23 votes

RNC passes rule binding all delegates to popular vote for future elections


Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, led by top Romney lawyer Ben Ginsberg, forced through a major change the GOP nominating process on Friday in response to Ron Paul supporters' efforts to win delegates to the Republican National Committee..

The Republican National Convention Committee voted 56-40 to make it impossible for supporters of one presidential candidate to override the will of voters at a state convention, as Ron Paul supporters did in Iowa and Nevada.

The purpose of the change, Ginsberg said, was "to correct what we saw as a damaging flaw in the presidential election process in 2012."

The rule forces statewide presidential primaries or caucuses to determine the ultimate allocation of delegates, preventing takeovers like Paul executed in Iowa by eliminating unbound delegates in statewide contests. States would be allowed to decide whether to give all their delegates to the winner of the primary or caucus, or distribute them proportionally according to the results.

Comment viewing options

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

Why don't they just

change the "rules" to make it so they just announce who the next king will be....kinda like they've been doing?

RNC New Rule Violates Federal Election Laws

This new rule binding delegates is a blatant violation of U.S. Election Laws prohibiting people from voting their conscience in a Presidential election process.

It works the same way with Electors. They are supposed to represent the choice of the State's popular choice, but they cannot be required to.

What is Romney dropped dead on Sunday? According to this baloney all the Delegates would still be bound to vote for him even if his wife 'freed' them

Supreme Court already ruled that illegal

If it was an open primary or caucus.

That will be challenged in court

We need to become the party

Once we become the party we set the rules, then sky is the limit. If you are not a committeeman in your town you are wasting your time. Get involved, change the system, and take over


Garuntees big money interests can and will win every time

Denise B's picture

"The "Rule"

forces statewide presidential primaries or caucuses to determine the ultimate allocation of delegates..."

Too bad they already established that the "rules" don't mean anything and no one has to follow them anymore...If I was a state that didn't feel like following this "rule", I'ld just tell them to take it and shove up their a##! We don't play by the "rules" anymore, remember...

"Rule"...what "rule"....???

Don't worry

They'll change it back after this "Ron Paul thing" blows over. What a bunch of assholes.

Denise B's picture

I'm not worried...

but the RNC should be...seems to me that they are setting a very dangerous precedent here that their own rules don't need to be followed anymore...two can play at that game...this can come back on them in ways that I am sure they haven't fully thought through yet....

Sorta looks like

they just closed the last door. Calling all Santorum and Newt delegates, this is your last chance to wake up and change something. Think of it this way, what could it hurt to buck the system and vote for your favored candidate? The worst thing that can happen is that Romney gets the nom anyway.

egapele's picture

Too little too late.

People are waking up in droves everywhere and we're seeing establishment-backed, crooked, career incumbants being handily and easily voted out of office, even with the benefit of massive donations from their money masters.

Yup. If you don't like the

Yup. If you don't like the rules, just change 'em.

The Cost To Win The Primary Just Skyrocketed

That stifles grass roots power.

It would take $50 to $100 million to win the primaries by popular vote, especially considering the expensive media markets around the country. Then it would take another $250 million or more to win the general.

Perhaps it might be time to price out the cost of making a third party candidate viable.

Third parties have not been able to win the Presidency because of the laws that favor monopolies and the mind of the public that won't elect non-monopoly candidates.

However, with $100 million, it might become a better deal for a candidate to spend the money in a third party for the general election. It might be enough to buy the markets needed to make the third party candidate viable.

The question remains, however, of how to divert the donations from the monopoly parties to the third parties.

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

It wouldn't be so bad except in America now

(thanks to a precedent set in Santa Clara County v. the Southern Pacific Railroad), CORPORATIONS enjoy the "human right" of free speech, whereas HUMAN BEINGS, say, decorated Marine veterans, might get thrown in a psych ward for what they say. This allows CORPORATIONS to control our elections.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Electing a President by

Electing a President by popular vote makes us a Democracy, not a Republic. The RNC has just helped to complete the death of our Republic. The whole idea of delegate contests is to make sure that the minority have as much power as the majority in determining Presidential candidates.

Blessings )o(

no it doesn't

I'm not sure why so many people here seem to think that you can't have a democratic vote to make decisions like this in a Republic. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the US is a Republic or a Democracy. They could get rid of the Electoral College and it wouldn't make the US a pure democracy. Many states already use rules like this in selecting delegates - and amazingly we've still remained a Republic.

You're an idiot.

Mob-rule democracy is a complete disaster, and the Electoral College is the only thing preventing elections from being completely decided by three states only (New York, California, and Texas). But being a Willard shill, I'm not surprised you have no regard for the voice of the American people, just like the cheating, lying, scumbag candidate you support.

I don't play, I commission the league.

that's not true

(referring to both your subject line and your comment)

Currently CA, NY, and TX combined account for 22.7% of the total electoral votes. But if we went to a pure popular vote, that percentage would increase - all the way to 23.0%. Big deal. They would essentially have the exact same aggregate effect that they do now. There are obviously other things that would change if we flipped to a popular vote system - but what you said is not one of them. AND, it doesn't make us a "pure democracy" or "mob-rule democracy" just because we get rid of the Electoral College (and just so there's no confusion, I am not advocating going to a national popular vote for President, though I also think there are things that can be improved with the Electoral College).

We are talking about party preference primaries here.

The general election is not affected by this change.
The GOP and Democrat parties can elect their candidate however they choose. I don't agree with it but until all those Paul supporters become "the party" they can do whatever they want with it.
It is just wrong for them to change the rules in the middle of the game, like the GOP did to Ron this cycle.

This change puts FOX and talk radio in a very powerful position in the party. They have the huge audiences they can whip up to turn out for their favorite candidate. Hannity will pick the next GOP nominee. IT WILL NOT BE RAND PAUL.

I laughed to hear Romney's attorney Ginsberg say

that they'd realized "a damaging flaw in the presidential election process in 2012." (And he was referring to delegate SOP?) I hope someone has a video tape of when he made the statement so O'Reilly's body-language pro can analyze the face.

"I'd say the wrinkled brow shows that he's legitimately concerned except for that hand covering his grin, the quick left eye wink, and his shaking shoulders."

Ginsberg didn't raise all the issues we have here, nor those reflected in lawsuits or published by mathematicians - all the foul play from DAY ONE, because from the Romney/RNC perspective those weren't flaws but everything operating according to plan. P.S. If Romney/the RNC win the presidential election, will they be calling for the abolition of the Senate?

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

This is goofy

This is an absurd rule when you take into consideration that at caucuses the voting is only a presidential preference poll. Of the people who came to support a candidate or find out more about the candidates, they preferred this guy. They elect their delegates, they go through the process convention by convention until they reach the RNC. That is the essence of representative Democracy!

If in precinct 1 you have 50 vote for Cand. A and 20 for Cand. B, that precinct may be entitled to 5 delegates to the County convention and Cand. A's guys make sure they fill all 5 spots. At precinct 2 you have 50 votes for Cand. A and 500 for Cand. B because it's a strong GOP Precinct. That Precinct gets 50 delegates, but Cand. B never organized his supporters and they really don't care much who gets nominated and so they all leave, so the 50 Cand. A supporters fill the delegate slots in the election to represent the will of their precinct.

While the better organized campaign got the delegates, the candidate nobody feels strongly for gets the popular vote and is so assumed to have been better organized and worthy of nomination. The RNC cannot make that so... they cannot make that so at all...

It cuts both ways

This ruling, if it passes on the convention floor, will bind the hands of party insiders to allocate delegates according to the popular vote. This year, it might have been to their advantage, but in other years they have enjoyed the flexibility of allocating their delegates the way they pleased, regardless of the popular vote. As the liberty movement gains momentum, a ruling like this will make it that much more difficult for the establishment to disenfranchise supporters of candidates they do not favor.

“Wasting a vote is sometimes voting for somebody that you don't really believe in."
-Ron Paul


then they'll just change the rules at the last minute again so the favored candidate can win.

I don't play, I commission the league.

LOL... I guess you believe

LOL... I guess you believe the machines are running fair code? Ron Paul lost his own district (the one he has been elected in a dozen times). This makes it so the fixed machines can't be beat by a fair paper or hand count in local caucuses..

Does this not violate Rule

Does this not violate Rule 38? Or did they remove that rule?

why bother with a new rule

When they don't follow the rules in the first place? Not to mention that the 'will of the voters' was not Romney anyway, except for the rigged vote counting. I'm so disgusted by all of the lies and cheating and deception that I just don't know what to do right now.

Why even have a primary? Why

Why even have a primary? Why the charade?

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle


Why not just appoint a bunch of flunkies to unanimously 'vote' at the convention. It's just a dog and pony show anyway, er, at this point.

Every liberty Republican in a

Every liberty Republican in a position of power needs to push over the next four years for unbinding delegates and dismantling the primary system in favor of a convention system. Restore power to the grassroots.


I look forward to registering

I look forward to registering Independent....

So you look forward to giving up?

We got a real rEVOLUtionary here guys...

Fight the Ron Paul blackout on the Daily Paul (now 'P AU L'), put his removed poster back as your avatar: