Keep in mind it's only an educated guess, but much better than taking pot shots at it.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Let me attempt as best I can to clarify the legal mumbo jumbo since I'm familiar with this sort of talk from my work with volunteer organizations, Robert's Rules of Order, etc.

To "demonstrate the majority of delegates in at least 5 states" means that prior to the nomination, Dr. Paul must clearly hold the majority of committed delegates in 5 states. There's no other real way to interpret that. If there are uncommitted delegates in a state that hold the majority, and they are unwilling or disallowed to commit to Dr. Paul, I don't believe he can "demonstrate" that they are committed to him. I firmly believe in the case of this language that "demonstrate a clear majority" = have the majority of committed delegates.

On a side note, that would mean for instance if 3 delegates are committed Paul, 2 for McCain, and 43 are uncommitted, this would still not demonstrate a clear majority; sorry. He would have to hold 25 committed delegates, IMO.

As for suspension of the rules, this would honestly be EASIER to get pushed through, provided the majority of bound and uncommitted delegates were actually Ron Paul supporters. In this case, if say the delegates from New Hampshire were all actually Dr. Paul supporters, along with 4 other states where other candidates won the majority or the majority was uncommitted, but they want to nominate Paul, the vote to suspend the rules could be taken. The vote would still have to pass, however, which might require a lot of secret Dr. Paul supporters.

I hope this helps. Keep in mind it's only an educated guess, but much better than taking pot shots at it.

Let me be clear: I don't know. That said, I don't "think" that's right. My guess would be that while some delegates are elected nominally uncommitted and others unbound, if they were to, say, sign a statement of their delegation expressing their intention to vote for Dr. Paul (or another candidate) then that would qualify as "demonstrating" support. There is reason to think that we may have a friend or two among the "unelected" superdelegates and certainly among those elected as "uncommitted" (which might be required by state law) and possibly among those elected in support of a candidate who as dropped out and have been released.

No matter what, this is a good discussion. Thanks!

 

[Bruce4Ron]

Someone explain to me what an "uncommitted" delegate is because I've read every post here and I'm at a loss as to who they are and why they are categorized as such.

 

[Bruce4Ron]

I looked a bit more into this and I think an uncommitted delegate is someone who is not "assigned" to a specific candidate yes? In the sense of a brokered convention, a delegate may have gone to Romney for example in the primary but is now free to vote for anyone therefore being "uncommitted"?

Do "winner takes all" states have these types of delegates?

 

[MrZach]

Someone explain to me what an "uncommitted" delegate is because I've read every post here and I'm at a loss as to who they are and why they are categorized as such.

All uncommitted means is that they don't HAVE to vote for anyone in particular. An uncommitted delegate can "come out" and declare a preference for one candidate or another. This would count towards the necessary "majority" in 5 states - therefore uncommitted delegates, while not bound by rules to vote one way or the other, could still push Dr. Paul over the top by declaring.

 

[JulioForPaul]

How committed are "committed" delegates? What is the point of this whole delegate system if they are not allowed to change their vote. They might as well be "paper" delegates if they are treated as such. Will they go to jail if they change their mind?