Delegates who abstain will be replaced with alternates?

[mello]

This sentence stood out to me in this article"

"Delegates who abstain will be replaced with alternates."

What happens if we own those alternates as well? And what if they abstain too?

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/ron_paul_wins_majority_of_nevada_delegates

 

[sailingaway]

No one knows. there are statements and counter statements.. I figure people who are bound, unless UNBOUND at the RNC will be voting for those they are bound to.

 

[WilliamC]

This sentence stood out to me in this article"

"Delegates who abstain will be replaced with alternates."

What happens if we own those alternates as well? And what if they abstain too?

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/ron_paul_wins_majority_of_nevada_delegates

I don't know but obviously it's why alternates are as important to win as delegates, just in case this is an effective, ethical tactic at the time.

If one knows one has an alternate who is a Ron Paul supporter and one finds oneself in a position where abstaining could make a difference then unless one has signed a pledge or taken a verbal oath to do otherwise one can ethically abstain and face the consequences.

 

[ninepointfive]

The rules will dictate what happens. An alternate isn't supposed to be there just so the powers that be can coerce an elected Delegate vote the party line.

The Alternate is selected in lieu of a Delegate's non-attendance.


I'd bet this is all posturing, and the rules don't support seating alternates to replace Delegates who abstain or vote present.

 

[digitaldean]

From what I understand rules are setup in FL that override state rules. So if we have 51% of our people in FL we can call to unbind all delegates on the first vote. But we need a lot more people to be delegates for Paul or Mitt no matter what. I still hope we secretly have 20-30% of our people as fake delegates for Newt/Santorum/Mitt. More info to be a delegate:

http://ronpauldelegates.wordpress.com/state-specific-info/

 

[dntrpltt]

In the article you linked to, they quote a "source" of a Tweet from someone who claims that she heard it from the Secretary. Of the Nevada GOP. The source is NOT coming from the RNC or any higher ups, rather, its hearsay.

 

[wgadget]

From what I understand rules are setup in FL that override state rules. So if we have 51% of our people in FL we can call to unbind all delegates on the first vote. But we need a lot more people to be delegates for Paul or Mitt no matter what. I still hope we secretly have 20-30% of our people as fake delegates for Newt/Santorum/Mitt. More info to be a delegate:

http://ronpauldelegates.wordpress.com/state-specific-info/

I just made a thread with the Official RNC Rules.

 

[Ronulus]

Well it all depends on the state too. Some states are 'bound' but only on the honor system, you can really vote for whoever you want. Like in Texas it's "proportionately bound" yet you can still vote whoever you want, the party doesn't hold you to those rules and tell you who to vote for in florida.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Hopefully, (50% + 1) of the delegates in Tampa (regardless of whether they're Paul supporters) will want to prevent Romney from walking away with the nomination on the first ballot.

If so, maybe some rules can be changed to make that easier (like amending the rules to explicitly allow delegates to abstain without danger of being replaced by an alternate).

 

[LibertyRevolution]

The penalty for voting for someone other than who your bound to is just to be stripped of your rights in the party?
So we should send all the Paul alternate delegates to Tampa also.
Then we have the mittens bound delegates vote for Ron Paul in round 1.
They would then be stripped of their status.
Then replace them all alternate Ron Paul people for the second vote.
Could something like this work?

 

[mello]

How many caucus States are there for Ron to swipe delegates from?

 

[Agorism]

I doubt those alternates will even be present. Only reason they would be in Tampa would is if a delegate told their local GOP they couldn't attend weeks in advance.

Logistics of getting dozens of alternates their to save Romney would present problems for him if it does turn out that they can throw delegates out...

 

[Number19]

Well it all depends on the state too. Some states are 'bound' but only on the honor system, you can really vote for whoever you want. Like in Texas it's "proportionately bound" yet you can still vote whoever you want, the party doesn't hold you to those rules and tell you who to vote for in florida.

Are you certain of this? I've tried, not very hard, to get an answer to this question for some time and no one knows. The thing is, Texas has been winner take all, in the past. In 2008, each senatorial district voted on their delegates to national, all bound for McClain. But how has proportional delegation been set up? What I've been told, and I have no idea if this is correct, which is why I'm asking you, is that we chose our delegates just as in the past. The kicker is, on the first ballot at national, there will be no formal vote. We have so many delegates and each qualifying candidate will receive a percentage of the total delegates. Only on the second ballot will the delegates actually start voting personally. But thinking things through as I type, this is all new and will have to be voted on and approved at the state convention next month. What are your comments?

 

[kill the banks]

from another article :

But those delegates are required to vote for Romney, right?

Not so fast.

The Ron Paul campaign could actually ask those "disguised" Romney delegates to abstain during the first round of voting in Tampa.* If Romney did not win on the first ballot, those delegates would then become unbound and would be able to support Ron Paul.

In fact, Ronald Reagan considered using this tactic against Gerald Ford in 1976.* The following is from a 1976 article entitled "Reagan Forces May ‘Steal’ Ford Votes"....

“In secret strategy sessions, Reagan aides have toyed with the idea of asking delegates to abstain as long as their state laws require them to honor the primary verdicts.* This would prevent the President from riding up an early-ballot victory.* Then, in subsequent ballots, they could legally switch to Reagan.

Delegates have abstained from voting before.* Back in 2008, at least 14 delegates abstained from voting at the Republican national convention.

So what would happen if the Ron Paul campaign was able to get 100 or 150 "Romney delegates" to abstain from voting during the first ballot in Tampa?

That is a very intriguing question.

 

[PaulSoHard]

It's kind of absurd to punish a delegate for using his right to not vote. The rules simply say that every delegate is entitled to 1 and only 1 vote and if they are not present, an alternate will take their place.

I'm not fond of what you can do at the convention but during roll call can't you announce yourself as 'present' but decline to vote?

Reagan, I believe, asked his delegates to do the same thing when he was facing Gerald Ford. There were 14 delegates who did not vote 4 years ago, although it didn't matter. I believe Hillary Clinton was speculating on using this tactic as well last year, but for the sake of party unity, suspended the rules and had Obama nominated.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...RosAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FckEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3250,3313281

Read the 3rd paragraph and down to see Reagan's plot to 'steal' votes from Ford

 

[anarchy]

Paul’s forces are not bound to make it easy for Romney to coast to victory, as delegate selection expert Josh Putnam, a Davidson College political scientist, writes on his Frontloading HQ blog.

Paul’s highly organized campaign continues to amass what Mr. Putnam labels “stealth delegates” – delegates pledged to Romney, or one of the withdrawn GOP candidates – who are personally in favor of the libertarian congressman from Texas. It’s hard to determine how many such folks Paul has, or what they’ll do in Tampa.

For instance, what if Paul supporters who are bound to vote for Romney in the first round by state rules simply abstain from casting their ballots? That might keep Romney under the 1,144 votes he needs to win the nomination – even if he actually (sort of) has those votes in hand!

“This is a tricky maneuver, but not one that is prohibited by the Republican Party delegate selection rules,” writes Putnam in a lengthy post devoted to the ways Paul could make trouble for Romney.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...l-s-big-wins-in-Maine-and-Nevada-matter-video

 

[thoughtomator]

Clearly there is no point to casting pre-determined votes. The very fact that the delegates have votes to cast means they can make a choice.

 

[kill the banks]

FYI nice source http://www.rnclife.org/delegates/2012/pdf/2012-National-Delegate-Chart.pdf

 

[MozoVote]

Expect a delegation attempting the "mass abstention" route, to be ring-fenced by TSA black hats and dragged back into the alternates galley...

 

[rideurlightning]

I heard that in 2008 though delegates who abstained were replaced. Can anyone confirm?