Reality Check: Why all RNC delegates are 'Free Agents' and unbound

[DamianTV]

All right. I went back and forth on it.

Thank you! Its on the Front Page now!

I think it is important that if a Bound (edit) McCain Delegate was allowed to vote for Romney in 2008, ALL of our Bound Delegates should also be allowed to vote for Ron Paul in 2012! And since obviously we can by the RNC's own Legal Council's statements and the RNC's rules, we arent asking for Permission, we are telling them that we WILL give Ron Paul the Republican Nomination! The Power to make Ron Paul President is in the Hands of our Delegates! They have to vote by their Conscious! They will be able to vote for Ron Paul!

 

[EBounding]

We really need to temper our expectations with this and learn more. Even the official campaign (in my state) isn't sure. I just can't imagine it's good to sign an affidavit and then do the opposite of what you said you would do under oath.

 

[stuka]

Isn't that extortion?

It seems like it to me, but I'm not a delegate to the national convention. I'll ask our meetup if any of them are or know a lawyer who can look into it further.

 

[tbone717]

I think it is important that if a Bound Gingrich Delegate was allowed to vote for Romney in 2008, ALL of our Bound Delegates should also be allowed to vote for Ron Paul in 2012! And since obviously we can by the RNC's own Legal Council's statements and the RNC's rules, we arent asking for Permission, we are telling them that we WILL give Ron Paul the Republican Nomination! The Power to make Ron Paul President is in the Hands of our Delegates! They have to vote by their Conscious! They will be able to vote for Ron Paul!

I am assuming you meant to say McCain instead of Gingrich.

Nonetheless, the Utah delegate was originally bound to Romney and then was unbound due to Romney dropping out. Even though the rest of the delegation voted for McCain, the delegate (and one other I believe) still cast their ballot for Romney even though Romney was not nominated from the floor.

The situation that UT delegates faced is identical that GA in 2012. Even though they are bound to Gingrich by virtue of the primary vote, they will be able to vote for which every candidate they wish since Gingrich will not be nominated from the floor. So those GA delegates can still vote for Gingrich or whichever candidate they choose. The GA delegation cannot impose the will of the majority of delegates onto all delegates because that would be a violation of Rule 38, since imposition of the majority over the minority constitutes a "unit rule" which is forbidden under RNC rules.

 

[DamianTV]

Thx. Fixed.

 

[anaconda]

the RNC does not recognize state binding.

But could the state party officials at the convention force binding of their own respective states?

 

[DamianTV]

Then we replace the officials.

 

[tbone717]

But could the state party officials at the convention force binding of their own respective states?

Correct. Most states have binding of delegates in their state rules and the RNC has paragraphs in their national rules regarding binding. The two sentences that are being quoted in the Swann video are from a letter written to the Utah delegation in 2008.

While we do not have the full text of the letter, we do have the context (which is clarified by the original article where the quotes come from). Utah's delegates were bound to Romney by virtue of the primary vote, Romney had dropped out and was not going to be placed into nomination from the floor. Based upon that circumstance, the RNC did not recognize the binding of the delegates and the delegates were free to vote for whomever they wish, even if that persons name was not placed up for nomination. The very same circumstance exists today for states like GA where the delegation is bound to Gingrich. Gingrich will not be nominated from the floor, therefore the RNC does not recognize their binding, so the delegates can vote for whomever they choose. For those of us that have studied the RNC and state rules we already knew this.

Does these two sentences from this letter mean that every delegate, from every state is unbound regardless of the circumstance? I do not think so. In fact I am 99.99999% sure of it, because if it did then why would both the RNC and the state parties all have numerous paragraphs in their rules concerning binding?

What does this mean for RP supporters? It means we are in the same position that we were before this video was released and created all this confusion. RP needs to win primaries, so that Romney does not accumulate enough bound delegates to put him over the top. RP supporters need to win delegate slots at state conventions so that if Romney does not reach 1144 on the first ballot that we have a strong representation for a second ballot. And finally, RP supporters need to win as many delegate slots as possible so that if Romney does win the nomination outright, we can have the greatest amount of influence at the RNC that is possible.

 

[tuggy24g]

I think since we all know this rules we should make sure that all Ron Paul supports make a stink about it and make sure they only vote for Ron Paul. We have a lot of Ron Paul delegates that are bound to another candidate according to state voting. Well we have to make the GOP fallow the rules they made and keep voting for Ron Paul. That way we can hopefully have Romney not have the 1144 delegates to win on the first ballot.

Another suggestion is to make up a nice rules list of the rules to everyone going into the convention or try to get all the Ron Paul delegates to meet a day before the convention to discuss a plain on what to do before we can in there. That way we are prepared and not just going in with are own agenda.

 

[sailingaway]

But could the state party officials at the convention force binding of their own respective states?

Brian Doherty wrote up a contrary view of this based on 2008 rules implemented shortly after this letter was sent out. I don't know where the current, 2010 rules stand on this.

It definitely is an argument, because this rule is still on the books, but as a practical matter unless we control the majority of delegates, either alone or in coalition, I cynically doubt our interpretation will be the one the RNC adopts.

It all comes back to that what we need to do now is focus on collecting delegates and getting Ron that money he needs to fund his multistate delegate operations. The more delegates we have, the more we can do. This point only counters ONE of the of stated 'reasons Ron can't win', there is still the matter of stopping Romney from having 1144 delegates who will actually vote for him on the first ballot. And for that, I really think we need outreach to other conservatives to make the case that a brokered convention is what they should be voting for, and that means it DOES make a difference that they vote, and that they vote for Paul, because as the only one still in the campaign, he is the only one that can use the vote to actually keep delegates from Romney.

All the delegates for the other candidates, even though they just suspended, will be given to Romney because they endorsed him. Look what happened to NH and Huntsman's delegate. The other candidates will not only fail to resist this, they will agree to it.

 

[tbone717]

All the delegates for the other candidates, even though they just suspended, will be given to Romney because they endorsed him. Look what happened to NH and Huntsman's delegate. The other candidates will not only fail to resist this, they will agree to it.

Correct. If you total the bound delegates for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman it exceeds 1144. The good news is that 366 of those will be unbound delegates (Santorum, plus Gingrich, plus Huntsman). So if Paul is able to stop Romney in his tracks, and Romney does not win any more (or very few) bound delegates in the upcoming primaries, then we could have two candidates (Romney and Paul) walk into Tampa with around 800 bound delegates a piece. At that point it is anyone's game and the Santorum, Newt & Huntsman delegates will need to make a decision whether to vote for Paul or Romney.

 

[sailingaway]

Correct. If you total the bound delegates for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman it exceeds 1144. The good news is that 366 of those will be unbound delegates (Santorum, plus Gingrich, plus Huntsman). So if Paul is able to stop Romney in his tracks, and Romney does not win any more (or very few) bound delegates in the upcoming primaries, then we could have two candidates (Romney and Paul) walk into Tampa with around 800 bound delegates a piece. At that point it is anyone's game and the Santorum, Newt & Huntsman delegates will need to make a decision whether to vote for Paul or Romney.

Or to put it from the perspective of OTHER conservatives who we want to woo to this mindset -- whomever wins at that point will need them. They will have leverage.

If Romney goes to convention with first ballot strength, he doesn't need them at all, realistically.

 

[tbone717]

Or to put it from the perspective of OTHER conservatives who we want to woo to this mindset -- whomever wins at that point will need them. They will have leverage.

If Romney goes to convention with first ballot strength, he doesn't need them at all, realistically.

Exactly. If Romney sweeps the remaining bound delegates he won't need any of the unbounds. Which is why he has to be stopped in his tracks. Those released delegates could very well hold all the power at the RNC depending on how the numbers shake out. It is not mathematically possible for Paul to go into Tampa with 1144 bound at this point, so it would have to be won on the floor by persuading the unbounds to support him. Winning the remaining 11 states (or the large majority of them) will go a long way at making the case for him.

 

[jay_dub]

Correct. Most states have binding of delegates in their state rules and the RNC has paragraphs in their national rules regarding binding. The two sentences that are being quoted in the Swann video are from a letter written to the Utah delegation in 2008.

While we do not have the full text of the letter, we do have the context (which is clarified by the original article where the quotes come from). Utah's delegates were bound to Romney by virtue of the primary vote, Romney had dropped out and was not going to be placed into nomination from the floor. Based upon that circumstance, the RNC did not recognize the binding of the delegates and the delegates were free to vote for whomever they wish, even if that persons name was not placed up for nomination. The very same circumstance exists today for states like GA where the delegation is bound to Gingrich. Gingrich will not be nominated from the floor, therefore the RNC does not recognize their binding, so the delegates can vote for whomever they choose. For those of us that have studied the RNC and state rules we already knew this.

Does these two sentences from this letter mean that every delegate, from every state is unbound regardless of the circumstance? I do not think so. In fact I am 99.99999% sure of it, because if it did then why would both the RNC and the state parties all have numerous paragraphs in their rules concerning binding?

What does this mean for RP supporters? It means we are in the same position that we were before this video was released and created all this confusion. RP needs to win primaries, so that Romney does not accumulate enough bound delegates to put him over the top. RP supporters need to win delegate slots at state conventions so that if Romney does not reach 1144 on the first ballot that we have a strong representation for a second ballot. And finally, RP supporters need to win as many delegate slots as possible so that if Romney does win the nomination outright, we can have the greatest amount of influence at the RNC that is possible.

What you're saying both does and does not make sense. The pertinent rule on delegate selection is rule 15, which would support your claim. However, the letter from the Legal Council (at least the excerpt we've seen) is very clear in what it says.

Also, in just looking at what''s happened on the ground, it seems the Romney camp is far more worried than they should be if you are correct. Assuming you are correct, it would make sense for Romney to let Ron Paul accumulate delegates as he has been doing, since it would be of little consequence and would go a long way in staving off bad feelings from RP supporters. I mean, we really can't complain if we lose in a fair and transparent process. It Romney is concerned about unity, he would let the process go on without hindering or disrupting it. But that's not what we're seeing, which gives weight to the Legal Council's letter IMO. You can bet that Romney's legal team has already looked at this and the campaign's actions probably reflect their opinion.

Bottom line to me is that, even if no delegate is bound, we don't have it locked up and still have much work to do. We should assume nothing, but we still have a lot to be happy about with Ron's successes. He is still in it and we now have practical political reasons to use in winning people over.

PDF of RNC rules.

http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf

 

[tbone717]

What you're saying both does and does not make sense. The pertinent rule on delegate selection is rule 15, which would support your claim. However, the letter from the Legal Council (at least the excerpt we've seen) is very clear in what it says.

It is not clear because we do not have the whole letter. We have two sentences from it, and we have the context of the situation. This letter was not sent out to every state delegation but was sent to one state. That state had delegates who were bound to Romney, but Romney dropped out and the delegates were therefore unbound. When you read the quotes in that context it makes perfect sense. The UT delegates were bound to Romney, but since Romney dropped out the RNC did not recognize their binding, and delegates could vote for whomever they chose (including Romney) because they were considered free agents since they were now unbound.

It makes no logical sense for the RNC to say they do not recognize binding, but then have sections of their rules that specifically refer to binding. What does make logical sense is that the RNC would state that they do not recognize the binding of the UT delegates in 2008 to Romney because he withdrew from the race. If you read the original article where these statements were quoted, it makes sense in that context, because in the original article it was referring to the situation that UT faced in 2008, which is similar to the situation that GA will face in 2012.

Essentially, you cannot pull two quotes from a letter and call it gospel. The sentences that proceeded and follow those pulled quotes would clarify the meaning of the statements. As would the original letter from UT to the RNC (if there was one). They very well might have been asking for clarification of the rules, since their delegates were bound to Romney, but Romney dropped out.

I'll stand by my statement that I am 99.9999% sure that the delegates bound to Romney and Paul in 2012 will be voting for Romney and Paul on the first ballot. Unbound delegates and delegates that have been released (ie Santorum and Newt's) will be free to vote for whomever they choose. But we knew that all along, so there really is no change in things.

So basically, we are at the same position we were before this video was released and consumed so much of our time and energy. We need to win primaries, we need to win delegate slots at state conventions. There is no difference today as there was two days ago. If Paul can win states, then we can have a chance at this at the convention.

 

[BenMuldowney]

i think it is important to look at this from a state perspective versus a national one. it is the state gop that has the binding rules and the $1,000 fine. why would they have a fine? if a delegate couldn't vote their conscience at the national... there is no need for this?

 

[dancjm]

It is not clear because we do not have the whole letter. We have two sentences from it, and we have the context of the situation.

The language in those sentences is pretty unequivocal.

"The RNC does not recognize a states binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose."

That's a pretty closed statement.

 

[Terry1]

Yeeeeeeeeeeooooooooow!!!! Ron Paul...our new nominee!! Ahhhhhhh...I'm so excited...sorry folks...had to do this after I saw the video... You're all awsome!! I know the fight ain't over yet, but this is reason to celebrate for me.

 

[BenMuldowney]

right... because the rnc is not an enforcer of state party rules.

 

[jay_dub]

i think it is important to look at this from a state perspective versus a national one. it is the state gop that has the binding rules and the $10,000 fine. why would they have a fine? if a delegate couldn't vote their conscience at the national... there is no need for this?

that would also make sense regarding the rnc's lawyer's statement about free agents. the national is not the enforcer of the state rules... because the states differ on binding. so if a delegate breaks the binding rule of a state then it is up to the state to punish the rule breaker? thus we have the $10,000 fine. there is only one problem with this... the state gop has no authority to collect. remember the state atty general in maine (i think it was), had no say in the local gop's cheating... it was a private matter.

so bottom line, a delegate is free to vote their conscience in tampa and the rnc has no standing on the matter. the state gop does have rules and can fine the offenders $10,000 but has no authority to collect.

What I bolded is another good example. I think the actions of the party are just as (or maybe more) revealing than simply reading the rules. The Romney camp is too worried about RP for him not to have a better chance than is being let on.