U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-26-2012, 09:59 AM
 
473 posts, read 343,098 times
Reputation: 51

Advertisements

Any Delegate Can Vote for Ron Paul on the First Ballot! Voting Rights Law and the Republican Party rules allow a Delegate to vote for whoever they choose on the first ballot. Please read the Law on Delegates which trumps any rules on Delegates:

42 USC 1971 - Voting rights


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-26-2012, 10:01 AM
 
473 posts, read 343,098 times
Reputation: 51
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2012, 10:19 AM
 
473 posts, read 343,098 times
Reputation: 51
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2012, 10:33 AM
 
473 posts, read 343,098 times
Reputation: 51
RULE 38 - Delegates are not Bound

There is nothing to stop a Delegate from voting for Ron Paul.

Source: http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2012, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Greater Washington, DC
1,347 posts, read 923,446 times
Reputation: 235
You might want to let Ron Paul know since his campaign has conceded they can't win. It's a good thing some random citizen discovered this when even his own campaign has no idea this could happen You gotta tell him! Quick!

Also your interpretation of the US code is 100% false. It says you can't intimidate or coerce voters in choosing delegates, not that it's illegal to force delegates to vote for a certain presidential candidate. That's why we have a popular vote and a separate vote for the delegates.

Have you actually read any rules beyond Rule 38? Try rule 15. State parties can indeed bind delegates. http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf

Delegates cannot be bound to how other delegates vote according to rule 38. According to rule 15, they can indeed be bound to the popular vote if that is what a particular state calls for. So, for example, Massachusetts can bind its delegates to the popular vote, they just can't bind their delegates to each other to vote as a unit.

We'll see which interpretation the RNC likes better, but my money's on my interpretation.
If Rule 38 meant delegates could not be bound at all to anything, why on earth would they say states could bind delegates in Rule 15 if they were just going to nullify that later in the rules? Simple logic should tell you that your interpretation is a little questionable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2012, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
72,014 posts, read 83,671,479 times
Reputation: 41810
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmsterp View Post
You might want to let Ron Paul know since his campaign has conceded they can't win. It's a good thing some random citizen discovered this when even his own campaign has no idea this could happen You gotta tell him! Quick!

Also your interpretation of the US code is 100% false. It says you can't intimidate or coerce voters in choosing delegates, not that it's illegal to force delegates to vote for a certain presidential candidate. That's why we have a popular vote and a separate vote for the delegates.

Have you actually read any rules beyond Rule 38? Try rule 15. State parties can indeed bind delegates. http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf

Delegates cannot be bound to how other delegates vote according to rule 38. According to rule 15, they can indeed be bound to the popular vote if that is what a particular state calls for. So, for example, Massachusetts can bind its delegates to the popular vote, they just can't bind their delegates to each other to vote as a unit.

We'll see which interpretation the RNC likes better, but my money's on my interpretation.
If Rule 38 meant delegates could not be bound at all to anything, why on earth would they say states could bind delegates in Rule 15 if they were just going to nullify that later in the rules? Simple logic should tell you that your interpretation is a little questionable.
of course they are bound to popular vote. If a candidate wins the primary, the delegates can't just go in and vote against what the state has said. I think people need to stop reading into these articles what they want to read...I don't know if I will be happy or sad when the convention is over and Paul is no longer an issue. Some of the fun will be missing, I can say that much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2012, 11:43 AM
 
473 posts, read 343,098 times
Reputation: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmsterp View Post
You might want to let Ron Paul know since his campaign has conceded they can't win. It's a good thing some random citizen discovered this when even his own campaign has no idea this could happen You gotta tell him! Quick!

Also your interpretation of the US code is 100% false. It says you can't intimidate or coerce voters in choosing delegates, not that it's illegal to force delegates to vote for a certain presidential candidate. That's why we have a popular vote and a separate vote for the delegates.

Have you actually read any rules beyond Rule 38? Try rule 15. State parties can indeed bind delegates. http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf

Delegates cannot be bound to how other delegates vote according to rule 38. According to rule 15, they can indeed be bound to the popular vote if that is what a particular state calls for. So, for example, Massachusetts can bind its delegates to the popular vote, they just can't bind their delegates to each other to vote as a unit.

We'll see which interpretation the RNC likes better, but my money's on my interpretation.
If Rule 38 meant delegates could not be bound at all to anything, why on earth would they say states could bind delegates in Rule 15 if they were just going to nullify that later in the rules? Simple logic should tell you that your interpretation is a little questionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
of course they are bound to popular vote. If a candidate wins the primary, the delegates can't just go in and vote against what the state has said. I think people need to stop reading into these articles what they want to read...I don't know if I will be happy or sad when the convention is over and Paul is no longer an issue. Some of the fun will be missing, I can say that much.
If Ron Paul wasn't a force to be reckoned with... You wouldn't bother posting that he wasn't...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2012, 12:40 PM
 
2,798 posts, read 3,674,028 times
Reputation: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Born to Run View Post
If Ron Paul wasn't a force to be reckoned with... You wouldn't bother posting that he wasn't...
Why not?Do you really think anything to do with the election is going to be decided here on the c-d forum?People come on here for some entertainment value in their lives,not because anything important to the universe is going to be decided here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2012, 12:46 PM
 
473 posts, read 343,098 times
Reputation: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbobbbb View Post
Why not?Do you really think anything to do with the election is going to be decided here on the c-d forum?People come on here for some entertainment value in their lives,not because anything important to the universe is going to be decided here.
People sure are acting like it is...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2012, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
72,014 posts, read 83,671,479 times
Reputation: 41810
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbobbbb View Post
Why not?Do you really think anything to do with the election is going to be decided here on the c-d forum?People come on here for some entertainment value in their lives,not because anything important to the universe is going to be decided here.
you understand this, I do and most of us do, but there will always be some who think what they say here will change people's minds or make a difference. Like any forum, it is for fun, the people are anoyomous, and it is an escape for many. Yes, those of us on the this particular forum are probably political junkies, which is OK, just so some do not think they are making a huge impression on the country or think everything they read or write is correct....

Nita
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:06 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top