Rule 38, the "Abstain" vote, and the Ron Paul Campaign

[maxoutco]

If you are not a believer of the abstain vote or the Rule 38 unbound rule, then I guess you would have to call it quits. What I don't understand about all this is Doug Wead in his last webinar stated that he didn't know about rule 38 and said he had to look into it.

Where?!? is the campaign at when the RP boards are blowing up with great news about a recent find in the rules that lands in our favor? Ben Swann even was all over it. All Doug indicated to was that they were getting threats from playing spoiler. Well, it's amazing what happens when votes really do count, and if the delegates so chooses to vote this way then so be it. There will always be sore losers in life.

 

[smartguy911]

I don't think campaign wants to get a bad label. Therefore, they are not going to tell the delegates what to do or what rule to follow. It's up to delegates to get together and help Dr. Paul win the nomination no matter what.

 

[maxoutco]

I don't think campaign wants to get a bad label. Therefore, they are not going to tell the delegates what to do or what rule to follow. It's up to delegates to get together and help Dr. Paul win the nomination no matter what.

Then they should have stayed quiet instead of coming out accepting defeat. If they were on board with this, or understood it, then they would have kept quiet about it and let things happen.

I don't understand why the campaign thinks it needs to save face with the establishment GOP. I am not understanding it.

 

[millercards]

Well look at it this way.... if we rise up in Tampa and get him the win.... then the opinions will really start to fly. Everyone in America will then form an opinion of Ron Paul, and many will re-evaluate their current opinion if they had one.

At that point... if Ron Paul and his campaign were actively pursuing this 'free-agent delegate' theory, then he would quite possibly be villianized by most of the public, including the MSM for 'stealing' what wasn't his (probably how they'd spin it)

However, if it wasn't the campaign, but the grassroots that refused to be fed the status quo garbage candidates and fought the RNC and did in fact either abstain or vote against their binding... then it might be taken as a nice upset story. The 'People's Choice'. The underdog. Maybe this would be better than the former.

 

[maxoutco]

Well look at it this way.... if we rise up in Tampa and get him the win.... then the opinions will really start to fly. Everyone in America will then form an opinion of Ron Paul, and many will re-evaluate their current opinion if they had one.

At that point... if Ron Paul and his campaign were actively pursuing this 'free-agent delegate' theory, then he would quite possibly be villianized by most of the public, including the MSM for 'stealing' what wasn't his (probably how they'd spin it)

However, if it wasn't the campaign, but the grassroots that refused to be fed the status quo garbage candidates and fought the RNC and did in fact either abstain or vote against their binding... then it might be taken as a nice upset story. The 'People's Choice'. The underdog. Maybe this would be better than the former.

I'll restate what I said before. They should have never had an opinion one way or the other. Things should have been the way they were 3 days ago when grassroots was kicking ass and the campaign was watching with excitement but playing the blind eye approach.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

Well look at it this way.... if we rise up in Tampa and get him the win.... then the opinions will really start to fly. Everyone in America will then form an opinion of Ron Paul, and many will re-evaluate their current opinion if they had one.

At that point... if Ron Paul and his campaign were actively pursuing this 'free-agent delegate' theory, then he would quite possibly be villianized by most of the public, including the MSM for 'stealing' what wasn't his (probably how they'd spin it)

However, if it wasn't the campaign, but the grassroots that refused to be fed the status quo garbage candidates and fought the RNC and did in fact either abstain or vote against their binding... then it might be taken as a nice upset story. The 'People's Choice'. The underdog. Maybe this would be better than the former.

Great point. We win the delegate battle on our own and Ron gets "plausible deniability."

Obviously it's a long shot, but I see no reason to quit now. Ron won't endorse Romney because he's a big government RINO who'll continue to trash the Constitution. There is no reason to stop fighting. Yes, play by the rules and don't do obnoxious stuff that's going to alienate people unnecessarily, but if we believe in our cause then it makes no sense to tacitly endorse Romney by giving up early.

 

[MelissaCato]

Ron Paul 2012 !!

 

[tbone717]

The key to understanding Rule 38 is understanding what it forbids which is a "unit rule". A "unit rule" is where the delegation votes as one unit instead of each vote being cast individually and independent of one another. The "unit rule" was a practice that was somewhat common back in the days where the nomination was decided in the proverbial smoke filled rooms by party bosses.

Example:

A state has a delegation of 10 persons. They meet prior to the convention proceedings to caucus. 7 of the delegates vote for Smith, 3 of the delegates vote for Jones. They impose a "unit rule" and cast all 10 ballots on the convention floor for Smith.

This is prohibited under RNC Rule 38. Each vote must be an independent voice. Now this does not mean that a state cannot cast all 10 ballots for Smith, provided that all 10 delegates vote for Smith. This also does not prohibit binding, because binding simply determines the vote for the delegate based upon the primary results.

For example in 2012 Virginia, 43 delegates are bound to Romney, 3 delegates are bound to Paul, and there are 3 unbound "super" delegates. That delegation will caucus before going to the floor. The 43 will cast their votes for Romney because (regardless of their personal preference) the voters of their CD selected Romney. 3 will cast a ballot for Paul, and the remaining 3 who are unbound will vote for whomever they choose (for example's sake they vote for Paul). If the VA delegation then decided to cast all 49 votes for Romney, they would be imposing a "unit rule" thus nullifying the Paul votes. This would be a violation of Rule 38. Therefore, according to the rules they will cast 43 ballots for Romney and 6 for Paul.

I realize this is confusing to some, but if you do a little research on the rule and what it is preventing, it becomes much clearer.

 

[TomtheTinker]

Wonder how many members we could of got in the house with 30 million???

 

[millercards]

tbone....

As far as I can see, you are a very educated person. I've seen a lot of your posts as of late, and I've also seen the criticism about you being 'negative'.

I've been viewed as negative many times, because I'm a realist. It's to the point where I watch what I say and be careful how I say it so that I'm not viewed as a negative person.

What I want to propose to you is that you wait until the conventions are wrapped up before we get into rules for the delegates. It seems that they wrap up in July, so we'll have a whole month to prepare and discuss.

Until then, you might be hurting our cause to rack up the delegates. Let's just win as many as possible, and then we can figure out what to do with whatever number we have won.

That fair enough?

 

[tbone717]

tbone....

As far as I can see, you are a very educated person. I've seen a lot of your posts as of late, and I've also seen the criticism about you being 'negative'.

I've been viewed as negative many times, because I'm a realist. It's to the point where I watch what I say and be careful how I say it so that I'm not viewed as a negative person.

What I want to propose to you is that you wait until the conventions are wrapped up before we get into rules for the delegates. It seems that they wrap up in July, so we'll have a whole month to prepare and discuss.

Until then, you might be hurting our cause to rack up the delegates. Let's just win as many as possible, and then we can figure out what to do with whatever number we have won.

That fair enough?

Well honestly, I am tired of posting the same info over and over anyway. I think it is hurtful to the movement as a whole, and the long term health of it, for people to be misinformed and to have unrealistic expectations. The campaign announcement was very clear that delegates are bound to Romney and that there is no chance of stopping him from reaching 1144. They admit that, and it is good that they have, so that we can all be on the same page. The fight for delegates now is not a fight for the nomination, but a fight for influence. The more delegates we have on the floor in Tampa, the greater our influence will be. This is a long term plan, hell Paul has said that so many times I cannot count them, so anyone getting involved in this from the start should be aware of that. We may not have been able to win the nomination this time, but considering it was an uphill battle, we have done pretty damn good.

Personally, I think it is very refreshing to see the statement from the campaign today because it sets out a very specific plan of action. Win delegate slots so that we can have influence and prepare for the future.

But to answer your post, yeah I am honestly tired of posting the same info ad nauseum. If people want to figure out the answers to their questions, they can do the leg work.

 

[No Free Beer]

I am sorry for what I am about to say, but...

if we went through all this work and donated all this money to not do anything about it, with regards to delegates, why did Ron even run in the first place?

If you are a delegate, I WANT YOU raise havoc and abstain until the second round.

This is on us now, not the campaign.

 

[DGambler]

In my mind, if the campaign doesn't think they can win, then the delegates SHOULD abstain (loudly) in the first round of voting and force the GOP to seat alternates (if that is their interpretation of the rules), force their hand.

I think there will be a lot of pissed off delegates in Tampa come August (starting yesterday to the convention, the anger is just going to simmer without an outlet), should make for an interesting time.

 

[JJ2]

What happens if the alternates are Ron Paul supporters who will also abstain on the first ballot? Then what will they do?

 

[Agorism]

Has Benton announced that he thinks all the Ron Paul delegates should vote Romney yet?

 

[tbone717]

In my mind, if the campaign doesn't think they can win, then the delegates SHOULD abstain (loudly) in the first round of voting and force the GOP to seat alternates (if that is their interpretation of the rules), force their hand.

What happens if the alternates are Ron Paul supporters who will also abstain on the first ballot? Then what will they do?

Delegates do not vote directly from the floor. At some point during the convention, but prior to the roll call of states, the state delegation meets together to discuss the proceedings, etc. At that point the individual votes are recorded, which in most states they are already determined by binding. If someone objects or wishes to abstain at that point, the general rule (as state rules do vary) is that they would be replaced by an alternate that is able to fulfill their duty.

Now I am not sure how early in the convention this meeting of delegates takes place, but it very well could be prior to the delegates having an opportunity to vote on the platform and other issues that they are there to vote on. If a RP supporter is replaced by a Romney supporter, that lessens the influence we will have with regards to other issues that are voted on.

People are free of course to decide whether or not they wish to abstain and should check their state rules and weigh the consequences.

 

[jonruh52]

Delegates do not vote directly from the floor. At some point during the convention, but prior to the roll call of states, the state delegation meets together to discuss the proceedings, etc. At that point the individual votes are recorded, which in most states they are already determined by binding. If someone objects or wishes to abstain at that point, the general rule (as state rules do vary) is that they would be replaced by an alternate that is able to fulfill their duty.

Now I am not sure how early in the convention this meeting of delegates takes place, but it very well could be prior to the delegates having an opportunity to vote on the platform and other issues that they are there to vote on. If a RP supporter is replaced by a Romney supporter, that lessens the influence we will have with regards to other issues that are voted on.

People are free of course to decide whether or not they wish to abstain and should check their state rules and weigh the consequences.

I see all you're saying here, and you say it over and over, but this conflicts with what the RNC has said and what has happened in the past. What does this statement mean then? '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.'” The RNC said that. Were they lying? Why would they say that and why would they not specify that this would only apply to a delegate bound to a candidate that dropped out (such as the guy from Utah in 2008). They plainly say the RNC considers each delegate a free agent.

 

[tbone717]

I see all you're saying here, and you say it over and over, but this conflicts with what the RNC has said and what has happened in the past. What does this statement mean then? '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.'” The RNC said that. Were they lying? Why would they say that and why would they not specify that this would only apply to a delegate bound to a candidate that dropped out (such as the guy from Utah in 2008). They plainly say the RNC considers each delegate a free agent.

I swore I wasn't going to comment again on this, but I will nonetheless.

“[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.” That is one sentance from a letter that no one has been able to find the original copy of. All we have is the two sentences from the letter that everyone is using to support their position. When you pull a quote from a source without the full context that is called "contextomy". It is a logical fallacy.

If you notice in the original citation of the quote, "the" is bracketed. This means that it was either inserted there by the person citing the quote, or something else preceded it. So the full quotation could very well have been "Due to Gov. Romney withdrawing from the race, Utah delegates are now unbound therefore, 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"

Now I am not saying that is what it said or not, but it certainly fits the context far better than jumping to the conclusion that all delegates are unbound, even though numerous states have binding rules, and the RNC rules themselves address binding.

Also this does not conflict with anything that happened in the past. In 2008, the time period from which this quote was cited, delegates who were bound to McCain in state after state voted for McCain. It was the delegates who were released due to candidates withdrawing (Romney, Huckabee, etc) who were then unbound due to their candidate's withdraw.

Finally (and I really am done with this because I feel like I am banging my head against the wall), in their communication today they campaign stated that delegates are bound to Romney. So the state rules say it, the RNC rules say it, the campaign says it. Are you going to believe the three authoritative sources or are you going to place all your hopes and dreams on one sentence that was pulled from a letter of unknown length and unknown context?

You decide what is logical and what is illogical.