The "unit" rule.

[Sematary]

So I watched that piece on Reality Check and if I understand what Ben is saying correctly, there are NO bound delegates? That is what I heard, anyway. Do I have that right? Because if that's true.....

 

[Titus]

There is some minor disagreement some have with what Ben says. He says this would likely apply in Massachusetts and Lousiana. I think it applies more in Idaho. It does not apply in each state.

There are bound delegates. Mitt Romney has somewhere between 700 and 800 depending on the non-MSM source.

 

[Jeremy]

Well he's not interpreting the rule correctly, apparently.

From the Wikipedia discussion on it:

It hasn't been relevant in decades, and almost certainly won't be this year either. It only becomes relevant if a state party chairman declares all delegates from his state are for some candidate, when some delegates are not. But the delegates who are not for that candidate (if they are not legitimately bound in that round of voting) can ask for a roll call count, by Rule 37(b)[

 

[btwilli1]

If a state has all of its delegates bound to Mitt, and the super delegates from that state also commit to Mitt, then wouldn't that state be considered under the unit rule and then the delegates would be free to vote their heart?

 

[sailingaway]

there are so many arguments on both sides.... I think we don't need to get ahead of ourselves. WE have STATE conventions coming up before we have to worry about the one in August.

 

[sailingaway]

Well he's not interpreting the rule correctly, apparently.

From the Wikipedia discussion on it:

Yeah, but that is bogus because ours last time TRIED to get their votes counted and it didn't happen. They pretend that is how it works, but you have to be the delegation chair to actually make it work. A MAJORITY of the state might be able to, however, and presumably they would have selected the delegation chair.

 

[Titus]

If a state has all of its delegates bound to Mitt, and the super delegates from that state also commit to Mitt, then wouldn't that state be considered under the unit rule and then the delegates would be free to vote their heart?

No. The superdelegates are unbound based on the virtue of their position. However, these people tend to be party insiders who will do what the establishment tells them what to do. This would present a problem if Ron Paul wins bound states. He would chip away three or four delegates at a time.

 

[Sematary]

there are so many arguments on both sides.... I think we don't need to get ahead of ourselves. WE have STATE conventions coming up before we have to worry about the one in August.

You might. I don't. Ct. is locked and loaded for Mitt because the campaigns choose the delegates, not a caucus or any other function. So I'm stuck here in the wilderness looking in.

 

[WilliamC]

http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf

RULE NO. 38
Unit Rule
No delegate or alternate delegate shall be
bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional
district to impose the unit rule.

I think Jeremy is correct, this is only for States which themselves are trying to undermine the process by having either the Congressional District Caucus or State Caucus impose their will on all the delegates to vote for a single candidate, and here is where I'm guessing, especially when that goes against the actual vote from the State.

So while a State or Congressional District caucus may be able to unbind it's delegates, which again may be dependent on the State in question, it cannot bind them to a candidate. I'm guessing if a Congressional District had a candidate which legitimately won enough of the popular vote to get all the delegates from a District, It seems to me that this is to prevent a District or State from over-riding the popular vote and binding all delegates to a candidate who did not win them as determined by the popular vote.

But that's just my interpretation, I'm no lawyer and don't want to be, not only is the law irrational it is often anti-rational and hurts me wee wittle brane too much.

Just a personal failure on my part I guess.

 

[tbone717]

This is actually fairly simple. As I read it, essentially Rule 38 prevents the majority of delegates from a state from overriding the delegates that are in the minority and voting as one unit. VA is a good example: In VA 43 delegates are bound to Romney, 3 to Paul. The 43 Romney delegates cannot override Paul's 3 delegates and cast all 46 for Romney (provided that Paul is nominated from the floor). This really has nothing to do with the personal preference of the delegates since bound delegates at the first round (and subsequent rounds depending on the state) are not there to vote their personal preference, but are there to act as a representative of their CD or state. The rule simply prevents the majority of delegates from nullifying the minority.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Given that the RNC violates rule 11, how can anybody be bound to any rules? It's open season on runaway government.

 

[angelatc]

Well he's not interpreting the rule correctly, apparently.

From the Wikipedia discussion on it:

Wikipedia as a source? Really? Besides, last time I remember what happened when a few delegate Indians tried to wander off the reservation...even though a few delegates tried to vote for Ron Paul, John Boehner shut them down. I think this time it will be much worse. They're not blind to what is happening, and they're not about to allow the small government wing of the party have 15 minutes of TV time at "their" party.

 

[kathy88]

Mitt IS a unit.