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

[presence]

Full Text:

Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC
plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman,
several weeks before the convention:

"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."

And,

"The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice regardless of whether the person's name is officially placed into nomination or not."

Ben Swann:
The delegate process was designed to entrust a group of voters with the power to override the popular vote in each state in order to ensure that the best candidate is chosen. Republican and Democratic parties are not governement agencies. They are private organizations, so voting within a party is not bound by election law.

Time to swap signatures again... out with:

"Maybe Romney could Hire an Audience to Stimulate the Job Market"
​

on with:

Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC
plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman,
several weeks before the convention in 2008:
"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."
​

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/05/ben-...ates-are-free-agents-and-unbound-may-10-2012/
​

on with:

 

[carterm]

focus on nothing but delegates.

 

[EBounding]

This just seems too good to be true...so what's the purpose of a "binding" primary then? Is it just to give "direction" to the delegation? It seems like a typical primary is no different than a caucus straw poll. Can anyone explain?

 

[airborne373]

Ron Paul and family have been running and winning elections for a long time did anyone really think they did not have a strategy to compete for the prize?

Support your local delegate

 

[Suzu]

Motion
v.tr.
To direct by making a gesture: motioned us to our seats.
v.intr.
To signal by making a gesture: motioned to her to enter.

-American Heritage http://www.thefreedictionary.com/motion

Context is the determining factor, and in the case in question here, it was not the right word. Read the statement both ways and see which one fits. "Will" is normally used to signify an action that has not occurred, and isn't used alone in such cases.

 

[No Free Beer]

Can someone explain to me something:

If Romney hits 1144 before the convention, is he officially the nominee? Or does it go to a convention vote regardless?

 

[sailingaway]

Interesting stuff. A question for everyone - If 90% (or thereabouts) of GOP primary voters did not vote for Paul in the primaries, and Paul somehow manages to win the nomination through the parliamentary process at the RNC, how do you feel the average voter will react? Will they suddenly rally around Paul as the nominee, or will they reject him? Will the RNC support the candidate financially? Will large scale donors who give to the Presidential campaign and the PACS fork over the cash? What about the media types (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, etc) will they help Paul or work to discredit him?

\

About the same way Nevada felt in 2008 when its vote was suddenly for 'McCain' when it had definitively voted against McCain, Romney had dropped out, and his delegates were voting to send Ron Paul delegates to the RNC before the lights were turned out.

The RNC regularly swaps out the popular vote for the establishment favorite, or they would never have 'votes by acclaim' and we would actually be able to change the direction of the GOP at our BUSINESS MEETING, the RNC.

Why on earth do you think these rules we are using exist?

They weren't created to help US, I assure you.

In fact, in the South where the 'consensus fall back candidate' would have been ANYONE BUT Romney, they pushed proportional delegate rules. In the Northern states (ND ID) where Romney had voter blocks he could count on but wasn't the most popular (Ron was) they instituted 'fall back' voting so the lowest vote getter was knocked out until you got to the 'fall back' candidates. They rigged the vote, and in ND they overturned it themselves by giving the delegates to Romney with major dirty tricks (because Santa actually got the fall back vote). So only where they want the result of the vote to stand, it is suddenly sacrosanct, and they break every rule in sight and push fake slates and obstruct process to get their way.

I am for a better system, but if there were one we over time would not be in the bind we are in. They made the rules, I think we are entitled to use them.

As they say, they are a private club and able to make their rules. As the courts say, so long as they follow them.

 

[matt0611]

Can someone explain to me something:

If Romney hits 1144 before the convention, is he officially the nominee? Or does it go to a convention vote regardless?

I'm no expert, but yeah they still vote since they did votes in 2008 when McCain won.

 

[tbone717]

Can someone explain to me something:

If Romney hits 1144 before the convention, is he officially the nominee? Or does it go to a convention vote regardless?

The vote is essentially a formality at that point. There is a roll call of the states, which is done alphabetically. Typically, what will occur is that the total will build until it is just shy of the number of votes that will put the nominee over the top, at that point all other states will "pass" so that the nominee's home state can be the state that puts him over the top.

If you recall the roll call from 2008, AZ passed (they were 4th alphabetically), the remaining states announced their votes until it came to NE (which would have put McCain over the top), all remaining states passed allowing AZ to announce their votes.

 

[JK/SEA]

Candidates have to reach 1144 DURING the convention. Each State announces the tally of delegates who have given their vote to a particular candidate...for example:...Mr. Chairman...Mr. Chairman..Washington State allocates ALL 43 delegates to the next President of the United States...RON PAUL!....

I liked typing that.

 

[sailingaway]

Can someone explain to me something:

If Romney hits 1144 before the convention, is he officially the nominee? Or does it go to a convention vote regardless?

It goes to vote. But he will claim having it when he doesn't have those delegates BOUND because the AP estimate is still as optimistic for him (and Santa and Grinch) as they can possibly make it

 

[wgadget]

omg, this is MAJOR !!
if this holds, those Paul supporter delegates in say Mass. or NV, could just vote for Paul on the FIRST round itself !!!
now it makes sense - i was wondering why bother about some Paul people getting the delegate positions in NV, since they would have to vote Romney on the first ballot.
why did the RNC legal counsel sent a threat letter that if too many Paul supporters are in the NV delegation, it might not be seated !!
THIS seems to be the reason, because it has happened in 2008 !!

omg, omg, i see light at the end of the tunnel !
Its the Liberty Train.

And why are some states making their delegates sign OATHS TO ROMNEY?

That is SO against Rule 11.

 

[robertwerden]

Here is why It is important to spread this to the general public:
In any situation where something happens that is not expected there is outrage by the opposition. Outrage leads to accusation of fraud, which makes the unexpected event seem illegal and unifies the opposition with more support.

We have an opportunity to make something happen that the general public is not expecting.
To prevent outrage, they need to expect it.

By thoroughly spreading the idea the Ron Paul supporters intend to gain enough delegates to deny Romney the nomination, the narrative in the media and the opposition will shift from us being sneaky, to our legitimate political strategy.
The whole idea that these things happen regularly, and it was to be expected makes it less of a shock to the nation when it happens, and is viewed more like it was a football game with a winner and loser determined by strategy, than the current narrative that we are somehow breaking the rules and cheaters.

The sooner the general public accepts the possibility that the Ron Paul delegates may win, the more powerful the win will be. The goal the GOP has of unifying around a candidate as the nominee has to be the narrative we set as our goal. When we show that we convinced delegates of Romney, Santorum and Gingrich to unify around Ron Paul to beat Obama, the GOP will have the unification victory they want to portray at the national convention. Even if the GOP knows they were beat, they will smile and say they knew it all along and allowed the delegate battle royal to play out as it did. And that is exactly what we want to happen in Tampa.

 

[tbone717]

Ok I watched this video again and did some research. What the RNC statement was referring to was a delegate by the name of Brian Jenkins from Utah. In 2008, as we know, Romney won the Utah primary and all 36 of the delegates. But Romney did drop out of the race on Feb 7. Since McCain was the presumptive nominee, and Romney was no longer in the race 35 of the 36 delegates were casting their votes for McCain. Mr. Jenkins objected to this, and wanted to cast his ballot for Romney, the winner of the UT primary. He was allowed to do so, because if the other 35 delegates forced (for lack of a better term) Jenkins to vote for McCain they would be imposing a "unit rule", which is prohibited under RNC rules. A "unit rule" means that the majority of delegates cannot impose their will on a minority of delegates within a state. Utah's delegates were all unbound at that point, since Romney withdrew from the race and released his delegates, but Jenkins was permitted under the rules to vote for Romney.

So the comments from the legal counsel of the RNC were in reference to this one situation regarding Jenkins. I do not think this applies to all delegates from all states under any circumstance and that delegates who are bound to Romney (who is still in the race) can decide they can vote for whomever they choose. Context is very important and I think what is occurring is that we are taking the RNC legal counsel statements out of context, and applying them to a situation that is not the same as the one that was being addressed in 2008.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Ok I watched this video again and did some research. What the RNC statement was referring to was a delegate by the name of Brian Jenkins from Utah. In 2008, as we know, Romney won the Utah primary and all 36 of the delegates. But Romney did drop out of the race on Feb 7. Since McCain was the presumptive nominee, and Romney was no longer in the race 35 of the 36 delegates were casting their votes for McCain. Mr. Jenkins objected to this, and wanted to cast his ballot for Romney, the winner of the UT primary. He was allowed to do so, because if the other 35 delegates forced (for lack of a better term) Jenkins to vote for McCain they would be imposing a "unit rule", which is prohibited under RNC rules. A "unit rule" means that the majority of delegates cannot impose their will on a minority of delegates within a state. Utah's delegates were all unbound at that point, since Romney withdrew from the race and released his delegates, but Jenkins was permitted under the rules to vote for Romney.

So the comments from the legal counsel of the RNC were in reference to this one situation regarding Jenkins. I do not think this applies to all delegates from all states under any circumstance and that delegates who are bound to Romney (who is still in the race) can decide they can vote for whomever they choose. Context is very important and I think what is occurring is that we are taking the RNC legal counsel statements out of context, and applying them to a situation that is not the same as the one that was being addressed in 2008.

Does the context matter when the statement is:

Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC
plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman,
several weeks before the convention:

"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."

And,

"The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice regardless of whether the person's name is officially placed into nomination or not."

 

[sailingaway]

Does the context matter when the statement is:

tbone seems to have something against Ron winning. Any time you raise the possibility Ron will win, he will raise the odds against it.

None of us think it is likely, but we like the fact that the possibility exists as a goal to fight for.

 

[tbone717]

tbone seems to have something against Ron winning. Any time you raise the possibility Ron will win, he will raise the odds against it.

None of us think it is likely, but we like the fact that the possibility exists as a goal to fight for.

I want him to win. That's why I have worked my ass off for the campaign over the last 5 years. But, I'm not grabbing at straws either thinking that somehow the entire primary process is going to be overturned because of a statement that was made concerning one delegate in Utah from 2008.

Paul can still block Romney from winning the nomination by winning the bulk of the remaining primaries, and thus securing the lion's share of bound delegates that remain. If he is able to do so, and Romney does not win on the first ballot, then it's a whole new ball game.

We do spend far too much time trying to find loopholes, and not enough time focusing on how we are going to get 50+ percent of the voters in the upcoming contests to cast their ballots for Paul.

 

[Titus]

Ok I watched this video again and did some research. What the RNC statement was referring to was a delegate by the name of Brian Jenkins from Utah. In 2008, as we know, Romney won the Utah primary and all 36 of the delegates. But Romney did drop out of the race on Feb 7. Since McCain was the presumptive nominee, and Romney was no longer in the race 35 of the 36 delegates were casting their votes for McCain. Mr. Jenkins objected to this, and wanted to cast his ballot for Romney, the winner of the UT primary. He was allowed to do so, because if the other 35 delegates forced (for lack of a better term) Jenkins to vote for McCain they would be imposing a "unit rule", which is prohibited under RNC rules. A "unit rule" means that the majority of delegates cannot impose their will on a minority of delegates within a state. Utah's delegates were all unbound at that point, since Romney withdrew from the race and released his delegates, but Jenkins was permitted under the rules to vote for Romney.

So the comments from the legal counsel of the RNC were in reference to this one situation regarding Jenkins. I do not think this applies to all delegates from all states under any circumstance and that delegates who are bound to Romney (who is still in the race) can decide they can vote for whomever they choose. Context is very important and I think what is occurring is that we are taking the RNC legal counsel statements out of context, and applying them to a situation that is not the same as the one that was being addressed in 2008.

T-bone, you are right that context does matter. However the RNC did not make any such comment limiting their interpretation to only 2008. Lawyers know when they are dealing with such a case and usually include something along the lines of this cannot be cited for any future case. Instead, the RNC added a poorly drafted (in my opinion) rule intent on using that rule. Unless the RNC drafts up another legal memo, the interpretation is the same. The key part is the portion of the reality check stating that the RNC does not recognize state binding. It did not have an exception regarding who is or is not still in the race.

If the RNC later passed a rule or wrote another memo, it could be interpreted differently. Of course, the closer it gets to the convention the more it looks like panicking from the RNC/Romney.

 

[tbone717]

Does the context matter when the statement is:

Quite possibly, because the delegate in question was unbound. Romney was not eligible for nomination (plurality of 5 states stuff, and he dropped out), but the delegate was allowed to cast his ballot for him because as Sheehan stated, ""The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice regardless of whether the person's name is officially placed into nomination or not."

It is the same reason that delegates were permitted to vote for Paul in 08 even though he was not placed into nomination.

Just trying to look at the context here, and see if it is applicable universally or not.

 

[sailingaway]

I want him to win. That's why I have worked my ass off for the campaign over the last 5 years. But, I'm not grabbing at straws either thinking that somehow the entire primary process is going to be overturned because of a statement that was made concerning one delegate in Utah from 2008.

Paul can still block Romney from winning the nomination by winning the bulk of the remaining primaries, and thus securing the lion's share of bound delegates that remain. If he is able to do so, and Romney does not win on the first ballot, then it's a whole new ball game.

We do spend far too much time trying to find loopholes, and not enough time focusing on how we are going to get 50+ percent of the voters in the upcoming contests to cast their ballots for Paul.

YOU seem to spend a lot of time researching AGAINST backdoors the party purposely planted in their rules for their own purposes.

If Romney has control, he will have control of the RNC interpretation. That is the reality of it imho.

But our goal has to be to get as many delegates there as we can.