Confirmed: All Delegates Are Unbound!

[jcannon98188]

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 had 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.

Irrelevant. There are actual laws that say you cannot be bound to vote a certain way, and laws ALWAYS trump party rules.

 

[romancito]

Irrelevant. There are actual laws that say you cannot be bound to vote a certain way, and laws ALWAYS trump party rules.

Good point about laws and rules. I think in conventions there are no laws, only rules.

 

[parocks]

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.

Now, another factor to consider is how many states Romney has won with huge margins in the popular vote. I can't tell you what those big Romney victories actually mean in terms of delegates, but there probably are various pressures (binding rules being a pressure) to bring Romney's delegates into alignment with the results of the Primaries.

You know, the primaries, they're the ones typically on the Tuesdays. The ones where you look at the results and say something like "oh, that can't be good" when Romney gets 70% and Ron Paul gets 15%. We've learned now to completely ignore those results and declare that the state conventions are all that really matter, because that's where the delegates are selected, and by golly they're all just gonna love Ron Paul.

It seems to me that all of these Romney over 50%s aren't going to lead to too many Ron Paul delegates.

Delegate strategy isn't just telling them that they don't have to vote for Romney (because they all just love Ron Paul and if they knew they didn't have to vote for Romney, they wouldn't), but it's persuading Romney delegates (not the stealth ones), but the Romney ones to vote instead for Ron Paul.

Try to figure out what you're going to do in Tampa to get people who currently like Romney to vote instead for Ron Paul. Based on the fact that I see delegations asking for money to get them there, I'm guessing that they aren't walking around with walking around money for whatever it might take to get Romneys supporters onboard. There is this "Paul Festival" which could be useful for that, but I'm guessing that's going to turn out an embarriasco.

 

[romancito]

If Romney keeps changing and morphing into a democrat then is obvious that delegates can also change their vote from their pledge commitment during their state conventions. Romney is the author of his fate. By August he will be impersonating Obama. He needs to be put on the chopping block. Mitt Romney you have been chopped.

Make a Resolution / Manifesto to distribute among all delegations: Romney in January / Romney in June

 

[CPUd]

This is one of the reasons they like to have delegates who have some status in the party. They won't go against the binding rules because they have something to lose. If a romney-bound delegate votes for Ron Paul on the first ballot, there will be consequences, the severity is dependent on where they are from.

A few people may say what the hell and do it, even if it means getting kicked out of the party. But even some of the Ron Paul people who will be there already have too much to lose to risk getting banned form the party. Before this vote is attempted, they're going to have to try to change some of these rules so they don't go back home to find out they've been replaced by the ones they just worked so hard to get voted out.

 

[J_White]

agree,
add to that the RNC attorney letter that was sent to Nevada - telling them that if the contingent has too many Paul supporters, they might not be seated at Tampa.
NV delegates are also bound (or so people believe), so if they are bound, there is no problem, how does it matter if they are Paul or Robme supporters?
both Mass and NV actions support the notion, that delegates are unbound and that is why team Robme is trying to play games so that not many Paul supporters are selected as delegates.
i think they understand that once at Tampa, they can vote like they want.

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.

 

[jay_dub]

Romney hasn't exactly thrilled the conservatives, i.e. evangelicals. His recent fundraising dinner hosted by the chairman of the company that makes the morning after pill is one example of Romney's duplicity on issues. Some of these folks are Santorum delegates. They could be swayed away from Romney.

Some actual Romney delegates may be swayed, too. His economic policy will increase the deficit/debt. Look for this issue to be highlighted between now and the convention as talk of a new debt ceiling increase gets heated up.

I get that, even if delegates are not bound, there may not be enough Paul delegates. That's why getting the message out among the delegates about Romney on various issues is important. Ron Paul is the only Conservative candidate....period. He is the only candidate that has stuck to his principles. He is the only candidate that will reduce the deficit/debt. He is the one candidate that will draw in Independents, disaffected Democrats and the highly sought after youth vote. In short, he is the only candidate that can beat Obama.

We won't convert these people into 'Liberty' delegates, but they can be shown the solid practical reasons to support Ron Paul.

BTW, http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/ has Romney at 496 to Paul's 186 delegates.

 

[romancito]

Romney hasn't exactly thrilled the conservatives, i.e. evangelicals. His recent fundraising dinner hosted by the chairman of the company that makes the morning after pill is one example of Romney's duplicity on issues. Some of these folks are Santorum delegates. They could be swayed away from Romney.

Some actual Romney delegates may be swayed, too. His economic policy will increase the deficit/debt. Look for this issue to be highlighted between now and the convention as talk of a new debt ceiling increase gets heated up.

That's exactly what I believe. Romney beats Romney just like Gingrich beat Gingrich. Compare Romneys from December 2011 to Romney August 2012. Very different Romneys. Delegations can vote to chop Romney. Mitt Romney, you have been chopped.

 

[robertwerden]

Every Ron Paul delegate needs to be prepared BEFORE THE FIRST VOTE to convince other delegates to vote for Ron Paul. Do it hours or days before if you can. Bring your computer and load it up with facts to support a Paul nomination as well as facts to discredit Romney.
We can convert people at the convention and win this thing on the first ballot. We need divide and conquer as well as infiltrate and convert.
Find out the delegates hot button issues and go in for the kill. Romney is an easy target.

Tell people you were a Romney supporter but converted to Ron Paul after you found out bad stuff Romney did. Tell them how Ron Paul will do it better.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Here is the other side of the argument from Steve Parent :

Research more before taking direction from Parent. Other forum members who were around here in 2007/08 can fill you in, I'm sure.

 

[CPUd]

Research more before taking direction from Parent. Other forum members who were around here in 2007/08 can fill you in, I'm sure.

After posting that, I did come across a few who didn't think too highly of him. Seems like he has done a flip flop since the last time around.

I found these 'delegate instructions' over at the DP, and I like the simplicity:

1) Know your district and state bylaws.
2) Communicate with the official campaign.
3) Vote for Ron Paul on the first ballot if you can!
4) Abstain if for some reason you can not vote Paul on first ballot.
5) Vote Ron Paul on every ballot after the first.

Although 3,4,5 may not apply, depending on the result of #2.

 

[thesnake742]

I think, in the end, there isn't anything that will prove this claim until it ACTUALLY happens. We all know that they can and will do everything in their power to stop our delegation.

 

[thatpeculiarcat]

I think, in the end, there isn't anything that will prove this claim until it ACTUALLY happens. We all know that they can and will do everything in their power to stop our delegation.

My sentiments exactly.
I'm not holding my breath, that's for damn sure.
We'll see what happens in August but until then we all need to make sure all delegates understand this. An official campaign statement on this would be nice.

 

[wgadget]

The main thing is preventing Romney from getting to the required number of delegates. I wonder how many of the delegates KNOW THEY ARE NOT BOUND on the first vote. I wonder how many would vote for ANYONE BUT ROMNEY on the first vote if they knew it was an option. We can do a lot of that educating right now it would seem.

 

[dude58677]

I think, in the end, there isn't anything that will prove this claim until it ACTUALLY happens. We all know that they can and will do everything in their power to stop our delegation.

You can join me in my effort to use espionage tactics against the establishment such as the shadow parties like Team Nevada. We can backstab them when the time is right. I also think their morale will drop if they catch us because they will see how far we are willing to go.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Here is the other side of the argument from Steve Parent :

The Parent Trap never goes away, does it?

Anything to do with SGP is suspect. IMO people should stay far away from felons like this, (medical fraud against the disabled). His arrival in 07 created a LOT of confusion and dissension. He acts like an expert (just like he acted like he was a Doctor) but is just a sad sack.

Caveat Emptor

 

[romancito]

In each state delegation, Ron Paul supporters that are 'bound' to Romney need to produce a file of 'policy statements' that shows those instances where Romney has deviated from his positions prior to their state primariy and/or state convention. With that on hand a Ron Paul supporter can motion his state delegation/chairman/chairwoman and submit to them the reasons why she/he is abstaining from voting for Romney on first ballot. Otherwise, I am afraid the delegation chair will override their vote by appointing an alternate to substitute them. On the other hand, with a good case against Romney's liberal moves against conservative position, she/he could bring about a vote of no-confidence against Romney prior to nominations and if successful render the delegates of her/his delegation as 'free agents.' This 'free agent' thing is 'internal politics' within the delegation. A delegation chairman/chairwoman is obligated by their state to carry their state convention mandate with respect to voting requirements. But if the candidate has changed substantially, a chairman must listen to his delegates and allow them to exercise their 'free agency' in rule 38. But Romney's mellowing to liberal spending policies must be documented.

 

[S.Shorland]

That's a RED alert for that new delegate chatroom then if Parent is their resident parliamentarian and there is evidence from 2008 that he's a wrong 'un.Somebody had better get the word out quick because even if 10% of our delegates follow it,it could mean life or death.

 

[jay_dub]

In each state delegation, Ron Paul supporters that are 'bound' to Romney need to produce a file of 'policy statements' that shows those instances where Romney has deviated from his positions prior to their state primariy and/or state convention. With that on hand a Ron Paul supporter can motion his state delegation/chairman/chairwoman and submit to them the reasons why she/he is abstaining from voting for Romney on first ballot. Otherwise, I am afraid the delegation chair will override their vote by appointing an alternate to substitute them. On the other hand, with a good case against Romney's liberal moves against conservative position, she/he could bring about a vote of no-confidence against Romney prior to nominations and if successful render the delegates of her/his delegation as 'free agents.' This 'free agent' thing is 'internal politics' within the delegation. A delegation chairman/chairwoman is obligated by their state to carry their state convention mandate with respect to voting requirements. But if the candidate has changed substantially, a chairman must listen to his delegates and allow them to exercise their 'free agency' in rule 38. But Romney's mellowing to liberal spending policies must be documented.

As for his economic plan, I don't think Romney has 'changed' so much as 'misrepresented' it. He has been (just this month) railing against Obama's 'prairie fire of debt' when all analyses of his own plan show an increase in deficits and debt.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In a speech at the Hotel Des Moines to about 200 people, including some prominent Iowa politicians, Romney said that the federal debt is "not solely a Democrat or Republican problem." But he placed the blame for it squarely on Obama, saying he had increased the debt by $5 trillion - or $520,000 per average American household.

"We can't spend another four years talking about solving a problem that we know we're making worse every day," Romney said. "When the men and women who settled the Iowa prairie saw a fire in the distance, they didn't look around for someone else to save them or go back to sleep and hope the wind might change directions. They knew that survival was up to them. A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and across the nation, and every day that we fail to act, that fire gets closer to the homes and the children we love."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...imulus-likens-federal-debt-to-a-prairie-fire/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the social front, I already mentioned Romney's duplicity in calling the morning-after pill an abortive pill, then attending a fund-raising dinner on May 16 hosted by the Chairman of the company that makes them.

Delegates should also keep an eye on the electoral analyses coming out. Karl Rove's analysis in late April showed Romney losing badly to Obama. These are subject to change, but are certainly something to watch. Policy flip-flops/misrepresentations and the question of electability should be real factors in any delegate's mind.

Bottom line: There are solid practical reasons to vote for Ron Paul. No need at all to bring up ideology. Not that I don't agree with Ron's, but it won't carry any weight when talking about real politics at convention time.

 

[1836]

I'm not sure Ron Paul wants us creating a giant battle over rules for nomination purposes at the convention. I think if we've got the delegates, if we truly have them, then perhaps.

But if we don't, we should focus more on the platform and on ensuring the convention is fair. The more ruckus we cause unnecessarily, the more harm we do to ourselves.

That said, I absolutely want those who are in a position to vote for Paul based on boundedness or being unbound by state party rules, to do so. I'm just talking in terms of avoiding ugly blowback for our movement. I know my view on this is unpopular here. But it's just my view. Well, and it seems to be the campaign's view as well.