THIS IS DISGUSTING - MASS DEL OUSTED

[erowe1]

I will be very discouraged with Ron Paul if he does not address this with great prejudice. Just sayin.

I hope he addresses it and says clearly, "I do not want any of my supporters who are elected as delegates bound to other candidates to break their pledge and vote for me on the first ballot. There is no effort on the part of my campaign for that to happen. As far as I know, there is no organized effort on anybody's part for that to happen. Any delegates who do that are acting independently and entirely without my blessing."

 

[anaconda]

So that they can go to the convention and be among the hundreds of Paul supporters bound to Romney that Ron Paul wants there.

I think imposing a new and additional rule after the delegates are rightfully elected must be some form of contract violation and therefore illegal.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I think imposing a new and additional rule after the delegates are rightfully elected must be some form of contract violation and therefore illegal.

Unethical. Personally, I think that's more important. Criminals in government are rarely prosecuted for their crimes. I don't need to make a list, as this forum pretty much *is* a list.

 

[erowe1]

I think imposing a new and additional rule after the delegates are rightfully elected must be some form of contract violation and therefore illegal.

How do you know it's a new rule?

 

[anaconda]

I hope he addresses it and says clearly, "I do not want any of my supporters who are elected as delegates bound to other candidates to break their pledge and vote for me on the first ballot. There is no effort on the part of my campaign for that to happen. As far as I know, there is no organized effort on anybody's part for that to happen. Any delegates who do that are acting independently and entirely without my blessing."

With all due respect, I think Ron Paul would be missing the point completely if he did. The issue is that the MA Republican Party is breaking their own rules and deserve to be publicly outed as completely corrupt. If we are to accept the MA Republican Party's concern as sufficient validity for this unlawful affidavit request, then Ron Paul's express disapproval for a delegate's unwillingness to vote for Mittens on a first ballot would not be binding and therefore would not assuage their concerns.

 

[erowe1]

He would be missing the point completely if he did. The issue is that the MA Republican Party is breaking their own rules and deserve to be publicly outed as completely corrupt.

No he wouldn't be missing the point completely. The party establishment thinks that's what's happening. They see discussions on this website that feed those suspicions. That suspicion should sound so ludicrous that nobody could possibly believe it. And we should be doing our part to paint it as ludicrous. We should treat people who encourage pledged delegates to vote against their pledges the same way we treat people who make posts encouraging the breaking of election finance laws. Instead, those of us who are correctly saying that there is no such strategy going on get drowned out by people who don't know what they're talking about who think there is.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

No he wouldn't be missing the point completely. The party establishment thinks that's what's happening. They see discussions on this website that feed those suspicions. That suspicion should sound so ludicrous that nobody could possibly believe it. And we should be doing our part to paint it as ludicrous. We should treat people who encourage pledged delegates to vote against their pledges the same way we treat people who make posts encouraging the breaking of election finance laws. Instead, those of us who are correctly saying that there is no such strategy going on get drowned out by people who don't know what they're talking about who think there is.

So that is justification to break their own rules? They're worried someone might break the rules, so they start breaking rules first? I guess you're one of those "preemptive war" guys. Have fun justifying that bullshit.

 

[anaconda]

How do you know it's a new rule?

Good question but I think it is.

 

[erowe1]

So that is justification to break their own rules? They're worried someone might break the rules, so they start breaking rules first? I guess you're one of those "preemptive war" guys. Have fun justifying that bullshit.

I'm not certain that they broke a rule. If they did, it's no justification. But those delegates still should have sent in their affidavits, unless they honestly were never made aware that they were supposed to. You can be sure that all the Romney supporters who were elected as delegates in MA sent in their affidavits. The difference between them and these 17 Ron Paul supporters is that those will be at the RNC, and these won't.

 

[anaconda]

That suspicion should sound so ludicrous that nobody could possibly believe it.

As a side note, apparently the RNC rules actually allow for delegates to vote their conscience (rule 38). Why is it ludicrous therefore to think that they might? The RNC obviously has no intention of following their own rules and apparently don't find their own behavior ludicrous.

 

[erowe1]

As a side note, apparently the RNC rules actually allow for delegates to vote their conscience (rule 38). Why is it ludicrous therefore to think that they might?

The thing that makes delegates "bound" is state party rules, not RNC rules. When states had their primaries, all their Republican voters voted under the pretense that some of the delegates they were electing were bound delegates. They weren't voting for representatives to vote their consciences, they were voting for particular presidential candidates and delegates to vote for those candidates. Even if delegates could get away with breaking their pledges at the RNC, they would be dishonest to do that.

We want the notion that we would support bound delegates doing that to sound ludicrous because we need to grow our movement and engender support from others, and pulling stunts like that would impede us in that. If we want to look like we're the ones doing everything we can to play by the rules and its the establishment that is corrupted, then we need to stay above reproach.

 

[anaconda]

The thing that makes delegates "bound" is state party rules, not RNC rules. When states had their primaries, all their Republican voters voted under the pretense that some of the delegates they were electing were bound delegates. They weren't voting for representatives to vote their consciences, they were voting for particular presidential candidates and delegates to vote for those candidates. Even if delegates could get away with breaking their pledges at the RNC, they would be dishonest to do that.

We want the notion that we would support bound delegates doing that to sound ludicrous because we need to grow our movement and engender support from others, and pulling stunts like that would impede us in that. If we want to look like we're the ones doing everything we can to play by the rules and its the establishment that is corrupted, then we need to stay above reproach.

Your argument is sound and ethical. My only concern at this point is if the MA Republican Party improperly introduced an additional and improper requirement of the duly elected delegates. If they wanted to make such an affidavit a requirement for 2016, fine. But not in 2012 after the delegates were fairly elected and had complied with all of the rules in the process of becoming duly elected.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The thing that makes delegates "bound" is state party rules, not RNC rules. When states had their primaries, all their Republican voters voted under the pretense that some of the delegates they were electing were bound delegates. They weren't voting for representatives to vote their consciences, they were voting for particular presidential candidates and delegates to vote for those candidates. Even if delegates could get away with breaking their pledges at the RNC, they would be dishonest to do that.

We want the notion that we would support bound delegates doing that to sound ludicrous because we need to grow our movement and engender support from others, and pulling stunts like that would impede us in that. If we want to look like we're the ones doing everything we can to play by the rules and its the establishment that is corrupted, then we need to stay above reproach.

So... you know that there are states where Romney delegates comprise way more than the Romney % vote? In some cases, Romney lost, and still has the majority of delegates. Why aren't those being challenged by the RNC, or state rules committees? I could guess, but I'll give you and DemintConservative an opportunity to answer that question. Why aren't they breaking rules to make themselves compliant?

 

[erowe1]

So... you know that there are states where Romney delegates comprise way more than the Romney % vote? In some cases, Romney lost, and still has the majority of delegates. Why aren't those being challenged by the RNC, or state rules committees? I could guess, but I'll give you and DemintConservative an opportunity to answer that question. Why aren't they breaking rules to make themselves compliant?

The rules vary by state. In my state, whoever wins each congressional district gets 3 delegates for that district. These are bound delegates. If Romney wins each district with a small plurality, he'll still get 100% of my state's bound delegates according to the rules of my state's GOP which Republican voters who voted in the primary understood to be governing the process they were participating in. For another candidate to have gotten any bound delegates at all, that candidate would have to have won the primary in at least one congressional district. My state also has unbound at-large delegates. But the issue we're talking about here is not with unbound delegates, but with bound ones.

As for your question, "Why aren't they breaking rules to make themselves compliant?" I can't answer that because I don't understand what you're asking.

 

[Michael Landon]

You have to play by the rules. If one of the rules is that you need to return an affidavit and you refused to do it, the consequence is obvious.

Do you know what will happen in four years because of what is happening now? Pretty much every state will pass legislation stating that delegates are directly nominated by the candidates according to the primary/caucus results. That will be the ultimate result of this kind of stuff.

Not in Minnesota. The GOP tried to pass this, but because we were the majority, we voted it down.

- ML

 

[angelatc]

From the article: "under the penalty of perjury".

Clinton got away with it, the freedom delegates would probably not.

Really? So the courts don't want to get involved with the party rules and regulations, but reneging on a pledge is perjury?

 

[angelatc]

I can't apply the purity test concept to this situation. I'm all in favour of state parties binding their delegates to the results of primary/conventions.

Ugh - I'm not. 90% of the people don't pay any attention to the candidates or their voting records or their positions on the issues. They vote for the name that they recognize. I like the idea of the activists getting a shot at steering the party.

 

[Red Green]

Unethical. Personally, I think that's more important. Criminals in government are rarely prosecuted for their crimes. I don't need to make a list, as this forum pretty much *is* a list.

Precisely. When was the last time a candidate for public office asked to sign a pledge to do exactly what he said he would do under the penalty of perjury?

Here they are asking delegates to do that but they don't ask the people they are going to put in power? Crazy.

 

[sailingaway]

Precisely. When was the last time a candidate for public office asked to sign a pledge to do exactly what he said he would do under the penalty of perjury?

Here they are asking delegates to do that but they don't ask the people they are going to put in power? Crazy.

they take an oath to follow the Constitution. Not under penalty of perjury, though....

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Ugh - I'm not. 90% of the people don't pay any attention to the candidates or their voting records or their positions on the issues. They vote for the name that they recognize.

Or the person their favorite talk host is pushing or providing positive coverage on.