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

I have a few questions. I'm slower than 90% of you when it comes to this stuff so forgive me for my ignorance.

1. If the delegates are not bound to any candidate, why do we always hear "this many delegates are bound to this candidate" over and over again since the beginning of the primaries.

2. On top of hearing that all the time, when Romney wins states like Florida where it's winner take all, those 50 delegates that are "bound to Romney" are actually not bound and can vote for Paul? The whole Nevada thing and similar states too....we keep hearing that "20 delegates are bound to Romney on the first ballot".

3. In the RNC rules, why do they continue to talk about bound delegates but then they say "the delegates are free agents and can vote for whoever they want."

Doesn't make sense to me....so many contradicting statements.
 
It's a mess, and my personal opinion is that whomever controls the credentials committee and the vote at the convention will control the interpretation, and the other side will only have an 'argument'.

But that in turn goes to getting as many delegates there as possible, bound, unbound, regardless, since they can vote on other things, like rules etc. We'd need a ton.

But since when have long odds slowed us down?

We wouldn't have done as well as we have ALREADY done if we had listened to media about who had won what states, now would we have?
 
Last edited:
Has anyone been able to find the entire text of the letter from Jennifer Sheehan to Nancy Lord that this quote is pulled from? I have not been able to find it doing some searching, but wasn't sure if it has been posted elsewhere.
 
I want him to win.

bullshit.gif
 
Has anyone been able to find the entire text of the letter from Jennifer Sheehan to Nancy Lord that this quote is pulled from? I have not been able to find it doing some searching, but wasn't sure if it has been posted elsewhere.
This seems to be the source of reporting:

http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/

Quoted in full:

Mr. Jenkins Goes to St. Paul
January 30, 2009 – 10:20 pm

Brian Jenkins, who challenged Orrin Hatch for the Republican nomination as candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006 and ran for the Republican nomination as candidate for Congress in the 2nd Congressional District in 2008, gives the following account of his experience last year as a Utah delegate to the Republican National Convention at which Senator John McCain received the Republican nomination for President:

Brian Jenkins of Saratoga Springs was elected at the May 10, 2008, GOP State Convention to serve as a delegate to the GOP National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, held September 1 – 4, 2008. Brian attended the convention with hopes of participating in a thoughtful, deliberative assembly, but instead was assaulted with a school yard bullying lesson in hardball politics bordering on the unethical.

A party rule, in place at the time of his election, said that Brian’s first-round vote was to be cast for the winner of the Presidential Primary Election held on February 5, 2008. Mitt Romney won that election with a landslide 265,000 first-place votes (90%). John McCain received 16,000 first-place votes, and Ron Paul 9,000 first-place votes. The ballot did not allow voters to express a second preference.

Mitt Romney quit the presidential race in late February, however, and the party rule did not address how national delegates should cast their first-round votes in such a case. At the Utah State Convention party leaders asked delegates if they would like to unbind Utah’s National Delegates. The delegates said, “No.” Unwilling to abide the will of the delegates they did an end run, called a meeting of the State Central Committee and and passed a rule such that Utah’s national delegates were now bound to vote for John McCain in the first round.

Never mind the fact that the presidential preference primary did not allow voters to express a second preference.

And never mind the fact that 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.”

Wednesday came. Brian had told the president of the the Utah delegation (Jon Huntsman) he wanted his vote recorded correctly–not simply cast for McCain against his will. The president did not help. The Republican Party Chairman did not help. The time for the roll call vote drew near. Brian Jenkins brought the convention sergeant-at-arms and a security officer under the sergeant’s direction, and Stan Lockhart, Utah’s Republican Party Chairman, together for a conversation.

“This man would like to make sure his vote is recorded correctly,” said the sergeant at arms to Chairman Lockhart.

“I am instructed to remove anyone from the floor who votes contrary to the Utah State Central Committee’s instructions,” replied Stan.

Brian looked at the Sergeant-at-arms and said “The meeting where the State Central Committee ruled Utah delegates must vote for McCain was illegal. And the RNC specifies that delegates may vote for whomever they wish.” Then he instructed the Sergeant-at-arms, “Please check and see if Stan can remove me from the floor under these circumstances.”

The sergeant-at-arms told Brian to remain where he was, and that he would look into the matter. Neither he nor his assistant returned.

However, shortly thereafter, Ivan Dubois, an employee of the Utah Republican Party, polled Brian and several other national delegates as to whom they wished to vote for. Brian, a Ron Paul supporter, directed Ivan to cast his vote for Mitt Romney because the party rule in place at the time of the primary required delegates to vote for Utah’s first-place selection in the presidential primary. Thus, his vote was cast for Mitt Romney instead of Ron Paul (whom he intended to support, but did not for fear of being removed from the floor of the convention).

Requiring national delegates to vote according to the results of a primary makes Utah more democratic and less of a republic. Democracies are surprisingly ineffective types of government with short, violent lives and unable to safeguard its citizens’ rights. But worse than a democracy is an oligarchy, which is the government under the control of a party with its few leaders. That is what we see manifest when Utahns vote one way and party leaders force something different. In Utah, controlling the Republican party is almost like choosing Utah’s senators and congressmen and governor.

The founders intended that American citizens would select delegates who would spend more time than they might normally spend selecting the ideal candidate. In Utah, a candidate that won 5% of Utah’s popular vote received a nearly unanimous vote from Utah’s national delegates. Because Utah and many states no longer allow their delegates to operate as intended and use their best judgment based on current information, (who should I vote for now that Romney has withdrawn) Brian was not able to spend convention time exploring candidate commitment to principles of proper government (so who is Sarah Palin anyway) but was instead forced to seek the assistance of security to make sure his vote was recorded as he wanted. It is why many Ron Paul delegates from various states voted contrary to their best judgment at the national convention and most of the Utah delegation voted contrary to Utah’s delegates’ wishes. We simply let our party leadership cast our vote for us. It is why not all of Utah’s National Delegates were ever asked whom they were voting for.

Brian believes free elections are a foundational element of a free society and they are jeopardized in Utah and throughout the U.S. Brian believes it is a tragic irony that while America is fighting to insure free elections abroad they are slipping through our fingers at home.
 
I never projected that as likely and you know it. The point is your entire reason for being here seems to be to get people to NOT get excited. People need motivation and you drain it, chronically.

In other news, I've seen someone by the name of Tbone posting some very neocon statements on other websites, none that I can scrounge up right now. Just something that caught my eye.
 
To answer moraha's questions: STATIST MEDIA PROPAGANDA NARRATIVE

The stupid American people will believe anything they're told. And ya know what else? Those RNC rules are ARCANE. :D
 
This seems to be the source of reporting:

http://utahcountygop.com/blog/mr-jenkins-goes-to-st-paul/

Quoted in full:

Thanks. That is where I found the two quoted sentences at their earliest publishing.

What I am curious about is the rest of the letter since the pulled quote is only two sentences of the letter. The full text of the letter should give us a better understanding what the quoted text refers to. As someone said earlier it would be conflicting if the RNC does not recognize binding (as some are concluding these two sentences to refer to) but yet the RNC rules have sections on binding and mentions it numerous times in the rules.

So if the letter read "With regard to your present situation in Utah...." then the quotes by Sheehan would have a far different meaning than if they were proceeded by "Regardless of the RNC rules, the legal counsel holds that..."
 
In other news, I've seen someone by the name of Tbone posting some very neocon statements on other websites, none that I can scrounge up right now. Just something that caught my eye.

Sorry but I do not have exclusive rights over the screename "Tbone".
 
So did Brian sign a sworn affidavit saying he would vote for McCain, even though he wanted to vote Romney/Ron Paul? It doesn't sound like he did.

To me, it sounds like delegates can vote whoever they want and are unbound regardless of the state party's rules. However, party rules are one thing and the law is another. If you sign an affidavit saying you're going to vote based on the majority primary vote or something, then you are bound by that affidavit and must vote the way you stated in the affidavit (regardless of who you actually want to vote for).
 
Last edited:
How many states don't require people to sign affidavits of support to be a national delegate? It seems it's only in those states where Swann's argument holds up.
 
How many states don't require people to sign affidavits of support to be a national delegate? It seems it's only in those states where Swann's argument holds up.

Is it the case that ANY delegates HAVE to sign an affidavit?
 
Badly. The voters will feel disenfarnchised. It also sinks the ship for 2016. So if we're going to go for it we need to go all in.

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?
 
To answer moraha's questions: STATIST MEDIA PROPAGANDA NARRATIVE

The stupid American people will believe anything they're told. And ya know what else? Those RNC rules are ARCANE. :D

If the RNC has 2 rules that contradict each other, how can we get them to follow the rule that benefits us (not requiring delegates to be bound)? That's where I'm stuck. Everyone is saying "we will win....no delegates are bound"...but how can we get the RNC to actually go that way, when they have another rule saying "bound delegates must vote for the cadidate they're bound to on the first ballot."
 
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?

Badly. The voters will feel disenfranchised. It also sinks the ship for 2016. So if we're going to go for it we need to go all in.

I think if we can show the voters that they were duped by the MSM and show that the issue was that Ron Paul is not the MEDIA's choice, and therefore the voters were duped, then maybe we will get and even stronger basis of support. But this goes back to the Doug Wead SEO request to get the message out and to get us all saying the same message.

Look Ron Paul did very well in the beginning in the debates, in Iowa, and in Maine; but the MEDIA downplayed his results and shaped the voters opinion - with the ignoring, dismissal at his chances, and unrelenting mocking - to lead everyone away from what their corporate owners felt was a threat. If voters really knew Ron Paul, they would know he very much IS the popular choice.

The dedicated people who have taken the time to learn and know Ron Paul and his policies and positions are playing the GOP delegate game for all the other voters, so they will be able to see that the media has been deceiving them, and Ron Paul really IS the popular choice.

I think once the media type see that their only choice is Paul, they despise Obama enough they will support Paul, begrudgingly.
 
Isn't that a good thing? Don't we want to be challenged? Don't we want somone to play devils advocate? If we didn't have him bringing up these points they would never get talked about. It'd be like the age old adage: Preaching to the Choir.

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.
 
Back
Top