446 votes

May 10, 2012 Ben Swann Reality Check: All GOP Delegates Unbound at Tampa Convention

Comment viewing options

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

I was under the impression...

that it was just 1144. Why should a candidate be rewarded for a lack of enthusiasm among elected delegates? It seems they have very pointedly always said "1144 are needed" and there is no way ALL the delegates would ever show up.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Our Founding Fathers

Is this not what the Founding Fathers wanted? They said that the people could not choose the president, because many of the people were undereducated, uninformed, or misinformed. Today, this is still the case, possibly more so with the MSM. We, the informed voters, know how the process works down to nearly a tee. This is why we are taking over state conventions for the time being, and if this were to continue, we will dominate the RNC. Ron Paul is only behind Romney by 332 delegates with over 20 states left to decide at least a portion of delegates, if not all delegates via a state convention. We know this, the MSM does not, and we will shock the nation in August. More and more people are becoming aware of the state of the union, and they are all reaching over to Ron Paul. I myself, supported President Obama for a second term until the beggining of this in late January. Santorum supporters are coming to our side ever since his endorsement of Mitt Romney, and many more for uncountable reasons. Together, we can put Ron Paul in office until January 20th 2021. I am sure our Founding Fathers would be very pleased to see liberty restored to America.

California GOP Rules

If I understand them correctly, the GOP of CA calls up the candidate with the highest vote total in each congressional district and lets the candidate choose 3 delegates from that district. (Or perhaps they're submitted ahead of time.)

That means, to my mind, that the status quo party members who want to go to the convention, on the assumption Romney will win their congressional district, will clambor to be named by Romney.

Our best bet is to win them over to Ron Paul where we can, try to win as many districts as we can, and go from there.

This method of selection makes it impossible to become a delegate (whether bound or not) unless the candidate, himself, chooses you, and also wins the most votes in that district.

If Romney can spare the paid help, he must be trying to vet the candidates for delegate as best he can.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

they're most likely already chosen

Basically, the only way Ron Paul can get any delegates in California is to beat Romney in the popular vote in a specific Congressional District.

Yeah I looked into becoming a delegate last year

And it was impossible to figure out. What a convoluted, secretive, web of lies the California GOP is.

You sir are a troll.

Will someone please notice what he's doing. Get out of here asshole.

Friend of....


If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Maybe ya'll are looking in the wrong place

Rule No. 37
Roll Call

(b)...the chairman shall announce the number of votes for each candidate...but if exception is taken by ANY delegate from that state...the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of members of such delegation to be called, and the result shall be recorded in accordance with the vote of the several delegates in such delegation.

So in essence, the letter from the RNC lawyer is correct.

In a delicious twist of irony

The RNC (Federal Government) overrules the State GOP (State Government)

A legitimate (even morally, not legally) reason to abstain

You know, in light of the recent story of Romney bullying a gay schoolmate, I could see some republicans abstaining from voting for him on principle if they sympathize. You couldn't even call this a Ron Paul conspiracy.


This is not confusing.

Why is everyone acting so confused?? The message is clear: the RNC does not even recognize the "binding" of delegates that states may enjoin upon them. There are legally no delegates at any time bound to vote for anyone. The reason, as Ben points out, is to "override" the state popular vote and make sure the best candidate is chosen. It is yet another built-in provision of our system to guard against democracy (mob rule). Democracy is not good, because the average person can vote and their vote counts as much as the informed and conscientious voter. The delegate process is a safeguard against this kind of abuse. After all, the mob is easily manipulated by mass media.

So, as it turns out, the system favors us!!!! Naysayers go away!! No delegate is bound at any time to vote for Mitt Romney!! Ron Paul knows all this and he knows he will be the next President of the United States.

John F

You nailed

it patriot. Our founding fathers realized a pure Democracy was mob rule and put provisions in our system to prevent such an occurrence. While they knew that freedom of the press was vitally important, I believe they also predicted that it could be used in nefarious ways and had the power to sway many people.

I love how these naysayers accuse us of "arcane tactics" and "rule twisting" and "political underhandedness" when really it is THEM who know nothing about our beloved country! Isn't it unreal? You would expect that a journalist or reporter would have the information researched and documented before he/she opens his/her mouth but in this day in age it just aint' so.

I will never again (after about 2008) be manipulated by the mass media.

Impressive isn't it?

It's almost as if the founders could somehow see into the future.

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." - Thomas Paine

(╮°-°)╮┳━┳ (╯°□°)╯┻━┻ "RON PAUL 2012 DAMNIT!"

So whats the final verdict

Are the delegates bound or not..?

The "final verdict" is simply

The "final verdict" is simply never going to exist. It's a circumstantial thing based entirely on what the body that meets in Tamp decides.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Ben Swann reports it wrong

From the original source here:


The issue was the Utah GOP passed a rule binding all delegates to McCain after Romney dropped out. Under the original rule, the delegates were bound to Romney because Romney won 90% of the primary vote. McCain won 62% in the general election against Obama, not the primary. I'm disappointed by the sloppy reporting on Reality Check.

If the quote from Jennifer Sheehan is correct, it still looks pretty damning for the RNC, though.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Not so fast

The article is confusing.
It does not tell exactly if Brian voted for Romney or, if he did, what happened after.

"The sergeant-at-arms told Brian to remain where he was, and that he would look into the matter. Neither he nor his assistant returned.

However, shortly thereafter, Ivan Dubois, an employee of the Utah Republican Party, polled Brian and several other national delegates as to whom they wished to vote for. Brian, a Ron Paul supporter, directed Ivan to cast his vote for Mitt Romney because the party rule in place at the time of the primary required delegates to vote for Utah’s first-place selection in the presidential primary. Thus, his vote was cast for Mitt Romney instead of Ron Paul (whom he intended to support, but did not for fear of being removed from the floor of the convention)."

But GOP directed to vote for McCain!!!! What happened after?

So if Ben made a mistake in his numbers (90 vs 68), your "original source" reporting was not very clear either.

Look at the video again at 2:50

The graphic says: "McCain won 62 percent of the vote in the primary" The fact is Romney won 90% of the vote in the primary.

Beyond that, Ben Swann omits the fact that Utah GOP switched the rules after Romney dropped out to attempt to force everyone to vote for McCain even though Romney had the vast majority of the popular vote in the primary.

Swann makes it appear that the delegate in question was trying to vote for Romney even though McCain had the majority of the popular vote, when the opposite is true.

Vote me down if you want, but those are the facts. We would be up in arms if the main stream media had a similar misrepresentation of the facts involving Ron Paul. All I am saying is that Ben Swann is in inaccurate in his reporting in this case, and no one can refute that if you look at the facts.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

didn't I post this already

didn't I post this already last night? I almost had front page lol!

Oh well good news is good news!!

What about the Primary States?

Do we have any insight on those delegates? Some states actually have you voting for delegates along with the candidates.

So what about the CONGRESSIONAL delegates?

I get the fact that the GOP thinks is can skirt Rule 38 by allowing 3 unbound delegates. They interpret this as not binding the entire state. The question I have is how do they get around the unit rule for the Congressional Delegates?

Every state has more than 3 Districts so assuming that the 3 unbound state delegates are from 3 separate districts, they would still be binding all the other distict delegates.

itzSteve's picture

To All Romney supporters

To all Romney supporters...

Just keep watching the MSM for all your wonderful Mitt news. Keep believing he is the presumptive winner. Nothing to see here...go back to sleep...no need to show up to the polls any more...it's all over...

Wait...what am I so worried about? There ARE NO ROMNEY SUPPORTERS! If there are some supporters out there, are they ALL DELEGATES?

Keep up the great work Ben Swann!


McCain Wins with 62% in 2008? Ben is Factually Correct.

Guys, this infighting is getting a bit outdated.

Ben Swann was referencing the general election results. Obama got 35% and McCain received 62%. Ben's journalism is unparralleled when put up against major news comentators. He's been accurate in his facts and objective in his reporting. Before we jump to conclusions let's make sure we are doing our own fact checking. Ben is right so there is no need to point fingers.

Articles for proof of accuracy:

Excuse me, but I believe you

Excuse me, but I believe you need to re-watch. He's clearly talking about the McCain vs Romney primary.... he says the word "primary" and there would be no contextual reason for him to talk about the general election. He may have been confused and used this number in the wrong place, but I'm sorry that's still factually inaccurate and should most certainly have been noted before public release. The discussion was about delegates, and had nothing to do with the general election.

The other reason this is important is that it leads down another path of investigation... You see, this wasn't a normal straight up "bound delegate wants to be unbound" situation. This was an actual Romney slate of delegates being forced to vote McCain because Romney was no longer in it, and they allowed the guy to vote for Romney (as he had been elected to do). It's a whole different scenario.

I have respect for Ben Swan, but that does not exempt him from fact-checking. Even though he's one of the best journalists out there, I do feel this is an irresponsible mistake.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Minor detail, quote is veryyy clear

The quote by the RNC legal counsel was clear. The RNC does not recognize any states attempt to bind delegates. He was wrong about Utah's primary, but that was a minor detail. Utah adopted a rule binding the delegates to McCain after Romney dropped out. The one delegate wanted to vote for Romney and was permitted by the RNC despite being "bound" to Romney. The quote was clear delegates are "free agents". So I don't really see your point unless your just being anal.

Ah yes, what a minor detail,

Ah yes, what a minor detail, what a small difference between winning with an 80% margin and losing with a 20% margin.

No, if you read what I wrote, it completely changes the entire circumstances of what he's talking about. The scenario is not applicable to general delegates, it was a specific matter concerning Utah's slate of Romney-bound delegates being re-bound to McCain. This occurs in Utah because we elect our delegates before we hold our primary.

It changes the entire scenario and it's clear that Ben completely glossed over this fact just like you are trying to.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

What you should do about it:

I understand the context confusion. Making a big deal about this on the Daily Paul however isn't going to help solve the mistake of reporting the general election results in the context of the Utah primary. You should email them about this. I know Ben will clear it up in another addition of fact check.

I don't want people around

I don't want people around here to get their hopes up. Even though it would be GREAT if all delegates are unbound, and YES the quote does seem to indicate that, we have to realize this was a very SPECIFIC scenario and the delegate who switched was originally elected as a Romney delegate, NOT the other way around. So do NOT put your hopes on this... we can win in 2nd round, there is a very real path for that.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Why does it matter

If this one delegate was bound to Romney? So were the ones who ultimately voted for McCain.

No matter how you slice it, the conclusion is there is no such thing as a bound delegate.

they were no longer bound to Romney

because Romney released his delegates. A similar situation could be in a state like Alabama, where Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney split the delegates. If Santorum and Gingrich release their delegates, then they become unbound and are free to vote for any candidate they want. Clearly, they could vote for Romney - but they could vote for Paul, or Gingrich, or Santorum, or Carl Weathers. What is very clear is that the state cannot FORCE them all to vote for Romney since they weren't bound to him originally. But they may decide to all vote for him anyway.

If Romney was still in the race, they would have been bound to him.