Rule Change Compromise :/

[VAMole]

Cameron Joseph of The Hill reporting on Twitter that the compromise version essentially extends the binding of delegates to the "placing in nomination" process - e.g., Nevada delegates would have to nominate Romney as the majority of them are bound to him. States still allowed to choose their own delegates without campaign veto.

It's a logical extension - I know many here were surprised when we realized that Nevada's delegates, though bound to Mittens, could still help place Dr. Paul in nomination - but I am still quite displeased.

https://twitter.com/cam_joseph/status/240241249225940992
https://twitter.com/cam_joseph/status/240245743397515264

 

[Aratus]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ THIS ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[ClydeCoulter]

They're doing everything they can to prevent Ron from being nominated...........a$$holes

 

[Lucille]

https://twitter.com/cam_joseph/status/240256984010604544

Ron Paul camp not blasting rule change compromise — tells @peteschroeder "very positive that the Romney campaign is listening to feedback"

 

[sailingaway]

Cameron Joseph of The Hill reporting on Twitter that the compromise version essentially extends the binding of delegates to the "placing in nomination" process - e.g., Nevada delegates would have to nominate Romney as the majority of them are bound to him. States still allowed to choose their own delegates without campaign veto.

It's a logical extension - I know many here were surprised when we realized that Nevada's delegates, though bound to Mittens, could still help place Dr. Paul in nomination - but I am still quite displeased.

https://twitter.com/cam_joseph/status/240241249225940992
https://twitter.com/cam_joseph/status/240245743397515264

It isn't logical, it is a totally different thing.

When does it go into effect?

And what about states that choose not to bind delegates?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Hoping the TX delegates don't compromise.

 

[Aratus]

be nice. lets not do our usual 15 to 50 pages on the poor kid.
borat. bruno. borat. bruno. borat. bruno. borat. bruno. borat.
we cannot assume that this was his decision. be very nice...

 

[rockandrollsouls]

What we need to do is continue taking over at the state level and change the laws that bind at the state level.

It isn't logical, it is a totally different thing.

When does it go into effect?

And what about states that choose not to bind delegates?

 

[BSU kid]

I have everyone telling me to join the Campus GOP.

After how they have treated Ron ...I don't think I will go near that place. Let the games by the establishment continue.

 

[VAMole]

Here's the new rule as proposed:
For any manner of binding or allocating delegates under these Rules, if a delegate
(i) casts a vote for a presidential candidate at the National Convention inconsistent with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule,
(ii) nominates or demonstrates support under Rule 40 for a presidential candidate other than the one to whom the delegate is bound or allocated under state law or state party rule, or
(iii) fails in some other way to carry out the delegate’s affirmative duty under state law or state party rule to cast a vote at the National Convention for a particular presidential candidate,
the delegate shall be deemed to have concurrently resigned as a delegate and the delegate’s improper vote or nomination shall be null and void. Thereafter the Secretary of the Convention shall record the delegate’s vote or nomination in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule. This subsection does not apply to delegates who are bound to a candidate who has withdrawn his or her candidacy, suspended or terminated his or her campaign, or publicly released his or her delegates.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/08/republicans-reach-rules-change-deal-to-avert-floor-fight/

 

[ClydeCoulter]

So, this still means that there is no need for delegates when delegates are bound (unbound would still be okay).
So, a candidate can lie, cheat, steal or change their platform after winning a primary and the delegates have to still support them. What?

 

[MozoVote]

Bleah. It just bifurcates and triplicates into various interpretations of state and party rules. A morass for Romney's attorneys to stick forks into.

 

[VAMole]

It isn't logical, it is a totally different thing.

When does it go into effect?

And what about states that choose not to bind delegates?

A) I disagree. Although I don't like it, it makes sense that a bound delegate is bound throughout the process, including the Rule 40 nomination. Imagine if we had delegate majorities bound to us in 5 states but one state's delegates decided they weren't going to support us in the Rule 40 process to deny us being placed in nomination. We'd be crying bloody murder.
B) I don't know, but I suspect it becomes effective if/when it's adopted by the Convention.
C) Unbound delegates would remain free to support whomever they wish to support in all stages.

For better and further particulars, we'll have to hear from lightweis or another delegate.

 

[sailingaway]

A) I disagree. Although I don't like it, it makes sense that a bound delegate is bound throughout the process, including the Rule 40 nomination. Imagine if we had delegate majorities bound to us in 5 states but one state's delegates decided they weren't going to support us in the Rule 40 process to deny us being placed in nomination. We'd be crying bloody murder.
B) I don't know, but I suspect it becomes effective if/when it's adopted by the Convention.
C) Unbound delegates would remain free to support whomever they wish to support in all stages.

For better and further particulars, we'll have to hear from lightweis or another delegate.

I didn't think about it in terms of NOT having enough to NOMINATE. But the Santorum guys who were elected in CO promised to vote for Ron and are changing their minds, likely.

As long as states can still choose to have unbound delegates if they want to.

but I do object because ALL of that should be up to the states. If the STATES want them bound on nomination they can do that at the state level. It is the shift of power away from the states that is objectionable.

I would raise it (or better get someone not one of us to raise it) as a states rights issue.

 

[Lightweis]

I haven't heard anything from the Paul campaign. I have heard that the Maine delegation has given up.

 

[wgadget]

Is it me or does the NEW RULE imply that the OLD RULES don't bind candidates?

 

[wgadget]

STATES' RIGHTS, dammit.

 

[parocks]

I haven't heard anything from the Paul campaign. I have heard that the Maine delegation has given up.

I'm in Maine, on 3 Maine Ron Paul Facebook groups and it's really hard to tell what's going on. The controversy seems to be whether the entire delegation boycotts the convention, or if some of the Ron Paul delegates do attend the convention.

 

[Aratus]

for good or ill? its a legendary double edged sword
if each individual state is like a medieval fiefdom...

 

[parocks]

Is it me or does the NEW RULE imply that the OLD RULES don't bind candidates?

the NEW RULE implies that the OLD RULES don't prevent bound delegates from nominating someone other than the candidate they're bound to vote for.

The vote and the nomination are different.