Confirmed: All Delegates Are Unbound!
- Thread starter Elwar
- Start date
JudgeNapFan
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 76
I hope the delegates understand this.
I hope we have enough delegates, period. Even with all our wins, the delegates we have so far is still lacking. Even according to http://www.thereal2012delegatecount.com/ Romney still has 496 delegates to our 186, so he has a head start even by the BEST estimates. And then we got the media declaring Romney the winner as propaganda as well, so this is going to be very hard. However, we will make HISTORY if we can somehow stage an upset with huge numbers of "bound" delegates becoming faithless and voting another way or abstaining.
Can you supply a better source?
This forum. And it's really sorta pointless to even try to keep accurate numbers since we also have stealth delegates that haven't declared their support for Paul. Romney's total would also be inaccurate since he also won some delegates at our CDs.
No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
can someone truly confirm this?
yes or no
yes or no
Which thread, specifically? I've seen different estimates.
Sailingaway put up a thread that had links to all the convention threads that had been started and it was a sticky for a short while. NC was one of them and had a mostly complete list of CD delegate election numbers. I started that thread.
Are you the creator of the site?
All evidence so far is pointing to it being TRUE. There are no "bound" delegates once the RNC is underway. Have you seen Ben Swann's video on it?
Are you the creator of the site?
All evidence so far is pointing to it being TRUE. There are no "bound" delegates once the RNC is underway. Have you seen Ben Swann's video on it?
Last edited:
No I'm not, don't know who is. Might want to look into it and let them know.
CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
Here is the other side of the argument from Steve Parent :
makes some good points. Basically, if Ron Paul cannot get 1144 on the first ballot, meaning we have a lot of delegates vote their conscience, then it may not be the best strategy to do so.
makes some good points. Basically, if Ron Paul cannot get 1144 on the first ballot, meaning we have a lot of delegates vote their conscience, then it may not be the best strategy to do so.
Last edited:
I was thinking about this... the Unbound/Bound argument.... well, answer this... If the delegates are really bound to vote for Mitt on the first round, then why would Massachusetts feel the need to send out affidavits to force delegates to vote for Mitt? Why? If they are bound, really bound.. why not send out a letter reminding them that they are bound and must vote for Mitt by law? The mere fact that they felt they should force delegates to promise to vote for any particular candidate proves that there are no bound delegates.
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,442
The way I understand it is, it's true if the majority of delegates decide it to be true
ShowMeLiberty
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 2,257
That is a very good point.
I'm not going to start counting chickens yet, but I'm sure keeping a close eye on those eggs.
jay_dub
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,162
I think that it is true that delegates are not bound. The Ben Swann piece referred to an article by FairVote.org.
Here is that article.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our piece focuses on the Republican National Committee rules governing how delegates are chosen for the Republican national convention next August and what those delegates are bound to do – and not do -- at the convention. Our conclusion is that RNC rules conflict with the conventional interpretation of the meaning of upcoming primaries and caucuses, and may well lead to challenges to seating delegates at the Republican convention next summer.
While not predicting a “brokered convention,” we explain the legal and political arguments for why it might happen. The combination of Rule 38, widespread use of winner-take-all primaries, and a Republican electorate that to date is not thrilled with its announced presidential candidates may invite a convention challenge. Some critics, like Barone, have claimed that we misread Rule 38’s prohibition against what’s called “the unit rule,” but in fact they misunderstand our point.
Barone say we have it wrong that the unit rule ban doesn’t allow state parties to use winner-take-all primaries in which the plurality winner of a state earns all that state’s delegates. But we aren’t claiming that the rule prevents winner-take-all primaries (at least after April 1st, as the party in 2010 did vote to prohibit winner-take-all primaries before April 1st except in the four states given special rights: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and, the one state using a winner-take-all primary, South Carolina).
Rather, we explain that the RNC rules’ provision on the unit rule make it clear that delegates aren’t bound to vote according to how most delegates from their state are voting. In fact, delegates can vote according to their own judgment and conscience, and that this is most likely to take place in a state where a state party’s winner-take-all rule has allowed a candidate to win all delegates primarily due to a split in the majority vote, or due to votes cast by non-Republican voters participating in the contest.
To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” The unit rule does not prohibit a state from using a winner-take-all primary in the same way that Rule 15(b) prohibits most states from using a winner-take-all primary when holding a contest earlier than April 1st. However, the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule.
As set out in the Rules of the Republican Party, delegates have the ability to vote according to the delegates’ preference, even if that is contrary to the outcome of each state’s primary. According to one source, the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38.
For further clarification on the meaning of Rule 38, it is instructive to look to the debate in 1964 when the RNC debated whether to strike the Rule 38 language from a proposed amendment that was adopted that year. The debate begins on page 64 of this source (source link below). The RNC voted 59 to 41 to keep the rule in the amendment, noting that it helped to clarify a longstanding practice that a delegate was free to take exception to the roll call, and was free to vote his or her preference. Those who sought to strike the rule feared that its inclusion in the rules would give delegates freedom from both a non-existent legal obligation and a moral obligation to vote according to instructions from their state. However, even these opponents of the rule admitted that there never has been any legal obligation for a delegate to do so.
http://www.fairvote.org/response-to...-party-rules-may-surprise-in-201#.T8A-k1KXiVT
Additional source used by FairVote:
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103565212150-4/1964+Unit+Rule+Debate.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A very pertinent bit from the linked PDF:
Page 66 of the PDF linked, at line 18:
"However, since yesterday's meeting I have discussed this suggestion with several other people who believe the adoption of this change in the rule and the attendant publicity which would be given to it would convince some delegates they are released not only from a legal obligation which they never had but also from a moral obligation which some of them do have."
Here is that article.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our piece focuses on the Republican National Committee rules governing how delegates are chosen for the Republican national convention next August and what those delegates are bound to do – and not do -- at the convention. Our conclusion is that RNC rules conflict with the conventional interpretation of the meaning of upcoming primaries and caucuses, and may well lead to challenges to seating delegates at the Republican convention next summer.
While not predicting a “brokered convention,” we explain the legal and political arguments for why it might happen. The combination of Rule 38, widespread use of winner-take-all primaries, and a Republican electorate that to date is not thrilled with its announced presidential candidates may invite a convention challenge. Some critics, like Barone, have claimed that we misread Rule 38’s prohibition against what’s called “the unit rule,” but in fact they misunderstand our point.
Barone say we have it wrong that the unit rule ban doesn’t allow state parties to use winner-take-all primaries in which the plurality winner of a state earns all that state’s delegates. But we aren’t claiming that the rule prevents winner-take-all primaries (at least after April 1st, as the party in 2010 did vote to prohibit winner-take-all primaries before April 1st except in the four states given special rights: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and, the one state using a winner-take-all primary, South Carolina).
Rather, we explain that the RNC rules’ provision on the unit rule make it clear that delegates aren’t bound to vote according to how most delegates from their state are voting. In fact, delegates can vote according to their own judgment and conscience, and that this is most likely to take place in a state where a state party’s winner-take-all rule has allowed a candidate to win all delegates primarily due to a split in the majority vote, or due to votes cast by non-Republican voters participating in the contest.
To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” The unit rule does not prohibit a state from using a winner-take-all primary in the same way that Rule 15(b) prohibits most states from using a winner-take-all primary when holding a contest earlier than April 1st. However, the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule.
As set out in the Rules of the Republican Party, delegates have the ability to vote according to the delegates’ preference, even if that is contrary to the outcome of each state’s primary. According to one source, the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38.
For further clarification on the meaning of Rule 38, it is instructive to look to the debate in 1964 when the RNC debated whether to strike the Rule 38 language from a proposed amendment that was adopted that year. The debate begins on page 64 of this source (source link below). The RNC voted 59 to 41 to keep the rule in the amendment, noting that it helped to clarify a longstanding practice that a delegate was free to take exception to the roll call, and was free to vote his or her preference. Those who sought to strike the rule feared that its inclusion in the rules would give delegates freedom from both a non-existent legal obligation and a moral obligation to vote according to instructions from their state. However, even these opponents of the rule admitted that there never has been any legal obligation for a delegate to do so.
http://www.fairvote.org/response-to...-party-rules-may-surprise-in-201#.T8A-k1KXiVT
Additional source used by FairVote:
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103565212150-4/1964+Unit+Rule+Debate.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A very pertinent bit from the linked PDF:
Page 66 of the PDF linked, at line 18:
"However, since yesterday's meeting I have discussed this suggestion with several other people who believe the adoption of this change in the rule and the attendant publicity which would be given to it would convince some delegates they are released not only from a legal obligation which they never had but also from a moral obligation which some of them do have."
I believe delegates belong to a delegation that is sent and belongs to a state party convention and they are bound by what that convention has ratified. If they vote to abstain in the first ballot they may be sent packing by the delegation chairman and chairwoman. But if the delegate can prove that Romney has changed his positions and policies in a substantial way from the time of the primary or caucus to the time of the convention vote, she/he may request the privilege to abstain and may even demand a vote of no-confidence by the entire delegation and render the delegation a free agent. Since Romney keeps changing his positions, campaigning to spend more federal dollars on expansion of federal programs, I believe delegates that have the necessary documentation to prove that Romney in August is not the Romney he was in January may move for a vote of no-confidence within their delegations and if their delegations so moves they should be allowed to abstain. My two cents.
The key to defeating Romney at the Convention is Romney at the Convention. Delegates can abstain or vote for an opposing nominee if they can prove to their delegation chairman and chairwoman and fellow delegates that Romney has changed substantially. In my opinion, Romney is changing substantially as he campaigns nationally to defeat Obama. He has become more of Obama than Obama himself. Case closed. That's what rule 38 is for.
The key to defeating Romney at the Convention is Romney at the Convention. Delegates can abstain or vote for an opposing nominee if they can prove to their delegation chairman and chairwoman and fellow delegates that Romney has changed substantially. In my opinion, Romney is changing substantially as he campaigns nationally to defeat Obama. He has become more of Obama than Obama himself. Case closed. That's what rule 38 is for.
Last edited:
Similar threads
