15 votes

GOP National Convention Rules

I just discovered this link to the convention rules:


So, I thought we could have a thread about these rules, and how they affect campaign strategy, etc.

Please read over them and post anything you find interesting.

I'll start.

Record Vote
If a majority of the delegates of any six (6)
states severally shall demand a roll call vote, the same
shall be taken of the states in the order hereinbefore

Good to know - to officially record exactly how many delegates support Ron Paul.

(b) Each candidate for nomination for
President of the United States and Vice President of the
United States shall demonstrate the support of a
plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more
states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of
that candidate for nomination.

This is why we need to win more delegates than anyone else in at least five states.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Too simple for a Slate? all delgates unbound 1st rnd


One day, I'm gonna' change my name to Dale Lee Paul

All rules can be changed at the convention

Stealth delegates

With the exception of binding of delegates. Those rules are

made at the State level, so the place to change them is the various State Conventions.

If not done there, the binding is, ahem, binding...

And that was hte plan in

And that was hte plan in 2008. Didn't work then and it isn't going to work this year. Nor would it be a good idea.

Look....delusional child...if Romney has the delegates, and Ron Paul's supporters bend and twist the rules to get him the nomination, then Ron Paul gets SLAUGHTERED in the general election. Romney supporters (whic houtnumber Ron Paul supporters by like 4 to 1) would not say "Awww hell! You got us...here is my vote." Becuase..people are pesky like that. They don't like the idea that their vote was taken away from them. If you don't see this, then honestly...your brain is simply not functioning.

Notice NO ONE in the official campaign is suggesting that be done. Why? Because not only would it be an EMBARRASSING loss for Ron Paul in November (with Romney potentially getting more votes as a write in) But it would END the careers of every single politician evne remotely associated with Ron Paul, unless they all planned to go third party.

It would be THE biggest disaster for Ron Paul and his ideals.

Oh...and guess what? ALL rules would be changed for 2016. FAR more states would be bound. And there would be fewer primaries.

You need to STOP diefying a MAN and start focusing on the IDEA. Ron Paul is a HUMAN BEING! I realize that you sadly probably think of him as something more...but he is not. He is a plain old human being. He is NOT bigger than the idea. And you want to sacrifice that idea just to give Ron Paul a couple more months of publicity. (And yes...that is all it would amount to.)

p.s. - the point is, Romney won't have the delegates.

Then what say you?

This is clueless drivel. The Convention makes the rules.

That's how the GOP is set up.(as are other parties)

If you don't like it, get elected as a delegate and - wait for it - CHANGE THE RULES!

Changing the rules isn't an underhanded tactic IF you have the authority to change them.

Is Congress underhanded if it changes the law (in any direction)? No. That's their power and authority - they make the law. (with a Presidential signature of course)

But a convention is even more powerful. It doesn't need a signature or have any fear of a veto. The Party is governed by the rules passed by the convention.

If the convention votes to change the rules, so be it.

The convention gets to nominate whomever they want.

They set the rules for how to be nominated and how the process works.

Your rant is like bitching that it's unfair Congress can pass laws that are any different than all of the ones we already have. How patently absurd.

No one's "vote" is being changed, mitigated, or discarded. If you don't understand that, or why, then you are clueless as to what you were voting for.

There is no such thing as a "primary" for President. If you think there is, you need to study more.

Clearly, you do not understand the process.

Perhaps you should take some time out to learn it.

Clear it with campaign first!

I would recommend any theories (I have one or two myself) on the Rules to be cleared with campaign lest we inform the enemy of our intentions.

Sandy Sanders

History of 08 Convention


Ron Paul officially received 23 votes but at the convention, the Chair announced only 5 votes for Ron Paul. Several states had to write letters to the RNC to officially record votes for Ron Paul months after the convention.

Plurality in five States...

...well we have Minnesota already. We are very likely to get Iowa and Maine. That makes three. Missouri is a possibility. Washington is a possibility. That makes five under a best case scenario. Where else?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

What about Nevada....he

What about Nevada....he should win here too!


Maine, Louisiana, and possibly Alaska. Alaska's delegates are bound but if our supporters can become delegates for Santorum and Gingrich, they will vote for Ron Paul once Santorum and Gingrich's delegates become unbound.

You are assuming that

You are assuming that Santorum and Gingrich's delegates will be unbound. Gingrich is NOT dropping out. And Santorum has shown no intention of officially dropping out and therefore he keeps his delegates.

And the plurality rule refers ONLY to the first vote.

But more disurbingly, you are only referring to previous caucus states. Are you conceding the rest of the states to Romney? If so, none of this even REMOTELY matters becuase Romney sails past 1144 in bound delegats, let alone the RNC and unbound ones.

That is why these threads piss me the fuck off! Stop focusing on stupid loopholes that failed in 2008 and will fail again in 2012 (and would be terrible if it worked anyway) and start focusing on the FUTURE. Without preventing Romney from 1144, NOTHING else matters.

Again...even if you have some stealth delegates..and even if it were true (it isn't...but I like to play Make believe sometimes too) that delegates can abstain and have their vote not counted anyway, Ron Paul would have to have over HALF of Romney's delegates in any state. Otherwise it would just go to an alternate who WOULDN'T abstain.

And anyone who thinks that there is any state where more than half of Romney's delgates are stealth Ron Paul supporters simply does not live in the same reality that the rest of the world does. Romney was FAR better organized than that and knew most of his delegates and their loyalty. (By the way...is there anyone here naive enough to not realize that there are Ron Paul delegates who are stealth for Romney too? After all..Ron Paul doesn't do any checking up on the delegates that tell him they are going to vote for him.)

So again..one more time until it sinks in....Can we focus on the damn plan! Ron Paul is NOT going towin on the first ballot! and there will be no changing the rules either. So....the ONLY path to victory...albeit a slim one...is to focus on UPCOMING PRIMARIES!

If you do ANYTHING else...then you are useless to the campaign.


In most states, you don't have to officially withdraw your campaign for your delegates to be unbound.

Huntsman has only suspended his campaign but his bound New Hampshire delegates are already unbound and one of them has endorsed Romney.

Santorum won 14 delegates in Michigan and the Michigan GOP has already released his delegates.

Here's a news story about Santorum's campaign fighting the Michigan GOP from unbinding the delegates, which they have already done:

So where are you getting this idea that Santorum's delegates will not be unbound?

In 08, Huckabee won many states and many BOUND delegates but he received ZERO votes at the convention floor.

Also, Gingrich is only in the race because his campaign has over $4 million of debt. If he wants to pay off his debt, he's not going to piss off conservatives by staying until the end and trying to wreak havoc.

Dr. Paul will not drop out because he leads a movement...

... which stands to gain momentum if he goes all the way to Tampa. Santorum and Gingrich are not in that situation, however, so I can easily foresee either or both of them dropping out of the race:

1. Santorum will (completely) drop out if he wants to curry favor with Romney as a potential VP pick, or if Santorum calculates that he can thereby improve his chances of being the nominee in 2016 or 2020 (remember, the GOP usually selects a nominee who is running for the second time, and the GOP Establishment wants him to drop completely out).

2. Gingrich, while he seems to personally dislike Romney, and while he apparently does not care what the GOP Establishment wants, will nevertheless drop out if Romney gives him something that he desires, like help with paying off his $4.5 million campaign debt.

I anticipate that Santorum will completely drop out sometime before Tampa. Gingrich might not drop out, but he will not be able to qualify to have his name placed in nomination (having won only two states, with no future prospects). As I think that Dr. Paul will be able to meet the "5 state plurality" rule, I anticipate that Romney and Paul will be the only two with their names in nomination, which will likely net Paul a convention speech and assist the growth of the Liberty Movement.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

it could depend on a lot of things

If Romney suddenly starts doing poorly in the primaries, then they stay in. If he wipes the floor with the other candidates going forward, then he'll be so far over 1144 that it won't matter what they do. I imagine in that case that they'd drop out because they'd be resigned to the idea that Romney was the nominee and would try to support him. I'm not sure where the threshold is, though. If there's threat of a brokered convention, they're more likely to stay around. But Romney might also be more likely to up the ante on offers to them to get out completely (if Romney offers Santorum the VP spot, though, I'll saw off my left arm).

Given what I've seen so far in the primaries, my bet is that Romney ends up well over 1144 delegates at the convention, and Santorum drops out basically in the same way you suggested. Gingrich will stay in at least through May, where he'll be able to see if some of the states that wouldn't traditionally vote for Romney would back him. I bet that enough of those go to Romney that Gingrich eventually gives up.

You are a comedian if you think there are no stealth delegates

(edit) Ron Paul right on Squawk Box 4/23/12 says his supporters are Romney bound delegates.

From the horses mouth about 4 months ago.


Ron Paul
A prominent friend told me some weeks ago that he noticed an odd thing. In his state, several people who have been successful in getting themselves known as very probably Mitt Romney delegates for the Republican National Convention are also his supporters. And they are not just my friends’ supporters, they are also long time staunch Ron Paul supporters.

Why then would they, long time staunch Ron Paul supporters, align this year with Mitt Romney? He made calls and talked to friends in other states. All of them saw the same thing happening — long time Dr. Paul supporters working to become delegates to the convention pledging to support Mitt Romney and others.

If the field stays fractured at this level, with only a few people, but each getting delegates enough to prevent the front runner from an outright majority, there will be a second vote at the Republican National Convention.

Delegates are only locked in for their candidate during the first vote. After the first vote, they can vote for whoever they want. So if Mitt Romney is unable to clear an outright majority on the first ballot, suddenly he could see some of his delegates turn on him — turn and go back to Ron Paul.

It is an ingenious strategy premised on a convention where no one gets majority support early. It plays well to a primary calendar where the delegates are first awarded proportionally. Who knows if it is a campaign strategy or just his volunteers, but the Paul campaign has been active now for four years trying to take over local parties.

It may pay off if the GOP doesn’t unite around a candidate soon.

(and those are only the ones that they were able to identify. be prepared for a very possible upset at the convention because the odds are greater in our favor than realized plus there are things in motion in the background within the Paul campaign that you will never know about until the 1st round happens)

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

Ah, yes, Alaska...

...that's a very real possibility. Louisiana is probably a longer shot, but still possible.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Colorado as well...

... As Paul and Santorum combined have 19 delegates, while Romney has 16 (with 1 delegate uncommitted). Of course, we would need some support in Tampa from the Santorum delegates (which would not be unexpected, since we ran a joint Paul/Santorum slate in Colorado).

Also, what about Hawaii? Does anyone know anything about our prospects there?

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Again...Santourm's delegates

Again...Santourm's delegates are NOT unbound! There is no cooperation to be had unless he officially drops out, which he has repeatedly said he would not do. The only way he would likely do that is if Romney sails past 1144 anyway. Which makes the 5 state plurality rule a moot point. Not to mention...if this did happen, I GUARANTEE that he would throw his support behind Romney (hoping for some consideration) which would make it ridiculously unlikely that Romney wouldn't pick up just TWO of his delegates.

I am just getting SOOOOO tired of these threads of people hanging on to ridiculously unlikely (like 0.0000000000001% chance of happening) scenarios and acting like it is a good possibiliy...and all the while taking focus off the ONLY plan that has even a better than 1% chance of working. Which is focusing on FUTURE primaries.

You are taking what little chance Ron Paul had away from him and you don't even care.

Colorado is a caucus state...

... and my understanding is that all of Colorado's National Convention delegates will be free to vote as they wish in Tampa. It was these Santorum delegates that I was referring to.

I think that Dr. Paul qualifying for nomination in Tampa is important even if Gov. Romney accumulates 1144 or more delegates. Concerning why I feel this way, please see this post (the pertinent portion is in the third paragraph):


We all want Dr. Paul to obtain as many delegates as possible, whether that be in primary or caucus states. Not being funded by Wall Street, however, limits the amount of paid media that can be purchased in primary states and has led the campaign to conclude that there is more "bang for the buck" in focusing on caucus states. This decision seems to correspond well with the structure of Dr. Paul's support, as I explain in this post:


Thank you.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Okay, say we get the five states... then what?

With Ron Paul focusing almost exclusively on a few hundred delegates in the Caucus states, Romney will get most of the delegates from the primary states. CA alone has 169 bound delegates, and 3 unbound RNC delegates, all of which are almost certainly going to go for Romney. New York has another 95. Ron Paul will be lucky to get a total of as many delegates as Romney gets from just these two states. And all the rest, assuming Newt drops out too, will go to Romney too.

I just don't see a path here.

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."


a realistic goal is to get the 2nd highest number of delegates

Right now Ron Paul is in 4th in bound delegates but there's evidence that he has a number of supporters placed as unbound delegates. As caucuses go on to conventions, he has the potential (and may be reasonably likely) to pass Santorum and Gingrich. A 2nd place finish is a reasonable goal and this seems like an accomplishment that the movement should be proud of. But there's truly no path to forcing a brokered convention without winning some primaries and taking delegates from Romney.

Rule 40

Shazad and I are engaging in an ongoing dialogue on another thread, during which I posted concerning rule 40:


A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

it's seems likely that he'll get the 5 states

though it's not a sure thing yet.

What I don't quite understand about this rule is the role that a candidate's speech is supposed to play in the vote. A speech would presumably be to convince delegates to vote for said candidate. However, to determine whether or not a candidate has a voice on a specific ballot, you have to have delegates cast their votes so you know who has pluralities in 5 states. Are delegates able to change votes after a speech? Or, would a speech there be to try to convince people to change for the next ballot?

I think...

Yes, they can change. Showing support for a candidate prior to the candidate's name being presented for nomination does not bind one to vote for that candidate to be the GOP nominee.

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."


that makes sense

I was worried about a cosmic loophole where a candidate seems to have pluralities in 5 states, then gives a speech so awful that supporters desert, and he suddenly has lost his pluralities, in which case he wasn't allowed to speak in the first place. From there, madness ensues.

Your explanation is more reasonable.

Shazad, elsewhere on this thread I discuss the prospects...

... of Santorum and Gingrich dropping out:


Do you agree with my analysis? Is there anything you want to add? Thanks.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand