Comment: yes and no

(See in situ)

yes and no

If I could play God and make the rule changes myself, I wouldn't have done it exactly this way, but in general yes, I am very glad they're closing up these loopholes.

It amazes me that you're describing this stealth delegate / break binding strategy as being the will of the people expressed (and now stifled). It's nothing of the sort and I think if you could step back a moment you'll see why most people think that sounds so silly. It's the exact opposite of what you claim. When people vote for a candidate to get their vote at a convention, and bind a delegate to vote for someone, then THAT is the will of the people. If an individual who is elected by the will of the people to vote for person A then decides that he/she doesn't care and is going to vote for person B, then that individual is the one violating the will of the people. You guys talked way too much about how "the voters have no clue so we're going to step in and overrule them", and now the people you were saying were dumb have stepped in and fought back. Congrats for angering people that you wouldn't have otherwise angered if you hadn't tried a strategy of "screw the binding rules, I'm going to do whatever I want". It was just a horrible strategic decision to get delegate spots bound to other candidates then say publicly that you weren't going to abide by that binding. I know many of your delegates are honorable people who were going to follow the rules. But the rhetoric online ruined things for them as well. The people who led the "break binding" charge, including those in this national delegate lawsuit, only have themselves to blame.

I know it's hard to explain something like this to someone who thinks the voting machines are rigged and that Ron Paul actually got more popular votes than Mitt Romney. Once you can snap back out of that fantasy, then maybe you'll understand what I'm saying. The will of the people was expressed, and you lost. Don't tell people that you know more than them and that you're going to overrule their votes. They tend not to take that well.

Answer this question for me ... Imagine that Ron Paul had won a state with 80% of the popular vote and all the delegates were bound to him. Then imagine a state convention where Sarah Palin organizes her minions, with assistance from Fox News, and they overwhelm you and win all the delegate seats. At first, you're disappointed but tell them congratulations because you know they're bound to vote for Ron Paul anyway. But then Sean Hannity starts talking on his show about how since they were much better organized, more passionate, AND much smarter than you, they should just vote for Sarah Palin since that's what their group wanted them to do. Can you honestly say that you would think the "will of the people" was for them to vote for Palin? Can you with a straight face say that you wouldn't be leading the charge for binding rules to be enforced, and to ensure that they did what the voters had asked - namely, vote for Ron Paul? Can you really argue that you wouldn't be mad if they tried to pretend that there was no such thing as binding? I know that I can unequivocally state that I think it's wrong for a delegate to break binding rules, whether they are breaking the rules for or against a candidate I support. You seem to be in favor of breaking binding rules when it helps your candidate. Are you in favor of breaking binding rules when it hurts your guy?