What if...
Submitted by jshowell on Sun, 02/10/2008 - 11:07
We go all the way to the election (which Ron Paul has already stated we are going to do) and the majority of delegates are from Ron Paul's camp? I've seen it posted all over this forum no one knows how many delegates we have right now who could actually go to the convention. We won't know until May. So, what if we get to the convention and the majority of the delegates are for Ron Paul? Can he be nominated even if the nation did not popularly elect him?
I'm asking this because the Huckster is picking up more candidates and McBane hasn't cinched the nomination yet. Where is our firewall for going all the way?
»
Who gets Romney's Delegates that he has won?
Do they have to vote for someone, or can they vote their heart?
Edit:
I found some answers, not sure if they are right. When a candidate suspends their campaign, they can use contributions to write, and notify their delegates, and suggest a candidate to vote for. As I understand it they do not have to vote for that candidate. Also, if a candidate drops out without suspending their campaign, they can not use contributions to contact their delegates. So this explains why Romney suspended his campaign.
Not in my opinion... Romney
Not in my opinion... Romney may be a lot of things, but one thing he has proven himself to be is a smart businessman. You don't become a multi-millionaire without being a good negotiator. The GOP may have asked him to leave -- but not without giving him something, because there is no way Romney would drop out WITHOUT getting something in return. After all, he could have easily gone the brokered convention route and had a good chance, and he knows this.
My opinion is that he went suspended to wait and see what happens. I suspect that Romney isn't done yet, not by a long shot. I think we just might see his name on the ticket with McCain. This would easily put McCain over the top then, because then he can transfer over his delegates to McCain and the odds are now in McCain's favor because Romney supporters would vote for McCain because their guy is now back in the race, only running as VP. Maybe not all his supporters would like to see it that way, but many would bite their tongues and vote for McCain anyway at the convention just because they love Romney.
But again, none of it will matter if we all do what we're suppose to and become delegates. If it goes brokered, the GOP is screwed because RP will win and I have no doubt that they know this. In the beginning they weren't worried, but it very apparent that they are worried now. But will it to go brokered? -- Well, that's the question.
Actually, since he loaned between $60M to $100M to his campaign
It's documented fact that he had loaned his campaign $36M by the end of 2007. We know he spent heavily on IA, NH, and MI -- and it's reported that he spent $30M on Florida alone. Since his donations in this quarter (like everyone's) were pretty low, he must must have loaned his campaign additional funds. The final total I would bet to be somewhere between $60M and $100M. And since a year ago (pre-market downturn) he was estimated to have a net worth of approx $250M to begin with, that is a substantial amount (between 1/4 and 1/2 of his entire fortune).
At this point in time -- without WINNING the nomination, he has very little prospect of having ANY of that paid back.
And if he continued to campaign, he would have had to loan even more and dig himself even deeper into the hole.
I would speculate that he was promised by GOP establishment people that they would "arrange" to help him get a significant amount of money in "donations" to "repay" those loans (like maybe he gets 1/2 of it back?) -- but only IF he cooperated and "suspended" his campaign efforts now.
In other words, he was personally going broke -- and with little prospect of any return on the investment, so he agreed to be "bought" off. (The truth will be revealed in the next set of FEC reports, when we see what his expenses were and how much "post-suspension" money he raised.)
Delegates and the Rules
We play by the rules because the Constitution stands for the rule of law, rather than the rule of man -- that is core to the issues we are so strongly fighting for. The example of W ignoring the Constitution and doing whatever he wants is precisely why we don't say "screw the rules".
What we need to do is: learn the rules, know them inside-out, and use them to our best advantage. This is why the campaign was so successful in WA: no chicanery was required; we didn't need to rig any votes. All we needed to do was to become the majority of delegates. Straightforward rule book play, done shrewdly and successfully.
And this brings us directly back to my earlier post, called Bound or Else: What?, which begs the question: what, indeed, happens when delegates disregard the "must vote this way first" directive? What does the GOP rulebook say about it? Seems to be an issue that is answered variously state-by-state, but I haven't yet heard anything except from someone who mentioned (but I've yet to see the solid reference) that in NJ, it's basically a hand slap -- you don't get to come back and be a delegate again.
In several sports, there are moves that, personally, I don't think are very fair and shouldn't be allowed (not that I care that much about sports -- this is simply an illustration). In basketball, you can intentionally foul an opposing team's player. There is a consequence (the afouled player gets a free throw or something, right?), but the offending player is not ejected from the game, and no one clamors that the game has been thrown or that the game should therefore be called in favor of the afouled member's team.
Ron Paul would never stand for shenanigans on our part, and personally, I wouldn't condone nor participate in any cheating. It is not cheating that I propose here. Now, I don't relish the idea of "not playing nicely", same as I don't think it's very nice for basketball players to deliberately foul an opponent. HOWEVER: if the rules and regulations provide for such activities, and there are consequences but it is NOT something that constitutes fraud...I suggest we use every rule in their GOP rule book to our advantage.
The first hurdle is finding that rule book for each state's GOP; a task which so far I have been finding to be rather elusive. Anyone else working on this task and achieving better success than I?
To be candid, while there has been some minor discussion on this topic, I am surprised that more people aren't jumping on this question and scrambling for answers alongside me.
Difference between conscience, shenanigans, and crimes.
You must remember that there is a significant difference between following your conscience, and engaging in "shenanigans" (in the colloquial sense of bending, twisting, or even outright "violating" minor rules & such) and even further from the actions of other voter suppression, ballot fixing, etc. which are actual crimes, and should be punished by law.
A political party is NOT a government entity, but a private "club" or group -- it is really only slightly more formal than a bowling league. This is one of the ways the party officials justify (in their own minds) that they can virtually do whatever they want locally to manipulate and promote their own candidate or agenda, and to suppress their opposition.
Now, I agree that we should not make a practice of "cheating at cards" the way they do -- and the way to REALLY make a change is to take positions of authority WITHIN the party that allow us to prevent that kind of thing in the future, and to call attention to it and repudiate it loudly if we ever see it happening.
But to me, a delegate voting their conscience at the convention does NOT even reach a "cheating at cards" level. Indeed, delegates are intended to be "representatives" of the party (like members of Congress) and AS such a representative they each have a responsibility to USE their intellect and to follow their morality, and obey their conscience.
In the distant past (say 50, 60, 100 years ago) the delegates regularly DID do so. (Although there was also the problem, as in Congress, of blatant "corruption" and the buying of votes). The practices of "binding by oath" were intended to stymie BOTH types of activities. The truly "corrupt" situation of delegates selling their votes for bribes -- AND the situation of delegates voting their beliefs and consciences (and thus subjecting them to more control by party officials, and purportedly more faithfulness to the wishes of the voters in their state).
If you understand that fact -- that the binding is to prevent "bribery" and you do not allow yourself to be bribed or corrupted. Then from that viewpoint you ARE being faithful.
On the issue of conscience, well if you truly believe that your state's primary votes were themselves somehow "corrupted" (by gerrymandering, media bias, party "shenanigans" or even outright election fraud) and that as such they are not a true reflection of the electorates "will" -- then NOT voting your conscience would be the problem.
For example, say you are a delegate from New Hampshire, and you know that the majority of the GOP members in your state are actually opposed to the war, and were somehow "duped" or "tricked" into voting for McCain mistakenly believing him to be against the war -- and that also a majority of those voters actually believed when exiting the polls that "Ron Paul" would be the best President. Well then I believe in all GOOD conscience you could not and SHOULD NOT cast your vote for John McCain. (Who himself is an "oathbreaker" in terms of repeatedly and blatantly violating his oath to uphold the Constitution -- for which sadly there is no accountability and are no penalties -- and in terms of his violation of his marriage vows to his first wife.)
During the first round of
During the first round of balloting, all the "winner take all" states must vote for whoever won the popular vote, even if ALL OF THEM ARE RON PAUL SUPPORTERS. The rest of the states go by percentages based on the popular vote, so first place will get a higher percentage of delegates than second place and third place.
So the question is, does McCain have enough support? This is why the straw polls are somewhat important to watch, while they are meaningless in the second round of voting, they do have meaning when it comes to the FIRST ROUND at the convention. If McCain hits that magic number before the convention takes place, then it's over. Make no mistake about it, if he hits that number 1191 due to winning the popular vote, it's over and there will not be brokered convention.
What are the odds of him doing that? About the same odds as was the Yankees beating the Red Sox in 2004... and we all know what happened, right? It ain't over til it's over!
Delegates and Electors
Delegates are for the Parties in their respective conventions while Electors are for the election (each state gets so many and they can vote contrary to the popular vote in that state).
Delegates pick the party presidental candidates.
Elector pick the president.
I hope this clear this up.
Are all electors bound to the delegates vote?
Do the electors from each state have to go with the delegates vote? Or is it different for each state?
http://killfiat.blogspot.com/
Eventually, yes
Some delegates have to vote as their state did for the first round. Some, like New Jersey, have to vote as their state (in this case McCain) for 3 rounds.
What I havent found out the answer to is, Can they just say screw that, I vote for Ron Paul..... I mean, GWB said "F U" to the constitution, so why do the delegates have to play by the rules.
See post above
...Delegates and the Rules.
When an Elector votes contrary to their state vote on the 1st
ballot, they are called "unfaithful electors" This rarely happens, however it has happened before, so it could happen again.
Actually with delegates we're not so sure.
Electors are participant in a government run thing. Thus the binding of electors is a legally binding "trustee" position.
Delegates to a convention are significant different in a LEGAL sense. The Political Parties are private entities (this is one of the reasons that "party officials" are allowed to count the votes or delegates in many states).
And AS private entities, they do NOT have the force of law -- and thus for a delegate to be "unfaithful" is NOT a crime, and cannot be a crime. At the maximum, it could be considered a "breach of contract" (if the delegate actually signs a contract) and might subject the person to fines or civil actions (but the penalties would need to be fairly obvious within any contract so signed).
Now, I have never been a delegate, and I am sure this differs from state to state (and some states may actually have a "signed contract") -- but my understanding in our state is that the person states a verbal "oath" and then signs something to witness that they have agreed to be "bound by that oath or affirmation" and to vote for the winning candidate at the convention. The whole thing is designed, much like a lie detector test, to "psychologically" scare the person into compliance. But in actual end fact, any one or every one of the delegates could still vote their conscience when the convention occurs.)
Checks & Balances
The reason our Founding Fathers set this nation up as a republic was specifically to cross check and balance powers, including the concern of mob rule. They did not trust that the masses would always choose wisely; that is why we today live not in a Democracy, but in a Republic.
Likewise, I would think that "delegates" serve the same purpose as "representatives". Not to disregard the popular vote, but to act as a check and balance mechanism. In that manner, I would expect that electors are to vote their conscience.
Please understand: IANAL and I have no desire to promote anything illegal. I do, however, think we need to explore all our legal and rightful options. IF there is nothing patently illegal with doing so...and IF there are no party repercussions against RP for doing so...I would champion following and taking advantage of every rule that benefits the freedom of the People.
I read...
I read on some Ron Paul forum, not sure which one, that a delegate can vote any way they chose even if they are "bound". What happens when they do, according to the post I read, is they are verbally reprimanded and barred from participating at the next convention in four years, but may continue at this convention.
Much like faithless "electors" in electoral college...
But since the parties are all private entities, it is NOT a punishable crime for a delegate to vote his or her conscience -- and in opposition to the candidate they were "bound by oath or affirmation" to support.
All that can (and likely would) happen would be that the party officials would look at this as a "mutiny" or "insubordination" and would want to chastise the delegate as much as possible.
But of course, if a large enough number or percentage of delegates chose to do this (perhaps because of some recent scandalous behavior or actions on the part of the candidate they were bound to) -- especially if it were large enough to be in the actual majority (say over 50%) then it would be a bit of a different story, after all "majority rules" in such things.
Party officials might *want* to chastise such delegates, but would in turn face rather dire consequences as a result.
Its sort of like a school playground bully. If even HALF of the other kids would decide to stand-up together against the bully... they would get scared s-less and run away as fast as they could.
Unfortunately, just as this does NOT happen often (ever?) on the school playground, it is just as unlikely to happen in the convention halls. Most people feel they actually ARE "bound" by that oath, and so tow the line (and it would take an extreme situation to make them "mutiny").
Imagine a happy ending, work
Imagine a happy ending, work for it, and it will be ours.
****
"I'm not trying to free anything but your mind."
"Imagine another way."
This message brought to you be The League of Phonәtic Symbols.
Do we go as comitted or
Do we go as comitted or uncomitted delegates to the convention?
Your job is to get Ron Paul elected.
How you approach that is your decision.
Render them both equal in
Render them both equal in your mind and then pick one.
That's the one.
No need to ask or answer why.
****
"I'm not trying to free anything but your mind."
"Imagine another way."
This message brought to you be The League of Phonәtic Symbols.