77 votes

Just In: The Reason They Did Not Unbind The NV Delegation.

It turns out that since they (Paul supporters) control the delegation, and RNC rules allow for Delegates to Abstain, they did not want to jeopardize the NV delegation to get kicked out of the convention.

Abstaining on the first vote, gets the same result of denying Romney delegate votes.

I guess the wording they have approved allows delegates to abstain for any reason, this was the choice of the Ron Paul Nevada Campaign.

Comment viewing options

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

-Yet it's OK for Mitten's Camp to Violate the RNC Rules

Romney's Fraudulent Ron Paul Delegate ballots in NV & ME,
Romney busing in voice-voting, non-delegates into the caucuses
Romney camp motioning to certify all of the delegates for Romney.

If you guys don;'t do all that you legally can under the rules to make Ron Paul the nominee ON THE FIRST VOTE,
Romney will MAKE SURE you NEVER get the opportunity of a 2nd vote in Tampa.

If Ron Paul is nominated, the future will be very bright for you and all. If he ends up not nominated, it will be rough for a long time for all of us.
Tread softly
Trust NO ONE.

Galatians 5:1
It is for FREEDOM that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Unbinding violates the RNC rules...

As bad as I want to see the delegates of all the states unbound, it seems the RNC rules are pretty clear that it cannot be done:

Rule 15(c)(12):

"No delegates or alternate delegates shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound pursuant to any Republican Party rule of a state or state law which materially changes the manner of electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates or alternate delegates or the date upon which such state Republican Party holds a presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention if such changes were adopted or made effective after October 1 of the year before the year in which the national convention is to be held."

I'm not sure what the "punishment" is, but this seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.

Material change.

The election of Nevada delegates at the State Convention, (those delegates who now go to Tampa for the RNC), are materially changed by the results of the previous Nevada "caucus/primary". Therefore, the results of the previous "caucus/primary" violate this rule.

The State convention itself, materially changing the "caucus/primary" results, also may be considered to HAVE BEEN changed by what previously occurred in the caucus/primaries in Nevada.

This sword cuts BOTH WAYS.

To say that the "material differences" and "material change" as displayed by the differences in the complexion of the mass of delegates selected through the previous primary/caucus process and those mass of delegates selected through the "convention" process are in stark disagreement, thus represent a "material change", is evident between BOTH of the events.

The rule does not clarify WHICH event has priority, only that material change is not allowed.

The question here is, which event, or do BOTH events, represent the "material" upon which this rule's action is delivered.

This rule does not say that the primary/caucus is the template or defining factor for the state level convention.

What this rule says is that if the material differences represent a "change" of the delegates characteristics at any point during the processes cited, then the rule has been violated.

I would say the rule is nonsensical and so overly broad as to be undefinable.

Ron Paul Billboards provides billboard and digital billboard designs for grassroots, PAC's and national and state level campaign organizations at no charge. Contact us at social@RonPaulBillboards.com to edit the design you choose with your "Paid for by:".

Plurality of delegates established.

As there is now a plurality of delegates in Nevada for Ron Paul, that is established.

CAN, this plurality in Nevada, function to nominate Ron Paul from the floor in Tampa ... even though they are largely bound on the first vote to Romney?

Ron Paul Billboards provides billboard and digital billboard designs for grassroots, PAC's and national and state level campaign organizations at no charge. Contact us at social@RonPaulBillboards.com to edit the design you choose with your "Paid for by:".

Check this delegate map out

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3962682793841&set=a.1...

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

That's an excellent question. That rule too is vague.

It simply states that in order to be nominated, a candidate must "demonstrate support" of a plurality of delegates from five states.

The binding rules are on the state level, and seem to only apply to votes for the nomination.

Thus we have this situation:

A motion must be made to place a candidate's name into nomination.

That requires "demonstrated support" from a plurality of delegates from five states. Thus the rule essentially, is that ANYONE can make the motion, but it would effectively require a second consisting of pluralities from five states.

THEN once nominations are closed, and voting begins - the bindings from the various state rules take effect.

At least that is one possible interpretation.

I'm sure someone who supports Romney will argue that being pledged to Romney through the first ballot for example, includes the inability to second the nomination of another candidate. (personally I think it merely means they are required to second the nomination of Romney, not that they CAN'T second the nomination of Paul - anyone can second anything generally.)

Since it is not set in stone and clear, I would say this rule is a candidate for re-write by the convention upon opening, which could make sure that Paul could get placed into nomination, but it would also be safer to hold pluralities from five non-binding states just in case.

Was wondering that myself

Can they count as one of the five needed? Same for MA.

We're sittin at the top of the Google Top News Stories list.....

we're #1! we're #1!..... Now let's see if the mainstream media actually reports the slightest bit of this......

"sometimes I hug the coffee table when no one is looking."

RNC rules had a deadline in

RNC rules had a deadline in 2011 for rule changes that affect this election. Rumor had it that the GOP sent a lawyer to the convention. Perhaps he clued in the Paul campaign that changing the rules would result in the delegates not being seated.

In any case, what's done it done. I trust the campaign. They know their stuff.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Yes, the rules governing

Yes, the rules governing binding the national delegates were part of a special package of rules approved by the Nevada State Central Committee and submitted to the RNC October 2011.

While they are cited in the Nevada Republican Party Bylaws, they are not part of it. Those special rules were approved by the RNC.

The RNC had a parliamentarian and a lawyer at the Nevada convention for a couple of reasons - to prevent a repeat of 2008 and to answer any questions about the bound delegate thing.

I wasn't privy to any discussions between the RNC reps and RP's campaign. I was on the bylaws committee. We knew an attempt to change the binding might be proposed and we researched it. It would not have been possible to change that rule at convention.

All hope currently lies with rule 38.

About the 1144

Do Mitt only need half of those voting or does he really need 1144? I assume 1144 is 50% + 1 of 2286? Let's say 287 abstained (1999 voted). Would Mitt need 1000 or 1144? Thanks.

I heard threshold changes

I heard the threshold changes with abstentions... worth checking this one out. Let's assume it does for the sake of the following calculations.

So, let's say he has 1144/2286 delegates bound to vote (enough to win), but 287 abstained, so he would obtain 857/1999 once the votes are counted. Still assuming Mitt needs 1000 to win, we can see that abstentions drop him well below the new threshold, let alone the 1144 needed to win!

You're making the assumption

You're making the assumption that Romney only gets 1144. If we don't win Texas and Cali, he'll be well over that mark.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

he'd still need 1144, I believe

If a state's delegation was disqualified, he'd need fewer. If a state somehow gained more delegates, he'd need more. But I believe that if some people just don't vote, then he'd need the same number.

Thanks

Just curious if abstaining is a half vote in favor of your person or a full vote. If you are correct then for all purposes it amounts to the same effect as a vote for your preferred candidate.

I for one will still celebrate either way just for the ability to have a full veto over Mitt's VP choice. Any attempt to get Rubio or any other NDAA supporter would be DOA.

Or, more simply, they likely didn't have the needed

2/3 majority to unbind the delegates in NV. Let's just enjoy a great RP weekend without looking for little shit to squabble about.

If for whatever reason they

If for whatever reason they are not allowed to abstain, can "bound" Ron Paul delegates vote for Gingrich or Santorum? After all, they got some delegates per the proportional system as well.

The purpose, obviously, would be to deny Romney the 1144, without abstaining.

Also, if those candidates instruct them to vote for Romney, are their any RNC rules requiring them to do so?

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” William Pitt

they are no longer bound to Gingrich/Santorum

They redid the proportional binding, and now 20 go to Romney and 8 go to Paul. Voting for the other guys doesn't appear to be an option.

How the hell can they do

How the hell can they do that??? What about the poor voters who voted (however idiotically) for Newt or Santy? How come they are disenfranchised? And why does Romney automatically get all of the Non-Paul vote?

It's either proportional or it isn't. If Newt and Santy Voters can get screwed out of their delegate votes, then so can Mittens.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” William Pitt

I think the campaigns agreed on this

It was originally 14 for Romney and 5 for Paul. Now it's 20 for Romney and 8 for Paul. Romney didn't get all - but he got more because he got a lot more votes in the caucuses.

They can abstain....

without the need of a vote on the RNC to unbound delegates (that's Rule 38).

However, a super majority (2/3) vote can have abstaining RNC delegates removed and replaced by alternatives... in some places like Nevada the alternates are mainly Romney supporters.

What is the point of having free will if one cannot spit in the eye of the destiny others leave you with? #ActorofConscience
www.twitter.com/HectorinMiami

This is interesting - thought

This is interesting - though I think its a moot point. If Romney had the 2/3 required to change the rules he would also have the 1144 to lock up the nomination, and could ignore the manner in which Paul delegates vote.

The fact that he has enough cause to be concerned over the 1144 implies that he is far short of the 2/3 majority to change the rules in his favor. As pure speculation, it may be more likely that Ron Paul is closer to the 2/3 majority than Romney, given that many Romney delegates are in fact Paul supporters as we know from Massachusetts, Nevada, Minnesota, and so on.

the interesting thing is if the super majority vote(2/3)

includes the abstaining delegates?
And when would such a vote take place? There are many questions and I hope the campaign knows the definite answer.

Until then we probably do best when we say:
No one but Paul!(NO VOTE FOR ROMNEY!)

Once the delegates are certified and are ...

official national delegates.

At the national convention there should be a motion to unbind all delegates.

I see timeline restrictions that would prevent binding additional delegates, but there is no such restriction when it comes to unbinding the delegates.

Deleted

Deleted

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

This motion would be

This motion would be unnecessary under rule 38. Plus, all of the binding rules and punishments would be at the state level.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

I don't think Rule 38 is

I don't think Rule 38 is applicable in general. Rule 38 says that an entire delegation cannot be bound. This simply means that there must be a single unbound delegate in order to bind the remainder. It's my understanding that one or more of the non-elected delegates are unbound i.e. the chair of the state republican party, state committeeman or state committeewoman.

To my understanding, so long as any of the non-elected delegates are unbound, the entire remaining delegation can be bound consistent with Rule 38.

Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?

dupe

o

sovereign

Brilliant but the most important thing

RP majority gets to count the votes and guard the ballot boxes. These guys have proven to be immoral low life cheating lieing scum over and over again, but what would you expect from traitors who support a puppet of the Rothschild central bank Fed reserve corp.
Its just sickening they continue to perpetuate trillion dollar false national debts and the immoral extorted theft called imcome tax that is perported collected to pay installments upon a false debt. This is a blatent control/ false national debt, slavery.

You are given 2 choices comply immoral cowardly submission to liars theives and mass murderes or refuse and go to corporate work prison torture system.

The choice they do not give us but we choose is enlightened disengagment. Somtimes you got to go inside the system to disengage from it. End the Fed. End IRS and Income tax/Property tax so we can be free and own our work efforts and property.

sovereign

Congrats and moving on...

I'm going to trust that these folks in NV know exactly what they're doing; they just accomplished a monumental task and I'm very proud of them.

Let's give them congrats and turn our attention to our own states that have yet to elect national delegtes....there is still MUCH work to be done.