RNC Rule 38

[ericthethe]

What about Rule 34?

If it exists. . .

You really want it applied to the RNC? Well, here's Ron Paul:

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Well, here is Ben Swann on the topic........

 

[economics102]

um, maybe the campaign knows this and wants us to shutup?

This is my view as well, and while Ben Swann is awesome, I feel like all this talk is not helping our under the radar strategy.

We're gathering delegates right now, and the popular narrative -- possibly also the truth -- is that even WE don't yet know what particular good having all these bound delegates will do for us.

The only potential upside to having this conversation right now is if it motivates more RP supporters to join the delegate fight. Otherwise, I think all we're doing is potentially helping the opposition.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Sharon Stone: "What are you going to do, charge me with smoking?" (VIDEO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFVbl7niUMs

 

[ClydeCoulter]

This is my view as well, and while Ben Swann is awesome, I feel like all this talk is not helping our under the radar strategy.

We're gathering delegates right now, and the popular narrative -- possibly also the truth -- is that even WE don't yet know what particular good having all these bound delegates will do for us.

The only potential upside to having this conversation right now is if it motivates more RP supporters to join the delegate fight. Otherwise, I think all we're doing is potentially helping the opposition.

I really doubt that our strategey is under anyones radar since last weekend, at least....

 

[Tyler_Durden]

Check out this DP Post:

We need clarification!

http://www.dailypaul.com/230881/urg...nd-delegates-being-unbound-based-on-rnc-rules

 

[Titus]

I've been facebooking with Ben Swann regarding this. The only one that Rule 38 should apply to is Idaho but we'll see. He has said it is other two states.

 

[robert9712000]

According to a post on dailypaul States get around the Unit Rule by making winner take all apply to all but 1 to 3 delegates,since not all the delegates are Applied to the winner of the Primary,the Unit Rule doesnt apply.,but if the 1 to 3 delegates are picked by a committee i would think the unit rule might be able to be applied in a challenge to a states allocation of its delegates.Heres the DP post

http://www.dailypaul.com/230881/urg...nd-delegates-being-unbound-based-on-rnc-rules


Urgent : Ben Swann And Matt Larson Are Wrong About RULE 38 And Delegates Being Unbound Based On RNC Rules
Submitted by Neverquit on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 13:03
in

Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Just please for the love of God listen and read carefully, this is important.

The talk about rule 38 being in conflict of rule 15 IS INCORRECT.

Rule 38 pertains to the Unit Rule which states very clearly :

No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.

----------------

To debate this rule you must first understand what the UNIT RULE IS

This is defined very clearly in your state bylaws as well as the meriam websters dictionary. UNIT RULE MEANS : :

A rule under which a delegation to a national political convention casts its entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote.

The key word here is ENTIRE :

The states get around this rule by not binding the ENTIRE group of delegates, they always have at least 1 delegate unbound and it is usually 3 unbound delegates. So they are not enforcing a UNIT RULE in any way.

Therefore; rule 38 does not apply to the argument.

If the delegates are going to be succesful at the convention it is important that they are getting the proper information on the rules as they are written.

Now please stop with rule 38 because Ben Swann is incorrect as are most people pushing this agenda.

You need to be looking at abstaining and what your state bylaws state about abstaining.

 

[soulcyon]

Just one clarification, why are delegates allowed to be "bounded" if Rule 38 makes "binding delegates" a meaningless process?

I'm pretty sure the unit rule reads like this: "all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who wins the state's popular vote"

So the super-delegates in some the winner-take-all states are not bound, which means the rest of the "bound delegates" are legally bound regardless of Rule 38. I believe there are some states which bind super-delegates as well, and we may be able to fight to unbind them. However "binding delegates" is a valid process, may it be winner-take-all or proportional.

We should be more focused on abstaining votes, not Rule 38 T_T.

edit: oh lol, robert9712000 beat me to it


We can use Rule 38 to jump on state bindings in New Jersey, Texas, Mississippi, Mass and some other states.

source: http://www.dailypaul.com/229263/bound-delegates-cannot-abstain

 

[zeloc]

Just one clarification, why are delegates allowed to be "bounded" if Rule 38 makes "binding delegates" a meaningless process?

I'm pretty sure the unit rule reads like this: "all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who wins the state's popular vote"

So the super-delegates in some the winner-take-all states are not bound, which means the rest of the "bound delegates" are legally bound regardless of Rule 38. I believe there are some states which bind super-delegates as well, and we may be able to fight to unbind them. However "binding delegates" is a valid process, may it be winner-take-all or proportional.

We should be more focused on abstaining votes, not Rule 38 T_T.

edit: oh lol, robert9712000 beat me to it


We can use Rule 38 to jump on state bindings in New Jersey, Texas, Mississippi, Mass and some other states.

source: http://www.dailypaul.com/229263/bound-delegates-cannot-abstain

Titus explained this on the first page, does no one read threads?

What are the rules on abstaining?

 

[Channing]

This rule is why every state has unbound superdelegates.

No true, according to this source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 ) not all states have unbound superdelegates.

So, even if we assume that rule 38 can be circumvented by having a few unbound delegates from a state (such as the party leaders), there are at least several states which do bind *all* delegates and are "winner take all".

These are:
Florida, Arizona, Idaho, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, & Utah

For a total of 255 delegates from those states

Since these are all states with votes for Romney this means he could get a lot less votes than is generally assumed.