Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Effects on the Article with the May 29 vote in Texas

Happy Memorial_day greetings. Remember ancestors in the 1940_census and the men and women who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces.

Citizens of the Lone Star State of Texas vote tomorrow, Tuesday: Texas_Republican_primary,_2012. I'm interested in how Ron Paul does in his own state. Will Gingrich and Santorum have equal votes with Ron Paul? And will Romney win the majority since he has the momentum? We'll see shortly. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope everyone here bears in mind that even if Romney takes all 152 delegates tonight, he would still be at least 20 votes (by Wiki's current estimate) shy of clinching. The media, however, seems poised to go gangbusters with the "Romney clinches" headlines, since they're all using the incorrect AP count, which has been doing everyone but perhaps the Romney camp a great disservice. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is only because Wikipedia is not counting superdelegates, even when they have already pledged their support of Romney. Add JUST the ones that are firmly in Romney's corner and he clinches. Not that it matters anyway after the California/New Jersey sweep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

When was the decision made to count superdelegates? If the infobox & charts (and the RNC's own official count) don't include them, then the text shouldn't either, or make statements based on those numbers. I'm not going to launch into a discussion of why they should or shouldn't be counted (as I'm sure this has already been discussed ad nauseum), but it is clear that they aren't considered currently (as you admitted) in the article, so all I'm asking for is some consistency. Your Average Joe who listens to Fox News, CNN, etc. and hears Romney clinched may exercise some diligence and check the good Wiki. Knowing a candidate needs 1144 votes, and seeing that according to this page he does not, he will likely be confused; ideally, Wiki should not leave people in a state of confusion. As for CA & NJ, that is irrelevent, as that is speculation, however confident we may be that he will sweep. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the Green Papers "The Texas Republican State Convention is set for Thursday 7 June...This leaves only a week and a half between the primary and delegate election-- it is unlikely that the vote could be certified in time. The party may need to decouple the selection of National Convention delegates from the primary election." Anybody know if this is likely to happen? Maybe it depends on how close the results are? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Reports were that Romney needed 89 delegates in the Texas win to "clinch" the Nomination; Ron Paul get 11 and Romney got 93, (over by 4 delegates). See the Texas Green papers and also the Wikipedia page, already with these results. Certification won't change his 76% popular vote in TX, (or whatever it ends up.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what Wikipedia page or Green Papers are you looking at? The one I'm looking at (the article for this talk page) has Romney at 972. 972+152=1124 (which is < 1144), and he won't get all 152. GP has his hard count at 1,007 with TX added in. I'm afraid your "reports" are mistaken. I also think you missed the point regarding certification- it's not about what the results are, but when they are made official/certified, and could therefore then be used to "bind" delegates, which I believe must be done by the state convention. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate count in states like these are generally not released until a little bit after the primaries. That said, Romney is not quite yet the nominee, at least by the hard count. After California and New Jersey, though, he will certainly get it. Ron Paul must win two more caucus conventions if he wants to take his fight to Tampa. Mr. Anon515 05:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that's about right. Although I will note (if you were referring to the five-state rule) that Paul has at least 4 plurality states already (Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada), and likely a fifth, depending where the loyalties of Alaska's Santorum & Gingrich delegates lie (I know at least two Santorum delegates there have already switched to Paul), and which delegation from Oklahoma gets seated. Bear in mind that "demonstrating the support of a plurality of the delegates" to satisfy Rule 40(b) ≠ "must cast ballot for said candidate per state party rules"- that is a separate vote taken prior to the roll call. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, official hard count is 132 delegates short, and soft count is four delegates over. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-HS.phtml — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Mitt Romney is the only serious candidate at this point, his delegate count will only get stronger as states finalize. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe- that is, again, pure speculation. "The delegate count for Romney will increase as states think about it"- I'm not certain what you mean by 'think about it' and 'states finalize', but if you are referring to state conventions, then we don't know anything. The only thing we can say confidently is that Romney is likely to pick up delegates that truly support him in the remaining primary states that elect them directly (CA, NJ, and some in SD) and at State Committee Meetings, which are usually constituted of so-called "establishment" types (AR, FL, MA, PA). All of the other remaining states that have not elected their delegates yet (LA, MO, WA, NC, IL, IN, KY, TX, IA, MT, NM, VA, ID, OR, & NE [in that order]) will be holding state conventions, where anything can happen. Paul supporters are not going to go through the trouble of becoming delegates, travel to a convention, pay for their stay & admittance, vigilantly counter fake slates or other mischief, and sit through a bunch of speeches just to cast ballots for Romney or his delegates, because of a sudden change of heart after they've "thought about it." You may question whether Ron Paul is a "serious candidate", but it would be wise to consider his supporters as such. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To continue beyond some of the great info that's mentioned below, Romney can & will be able to show at the 2012 GOP national convention that he won VA, ID, OR, NC & KY, since those state's delegations are bound by the results of the contests that have already taken place. AK's delegation is also bound by the results of the previous contest there, which gave that state basically as a tie in delegates between Romney & Santorum (who has since endorsed Romney). Oklahoma's results have been discussed elsewhere (including on the the Wikipages for that contest), and that state went to Santorum, as per that state's binding of delegates to its previous Super Tuesday contest. The long, drawn-out delegate selection processes in MO, LA & WA will come to end tomorrow (June 2nd), and IN's delegate process will come to an end on June 9th. Romney can show that he won the previous contests in IL & TX (which both bind their delegates to those state's previous primary results), but there are a few lingering unpledged delegates that are left "up for grabs" in both those states. Guy1890 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that those were "states that have not elected all their delegates yet." 68.58.63.22 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to get a few point straight.
Paul cant show a plurality in Nevada, because his supporters there is bound to Romney just as they are in Massachusetts. This subject have been discussed in lenght so see the many sections now archived. In Colorado Romney can actually show a plurality. So right now Paul can show a plurality in Minnesota and Maine. It is most likely (taken by unofficial numbers from county conventions and caucuses) that Paul will be able to show a plurality in Washington State and Louisana when this week is over. I think this cycle have taught us to never guess what will happen in Missouri . Later on Iowas will properly go Pauls way and then he will have five states.
And about the delegatecount - Remember that most softcount you see around the web is projected, the soft count in this article is unprojected. That means it is made up of delegates that have to vote for a candidate like it or not and (finalized and elected) delegates that are strong supporters of a candidate. How big a chance is it that such a softcount will change? The hardcount is as always only the delegates that have to vote for a candidate even if they really dont want to. Kept out of this count is the RNC delegates that are not a part of the election process but will be voting delegates by virtue of their position in the party. They are kept out because even if they are strong supporters of a candidate the have considerations that lies beyond this primary process.
So has Romney secured his majority?

• By the hardcount (996) - No
• By the unprojected softcount (1,077) - No
• By the unprojected softcount and the unbound RNC delegates that have pledge to him (1,077+54=1,131) - No
• By a projected softcount, lets say GP (1,148) - Yes.
  (But if I may be so bold to say that the GP softcount is nothing more than looking into the crystalball and even less than that because it uses a straight forward projection from the nonbinding strawpolls in states we know that Paul supporters are "taking over". Just have a look on the GP page for Washington State.)

That said it would be extremly unlikely that Romney will not have a hardcount majority by this time next week. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is finalized until the Republican National Convention, Tampa, Florida, August 27—30, 2012 and the first vote. Even with delegates pledged, something could happen in an 'October Surprise', (probably would backfire). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This just in, "US President Barack Obama on Wednesday called his Republican adversary Mitt Romney to congratulate him on amassing enough delegates to secure his party's nomination, his campaign said."

"Obama said that he looked forward to an important and healthy debate about America's future, and wished Governor Romney and his family well throughout the upcoming campaign," campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement." — Just Saying, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I see there are a few points that need to be addressed. Now, before I attempt to do so, I'd like to offer my thanks to Mr. Bornholm for his seemingly tireless attention to all these primary-related pages. You are a longtime steward of this article, so I am confident that all the delegate numbers you have posted above are accurate as much as they can be, given their respective parameters & what is known publicly. They also affirm my longstanding position that Romney did not clinch the nomination yesterday, but will likely do so, per official counts, after the June 5 California primary. However, this is still May, not June, so any language in the article that claims that Romney has "won" the primary should be stricken until we know it to be true, as I would hate the idea that any prospective voters in CA, etc. did not show up based on false information written here, more than have already decided not to vote anyway. Obama or anyone else can shout until they turn blue that Romney has clinched, but the facts are the facts, and the reality is that as of today, it simply isn't true, and Obama's opinion is irrelevant, unless he has information not available publicly that he would like to share with us on this matter.

Now, as for convention procedure. I understand that many of these issues have been raised in prior posts and can be found in archives. However, it seems that some of the conclusions drawn from those discussions are incorrect, so I feel compelled to post more information here. I agree that this article must stick to official counts, hard or otherwise, so some of the following information would be better suited in an article on the convention, rather than the primaries. That said, it is important that we are all on the same page on these issues.

Bear with me a moment and ignore state-party imposed bindings. I think it is evident that if a majority of the delegates on the floor in Tampa are supporters of either Paul or Romney, their candidate will be nominated, and they will likely antagonize the other side in the process. When assembled collectively, RNC delegates are the Republican Party, acting as its supreme legislative body. It can override any and all state party rules or laws (see here), and, as a private party, is largely insulated from government action (much like free speech rights may be more restrictive in private schools). The more tricky scenarios arise when no candidate has majority support on the floor (again, ignoring bindings). This is when issues like Rules 32, 38, 40(b), abstentions & alternates, etc. come into play. As an aside, I will note that Romney currently has approximately 650 confirmed supporters actually selected to go to Tampa, Paul 300, Santorum 100, Gingrich 50, 150 truly uncommitted, and another 230 I haven't been able to pinpoint yet. Nearly 800 delegates have yet to be selected, the vast majority of whom will be elected at state conventions. These numbers include the automatic RNC delegates.

So, regarding Rule 40. This is a new rule, so of course there is no precedent of how it is enforced. However, the language of the rule clearly indicates that the submission of candidates for nomination by delegations will (indeed, must) take place before a roll call. The candidate must show "support" of a plurality of 5 delegations. It can be argued that if two candidates have equal support, they both share plurality. Delegates are bound only for the roll call itself (for however many ballots), and not for anything else. Submission of names for nomination is a separate process from an actual vote, and it is not clear yet how this will be done. If a signed affidavit affirming support is submitted from each delegation to the convention chair, for example, then indeed no "vote" need to have been taken, or ballots cast. So, Paul's Nevada supporters could help him in this effort, just as MS delegates could put in Romney's name (as I understand most elected at their state convention were Romney supporters).

As far as Colorado is concerned, I would be surprised if it hasn't been mentioned already that a deal was struck between Paul & Santorum backers at the state convention to split all the spots their slate could get, so nearly all of the unpledged delegates are Paul backers, and the rest are Santorum supporters, pledged or not, who have, by and large, agreed to "support" Paul to the extent Rule 40 is concerned. Beyond that, I can't say how all the Santorum folks will cast their ballots. Suffice it to say, CO counts towards Paul's five, although I don't expect that to be added to the article, since this information was not made officially available. We all know what happened in NV, and OK is sending two full delegations to Tampa, and the RNC Contests Committee will need to sort through which is legitimate.

If rules for a roll call and state bindings are upheld, then abstaining may come into play. Delegates are allowed to abstain, and there is plenty of precedent to support this claim. I think Mr. Bornholm has the numbers from the last convention if anyone is interested. Now of course, when few do so, no one tries to stop them, but if delegates abstain en masse, we get into somewhat uncharted waters. In theory, this is how it goes- each state delegation chair rises, in alphabetical order, to address the convention chair and inform the secretary of his/her state's tally. Unless overruled by the whole body, each state delegation is autonomous (with one exception), and how votes are reported is up to the discretion of the delegation chair, who may exercise that discretion to cast votes in place of abstentions or votes that violate bindings. If enough of a state's delegates disagree with the chair, they may vote to replace him (as Paul has already done in CO) and update the tally. Alternatively, delegation chairs may be circumvented if at least 6 states ask for a full roll to be taken, whether of a state or the entire convention, whereby delegates are individually polled, at which time they would then be able to declare their abstention. The only exception to this delegation autonomy (unless additional restrictions are added by the convention) is the now infamous unit rule, whereby a majority of a state's delegates (not their state party) vote to throw all their state's votes to a given candidate. This was a common practice years ago, such as when Lincoln's campaign manager, Judge David Davis, needed to secure all 22 votes from the IL delegation for the 1860 Republican convention, of which about a third (from northern IL) then supported Sen. William Seward, so he handled that by binding the state to vote as a unit. While not directly related to state party bindings, the modern prohibition of this practice does suggest an overall bias toward free agency for delegates, as far as the national party is concerned. Alternates cannot replace any delegates, abstaining or otherwise, without first gaining their credentials to vote. At a minimum, this would require those delegates to leave the floor, which they may not voluntarily do. Unless the RNC wants a riot to erupt on national TV, they will not be seating alternates to replace abstaining delegates. Not to mention the fact that if delegates leave with their credentials, new credentials would need to be printed up for alternates so they can vote. This is essentially what caused a ruckus at the AZ State Convention, where Romney delegates failed to properly check out, taking their credentials with them so alternates could not be seated and quorum was broken before business was completed. Now of course, all these parliamentary maneuvers would be pointless if one candidate has majority support, but if they do not, they may be used while both sides cajole uncommitted delegates to come their way.

If there is anyone still doubting the ability of convention delegates to unbind themselves, just consider the following scenarios: the presumptive nominee gets caught committing a felony, or, more likely, does something legal but objectionable (say, infidelity) that goes against the consciences of the delegates. What if, come August, polls indicate a 20+ point gap behind Obama? Would delegates still be unable to exercise their judgement to choose at that time the person they believe would be the best nominee for the party, lest they be found in violation of state "rules" or laws? Of course not. Whichever candidate sends more supporters to Tampa, and keeps them, will win the nomination. It really is as simple as that.

Finally, no one has offered information on what happens to TX delegates if the primary vote is not certified by June 7. Do TX state party rules allow for post-convention binding, and if so, by whom? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me your source that confirms Paul as having a plurality in CO? Last I checked, Romney held a strong plurality, if not majority, there. I don't think Santorum's delegates have officially announced their allegiance.

Paul does not quite have Nevada either. Like Jack and Charles have noted, most of that state's delegates are bound to Romney, regardless of their personal allegiance. Mr. Anon515 20:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Here's a statement from the Paul campaign that shows he has at least 12 delegates & the delegation chair (which by tradition is usually awarded to the state party chair). Romney won 13 delegates, and we know that Ryan Call, state chair, is a Romney supporter. The RNC Committeewoman is an unknown, as is the Committeeman, but I can tell you from a source at the convention that one of those two expressed support for Paul, and both were reelected so they don't have to worry how they'll cast their ballots. We'll see, but for the sake of argument let's give Romney all 3 supers. There are 6 official Santorum delegates, plus two of the unpledged backed him, for a total of 8. 1 of those has since committed to Paul for all votes. I know 5 of the other 7 Santorum supporters will not vote for Romney (I think b/c of his pro-choice history), and at least 4 of those 7 will try to cast ballots for Santorum for the 1st ballot (if his name has been submitted for nomination), while also in the meantime supporting Paul's effort to meet Rule 40, and are prepared to back him if it becomes a two-man roll call. The other 3 Santorum delegates don't like Romney or Paul, so while they will try to cast ballots for Santorum, I don't know how they'll vote if it's just the other two- maybe they'll abstain? So as far as Wiki is concerned, the official count is 14 unpledged, 13 Romney, 6 Santorum, 3 unpledged RNC. With this source considered, it's 13 Romney, 12 Paul, 6 Santorum, 2 unpledged, 3 RNC. In reality, it's looking like (in a two-way vote) 17 Paul, 16 Romney, 3 unknown (with 2 of those 3 doing something other than voting Romney), so we could end up with a 17-17 tie with both men having plurality but not a majority. In a roll call with all 3 names, it would be 16 Romney, 13 Paul, 7 Santorum. Again, this is assuming for now that all 3 supers vote Romney.

As for Nevada & Rule 40, I guess I will put it another way- personal allegiance is what counts when it comes to "demonstrating support" for submitting a name for consideration for nomination. Delegates, even those purported to be bound otherwise, can say "I support the submission for consideration by this body of Ron Paul... Santorum, or whoever... for the nomination of this party for President of the United States." The purview of state party rules binding delegates is limited to the roll call itself and does not preclude anyone from entering someone else's name for nomination. I don't know yet exactly how support will be asked to be demonstrated, but I do know that it will be a separate procedure. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm a bit skeptical, given that the source you are using is hardly neutral. The article shows Paul with 2 hard delegates, and 12 unpledged (I assume you are counting some of them towards Paul based on statements of support). Still, this article shows there being 17 soft delegates as a result of the convention. Romney only needs 5 to get a plurality. If Paul can show that at least 14 of those 17 show support towards him, then he will get that state. Also, I'm pretty sure "demonstrates support" means that they will vote for him on the first convention ballot. The "roll call" refers to the vote count for the first ballot, so Nevada's delegates have to vote Romney's, as do those of his home state. Mr. Anon515 02:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry folks, but it seems that Mr. Anonymous "68.58.63.22" is spreading a bunch of baloney that's almost entirely been debunked elsewhere in the long history of this Wiki talk page. Santorum (who later officially endorsed Romney) can show that he won MS, since that state's delegates are bound by the previous contest there. AZ's delegation is bound to Romney, and that's old news at this late date. As for CO, to quote "68.58.63.22"'s obviously biased article cited above:

"In Colorado, supporters of the 12-term Congressman from Texas won 12 delegates and 13 alternate delegates. Paul’s state operation is confident that it can win over more of the Rick Santorum delegates to its side who were elected on a combined Paul-Santorum slate. The Paul-Santorum coalition’s combined delegate total is 20—more than establishment candidate Mitt Romney’s estimated 16."

First of all, we haven't been counting unbound RNC delegates here for quite a while now, which I have no problem at with...that leaves only 33 CO delegates in play (20 of which are bound in their support). There's been discussion on the 2012 CO Caucus Wiki & talk pages about what happened there in the end, and it's that Romney won at least a plurality of the delegates there. Was there some talk at the CO state convention about a "fusion" of support from some Paul & Santorum supporters? Yes, but even with that unofficial "combined support", no one but Romney can show a win in CO. The abstention issue has been discussed on this talk page at length before as well...it's bogus, as those delegates that try to pull those kind of stunts will be immediately replaced by alternates & likely sanctioned in some way from participating in state GOP politics for a period of time. There's precedent & GOP Party rules in support of doing that as well. Guy1890 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also can you give a source for Paul's 300 delegates? Last I checked even by the largest counts he has less than 200 delegates. Mr. Anon515 20:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel it would be appropriate at this time to make public a detailed state-by-state count, but if you do some research in the right places you'll find examples like VA, where district conventions wrapped up and Paul supporters took a slight majority of delegates, with the rest being either for Romney or uncommitted (I believe this is a state where the Paul campaign has revealed this information anyway). I've also been told that a significant portion of the district delegates from Georgia are Paul supporters. That being said, Romney supporters still currently outnumber Paul's by at least 2:1, so while not impossible, the campaign will have to work the remaining conventions hard over the next month-and-a-half to catch up. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. We shall see at the convention. I'm pretty sure though, that about 900 delegates are "hard-bound" to Romney, much like the circumstance in Nevada. You might be counting some of them towards Paul. Again though, we will have to see in Tampa how the rules are interpreted. Mr. Anon515 02:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Not appropriate? If numbers are good they should be made public in a NPOV way. This is not revolution central, it is a free encyclopedia. If numbers can't be made public they have no place here. Coming what will happen at the convention I agree that there should be a short section about it in this article, but the convention really have its own article. If something very strange happened in the convention the numbers of this article should still reflect the primary process according to the rules that was valid when the process took place. Of course what then would go on at the convention would be noticed with a link to the main article. That is also the reason that the Paul supporters elected as bound Romney delegates are not counted in this article in a special way. They are bound according to the rules (as they themselve have acknowledged) to vote for Romney, but they are not bound to anything else. And it does seems to be a very interesting, even though I dont think it will be a revolutionary and democratic disfranchising, convention. Even though the mental state and metodhs of the common member of the Libertarian wing of the GOP on blogs on the internet reminds me of the Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Party before the 1903 party convention. But even though they imploy the same party revolutionar thinking I am sure the comparison goes no further. I think that whatever would happen at the convention mainly should be written about in the 2012 Republican National Convention article. At with good source a section about the delegates that will vote Romney to be the candidate but will vote for Pauls policies would be most appropriate in that article by now. I think it is time we all started to show the convention article more attention. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that I don't feel comfortable giving out a precise count of the number of supporters for each candidate that have been elected delegates, as there are many who are, wisely, holding their cards close to their chests. Give it another month and much more should be out by then. I wouldn't put too much faith at this point in any statements made by delegates from any state that they will not try to bend or change some rules- they have simply come to understand how politics works, and they will say what they need to in order to secure their position. As I wrote earlier, "I agree that this article must stick to official counts, hard or otherwise", because until things change, we have to operate under the assumptions of the rules ostensibly in place today. If I thought differently, it would of course be reasonable to provide multiple sources, or not say anything at all. I gave out the 300 number just as an "fyi" to those curious in how generally competitive the race for delegates is in the context of the information I was giving on convention procedure. However, since it came up, I think the CO count should be modified to acknowledge the count from the Paul campaign (in bold). I do agree with you that the article on the RNC should start getting some more attention.

One other thing- you imply that if Paul (or any candidate but Romney) emerges as the nominee in August, that it would be "disenfranchising" or undemocratic. It's really not a big deal, but I do try to counter such misconceptions whenever I can... Among absurdly low turnout, not-Romney is still beating Romney, despite a winner being declared weeks ago. His popular vote totals don't give him a monopolistic claim on such a mandate. Contrary to conventional wisdom, no one is being disenfranchised- millions have voluntarily chosen to abstain from the primaries, and many who did show up (for caucuses) were not interested in filling delegate vacancies. If come November millions of people really want to vote for Romney and he is not the GOP nominee, they can write him in, just as many would for Paul. Would you say that Paul's North Dakota or Wyoming voters were disenfranchised when Romney managed to grab a disproportionate number of delegates there who are his supporters? The Republican Party is a private group, and it is republicans, of all people, who should recognize the distinction between that which is private or public, and also the fact that America is a republic, not a democracy. You may be correct about comparing the zeal of Paul's supporters with Russian Bolsheviks , and you would also be correct that their respective political ideologies (or their methods) have next to zero relation with one another. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt say that 70% to Romney and 30% to not-Romney at this weeks Texas primary is Not-Romney beating Romney. But you are right it is noteworthy that with the primary as good as wrapped up the few partymembers carring to turn up at the polls are not voting in even higher numbers for Romney. About the 1903 Russian Convention; I was thinking afterwards it was a bit risky to compare the Lib. to what in a two decades became the Communists since I know how strongly negative that world is in America (As European I find it sometimes funny sometimes offensive that Socialist and Communist seems to be the same in the states). I was of course not comparing the ideology with the Libertarian, I guess those two philosophies pretty much are extreme opposite to each other. And I dont compare the Libertarian with the dictatorship of Stalin where millions where exterminated in concentrationcamps. But before there was anything called communistics and before all that there was a very interesting convention in a democratic committed middle-to-left-wing party. And with just very few votes, collected in semi-secret by taking over local committees and party organisations, an extreme wing of the party took over and in the years after totally changed the party. That wing was called Bolshevik (meaning the majority) compared to the loosing wing called Mensheviks (meaning the minority). The leaders of the Majority wing believe that the people (the majorirty of socialists or other people was not really voting for them) was wrong and they knew better. They where the avantgard of a new and better society that everybody wanted, the new democratic establisment simply held down the people in misinformation. The people just had to be informed and they would be so by an avantgard that knew better. Much later it all kinda went wrong and then after NEP it went even more wrong, and then it went really wrong. But that is history, russian history. I was not comparing the zeal of the socialdemocrats or communists to the Libertarian. I was comparing the two conventions. Hmm this became longer than I wanted it, but not that many is reading it anyway. That happens often to me when it comes to history. In anycase even though the primary election of a republican candidate for president is pretty much over. It will only be a part of an interesting convention. A more understandable comparising would maybe be the 1964 republican convention where the party was taken over by its current majority, the conservatives. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Geez, more sheer & utter nonsense from Mr. Anonymous "68.58.63.22"...ugh... Gingrinch (who later tepidly endorsed Romney) can show that he won in GA, since that state's delegates are bound by that state's previous contest. Romney didn't "steal" any disproportionate amount of delegate support in ND. On the contrary, as the 2012 ND Caucus Wiki & talk pages and the main Wiki page associated with this talk page clearly show, that state's delegates are going to vote at the 2012 GOP national convention the way that they should have been pledged to vote as a result of ND's Super Tuesday contest...that puts Santorum first & Paul second in ND. As for WY, the only candidate that lost some delegate support as a result of that state's ridiculously long delegate selection process was Santorum. Paul consistently came in third in support all through that state's multiple contests & conventions, and that's where Paul stands in the final WY delegate count - third...with Romney in first (where he was consistently throughout that state's long process). As for the 2012 GOP primary popular vote count so far, it's true that Romney is being beaten by the "non-Romney" vote, but only by around 360K votes...with several large states left to vote. Political contests are decided by those that choose to show up & vote. By not showing up to vote, one basically disqualifies oneself from having an official opinion about the process. Party primaries & caucuses are notorious for having low voter turnouts, which is too bad IMHO but also irrelevant to the legitimacy of those contests. As for the USA being a republic, that's actually true, but what is a republic? It's a representative democracy, period end of story. Guy1890 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I support all four candidates. They are all 'winning', in this order: 1.Romney, 2.Santorum, 3.Gingrich, 4.Paul. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about the interesting articles 68.(etc) put links too, I just tried to do the math about the last presidentiel election in 2008. Using the 2000 census numbers for population it was just 45 procent of the population that actually voted in the election, and glancing back on the older elections it seem to be very "normal". Personally I salute that the option of not voting exists in a free soicety. In a free society also the ones that don't support democracy should have a place, but I surely don't hope that only 45% of you population supports your democracy. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wish you were here to vote, Jack. Maybe this time will be better. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(Personal opinion here) Pretty sure total turnout in 2008 was over 60% of the population eligible to vote. Still, that is rather low for a democracy. Part of it can be attributed to the increasingly negative nature of campaigns; when you see two people fighting, your first instinct is to walk away. Another part is increased polarization of party stances; this causes moderate voters to be discouraged. Finally, the placement of election day on Tuesdays is inconvenient for a lot of people. Mr. Anon515 03:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right, the census count children too, so using that number would make the percentage smaller. And in US you have to be a citizen to vote right? Legal alien dont vote?. And you have to register. Lot of obsticals Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Any citizen over the age of 18 is eligible to vote. There is, however, concern in some state like Florida of voter suppression and discouragement. Mr. Anon515 03:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a political topic, and not just in Florida. It starts with Conservative/Republicans wanting 'Voter picture identification/ID' to avoid fraudulent voting, and Democrats claiming this would suppress the vote of minorities even thought areas that have voter photo ID the minority vote increased. They think people could not pay for ID even though it would be paid for them. Whatever, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than respond to each of Guy1890's comments individually, I thought it better to provide a single comment here... Now before I respond to your statements, we need to first make something clear- just because I am currently using an IP account and am not yet an established editor within the Wiki community does not mean you are at liberty to lash out at the validity of what I am saying without providing your own reasoning or sources for your counterarguments beyond "it's been debunked elsewhere"- anyone can say that about anything. I ask you to please be more polite and thoughtful in any subsequent comments.

Before I get to talking about the individual states brought up, we all need to get this Rule 40(b) issue out of the way. This is a brand new rule never before enforced, so I don't think anyone can come forward with sources describing how it is to be interpreted, unless the RNC's office of legal counsel has been inquired and provided a response. All anyone can offer up is their personal opinion, and what I have to say about it is that it seems pretty logical to me that before a roll call can happen, there has to be a finite list of candidates to vote on that is established beforehand, and this is necessarily carried out by a separate process from roll call balloting. After off-the-record discussions with convention organizers, it would appear that delegation chairs will be responsible for filing paperwork with the convention chair sometime before the roll call that indicate who the delegates "support" (aka "would like to see voted on"), similar to my example of the use of affidavits above. If delegates can vote for someone not on that list, than it kind of negates the purpose of the rule, doesn't it? So, if Newt Gingrich doesn't make it, all those delegates supposedly bound to him must necessarily become unbound, or be forced to abstain. If the latter is true, then that would directly be a case of "bound" delegates abstaining (albeit out of necessity), and establish a framework right at the convention about which other bound delegates can claim the right to abstain. If the former is true, then it is absolutely relevant who those delegates actually support. This article suggests that most of the at-large delegates are Romney supporters, and from what I have heard, the district delegates are quite a jumble of Paul (mostly), Romney, Gingrich, and uncommitted people. This is assuming Gingrich & Santorum don't release their delegates, which they will probably do anyway by August. Santorum, fortunately for him, managed to get exactly 5 states with bound pluralities (AL,KS,MS,OK,TN), but if Romney's supporters in the MS delegation (or Paul's in OK) don't voice support for putting Santorum's name in for nomination, all his bound delegates would face the same fate as Gingrich's (unbound or forced abstention). Somehow I doubt that after paying all that money to be there, those delegates would not fiercely oppose moves to have their votes skipped- so they will wind up unbound if not released. Since the primaries are not over, we do not know with 100% certainty that Gingrich will not win over 3 more delegations. When the primary process concludes after NE in July, if everyone on here still believes that my interpretation of Rule 40 is incorrect (that is, everyone thinks "demonstrate support" = "I am bound to vote for"), then it would be be appropriate to move all of Gingrich's delegates into the unbound column and zero his total, even if they have not yet been formally released. Not doing so in such a circumstance would be tacit admission that my reading of the rule has merit, and that delegates can vote for anyone to be added to the list of candidates to be voted on for nomination or that there is no such thing as a bound delegate.

Since I covered Georgia, I will move on to Colorado. The decision has been made to tally unpledged delegates for certain candidates if their committments have been made known publicly, as can be seen in the delegate chart's line for MN, as long as sources have been provided for that. We are therefore not counting just bound delegates (otherwise OH, WY, etc. would be excluded) nor just pledged delegates (or ME, MN, etc would be excluded). I do not deny that the source I gave (a press releaase from the Paul campaign) is biased, or that everything written there is known widely enough to be written into the article. However, it is clear the Paul campaign believes it has at least 12 delegates from Colorado. People who took the RNC's word that Romney was the presumptive nominee in April when the numbers did not back that statement up because it was from a "reliable" source that supposedly knew what it was talking about, should have no problem with including numbers from a source that again, logically, should know what it's talking about with regards to this.

Regarding Wyoming, you write "Paul consistently came in third in support...and that's where Paul stands in the final WY delegate count - third", but I wasn't talking about what 'order' they came in. The reason some people suggest the so-called "delegate strategy" is not democratic is b/c percentages of the popular vote do not necessarily line up with percentages of delegates. By your logic, if in a caucus (so not winner-take-all) Candidate A got 51% of the vote and Candidate B got 49%, it is ok if A gets 99/100 delegates and B gets 1. Same order, no? That is just as "fair" as when B winds up with the 99 delegates. Paul got 21% of the straw vote. He did not get 21% of the delegates. I never used the word "steal" when referring to what Romney accomplished in WY or ND, so don't quote that like I did. I would only say that if rules were broken in the process, but now that you mention it, there is evidence of (as the lead organizer for Santorum's campaign put it) a "railroad job" in North Dakota, including mikes being cut-off and music being blasted to push delegates out of the convention hall when they tried to motion to change things. I'm sure the ND delegation are now saying they'll respect the caucus straw vote b/c they don't want that stuff brought to light during a contests challenge in Tampa (which is still possible), but there's certainly nothing to hold them to that, especially if Santorum & Gingrich can't be voted for.

Finally to your comment Jack, I was talking about the cumulative popular vote, not any particular state. As a history fan myself, I enjoyed learning what the word 'Bolshevik' means among the other things and can definitely see your point about the two convention strategies. Time will tell how the results will compare. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

One more thing I forgot- the resolution of the abstention issue might wind up being one the most longstanding consequences (as far as party tradition is concerned) of this year's Republican convention. Contrary to your statement "there's precedent & GOP Party rules in support of doing that" [being thrown out & replaced by alternates for abstaining], there are no such things. Maybe at the state level, but not at national. Indeed, there are plenty of recent examples of delegates abstaining. As a practical matter, whether the RNC tolerates that this year depends on if the Paul delegates reach a "critical mass" where, even if they don't have the numbers to change rules or nominate their candidate, they could not be bullied around. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the critical mass is what important right now. Paul supporters have known for a long time that their candidate wouldnt win, but they are afraid that they will be bullied around, and with good historical reason. That was precisly what happened in 1996 for the conservative Buchanan supporters. Even though they were 20% of all voters nationwide their guys (Gingrich and Buchanan) didnt get to speak. The libertarian Paul supporters this year are only 10% of all voters nationwide, so what would secure that they will not be swipt aside? Five states plurality, whatever way it will be determent. Maybe no one wants to bully the libertarian republican, but I can understand why they wouldnt feel safe before they themselve can decided not to be disregarded. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course now with Washington gone to Romney it will be interesting if and how Paul will get his five states. Maybe the discussions about CO will flare up again. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

He's almost certainly going to win Louisiana though. I think as a backup he has Iowa. Colorado is, as the IP said, mostly speculation. We will have to see at the convention. Mr. Anon515 16:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What is state number four then? Maine, Minnesota, Louisiana, ??, Iowa. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If my interpretation of Rule 40 is correct, then any number of states could be counted on, including AK, CO, MA, NV, OK, VA, among others. If it is not, then since Missouri's 25 at-large just went to a Romney/Santorum (19 Romney, 6 Santorum) slate after a very close vote, then it looks like Paul will need MT or NE, which are the last two delegations that are completely unbound from their primary. The other slate that was defeated was 16 Paul + 9 Santorum, so it's kinda funny that the Santorum folks would go with the slate with fewer of their supporters... Anyway, this is assuming a miracle doesn't happen and Romney takes the last 6 contests. Other states, like OK, would come into play if Gingrich & Santorum delegates become unbound. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul only has four that are likely for him. Maine, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Iowa. Remember, delegates that are bound have their bound preferences made public by the convention, so that is what I believe will be cited for rule 40. Remember that regardless of the delegates' personal preferences, most of them are legally required to vote one way or the other. It would not make sense for Ron Paul to be able to claim a plurality in Nevada despite the majority of that state's delegates being bound towards Romney and as a result voting for him in the roll call. A more sensible definition of "show a plurality" is to be able to show that a plurality of a state's delegates will vote for you at the roll call. Mr. Anon515 01:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Nevada, does anyone know why they changed the original allocation from 14-6-5-3 to 20-8? Gingrich & Santorum did not end their campaigns or release their delegates, they only suspended them. If Santorum expects to have a certain number of delegates going into Tampa vote for him, could he ask Nevada to revert to the original allocation? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In Nevada as in Michigan it is enough to have an inactive campaign or have endorsed another candidate. Every state have different rules. In Texas Bachmann will have one delegate if she does not send a letter saying no thanks to the local party central committee. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, yea, I saw that about Bachmann. It's kinda funny that was her first delegate, and the first for any woman in a Republican primary since Margaret Chase Smith in 1964. She might want to keep it for just that reason. About NV, do you know if those state rules would allow for him (or Gingrich) to ask for his delegates back (putting aside the likelihood of such a request), or is the 20-8 allocation final no matter what? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So, to basically paraphrase what Mr. "68.58.63.22" has to say about abstaining, because Gingrich and/or Santorum won't make it as viable, nominatable candidates at the 2012 GOP national convention, then *all* delegates can abstain anyhow that they would like to in spite of the *fact* that they are legally bound to vote a certain way. What sheer & utter nonsense. Pledged delegates from these two candidates will become unbound by virtue of the *fact* that these two candidates will be releasing them (likely so they can vote for Romney, who will be the 2012 GOP Presidential nominee) at a later date, period.

GA is an excellent case in point. From the above referenced article:

"'Newt does have to release the delegates. Otherwise, we are bound to him for the first two ballots,' Evans said. 'When we filled out our paperwork at the convention last week, we signed an oath saying we were committed to be a Gingrich or a Romney delegate.'"

and

"Passantino said that although the delegates, once released, will be able to cast their vote for whomever, he suspects they will mostly go Romney’s direction."

'If Newt releases the delegates and tells us to get behind Romney, I suspect then there will be overwhelming willingness to get behind him,' Passantino said."

Issues related to Oklahoma's delegation have been fully vetted here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Republican_primary,_2012 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oklahoma_Republican_primary,_2012 . Issues related to CO have been fully vetted here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Republican_caucuses,_2012 . Who the heck cares what some pro-Paul website has to say about CO? CO has 20 bound delegates & 16 (including the 3 RNC delegates) delegates that are unbound. OH's delegation is morally bound to vote the way they have been pledged, period. All issues related to WY's delegates have been discussed at length here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Republican_caucuses,_2012 . WY has 25 bound delegates & 4 (including the 3 RNC delegates) delegates that are unbound. MN has 35 bound delegates & 5 (including the RNC delegates) delegates that are unbound, and all issues related to MN's delegates have been fully vetted here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Republican_caucuses,_2012 . All of ME's delegates are unbound. All issues (including the linked article above) relating to ND's delegates have been discussed at length here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota_Republican_caucuses,_2012 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Dakota_Republican_caucuses,_2012 . To quote the Wiki page associated with this talk page: "North Dakota's delegation meets before the National Convention to voluntarily divide the whole delegation according to the its caucus result."

All issues related to NV's delegates have been discussed at length here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Republican_caucuses,_2012 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nevada_Republican_caucuses,_2012 . Guy1890 (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(In reply to Guy1890; did not want to indent yet again) Santorum may or may not release his delegates- sources currently indicate that he actually will not. As for Gingrich's in Georgia, if this were 2008, then yes he would have to release his delegates if he wants them to vote for Romney. It would appear that the delegates quoted have not given Rule 40 much thought, and are making the assumption that his name will be presented by enough delegations to actually be available to be voted for.

I did not claim to say what delegates could definitively do or not do with regards to abstention. I can only offer (as can you) an opinion that is based on historical & legal precedent, a particular reading of relevant rules, and my sense of personal dynamics between relevant parties.

I'm not sure what your definition of "fully vetted" is, but I see nothing of the sort in those CO or OK pages. All I saw was some of your comments on the talk pages there. At least the OK article describes some of the events of their convention, although I disagree with the characterization that it was a "rump" convention- it was a legal continuation of a convention never properly adjourned, with the necessary quorum of at least 100 delegates. As I pointed out earlier, it is absolutely relevant which delegation gets seated if Gingrich & Santorum delegates become unbound. OH's delegation is morally committed to certain candidates, but that does not make them bound. As you can read here, there was a meeting for all OH delegates on June 1. I was not privy to discussions there & don't know what was discussed, but if those delegates are as bound as you say, then how would they even entertain the idea of "hav[ing] the delegates back Romney if his campaign reaches an agreement with the former senator from Pennsylvania." The unit rule is not in effect, and Santorum looks like he wants to keep his delegates. Therefore, the only way that scenario could play out is if the delegates are not actually bound. You are also incorrect about WY- none of their delegates are bound. MN's delegation is pledged, but not bound in the slightest, morally or legally. I know what the ND delegates said & I offered a reason why they said that & what to expect if they can't cast ballots for Santorum or Gingrich. It sounds like I might know more about what unfolded there than you do. I also watched the NV convention live. I know what happened there, and am not questioning the current bound allocation. I was just asking how firm it was, since the state party already chose to amend it once. But it does look like you got ME right. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor clarification. I did say earlier that "delegates are allowed to abstain." It is a historical fact that they have been permitted to in conventions past. Anything I said about abstaining for this year is an opinion, albeit a strong one. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As to CO & OK, documented facts are documented facts my misinformed friend. I'm not going to sift through archives of this Talk page for some "Johnny-come-lately" that doesn't want to acknowledge the documented past. The issue as to whether some GOP delegates are really bound or not has been discussed ad nauseum here on this Talk page as well. I'm done discussing those specific issues with the likes of you Mr. "68.58.63.22". You opinion on them is irrelevant, period. As for OH, your own link says: "While they are expected to be awarded to Santorum, the Ohio delegation will meet on June 1 and can decide to have the delegates back Romney if his campaign reaches an agreement with the former senator from Pennsylvania." What this obviously means is that, as an olive branch to Santorum, Romney dropped his bid to secure more delegates (that he didn't really need anyway) from OH in order to curry favor with Santorum, who has endorsed Romney after suspending his campaign. When (not if) Santorum releases his delegates before or during the 2012 GOP national convention, they will be able to vote for whatever candidate that they want to. As for WY, "State Party by-laws require that, before the State convention votes are taken, each would-be delegate or alternate (except the 3 Party Leader delegates) must inform the convention of which presidential candidate, if any, they would cast their vote for at the national convention unless released from that pledge by the Presidential candidate." (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WY-R) That's a form of what binding delegates to their word is all about. As for this silly quote of yours about ND: "It sounds like I might know more about what unfolded there than you do." LOL - yea, right, that's why I've been helping to document what's been going on there for since April. What a joke. Guy1890 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. I don't know everything you may or may not know about the ND convention, so my statement was a bit harsh. I am going only on what I see (or rather, fail to see) on those pages you linked to.

In Wyoming, I have read that GP site and do not see the word "bound" anywhere. Indeed, I see this phrase: "All delegates are officially unbound." So at the state convention, delegate candidates appeared to have verbally "proclaimed" who they will support in Tampa. Such verbal announcements do not make a delegate bound. Remember that all bound delegates are considered pledged, but the reverse is not true.

Regarding Ohio, please scroll down about halfway to the section titled "Unbound Delegates Chosen through “Loophole” Primaries" in this article. IL, OH, & PA delegates are not bound. By the way, I read plenty of news reports when Romney dropped his challenge for those 4 OH district delegates, but at the time they all contained assumptions that those delegates would be awarded to Santorum. Does anyone have a source saying that actually happened & Santorum has 25 delegates in OH rather than 21 (with 4 uncommitted/unallocated)? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Such verbal announcements do not make a delegate bound." Sure they do - never heard of living up to one's word? I'll state for the record that being "morally bound" (like almost all the delegates in OH & most of the delegates in IL) is, in fact, technically different than being legally bound, and, for the life of me, I'll never understand why one state would choose one designation over the other. Most of WY's delegation is bound by their word & so are 54 delegates in IL (with 15 delegates, including the RNC delegates, being unbound there). The Wiki page associated with this talk page appears to be of two minds when it comes to PA. One part of the page makes reference to delegates there being morally bound & another part says that they are unbound. Guy1890 (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the definition being used here for a "bound" delegate is one who cannot (under threat of legal action, having one's credentials removed, or other controversial actions) under any circumstances cast a ballot for another candidate for a predetermined number of roll calls at the convention. To me, a delegate who says he is going to vote for someone but is not strictly speaking required to by state party rules may be considered a "committed" or "pledged" delegate, to distinguish them from those that are actually considered "bound." Perhaps a third party can step into this discussion and set that straight for us? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

GOP Source for Wyomings bound status. When it comes to the definition on bound please read the Schedule and process section of this article. It is where such definitions have been for months, I think the one you are looking for is under State delegation. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been established that there are no RNC rules binding delegates. If done at all, this is prescribed by a state party. So I checked the 2010 bylaws listed here for the WY GOP and I do see this on page 20: Prior to election, all nominees for Delegates-at-large...shall inform the State Convention which Republican Presidential candidate they support, if any." I do not see anything in that section regarding binding of delegates. Note that the 2012 bylaws (published on April 22 of this year) cannot apply under RNC Rule 15(c)(2). So I am struggling to understand where the writer of that RNC blog post got their information. Maybe it's a typo? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That wording sounds very much like a moral binding. There is a footnote in the primary schedule stating when delegates are morally but not legally bound to a delegate. I don't think the schedule have been checked thoroughly to see if all the states binding morally have that footnote. A small but tidesly job if it should be done properly. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about this whole "moral binding" business- it seems really subjective. A delegate is either bound or he isn't right? Legal bindings are controversial enough as it is. Now, I don't know if this has been discussed before or not. If it has not, I would like to suggest that all delegates not legally bound be put in the unbound column. If it has (and a consensus was reached), then in addition to IL & OH, the ND, SD, WY, USVI, & American Samoa delegates should be marked with the "a" superscript. I'm not sure if there are others. MN delegates are not bound in any fashion. See here- "No delegate to the Republican National Convention shall be bound by Party rules (unless bound by the State Convention pursuant to the State Party Constitution, Article 5, Section 3D)...". Only the 13 at-large delegates could be made bound at all, and only by the state convention. The convention did not bind any of those delegates, and I think it would be rather ironic if it did, given who had the majority there. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The GP actually counts MN as bound (as you can se they have a hardcount) but you are right they do have more and more discrepancy betwin what they say in the blog and how they count. The vast majority of Minnesotas delegation is bound to Paul. Even though GP is highly valued here it is good to remember it is just a sort of blog. More than one source is always nice. I first saw the term morally bound in a RNC guideline for the whole election back in 2011. The short expl. about it would be that morally bound is when the state party says you are bound by they havent backed it with any legal papers. So they cant prosecute you if you do differently, you are bound by your word of honor. Witch should be enough for all. No matter what rules might be cited and in the future in court or otherwise made to count, it is the present reality that the bound system is accepted by all and are not being challenged. Even though we might disagree about its legality and even though we migt be right it can not really be used in an wikipedia article since that would be original research (and even a bit of crystalball), but if you can find a article citing a lawproffessor or some other secondary source outside the blogsphere it could be worth a line or two in the schedule and process section. Otherwise we simply have to wait and se how the events unfold. As soon as anyone implicated in the process starts to challenge it the whole game will be changed. But for now everybody, especially Paul, insisted on repecting the bound system. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree about legalities here, because there aren't any. Therefore, there's no original research involved in my disagreement with how we're listing these delegates. You've acknowledged that these so-called "bindings" are not backed with any legal papers, nor is there any explicit mention of them in the RNC rulebook. You say that they "are bound by [their] word of honor, which should be enough for all." What, pray tell, is the difference between that & a "pledged" delegate? This is all a matter of semantics. How can we make an assumption that that 'should be enough' for those people serving as delegates, even if it might be for us personally? We have to stick to hard facts. As far as I can tell, the only difference might be the use of the actual word "bound", but at least in the case of WY, that word, nor "obligated", "promised" or even "pinky-swear" appear anywhere in that document. So that aside, what other basis do we have left upon which to distinguish between "morally bound" and "pledged" delegates? A slightly more fervent verbal handshake deal made somewhere? Hardly seems encyclopedic to me... If you can dig up that RNC guideline from 2011 you mentioned, that might be helpful. About MN, the delegates simply are not bound. Seeing as GP has some inconsistencies on that page, refer to the state pary bylaws if necessary. Only at-large delegates can be bound, and only by the state convention. That did not happen. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Who will be on the ballot in Tampa?

Maybe this is a few weeks premature, but I think it is time to rewrite the May section, among other things with the convention wins of Paul both in unbound as in bound states.

Paul on the ballot
He needs five states with plurality to be on the ballot at all. Am I reading the numbes right by saying that he right now has:

• Maine
• Minnesota

And it is still possible for him to get:

• Colorado - If all of the 16 unbound delegates of the state suddently decided to back him, but only two have so far.

Since we technically haven't been counting the RNC delegates, there are only 11 "uncommitted" delegates left in play in CO. Romney already has 14 delegates & Paul has only 2. Guy1890 (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that in some special Colorado way that the RNC delegates are bound and they have been counted as such in the primary schedule. The GP phrase it as they are: "bound to the candidate of choice". Anyway the 14 delegates for Romney includes the RNC delegates as the note in the primary schedules Colorado line indicates Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Louisiana - Only time will tell what will happen with that mess.
• Iowa (6/16) - Before this weekend I would say it was a lock for Paul, but that was also what I said about Washington
• Montana (6/16) - The state convention delegates are selected by the county committees, and as far as I know the state party is not controlled by Paul supporters. Romney won the nonbinding primary with 70%.
• Utah (6/26) - I don't think anyone believes that Romney will lose in Utah.
• Nebraska (7/14) - Since the caucuses have not yet happened it will be hard to say anything but the nonbinding primary was won with 70% by Romney

In other words, it looks like a hard way to get three more states. Then there is of course The Faithless Delegate Strategy where some of Pauls delegates that are bound to Romney or Santorum are released. But since the plurality has to be shown before the roll call the only way to do so would be to challenge the whole bound thing in court under 42 USC § 1971(b). It will hardly happen, since Paul dont want to rock the boat so much he destroy achievements his followers have gained this cycle toward their longterm goals for a simple chance of loosing a vote to Romney. But what states would Paul have in play if it happened? As far as I can see it must be:

• Alaska (meeting to be held 6/9 to determine whether outgoing Chairman Reudrich (Romney) or chairman-elect Millette (Paul) goes to the RNC as a delegate, among other rules.)

Good to remember the Paul win in Alaska, but it was not a win of delegates and the meeting 6/9 can not tip the plurality. But it would be a state worth mentioning in the article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Alaska is officially 8 Romney, 8 Santorum, 6 Paul, 2 Gingrich. At least 1 (although I can say I have heard of another) Santorum delegate has switched to Paul. Plurality will rest on the 6/9 meeting, where it will be decided which 3 RNC officers get to vote at the RNC (the so-called "legacy rule" is set by state parties, not national). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the Romney supporters won in Alaska simply by not showing up: [1] [2] Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, it appears quorum wasn't met. Those who showed up stayed together and issued 'advisory' changes that will be reviewed by the AK GOP's SCC. I'm not sure if that committee has the power to actually implement all those changes themselves if they wanted to. Millette may try again to get the delegates together. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Massachusetts (at-large selected 6/12)
• Nevada
• Oklahoma- similar to Louisiana, we will need to see which of two competing delegations get seated.

Would anyone be able to put a reliable source here reporting on what happened at the Oklahoma state convention. When I google it I only seems to get crazy comments from the blogsphere. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

States who have not completed their state conventions yet & have enough unelected delegates to tip a "faithless" plurality:

• Georgia (3 district delegates thrown out by state convention, date tbd)
• June 9: Indiana (listed b/c not all 27 district delegates are Romney supporters; 16 tbd) (CD delegates also elected at state convention)
• June 9: Kentucky (24 tbd)
• June 9: Texas (152 tbd 6/9; primary vote totals not yet certified- may effect bindings if not done before convention)
• June 10: Pennsylvania (10 tbd)

Actually the Committee meeting would not change much since according to GP 27 delegates have pledge to Romney and only 5 to Paul. And the meeting only assign 10 candidates. There is still 22 candidates that have chosen not to pledge themselves. All of PA's 72 delegates are unbound. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

True, but I think PA should stay here until we have public pledges from a few more of those 22. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• June 16: New Mexico (20 tbd) (14 Romney/Santorum, 6 Paul (+9 alternates for Paul))
• June 16: Virginia (13 tbd)
• June 23: Arkansas (33 tbd)
• June 23: Idaho (29 tbd)
• June 23: Oregon (25 tbd)

Please note this is an addendum to the list immediately above, with two extra select criteria 68.58.63.22 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Are there any report form reliable sources that Paul have a plurality of candidates in more states with bound delegates?

Santorum on the ballot
Santorum have right now 6 states, so he could be on the ballot. If he releases his delegates he can stay off it, and that he might not want to do since it could release Paul delegates. But in North Dakota the delegation are only bound by its own statement that it will decided according to its strawpoll at a delegation meeting prior to the National Convention. The delegation has a majority of Romney supporters. In Mississippi Santorum only haves one delegate plurality, that is without the 3 unbound RNC delegates. If they pledge to Romney, Santorum could "loose" the plurality in that state. Witch would mean that he wouldnt be able to show plurality in five states and wouldnt be able to go on the ballot.

Romney the only name on the ballot
Santorums delegates would of course be unbound to vote at the roll call just as Gingrich delegates is. But before the roll call they couldnt be used to show plurality for another candidate. If Paul would come in short too the only name on the ballot would be Romney. So you can vote for Romney or abstain. It would show a more unified front than Santorum getting a lot of disgruntel Paul votes.

Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate Count for minor candidates

Another WP page ("Results" TALK page) a reader wants Bachmann and Huntsman both credited with two delegates. If you do a Google-search you can find the Green Paper count [3] with two for Huntsman and one for Bachmann, (unlike our Article). I'll look again. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Both Huntsman and Bachmann won 1 delegate in TX. Huntsman has 1 of his 2 original delegates in NH. (The other has since endorsed Romney). So 2 and 1 (not 2 and 2) seems correct. Simon12 (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just edited our page for Michele Bachman. Editors at Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries can do so also. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Although they will likely become eventually unbound by their candidates not meeting Rule 40(b), Huntsman currently has 3 delegates (2 from NH, 1 from TX), and Bachmann has her 1 from TX. Huntsman has not released his delegates yet, so his total remains 3. Huntsman would have won 3 delegates & 3 alternates from NH (bringing his total to 4), but because NH lost half its delegation for going early, he will only be able to send 2 delegates from there. Only 1 of those original 3 (and an alternate) has endorsed Romney (no word from the others), and because I have been unable to find which 2 of his original 3 delegates will actually go to Tampa as seated delegates, it is possible that the one who endorsed Romney will not, and we cannot say with certainty yet how those other delegates will vote. Yes, Huntsman endorsed Romney, but Huntsman cannot direct his delegates how to vote if they are unbound- we will have to wait & see. For now, he should be recorded as having 3 delegates in total. I believe Bachmann & Huntsman are the only candidates to have received any delegates apart from the major 4 (Romney/Paul/Santorum/Gingrich). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is an amazing graphic [4] I just added to 'External links'. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

GP is a good source, but there seem to be a couple inconsistencies on the page there for the TX primary. It appears the site has missed the one delegate Huntsman won that has been reported elsewhere, and that he is entitled to, seeing as the final uncertified results gave him 0.6585% of the vote, with a cutoff of 0.6579% (from 100%/152 pledged delegates). So he appears to have won 1 delegate there, albeit by a squeaker. However, GP's rounding for the other candidates appears correct, giving Romney 105, Paul 18, Santorum 12, Gingrich 7, Bachmann & Huntsman each 1, and 6 officially uncommitted. That totals 150, leaving 2 delegates "available." The count in the chart currently gives Romney 108 & 7 uncommitted (the other candidates' numbers being the same). Given the convention of putting Huntsman's delegates in the uncommitted column (see NH), then the chart's count seems to be giving both Bachmann's delegate & the 2 "available" delegates to Romney. The correct count should be: Romney 105, Paul 18, Santorum 12, Gingrich 7, uncommited 10, with a superscript note clarifying that those 10 "uncommitted" include 1 Bachmann, 1 Huntsman & the 2 delegates that are "available". Unless someone has a source for how those 2 "available" got allocated? At this point, I don't think there's much point in putting in a whole column for Bachmann/Huntsman delegates since there are so few, as long as we add a note at the bottom of the chart for NH & TX. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Anybody else think the TX count should be corrected? Is there a source for Romney having 108 delegates? I thought I would also give you guys an update on the binding of TX national delegates- at the State Convention, the party voted to unbind delegates for the next election in 2016. Not sure if this should be mentioned in the article or another. Additionally, state chair Steve Munisteri announced to the convention body that if an RNC rule exists (he was specifically asked about Rule 38) that gives delegates free agency this year, and there is a state party rule or law that is in conflict with that, the state GOP would respect that & go with the national rule. I thought that was interesting. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia-reading public still interested in delegate count?

It’s really too bad and sad that the GOP is so behind in writing delegate count status. Or is that good? It teaches that it is not over “until the Fat Lady sings” or as I say, “until you see it live at Republican National Convention in August”. RNC/GOP officials say they wait for state input, but apparently a slow state (or confused state like Louisiana) can hold up their report. Here is their latest count, dated April 6, 2012: Delegates confirmed=1034; Romney(573); Santorum(202); Gingrich(132); and lastly, Paul(26), which is to say Romney has twenty times the Paul-delegates.

http://www.gop.com/index.php/comms/comments/updated_rnc_delegate_count1/ — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia-reading public still interested in delegate count?? Probably not till August 27. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the articles for previous primaries, you'll see that most of them do not actually show the delegate count. The reason is because the losing candidates' delegates generally vote for the winner at the convention anyways, so the articles mainly serve to show popular vote. The reason why we even have delegate counts here, to my understanding, is because Ron Paul is trying to get a "plurality" in 5 states so that he can carry his campaign to the convention. Otherwise, the delegate counts would be in the article for the convention. Mr. Anon515 02:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. Another reason that made this year different was for the first part of the race there was no clear and apparent Nominee. The first three states were won by three different candidates. And the lead in popularity was held by various candidates, each one taking a turn at being 'not Romney'. Interesting how Romney always came back. Jack B. would believe it was the money, but I believe it was the organization and the ideas, the main one being to bring USA back in a number of ways — But I don't want to speak from atop a soap-box. Some say the general election will be a judgment of Obama, and that was one of the points of the Republican primary debates, who could beat Obama. How do you spell 'referendum'? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It was indeed organization, I believe. Romney really did not stop campaigning after he lost in 2008; he was in the race since pretty much the beginning. As a result, he had a stable base of supporters, while the rest of the GOP had to rapidly switch between the "not Romney" candidate. First Cain, then Perry, then Gingrich, then Santorum, then Gingrich again, and finally Santorum again.

I'd also agree with the main issue being "how to beat Obama", rather than actual issues. I suppose this is normal for re-election years, but you can definitely see a large shift in tone from previous years. No longer is foreign policy a main platform, as the President is currently popular in that area. Instead, the main areas of focus are health care reform, the economy, and other areas where the President lacks widespread popularity. Mr. Anon515 02:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing the media, misleading polls, and the 'candidate of the week' stuff with actual votes or caucuses. There was no rapid shift and so on. Southern-type states voted for the Christian-looking candidate, though how anyone could have believed Gingrich on any issue was baffling. Other states were willing to vote for Romney. The media drumbeat was ALWAYS saying 'front runner Mitt Romney', and after Santorum bowed out, there was no contest left in many voters' eyes. The 'fix' has long been in for Romney to be the one chosen to win, and I believe the Republican party will suffer more because of a lack of true enthusiasm for Romney. Winning by default means losing the main election. -- Avanu (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no enthusiasm for Romney, why did he get twice as many votes as anyone else? And almost 5 times as many votes as the only one left competing against him? There was plenty of enthusiasm for Romney. Some people just choose to bury their heads in the sand and not accept it.74.67.106.1 (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There may be "enthusiasm" for beating Obama. There is hardly any enthusiasm for Romney himself. It may be important in some contexts to keep that distinction in mind. Mitt Romney did so well primarily because the party believed him to have a far better chance than any of his primary opponents to actually win, probably because the image he has as a moderate is believed to be attractive to independents (although nicely manicured hair certainly helps (perhaps Trump's biggest roadblock to the White House )). The media never really challenged that image of Romney, but indeed often repeated it. With the possible exception of Ron Paul, polls largely supported that belief. It is my personal view that independents lean more libertarian than 'moderate' (in the Washingtonian sense of the word), even if they don't personally use that label for themselves, and therefore agree with some tenets of both major parties. That may be why Paul beat Romney among independents in nearly all of the early states where exit polls were conducted. This election will come down to which candidate voters in swing states with high unemployment (AZ, CO, FL, NC, NV, OH, PA, etc.) believe will create an economic climate that is conducive for job growth (as if a President can or should be able to manipulate the economy for that or any purpose) rather than things a President can actually directly affect, like the budget or foreign policy. The other thing I will be watching is how many of those independents will opt for a third party nominee like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, and if those candidates get enough votes to tip a state to go an unexpected way, particularly libertarian-heavy states like CO, MT, NH, or NV.

This section has basically become a forum post, hence my comments above. However, as far as this article is concerned, I would opine that there are quite a few readers here that care about the delegate count. Even if we can be certain that there are not, the decision whether to include a delegate count on this page was made quite a while ago, and since then many editors have spent a great deal of time updating & verifying all the numbers here, which is no easy task, given the party's many arcane & controversial rules regarding delegate selection. At least until this process concludes (in mid-July), it should definitely remain a priority to maintain the most complete and encyclopedically accurate delegate count we can possibly gather. Once we have a final (pre-convention) count and it is verified, I see no reason why it should not remain in the article for perpetuity. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree here. Santorum had enthusiasm. Gingrich had enthusiasm. Paul had a ton of enthusiasm. But Romney had no enthusiasm. He did not have a large group of people asking him to run beforehand, he just never stopped campaigning from 2008. This does not necessarily make him a bad candidate; he could easily energize his base at the convention. But during the primaries, at the very least, Romney's main advantage was his monetary advantage.

I would have to disagree with the assertion that most independents are libertarian or lean outside of the political spectrum. Polls would indicate that most independents are actually just undecided or don't have a strong belief on most of the issues. That doesn't mean their actual views are "moderate", it just means that they can be influenced by either side. That's why polls on issues such as abortion have a lot of variance; even usage of terms like "pro-life" can tilt undecided people into selecting one option of the poll. Furthermore, a significant number of Americans make their vote based on candidates' "personal character" rather than merely the issues. That is also a large factor.

You can see this also through state ballot initiatives, where voters sometimes think about issues individually, rather than an overreaching ideology. Generally, people like more spending towards infrastructure and education. At the same time, people don't like taxes very much. As a result, states like California and Washington have a very hard time balancing their budgets, because ballot initiatives make it very difficult to raise taxes or cut spending. A Republican could take this as the people not wanting their taxes raised, and as a result that most "independents" are actually conservative. On the other hand, a Democrat could take the desire to see more public funding as being evidence that the public is more liberal. Mr. Anon515 20:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Iowa interesting?

They have an allocation of 25 delegates, and they are all 'uncommitted'. So Romney has none of them — Santorum has none of them. They pride themselves in being first to vote to start the tide of momentum, in their view, but do not assign allegiance until every other state delegation has spoken. And our maps at the bottom of our article are great, showing a sea of green counties (for Santorum), one lonely country/square (for Romney), and 15 square/counties where the count, apparently, is 'unknown'. Very interesting. It will be interesting to see if they swing over to Romney due to his momentum, the support/endorsement to Romney by the Republican National Committee, the public support of Romney, and the lack of visibility for Santorum. What do you think? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Of the 12 CD delegates in the 4 districts (3 in each), I'm hearing CD 1, 3 and 4 are sweeps for Paul, and he gets 2 more from CD 2... that's 11 out of 12. Unconfirmed, but, if true, he only needs 2 more to have the majority of the Iowa slate.

What do I think? I suspect that information is accurate, and Paul will have most of the delegation. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't confirm, but discusses the possibility [5]. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation:

After a two-day tug-of-war marked by bouts of angry shouting, Iowa Republicans elected 25 delegates to send to the national convention in Florida in late August.

By far, the majority will be Paul backers, ...

Link: Ron Paul backers triumphant at Iowa GOP convention.

Yes, very interesting. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as he has 21 of 25 delegates Iowa needs to be colored yellow for the Delegate plurality map. It's more of a majority then Minnesota was. Raymond SabbJr (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This morning, Green Papers for Iowa [6] updates their tally spreadsheet: 28 total and uncommitted delegates with 7 "available" and 21 in the Ron Paul column. People speaking for the Iowa Republican committee and also attending reporters indicate they will vote for Ron Paul at the first vote to make their points, which are: (1) their voice will be heard; (2) they want to influence Republican Party direction. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to WP editor Wipkipkedia for updating the delegate map. Iowa now sports the Ron Paul color, and that gives him plurality in three states, IA, MN, and Maine [ME]. With two more, he would have the requisite five state delegations to be on the first ballot. Even without that, I believe he will be asked to speak. The Republican National Convention is in Tampa Bay, Florida, for four days and will have many speakers each day. Can you even imagine GOP leaders throwing away the perceived excitement to hear Ron Paul speak and make the points his supporters (and other Conservatives) want to hear? It is not even a remote possibility "in my mind". As you know from our external link [7] the convention in Tampa Bay, Florida, is on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, August 27-30. I'll be watching every moment, before, during, and after all the speeches, voting, PR, and social activities. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to mention; The soft count of Delegates for Ron Paul says 165 on the page chart but still says 143 under the stat box. If the stat box is using Soft count Delegate numbers then it should have Paul with 165 delegates there as well. Raymond SabbJr (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

States still allocating delegates

Our TABLE lists unallocated delegates from Iowa(4), New Hampshire(2), Colorado(14), Minnesota(2), Wyoming(1), Illinois(12), Pennsylvania(32), Louisiana(28), Indiana(16), West Virginia(4), Texas(7), Nebraska(32), Montana(23), and Utah voting on June 26 to send {40 delegates} to convention August 27, a total of 214 delegate positions to be decided.

What are the other best sources for timing, activity, and status? Comments? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what the situation is in Montana? Because wasn't it supposed to have allocated its delegates by now? Thanks. Mr. Anon515 23:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Another day later, Green papers for MT has 1 delegate for Romney and 25 unannounced. [8] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

UTAH holds the last primary in the nation one week from today. There are 40 delegates. Here is the text from Green Papers: "Tuesday 26 June 2012: All 40 of Utah's delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes statewide in today's Presidential Primary. [Utah Republican Party Bylaws 7.0.B]" [9] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Montana is pretty important, though, as is Nebraska. If Paul cannot win one of those two states, he can only show a plurality in 4 states (although Alaska and Colorado could go his way if Santorum delegates explicitly change their allegiance). Note that both Mitt Romney and Ron Paul can show pluralities in Louisiana, as the state might send two delegations to the Convention, it seems, with different winners. Mr. Anon515 04:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Politifact rates Ron Paul's claim

Politifact recently checked out Ron Paul's claim of 200 delegates, and they could not find sufficient evidence. See http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jun/15/ron-paul/ron-paul-touts-nearly-200-delegates-bound-his-cand/ . Mr. Anon515 01:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Associated press has never been a reliable source for delegate counts. I'm disappointed with politifacts for using them instead of something reliable like green paper. Raymond SabbJr (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The interesting part is that Ron Paul himself uses the word BOUND...something his suporters refuse to believe is an actual word in the English language. Regardless...he may have 200 delegates eligible to vote for him. That WILL vote for him. But not 200 bound ones. Even going by the reality that delegates ARE bound (which they are) there will not be 200 delegates that MUST vote for Ron Paul...assuming he even gets that 5th state to be eligible.74.67.106.1 (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, Gingrich still leads Paul by a very slim margin: Gingrich 144; Paul 141 — (CNN count, see our 'External link' section.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The word "bound" in Ron Paul's announcement is the real problem. I do think that Politifact did a disservice to truth in its article. They base it all around what Ron Paul supposedly knew on the day he said it, but they use what they supposedly know as a yardstick for what Ron Paul supposedly knows. Yeah, I know.. weird. The article admits that several convention outcomes were yet to happen, and as we saw in Iowa, Ron Paul did quite well; perhaps he DOES actually know how his campaign is doing? -- Avanu (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you guys are misunderstanding the politifact article. Politifact acknowledges that theoretically, Ron Paul could have over 200 delegates, but states that there is no reputable source for that claim. Remember, Ron Paul can't be cited for himself; he has to back up his claim with evidence of some kind, if his 200 delegate claim is going to be reflected in this article. Mr. Anon515 16:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is an undisputed easily verifiable fact that Paul said "we stand to send nearly 200 bound delegates" - that alone means it can go in the article.

Now, whether Paul's claim is itself accurate, that's a separate issue, and can be covered as well, as long as sources like PolitiFact are cited. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Our own count is currently 164 "secured" delegates. I think it's clear from the context of Paul's letter that he meant "secured" rather than "bound" - since he talks only about delegates bound to him and delegates bound to Romney that actually support him - leaving no room for "unbound" delegates. So he's clearly including unbound delegates that he knows will support him as "bound" delegates. Since we're already at 164, it's pretty clear that when all is said and done it's perfectly reasonable for him to say he stands to send "nearly 200", and that that number "shatters the predictions of the pundits and talking heads". --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, all I'm saying is that if we are going to include Ron Paul's claim, we should also note that it has been disputed. Mr. Anon515 04:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Time will tell if suing the GOP actually strengthens Romney

For those of you WATCHing Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012 you have seen a lawsuit filed in CA: ... ... ... (Some people are suing GOP to announce that anyone can win [or something] maybe Paul-people.) ... ... ... “...The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the RNC to inform delegates they can vote for the nominee of their choice, to reinstate delegates who lost their seats at the convention because they refused to sign loyalty affidavits and to recount ballots by hand or hold another convention in areas where the sanctity of the ballots are untrustworthy.” ... “Some sources report that Gilbert & Marlowe represent presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, but the attorney’s office would not confirm with WND whether it has represented Paul previously nor whether the congressman has any connection to the current lawsuit.” [http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/gop-delegates-sue-to-be-free-from-romney/] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Ron Paul's staff has come right out and said that they are NOT part of the lawsuit, if no other reason than the fact that they know it has no HOPE of even being decided on by August 27, let alone being in their favor.74.67.106.1 (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

“In the middle of June, with no hope of Ron Paul winning the nomination, 123 delegates sue the GOP to be free to vote for Paul instead of Romney” Is now in the Article. Before changing, please read these two articles, the second one of which is not allowed [WP Black List]. [http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/gop-delegates-sue-to-be-free-from-romney/] [www [dot] examiner [dot] com/article/ron-paul-convention-delegates-file-suit-to-vote-freely] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Dan and Happy for moving the sentence up into the prior paragraph and noting that proper citations are needed. Will proper media notice? "Despite this, the following week 123 mostly Paul-aligned delegates, currently legally bound to support Romney at the convention, brought an ongoing federal lawsuit against the RNC and its chairman to instead be able to vote "in accordance with the free exercise of their conscience." [Where the double-braces Cn double-braces gives the citation-needed annotation, FYI.] You may also want to research that 40 or so other delegates jumped in the lawsuit going nowhere. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor Comments: (1) The reason I say it is going nowhere is: who will believe a federal court should tell a private organization what they can and cannot do? It is up to each state; and (2) reason I say Romney benefits is because it keeps another person in the arena of ideas, against Obama. However, (3) RNC would rather focus on Obama/Economy, and any distraction favors Obama. (I'm just thinking ahead to how the Article is written in the fall.) These are just refinements on persuasions in the Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge the idea of bound delegates has been precedent for the last 50 years or so. It's very unlikely that it's going to change for a candidate who can't win even with the delegates in question. Mr. Anon515 16:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles, the lawsuit appears to center around things that are not related directly to the "private organization" aspect of all this. It appears they are asking for any affadavits to be voided, and since the GOP uses taxpayer funded primaries in some cases, they need to follow state and federal voting laws. The real problem here is that these so-called private organizations are so entrenched in the election process that they aren't really 'private' anymore (maybe semi-private?), and to avoid fraud and manipulation of the process, there are laws in place for protecting voters' rights. Personally, I think that political parties need to stand on their own outside of a state-sponsored process, where primaries are paid for by the parties themselves and don't get run by the state election officials. As it stands, we have a system that vigorously protects the two major parties and excludes potential competition. Our founders didn't put parties in the constitution, but they did put freedom of association. We don't subsidize meetings of the local chess club with taxpayer dollars (nor should we), so why should we do that with political parties? I do sort of agree with your comment above that having another voice against Obama is a useful thing for Republicans or Romney, and I think your comment about what the RNC wants presupposes the idea that the National GOP actually wants to win. It may seem odd, but there are times when I strongly question whether the National GOP is really interested in winning or whether they just like the fundraising and theoretically being an opposition voice. When you run Bob Dole in 1988, it seems ok, but when you push him on voters in 1996, it seems forced and more like an act. Romney is on the ticket now because he played ball to let another old codger take the lead back in 2008, and this is his reward, but a Pyrrhic victory for Romney in gaining the nomination now is not going to energize voters to change their votes. The seeming fact that the party doesn't realize this either shows they are very self-deluded, or they simply don't care. As long as the political equivalent of the iPhone doesn't come along, the two parties don't have much of an incentive to really change their ways. -- Avanu (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understnad why Ron Paul supporters talk about delusions, and say that Romney is not popular, when he got over 5 times as many votes as Ron Paul. Yet they say that Ron Paul would beat Obama. Talk about being deluded. [74.67.106.1]

I think you're conflating 'votes in support of' with 'popularity'. Generally, most endorsements, commenters, news outlets, and polls seem to state that none of the establishment is all that popular, yet they keep getting elected/re-elected. It reminds me of a bit from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where aliens land and say "Take me to your lizard." Arthur Dent asks Ford Prefect about all this because he'd just been told all the people were 'people' and not lizards, and Ford simply responds:

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see ...the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people........ if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

So in a silly book about the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, Douglas Adams shows us that really we never quite want these lizards, but we sure as heck don't want the other guy's lizard to get in. Make sense? -- Avanu (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A few observations: Selecting state delegations/positions are different than national elections. Also, in America, the states were to control more than the central government (Ron Paul would agree); it seems the suit is more about intimidation than anything. Each state can do what their leaders want with their delegation, per their state’s rules, (if they stick with what the people voted; or later, support the trend, etc.) Further, I’m not sure the lawsuit charges are valid. Delegation leaders need to do what is right, within rules. The burden of proof seems to be on the accusers. We’ll see what’s reported in reliable sources. Also, in my view, Romney is more patriotic and Conservative than the others in many and most important ways: fiscal, pro-life, homeland security, foreign policy, states rights, Constitution, family values, etc. I disagree with the premise that he is there mainly as the establishment candidate. He is there to disassemble the healthcare that congress put in place. He emphasized these points in the debate and now in his speeches. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is doubtful the lawsuit will strengthen or weaken anyone because it will likely never take place. It was filed in California despite the fact that NONE of the California delegates can claim any wrongdoing. At best for the Lawyers for Ron Paul, they will be forced to move the jurisdiction (delaying the start of the trial when they don't have enough time to begin with) and at worst, it will be dismissed and likely the plaitiffs forced to pay legal fees for the defendants. The fact that most of the so called "delegates" that are part of thecomplaint are not actually delegates could very well cause problems for them, with a judge ruling it was intentionally malicious and coming down hard on the lawyer. (A lawyer who 3 years ago actually thought he was going to win a case that would lead to California being split into two states!)74.67.106.1 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information/insights; gave me a chuckle. 40 other delegates from other states wanted in. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

See also section

I removed a few entries that are already linked in the article. --Mollskman (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, readers can find them. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rules of the US Republican Party

It is detailed but interesting reading. Read the first few pages of "Rules of the Republican Party" [10] — This is one of our 'External references' and includes, for example: "At each national convention, the roll shall be called and the delegates from each state shall report, through the chairman of the delegation, the names of the elected national committee members whose election shall be ratified by the national convention if otherwise in accordance with these rules." Etc. — And, (b) on page 2: "The Republican National Committee shall have the power to declare vacant the seat of any member who refuses to support the Republican nominee for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

but above your excerpt lay more general clause :" BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the following be and hereby are adopted as The Rules of the Republican Party, composed of the rules for the election and government of the Republican National Committee until the next national convention " The next convention will be in Tampa and certainly the delegates will rule rules. As in Alaska video the best for neocons is go fishing. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're reading it incorrectly. The rules adopted cover how things will work unless they are changed by the next convention. Ultimately the rules followed are governed by the vote of the delegates under the rules in place at the time they vote. Until a new set of rules is created, these are the rules. These rules govern how the delegates are chosen that attend the 'next convention'. -- Avanu (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is verbatimly quoted "quote" so your "You're reading it incorrectly" do not stick. 99.90.197.87 (talk) By the way "delegates are chosen" seem to be noecon credo. —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu is half correct. The rules adopted in 2008 are the rules of the party through the end of the 2012 convention unless and until the 2012 convention chooses to change them. So the convention will open under these rules, but that does not preclude the delegates from changing them if they wish to do so. Rules are written for the next convention because the convention needs standing rules to begin, and there is party business to be conducted in the period between conventions. However, national rules do not dictate how delegates are chosen- that is the prerogative of the individual state parties. Rather, national rules may affect the function of delegates by, for example, enforcing or overruling state bindings.

99.90.197.87, I know English is not everyone's primary language, but if you're going to post on the English Wikipedia, you should make a little more of an effort to write coherent sentences. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hear, here; well spoken in the King's English ;-) Also, to remember is the American way of states rights in the process—as you suggest. Question: Who will plan the agenda and run the televised convention sessions? PS: I commend Jack Bornholm for his command of English and insights in the process. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Forbid? The following sentence is now in the article: "The rules of the Party forbid any state from binding its delegates to any candidate." But I search the url/ref (2008/2012 RNC rules) for the word 'forbid' and it is not in the rules. On the other hand, the word, 'bind' (includes 'binding') occurs 23 times. The sections to read are 13-17, specifically saying delegates can be bound; the key is that the state Republican party decides (for each respective state or providence) and not the national Republican party! The RNC rules are referenced at the bottom of our 'External references' and includes this from section 13: "(c) Any state Republican Party may set the date for any primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention subject to the scheduling provisions in Rule No. 15." Rule 15 talks about the state Republican parties deciding about their delegates, for example: on page 21 "(7) Any process authorized or implemented by a state Republican Party for selecting delegates and alternate delegates or for binding the presidential preference of such delegates may use every means practicable, in the sole discretion of the state Republican Party, to encourage active military personnel the opportunity to exercise their right to vote." Yes, state Republican parties can 'bind' their delegates/alternates. — Perhaps the contributing editor was referring to the 'not' Ron Paul lawsuit. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As you should know from monitoring this talk page the last few months, this is actually quite a controversial matter. There are other RNC rules, traditions, and possibly a federal law that seem to conflict with the idea of state bindings and the rules you cited. We should avoid making a declarative statement either way at least until the outcome of that lawsuit. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and hence references are a requirement. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Citizens of Utah vote last (this Tuesday)

In three days, all citizens of the 50 states and five territories will have voted. It will still remain to finalize state Republican party delegations. What will happen with remaining states? (in our Table). Start preparing some text for July. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, how are Montana, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania delegates going to be decided? And how are we going to decide Louisiana? We can't just keep it grey. Mr. Anon515 04:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem that the Montana delegates are being decided since they are suppose to be unbound. And no one besides Paul is really interested in getting these unbound delegates to commit anymore. So no one is going to ask them what they like, or at least I haven’t seen any references where anyone has done so. The only thing we can be sure about is that they are not supporting Paul, because if they did so his supporters would be sure to tell us, to have the plurality in another state. In Pennsylvania it was only 10 delegates that were selected as unbound; the rest have been directly elected as unbound and will properly stay unpledged for now. Nebraska hasn’t had their convention yet—they are the last state to decide (and not before July) so for that state we have to wait. And Louisiana, who knows? Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So our Table is up-to-date. We’ll keep watching main sources. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Very shortly after polling booths closed in Utah, 8pmMT (mountain time), Green Papers credited all 40 Utah delegates to Romney. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

For those states that are "winner-take-all" they have the following footnote in our Table:

† These states are binding their party leader (RNC) delegates to the primary result.

Note the pattern our Table has for Idaho/ID, Maryland/MD, Delaware/DE, and New Jersey/NJ;

putting all delegates in the Romney column, consistent with Green Papers.

BUT, I don't see how to change the row color. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Relative chances

A new section have been added to this article. Could the one that have had all the work with creating this graf maybe explain what it is about in the section. Chances? Is is about opinionpolls or something else? And relative to what? And in what way are Jeb Bush a part of it at all! Also it is very important to add one or two references, right now it is actually just some lines that are not validated by any reliable source. And I must confess I dont understand what the lines are about in the first case. I dont want simply to erase it before understanding the idea behind so I am looking forward to hear more in the near future. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The description of the file on commons are: "A chart based on tracking the wisdom of crowds throughout the Republican Nominee 2012 campaign" But it doesnt say what university or researcher that have done the calculations, neither what crowd we are talking about, is it the general public, all registered republican voters, GOP elected leaders or something else? Are we talking about support for the candidate or is what the crowd predict will happen? Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the graphic is confusing, and rather than allow it to continue to confuse readers, I went ahead and removed it for the time being. Some type of explanatory text should be added if the graphic is to be placed back on the article. Also, the source given on Commons is "Previously published: The Republican Nominee ebook," which suggests to me possible original research or non-free content without justification. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: Maybe the 'Chances' graphic could appear in another WP page/Article, such as surveys (polls):

Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 — for the popular 'chances';

and Straw_polls_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 — for the delegate count 'chances'.

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First place finishes by plurality of delegates

Our first excellent map is entitled/called: "First place finishes by plurality of delegates" and can now list Utah for Romney(red). On the other hand, Montana, Nebraska, and Louisiana can remain gray. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done — TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: (FYI: Change were made by excellent WP editors to the template used in our article.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul had a plurality in Louisiana.

Source: http://www.policymic.com/articles/9163/louisiana-convention-results-ron-paul-delegates-arrested-as-they-command-majority

Please change the numbers and show that this candidate has won 4 states. -div — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.220.249 (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC) another source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/11595-louisiana-gop-convention-splits-ron-paul-wins-majority-convention

Louisiana has been discussed to death already. It has not been given to anyone for good reason, and using month old articles will not change that.74.67.106.1 (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing about Louisiana is that it quite literally split into two conventions, each electing their own slate of delegates. One elected mostly Romney delegates, the other elected mostly Paul delegates. It's entirely possible that we'll see two slates of delegates heading to the convention. Mr. Anon515 16:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What are the 'rules' and who in the Republican National Party (RNC) will run the convention? How much control will Mitt Romney have? I suppose at some points our interest in editing WP will migrate to other article/pages, such as: 2012_Republican_National_Convention and United_States_presidential_election,_2012 — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The delegates set the rules. One of used phrase is "boycot order" other shorter phrase is "booo". 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

For those curious, everything we knew about the situation in Louisiana when it happened was summed up here. As far as I know, nothing has changed since then. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

was it? : 'As far as I know, everything we knew ...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You misquoted my comment, piecing together parts from two different sentences. Everything that was publicly known as of a month ago was indeed discussed there. If you have new knowledge of this matter, then by all means please share it. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

For those that are watching Ron Paul activity, FYI: 2012_Republican_National_Convention is very interesting: "By June 29, this requirement was met by only three candidates, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. Ron Paul has a majority of delegates in seven states: Colorado, Nevada, Massachusetts, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, and Louisana. Because RNC rules only specify that a potential nomination candidate only win a plurality in five states, and not specifically in five unbound states, Paul has secured a place on the nomination ballot as well as a speaking spot at the 2012 Republican National Convention. Newt Gingrich has won two states, with four states (Montana, Nebraska, Utah, and Louisiana) having either unpledged, disputed, or unallocated delegates.
[close-quote] Is this true? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Go to the top of our Table, double-click on the Paul column of secured delegates to see Paul won only in Iowa, Maine, and Minnesota. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC) PS: Watch Green Papers!

Does Chairman Prieubus write for TheGreenPapers.com? Has he posted a decision on whether or not delegates in states with binding rules are allowed to contribute to candidates' potential nominations to which they are not bound? The RNC rules do not state either way. In my opinion, until somebody with actual authority answers some of these important and certainly debatable questions, no source should be treated like Scripture. So until it is decided whether or not delegates from states like Nevada can sign to nominate another candidate, GreenPapers are about as credible as the offspring of Limbaugh and Olbermann... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.34.52 (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: Watch Hannity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.34.52 (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for levity—gave me a chuckle; Hannity is good (see also his website)—Limbaugh is better but don't expect a comment on Paul. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The last state Republican convention is in Nebraska, July 14

From Green Papers for Nebraska: [11] [Note the wording, terms, and state rules!]

“Saturday 14 July 2012: The Nebraska State Republican Convention convenes. Congressional District Caucuses made up of the State Convention delegates from each of Nebraska's 3 congressional districts choose the 9 district National Convention delegates (3 per congressional district). The State Convention as a whole selects 23 (10 base at-large plus 13 bonus) at-large delegates to the Republican National Convention.

• Prospective delegates must indicate their Presidential Preference and are bound to vote for that candidate for the first 2 ballots at the National Convention.

In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of Nebraska's Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position. [In each year when a President of the United States is to be elected, the State Convention shall elect a National Committeeman and a National Committeewoman to take office at the close of the succeeding National Convention. - NEBRASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY CONSTITUTION, Article IV Section 1, As adopted on 07/31/2010]

Reference: CONSTITUTION THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF NEBRASKA as amended 7/31/2010, Section 3.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Of course, other states have their own state Republican Party rules. For outsiders, some of the state rules might be unfamiliar. However, members of the respective state Republican parties come to learn the rules and procedures. They are the people that count! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
With uncertainty in some of the state delegations it will be very interesting in Nebraska if Ron Paul garners delegate votes. He should. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Delegates in Nebraska state their preference: Romney, 30 delegates and Paul 2 delegates. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: Presumtive Nominee Mitt Romney also obtained the support of the three 'national' delegates so it's 33 for Romney and 2 for Ron Paul. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hudspeth County, Texas

Seems to have actually gone to Ron Paul; it was the last county to report, and earlier had only one vote in (for Mitt Romney). Could someone edit the map?

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&fips=48&f=0&off=0&elect=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.30.216 (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done — See Article history. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Paulville,_Texas#See_also — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

How does one edit the infobox from January 3, 2012 to present over to January 3 to June 26, 2012? GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

See if you can find something in Wikipedia 'help' by entering "edit the infobox" in the 'Search' box. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To save him the time of that, the template is here. Mr. Anon515 23:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

THANKS! You're the greatest and we all learn from you. By fortunate coincidence, your instruction allowed me to change '42' to '43' for the delegations supporting Romney. (I counted the delegations by the Romney photo in the article and made the update/change.) As I recall, we used to say 'state delegations' and hence District of Columbia was the reason for the difference.

Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So what did we learn, in general? Viz: You can go to any WP talk page, change 'talk' to 'template' in the URL and hit 'enter'. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, changing 'talk' to 'template' doesn't always work; Viz: Talk:Hawaii_Republican_caucuses,_2012 — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

To find the name of the template, click "edit" on the main article. You won't find the text of the infobox in there, but you will find the name of the template within double brackets (so {{Insert name of template}}). This will usually be at the top of the article for infoboxes, and you should be able to tell which template is the infobox by the name. Mr. Anon515 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The running-mate

There is an interesting interactive graphic of current interest from the olde gray lady, The New York Times, [12] listing seven VP possibilities (not including Condi Rice). See the more complete field at our own Republican_Party_vice_presidential_candidates,_2012 — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you all think, should the VP search be included in this article at all. It is not a part of the primary election process and then again maybe it is relevant anyway. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I vote "Yes" — Interesting in both July and August. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The primary process ended with the NE State Convention on July 14 (the infobox should be updated accordingly). All delegates have been selected, except in a couple states like LA, MA & OK where the state party broke the rules, and from which opposing delegations will have to go before the RNC Contest Committee. Delegates are "allocated" to presidential candidates for the roll call, nothing more. So the primaries have nothing to do with the selection of the VP, and information on that (which is all speculation at this point anyway) belongs in another article, namely this or this one. The Romney campaign will effectively choose the VP nominee, and the convention will vote to officially put him/her on to the ticket, unless there is a mutiny there. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the IP. The primaries have ended, so information about the VP pick should go on the convention article. Mr. Anon515 15:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if "Bound" pluralities are needed for nomination, WHY is Romney given MA on here?

Firstly, RNC rules do not specify that a candidate must have five bound states before nomination, only that they have five states. I understand that Lousianna doesn't count right now, because a few Romney supporters who did not turn their seats around nominated a separate slate from the one nominated by a majority of LA delegates. But rules do not specify anything about a candidate's five states being bound. This means that Nevada and Massachusetts should not count as Romney states, just because they are bound to Romney on the first round of voting. One more thing: WHY is MA counted for Romney??? They were *un-seated* because they wouldn't sign the affidavits! So the GOP can oust delegates for not supporting Romney, but when they want to count up states for nomination requirements, Romney still gets it? Makes a lot of sense.

There are a lot of people who actually think that Paul has only three states, that Romney really did win 42 state pluralities, and that Paul has officially conceded. This page needs to be fixed big time. People know that NBC and FOX lie. People trust Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotwake88 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Because even if all those delegates are re-seated (which they won't be) Romney STILL has a plurality. Every Ron Paul supporters keeps repeating that same number out of ignorance. I forget what i is, but something like Ron Paul had 16 of 27 delegates from Massachusetts. (I forget the actual numbers, but it is an example.) But common sense of the relative populations of states should tell you that Massachusetts has MORE than 27 delegates and that is just the CD delegates. But Romney DOMINATED the At Large delegates and therefore, even in the WORST case scenario for him, has at least 22 total delegates and really 25 (the other 11 CD, plus all 11 At Large...plus the 3 RNC delegates) so there is NO way that Ron Paul will emerge with a plurality. But since that original comment on various Ron Paul fan sites was favorable to him, his supporters don't care enough to actually look it up to verify it even though if they did, they would see it was wrong.74.67.106.1 (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

FoxNews doesn't lie! And you see our Table counts in Green Papers (the most authoritative). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just checked Green Papers for Massachusetts [13] and they say, "30 April 2012 update: All delegates are bound to Romney. However, reports indicate that 16 delegates support Paul, 10 support Romney, and 1 is unknown." So what can you say. I would say that they are bound to the first vote in which Romney wins the Nomination. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And since the Authoritative Green Papers posted that, the Massachusets GOP has disqualified seventeen of those delegates. So Romney is counted as having won a plurality of delegates in a state where all ten delegates who weren't un-seated support him. That is way better than a plurality. He won support from the whole delegation! Why don't they just un-seat all non-Romney delegates prior to the convention at a rules committee, and claim that he has unanimous support from the Republican Party? It would be very consistent with the party's behavior this year... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotwake88 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Momentum is everything! Representative Ron Paul won his three states in the early races. Once Romney started rolling he started dominating and Gingrich and Santorum dropped out. Paul stays in but is not in the news. Romney is. State delegations want to be counted as supporting the winner and we can look at the numbers: Romney is leading Paul 10 to 1. Our 'external references' list the current standings: CNN has Romney(1,544) to Paul(154); USA Today has Romney(1522) to Paul(158); WSJ has Romney(1522) to Paul(158); and the more authoritative Green Papers has Romney(1,489) to Paul(154). Mitt Romney has 295 more delegates than he needs to win on First Ballot, and will have more than that as other state delegations pile on. As for improvements in our Article, suggestions and changes are welcome but sourcing may be required. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if our Article should mention that (1) Ron Paul decided not to campaign; (2) His son endorses Romney; (3) Romney leads Paul ten to one; (4) Paul says he in now interested in changing the Republican Party but realizes he can't achieve 1,144 delegates (or was it that he was out of campaign financing, not enough support); (5) the only ones continuing activation are fan/supporters. (Paul doesn't say this, but it becomes obvious.) (6) The new campaign of Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul is now freedom on the Internet, not winning the presidency. (7) He wants to defeat Obama and only Romney is in that position. Further (8) He says he won't upset the convention, but wants to influence Republican issues. (9) However, I predict Ron Paul will speak at convention with or without five states supporting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If pluralities are not found in five states, Ron Paul will not be given any chance to speak, and may not even be allowed on the floor, given the behavior by official party officers during the delegate process. To assume otherwise is simply to ignore what has been taking place. It is also an example of the present special interests sacrificing the long-term vitality of the Republican Party for these short-term victory statements. -- Avanu (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well...your opinion is not shared by most people with actual expertise in the area who suggest that Ron Paul WILL be given a chance to speak and very definitely would be allowed on the floor.74.67.106.1 (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Gotwake88 would you be able to post some reference to the development in MA? Even though it is clear that the delegates are bound to vote for Romney, and that also means that he can show a plurality in that state even if not a single national delegate from the state likes him, the whole MA mixup would still be interesting to add to the article. Many state parties bind their delegates to a primary result not to disfranchice the electorate. MA is a good example of the weakness of the dual system, where delegates are elected in a caucus process but bound to vote according to the result of a primary, in contrast to the direct election system or the slate system. In MA the republican base in the electorate clearly favored Romney (not surprising since he was governor of that state) and then those republican forgot all about the election and went on with their life and work. The active party loyals, or at least a very large group, in MA on the other is Liberitarians and favored Paul. That power is given to the most active party members is the strenght of the caucus system, but that can disfranchise and eventually destroy a party if a small avantgard moves away from the populace. To prevent this the primary was invented. So what happened in MA is very insteresting on many levels and good references is in high demand, so please make any of reliable ones avaible if you know them. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it shows the difference between a Democracy (i.e., France mob rule) and Republic (i.e., America balance of power in representative governance). States (and RNC) use principles of a Republic, not a Democracy. IMHO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Mob rule is Ochlocracy. Democracy is the rule of the many (the population) in contrast to the Aristocracy witch is rule by the few. And it is all in greek. Plato calles Democracy for mob rule in his Republic, but it is important to remember that Plato was in favor of a Aristocratic Republic and against Democracy, witch if he had lived today would have made him closer to facism (the rule of the strongest) than to democracy. It is true that US has an clear aristocratic influence to its democracy (the rule of the best). The balance of pover betwin the different branches has less to do with the differences betwin a true democracy and a republic (in old sense 18th century sense of that word). It has to do with the populations access to pover. If a state such as USA is a democracy can always be debated, it is clear that it wasnt in a modern sense at the start, since a great number of the population was disenfranchised (servants and slaves) as it was in other democracies of the 19th century. Even though USA are religiously keeping its outdated constitution for historical and traditional reasons the republic have moved toward more democracy and ammendtment have been made to outlaw disenfranchising the people. But i guess that being a federation, being very large and still having a very old constitution have kept a few of the older aristocratic tendencies in place in US where they in other democratic states have been done away with. Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The US_Constitution and other founding documents are what sets USA apart. Rush Limbaugh says that the people are no greater, but these documents made the difference. Founding Fathers worked very hard to guard against people who want to Hope and fundamentally Change America as we know it. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I hasten to add: no nation would have been born in the first US Congress had it not been for the compromise of purists to keep the stigma of Slavery, but putting into the Constitution the mechanism of measured change. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I respect yours and other americans faith in your founding documents, but I also have to say that in the wiev of most foreigners (at least europeans) it is your believes in these documents greatness that sets USA apart. From a distance we only see them as the natural development of the english revolution and even the magna carta. Documents draw up by englishmen that already had many such rights before they or their fathers settled in the colonies and now they wanted to protect their own interests, on plantations or in free trade without taxes and the freedom their grandparents had fought a revolution (in england) to gain. The change that americans have brought to themselve has as in all democracies been a process where the people have fought their way to ever more democracy over two centuries. To see these old outdated documents as some kind of revelation we can live by today are hard to understand for non americans, but I respect your faith as I would respect any other faith. Some time ago one of the judges of the US supreme court was asked where Egypt should look for guidance when they should make a new constitution and she answered South Africa and when ask directly about the US constitution she said no (in a nice way). As I remember there was some angry people in US talking about that. From a European wiev it makes total sense, why use an outdated 200 year old constitution as inspiration. For historical reasons it makes sense in USA to keep it, some laws should be hard to change, and I am sure it is historical something special being the first of many modern constitutions. I am not sure about it worldwide but at least in europe the french constitutions, especially the one of 1848 have had a much larger impact on other contries thinking. The US constitution is simply to different to apply because USA is such a different country. Among other things the slavery and the many civil rights problem your constitution have allowed for centuries. I understand why it had to be such a way, that was the reality of the politics in the days when it was written as all laws are. Except a few laws of God Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How far can Paul-people bend the rules this year?

More than ‘soapbox’, I agree with the implied thinking here: how this is handled applies to this Republican race, the presidential election against Obama, (and hence, this Article). You can either work within the rules, (rules are changed for the next time), or you can go outside the rules. Ron Paul is not going to do like Ross Perot and give a minority victory to Bill Clinton. Paul wants to change how the RNC runs the US Republican Party. I also agree with others that we can write the history at convention time (third day). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right, Paul has said that this is not just for this election cycle, he and his supporters is in it for the long run, proberly even longer than Ron Paul will be the leader. But in politics you never know, that is what makes it interesting. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the term "bend the rules" is a bit of an ad hominem, especially considering the lengths we have seen the Romney supporting side of things going including completely ignoring the rules in order to 'win'. Perhaps the best thing for the Republicans is to continue to lose presidential nominations if they wish to actually win. While Bush won his second term, I believe that relates more to the incumbency factor that his strength as a candidate. Against Al Gore, he lost the popular vote, and barely managed to eeek out a win thanks to the Supreme Court, which observers at the time seemed like a straight party vote (and decidedly against the idea of states' rights, since Florida's sovreignty was thrown aside). Against horseface, he barely won, and most likely that was simply because the two candidates were simply mirror copies of one another in many ways. Obama last time at least had vim and vigor in his campaign versus the fossilized version of a candidate brought forth on the Republican side. I've peppered my remarks with useless ad hominems so you can clearly see what they are. The overall point is that since Reagan, the Republicans haven't run a strong candidate. Maybe we're expected to believe this is the best we can have at that level of politics. But I don't buy it. And I don't think most Ron Paul supporters buy it anymore either. -- Avanu (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu....juvenile name calling like horseface takes away ny little bit of credibility that you may have had left, which was very little. The bottom line is, Romney is clearly the choice of the people. Period. Over 5 people voted for Romney for every one that voted for Ron Paul. Ron Paul accepts that it is over. You should too. And you should take a queue from Ron Paul and show CLASS for once.74.67.106.1 (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that calling John Kerry by his affectionate nickname would be a problem for a Republican like yourself. I think you entirely missed the point of my commentary above. A lot of people vote in ways that are contrary to their own interest because they don't realize what they're voting for or they believe they have no other option. You cannot legitimately claim that every vote that chose Mitt Romney was a hearty endorsement of support for the man, no more so that people who voted for Obama might have supported him personally. The point above was that Republicans are not focused on fielding strong candidates, but rather seem interested in fielding mediocre candidates and hoping that "team spirit" will carry the rest of the water for them. Unfortunately, this hasn't worked, and in my own opinion, the lack of principles rubs a lot of people the wrong way. You overstate the support that is present for Mitt Romney, just as someone would have done for McCain or for Dubya or for Dole or for George HW Bush, in your same seat. As far as naming Kerry horseface, it was the one fairly distinguishing trait that separated him from W. People want a hero, not a empty planchet. Futurama has a great analogy for how our presidential elections have been run lately. In the year 3000, two literal clones are running for president, John Jackson and Jack Johnson. Sometimes parody is more truthful than anything else. And sometimes it is more serious to be juvenile than it is to simply accept the joke. -- Avanu (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you know the user 74.ect. or why do you asume that he or she is republican? One could be a socialist and still be an active and good editors of this article. Sometimes it is actually best to be at a distance to be a good editor. And if anyone of the very active editors working on this page are a member of the (american) democratic party they may take offense of such juvenile improper names and the article would loose their editing time. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If a Democrat took offense at the idea that the Republicans are fielding weak candidates, I would be surprised. The reason I believe IP74 is a Republican (rather than Democrat, Socialist, etc) is because they tend to use disparaging nicknames for Ron Paul supporters and have always seemed to support the inclusion of positive material for Romney. They might be a very atypical Democrat, etc, but usually people of opposite parties tend to view all Republicans with a similar disdain, especially someone with very 'mainstream' attitudes like Mitt Romney. Many of Ron Paul's ideas tend to attract support from those outside the Republican base. The selective nature of the disparging remarks is a strong tell. Regardless of any of my justification, the Talk page isn't supposed to be a Forum anyway, so I need to probably close these remarks soon. Back on point though, I believe the Ron Paul people have been abiding by rules, rather than 'bending' those rules as implied in the opening. We have confirmation via reliable sources that rules have been broken in an effort to minimize Paul's impact on the race. I believe a more accurate term for what Paul's supporters have been doing is using the rules to benefit their cause. -- Avanu (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So it bugs you that Gore didn't get the Presidency because Bush won the electoral college, but using that has been Ron Paul's biggest strategy to win three states until this month? J390 (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody move!

Many sources, such as ABC and MSNBC show Paul currently with 4 states, and Nebraska as his fifth. You may have a different interpretation of the rules, but that is original research, and has to be backed by reliable secondary sources. Note that many media outlets are suddenly changing their stances on Louisiana from being Romney to being Ron Paul. I request that we remain neutral on that state, however. Since most media in the US is for-profit, many news organizations will prefer to choose the outcome that leads to the best headline. Which do you think sounds better, "Ron Paul can't win 5 states but he's going for Nebraska anyway" or "Ron Paul's last chance! If he wins Nebraska, he goes to the convention!"? Mr. Anon515 17:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here disagrees that Paul has the plurality in 3 states (Maine, Minnesota and Iowa) and claims to have it in Louisiana. That the last states have problems, and cannot be counted fully to anyone, is not arguable. There has been many many references to this fact cited on this page. After Paul loses in Nebraska it doesn't really matter what happens in Louisiana — 4 states are just as bad as 3 states. The primary process has come to an end. Paul didn't get the five states plurality he was aiming at, but he came close and has many delegates that will raise awareness about the Libertarian ideas at the national convention. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So will Louisiana be moved to Ron Paul or will it remain disputed (it is identified as such in the ABC news article I put up)? Mr. Anon515 22:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be disputed until known. The fact that it doesn't matter at all now means that Wikipedia has plenty of time to get it right, even if that time as after the Convention when it is known.74.67.106.1 (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is no one here knows how RNC Rule 40(b) (the source of that 5-state threshold) will be interpreted. It's a new rule never before enforced. Jack believes that Paul must have a plurality in 5 delegations where his supporters are unbound and/or bound to him. As I wrote about extensively here (with a list of some states summarized here), I differ from that view, in that I believe that state bindings apply only to the roll call vote, and not any other motion or petition, including those to put up a candidate for nomination. Some others mistakenly believe that we are talking about a ~20-year old rule that establishes a similar threshold for giving prime-time speeches. Until we can source the RNC's exact interpretation of this rule, this is still an open matter, because Paul supporters hold pluralities in more than 5 states, long before NE came around. These states include CO, IA, ME, MN, NV, and VA. Other states in play (waiting on the decisions of uncommitted's, contests challenges, etc.) include AK, GA, LA, MA, OK, OR, and TX. There could be others that are flying even under my radar.

A couple other comments: It is my expectation that however the convention implements that rule, Paul will get is "15 minutes of fame." Unless Romney's campaign implodes these next few weeks (i.e. some brave prosecutor charges him over the Bain mess), the party regulars who hold many of the delegates seats bound to him will listen to him, so it will effectively be 'his' convention. So if the Paul-Romney "personal relationship" means anything at all, he will give Paul the opportunity to give his speech & have some presence, however small, on the platform. Really, it's the least he could do, after Paul had many opportunties to attack him during the debates & ads and passed (focusing his fire on Gingrich & Santorum). Knowing Paul, he is not likely to stick to any script. I could see him accepting the draft of some pro-Romney speech from Reince Priebus, fingers crossed behind his back. Then as he strolls up to the podium, he whips out his own speech from behind his suit :p

Second, it seems the extra media attention didn't do the Paul supporters in NE any favors- it motivated the Governor there to marshal his troops & make sure people stuck to the "official Romney" slate, all to avoid being embarrassed in "his" state. I'll take a pass on the conspiracy that the media frenzy was planned from on high (i.e. make Paul look bad given his likely minority of state delegates). I think it's more plausible that some staffer who's a political junkie was hoping to inject some interest in the very last state contest, one that is rather lonely on the calendar, and other media outlets picked up on it. Here's a recap from the Daily Paul if anyone is interested. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right that the notion that Paul can not be trusted to say what he otherwise have agreed upon on a speech will be a key factor deciding if he is going to have a speech at the convention. It is also true that he in this primary his supporters have been so many that they could tip the balance at the general election. It is true that know one knows (even the trusted secondary sources) excactly how the 40 rule will be invoked. But we do know that it will go into effect before any roll call because the nomination speeches is before the roll call. It says clearly in the text that rule 40 applies to nomination speeches, not the roll call. How the candidates are going to show those plurality is unclear. I think everyone agrees that no delegates are bound to other than voting for a presidential nominee, so all other motions and petitions are fair game. So as I looks now no nomination speech for Paul, unless the lawsuit about the bound delegates goes Pauls way. Will he get to speak at another time at the convention? Since Romney is without any reasonable doubt going to be the nominee another speaking time at the convention could be just as good and even better depending than a 15 minute nomination speech depending on how prominent and long it will be. Clearly something to look out for since this article should have a short section about the convention. There is already a whole article on that topic and it seems to be shaping up very well. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing seems clear. This is a moment for Republicans to choose to embrace conservative libertarians or shun them. They can circle the wagons and keep them out, but I think this will only diminish the party more. If they choose to open the tent to this group, they can expect a fervent group of people that want real change, not token efforts. So I think its sink or swim for Republicans here. -- Avanu (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Republicans accept Conservative Libertarians up to a point. And there are Tea Party people of both persuasions. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I should have made clear, "l" not "L" libertarians. Honestly, other than Republicans seemingly wanting war all the time and seemingly wanting government intervention for pro-business policies, I don't quite see how these two groups are all that different. -- Avanu (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Republican party is in a really interesting development, I am not sure how we show it or if we should show it at all in this article. The party did not start as a conservative party before the civil war, some might even say it was not really more conservative than the democratic party in the 1950's (the southern democrats were pretty conservative) but with Goldwater the conservatives took over the party instead of making a new party at their own. Would the same thing happen in the future, so the libertarians would take over what have been the conservatives party for several decades? They have sure been trying, but guessing on what will happen is of course crystalballing. It is a fact though that beside fighting for delegates to Paul the movement (in lack of a better word) have tried to take over several local state parties with or without success. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a situation in the US where ordinary people are expected to follow the rule of law, but at the same time, other laws are ignored with impunity. We're not talking about some archaic rule that people passed and forgot, like 'no gum chewing on Sunday' or 'don't publically mock an iguana', we're talking about basic principles that determine how we deal with basic human rights. These include the right to choose how I worship, or whether I am free to speak my mind openly and publically, whether the government has a right to know all my private activities or whether I am free to live without some bureaucrat expecting to know it all. The right to expect contracts to be enforced fairly and to be able to compete in a market that isn't governed by secret sweetheart deals. The right to be represented in government, not simply ignored in favor of powerful interests. Ron Paul has been the only public officeholder who clearly has been consistent in these principles, and our government and large companies have shown they can't be trusted to do what is best. Just this past week, we've seen a settlement from Visa and MasterCard, the LIBOR scandal getting attention, GlaxoSmithKline hit with $3B in penalties, and a Supreme Court that seems to ignore common sense about what a tax is and isn't, as well as failing to address a gaping constitutionality problem with the Health Care law and the Origination Clause. The week before, Obama decided that laws are not a mandate from Congress (particularly immigration), as much as advice, when he decided to openly ignore it and do whatever he wants instead. We are reaching a point where those in power simply decide for themselves what the rules will be, despite what the rules say, and many times, those in Congress don't even read the rules they are about to pass. -- Avanu (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that Mitt Romney has followed the rules. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A campaign is bigger than one person, and while Mitt Romney specifically may have followed whatever rules are in place, there have been many instances of the campaign or parties ignoring the rules in favor of Mitt Romney. My comments above were not intended to lead us to a focus on Mitt Romney, but the actions of the campaign or state and local parties have too often strayed from 'rule abiding', and as a consequence have encouraged the alienation of a large block of voters. -- Avanu (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if that simply is a regretable sideproduct of the primary process but but especially the Romney and the Paul campaign have often strayed from rule abiding and that migh have alienated voters. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul loses Nebraska

Only two delegates assigned to Paul. Guess Paul will have to appeal to whether Colorado or Nevada can be counted, as those are the only other states where he has even a possible plurality. Mr. Anon515 19:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Exact delegate count here. Mr. Anon515 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Has the candidate himself commented on this (whether through email to his supporters or in an official press release)? If so, that might be useful. I imagine that if he officially drops out, endorses Romney, or endorses Gary Johnson, it would have a big impact towards his supporters and his message (positive or negative, it's unknown). Mr. Anon515 23:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

To examine accurate/current delegate counts, our listed external link is good: [14] "Latest Green Papers delegate count" where you can investigate the latest developments, such as most Nevada delegates cheering for Ron Paul, but bound by the NV primary: (Nevada Republican Party rules, for the first, and only, vote at convention.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted those links before the Green Papers had updated. Mr. Anon515 05:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#Overview_of_results you will see that Montana goes for Romney and Louisiana goes for Rick Santorum. I don't think either will go for Ron Paul. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That is the popular vote, not the delegate count. Most of Montana's delegates are uncommitted, while Louisiana, as shown above, is disputed. Mr. Anon515 15:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. My point is that with momentum for Romney and no support for Paul, to speak of (look at Nebraska) the delegates from Montana will vote for Romney; it is the choice of the delegates and they do not seem to be bound as in other states. From [15] "There is no formal system applied to relate the presidential preference of the participants to the choice of the delegates to the Republican Convention. The participants alone determine if presidential preference is to be a factor in such choice and, if so, how it is to be applied." Louisiana is another situation. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated, I'd like to note that Ron Paul's 166 delegates will still be able to vote for him at the convention; if you look at the 2008 convention, Ron Paul's delegates were able to vote for him even though he didn't win a single state. Mr. Anon515 16:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you a 100 procent sure about that? Or even better do you have a source saying so? That would be really helpful at the Convention Article. If rule 40 means you can only vote for the ones on the ballot then they will not, and since rule 40 is new what happened in 2008 really doesnt help. As I see it (after reading around and reading the discussions) then he will not appear on the ballot but the delegates would be able to vote for him as a kind of verbal write-in candidate. But I have no references to back either outcomes. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rule 40 is a new rule? In that case, I take back my last post. Mr. Anon515 22:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I bet each state leader can vote what they want, even if it doesn't count. We'll wait and see but looking at the numbers, Romney has more than he needs even if 200+ don't vote for him. The leader for each state will stand up with a microphone and use 'freedom of speech' but probably jump on the bandwagon.Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Romney allows Paul some speaking time anyways, as getting the libertarian vote is advantageous to him. Gary Johnson currently draws a significant amount of Romney's vote away from him in key swing states like Arizona, so keep your eyes peeled if Paul gets a speaking role, Romney adopts one of his signature positions, or if one of the Pauls is offered a role in the Romney administration. Mr. Anon515 03:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This also gives some interesting insights. 2% of the registered voters polled volunteered Paul's name as a choice, indicating that they will likely vote for him no matter what happens in Tampa. Regardless of whether he wants a third party bid, Paul's status as a third party will be extremely important in the election, if he can get that much. If Romney does nothing to court Paul's supporters, keep your eyes peeled for significant write-in ballot choices. Mr. Anon515 03:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting insights from one of our external links, 2012 Election Central: "Following the primary battle and now leading up to the convention in Tampa, it appears the GOP is working hard to avoid alienating Ron Paul and his supporters any further from the party. A new report out in the last couple days explains how the GOP is working to make sure Paul, and his supporters, are fully included and represented in August." — Although interesting, this information would be better in the campaign article: 2012_Republican_National_Convention — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Time's running out before the convention, so when will the delegations of Louisiana and Montana vote?

When will we see the winner of Louisiana and Montana's delegations? J390 (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Will Louisiana and Montana state leaders tell us at convention time in a month? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)

Louisiana is a good question — No one knows. It will be when it is decided which of the two delegations will be seated. When it comes to Montana the answer is never, (if we don't count the actually voting at the convention) where they most probably will vote for Romney with everyone else. Montana's delegates are all unbound and no one (at least as I have seen) have cared to ask every one of them whom they will support. Because of uncertainly with Paul supporters, and because of the special election form in Montana, no one but Paul supporters care about it at this point. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree: Louisiana convention brought fisticuffs but Montana was more orderly, just tardy or seeking visibility. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Montana should be colored specifically for being uncommitted, while Louisiana should be colored spefically for being disputed. Right now it just looks like we are too lazy to cover the races. Mr. Anon515 03:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be great! Also, a footnote could be added under the map (delegations). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added two footnote-sentences under the delegation map (explaining Louisiana and Montana). References could be applied. As explained in a section above, if you change 'Talk' to 'Template' you can go to Template:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 for editing — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tentative citations have been added. Mr. Anon515 17:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I brought up something similar to this before here, but a decision wasn't really reached at the time. I still advocate for a different color for those states (minus LA, plus Montana), since it doesn't make sense to me to award plurality to a state where there are still delegates that have yet to declare their intentions. It would be like arbitrarily stopping the voting in FL at noon on election day and declaring the Romney had the most votes and thus the state, despite there being more registered voters who had not yet cast their ballots than voters who had voted for Romney up to that point. These are states where the delegates are known, but all their votes (even with consideration of state bindings for the roll call) are not. LA can remain gray, since both its delegates and plurality are up in the air.

While the MT delegation is officially uncommitted, there is (as many of you suspected from the lack of Paul supporters flocking to announce it here) little to no Paul support to be found among them. This article gives an accurate, albeit one-sided, view of the proceedings. With 47% of the state delegates, the Paul campaign came very close to walking away with the delegation. Instead, they seem to have been shut out (they may have gotten 1 alternate in).

Ben Swann, meanwhile, seems to have had discussions with members of the RNC Rules Committee, which has apparently confirmed information that I've been told by convention organizers regarding Rule 40. The consequence of that being that Paul has at least 6 states whose delegates would support putting his name in for nomination, and would guarantee him the 15-minute speech whether Romney wants to give it to him or not. Now I admit Swann may not be 100% reliable, as the sources he cites are remaining anonymous, and he has, well, gotten "caught up" by the Paul 'delegate strategy' more than perhaps any other single reporter. However, this is the first instance I've seen of a reporter actually claiming to have asked and referenced the people who would actually provide final clarification on this matter- the Rules Committee. So if we are to use the opposing interpretation of Rule 40 that we've been running with in this article and here, is there not now an impetus to more firmly source that?

To more succinctly answer your question, Charles, we will determine a winner for LA when the Convention Committee on Credentials publishes its report for the delegates to vote on, which will occur the week before the Convention opens. Within the context of the primary season, there will technically never be a winner for MT, because that delegation remains officially unpledged up until the roll call. The same appears to be the case for CO & PA (where there are unpledged pluralities). LA, unlike MT, may be retroactively filled in, because the Credentials Committee will be deciding which delegation was properly elected at that time, that is, within the window of the primary season.

The appeals process within the RNC is a little more complicated than that- it doesn't go straight to Credentials. First, the RNC Committee on Contests (composed of 9 members) is required to promptly hear the case (as it also will for MA & OK), and view written presentations from both sides before publishing its report. It's decision may be appealed to the full Republican National Committee (168 members- 3 from each state & territory), which would render a decision. Any decision by the National Committee may then be appealed to the Credentials Committee (~110 members- 2 from each state & territory excluding those of the state in question), which would incorporate its decision in the Credentials Committee report to the national convention as a whole. The National Convention offers the ultimate say on the matter, and it may do so by offering amendments to the Credentials Report (that would be in order if proposed by majorities of at least 6 delegations, and affecting no more than 1 delegation at a time), before passing the amendment(s) & the report by majority vote. An amended credentials report would require a roll call to pass. Since I have my doubts that the Convention would bother to take up this time-consuming matter as a whole before all those TV cameras, I believe we will be able to use the Credentials report for the purposes of declaring a winner for LA in this article, as it will almost certainly be appealed up to that point. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sincere Thanks for clarifying; how did you learn this? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a lot of OR which cannot apply to the body. He's been pretty adamant about editors interpreting on what they mean (WP:OR) rather than relying on Reliable Sources to back up arguments. I will admit here that I suspect that he himself is a Ron Paul advocate in a clever way not order not to show his cards. He advocated for removing the table from the Republican Convention page although it is a 100% guarantee that Mitt Romney will be voted on in the ballot box UNLESS he can show me that Mitt Romney will not be on the ballot. I've told him over again that if he has Reliable Sources to show that Ron Paul did gain a plurality of at least 5 states aside from Swann, he's free to show me these links. This Swann guy has been harping on the whole Ron Paul wagon and unfortunately he still cannot be used as a Reliable Source. Outside of that, I cannot let Not-Reliable Sources influence my editing decision. He tried to be clever with this by trying to disprove a Omaha news link by attacking the article with his own OR / knowledge and claiming she doesn't prove her sources. That's not our problem here at Wikipedia but her news organization does qualify under Reliable Sources. ViriiK (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My personal political beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is determining what we do and do not know, via reliable sources. Since it seems you are willing to continue the discussion we started on the other talk page here, I will go ahead and reply to that here. Mitt Romney's odds of being on that ballot are not 100%- they are 99.9%. I don't harbor any personal doubts he will receive votes at the RNC, or that he is likely to win the nomination. What we do know is that Rule 40 makes clear that the submission of names for nomination & the roll call are two separate acts, and I am arguing that it is inappropriate to make assumptions about one based on the other. I also just don't see the point of including a table with any names until after the vote takes place- we just don't know every candidate that will receive the vote of at least 1 delegate there. Nobody needs Romney's name in a table to realize his name is likely to be voted on, so what other reason is there to include something for which there are no reliable sources? Whether or not you like him or want to believe what Ben Swann says, he is a local reporter with at least as much credibility as this Omaha reporter you like to defend.

Charles, it is true that my knowledge of the Republican Party's appeal process is mostly Original Research. For that reason, I am not asking for it to be incorporated into the article just yet. However, I thought it would be useful information for editors to be aware of, so they can better understand the timeline of upcoming events, and sort out the different articles talking about Paul's challenge to the RNC, some of which refer to it as a "contests challenge", and some as a "credentials challenge." However, this blog post by a member of the RNC from VA back in March, outlines a similar process that would have taken place if the winner-take-all delegate allotment from AZ & FL had been challenged under Rule 15(b)(2). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing will be done. Bob Swann on a YouTube video is not acceptable as Reliable Source unless it is matched with an accompanying Reliable Source and there are more accompanying sources reporting on the same thing. On the other hand, the Omaha reporter can easily be corroborated by other Reliable Sources out there. I don't care who she is. Bob Swann is constantly being promulgated by Ron Paul fansites and that goes against credibility. I can easily find links that proves my point. Now, I suggest you just kindly sit down and wait until the start / middle / conclusion of the convention. At this point, I do not care anymore about Rule #40 that you like to constantly debate on. Wikipedia is not your WP:SOAPBOX to argue and convince us through your OR. When you come back with Reliable Sources and request consensus to modify the article, please do so. I'll point you in the right direction WP:RS. ViriiK (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole reason that table is there is because of the assumed connection between Rule 40 and state bindings. Its defense rests entirely on how that rule is interpreted- nothing less, nothing more. Therefore, if you wish to continue defending its current inclusion in the article, you have to care about Rule 40, I'm sorry to say. Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of arguing about it too, but it is what it is. I wish the RNC Rules Committee would stop being so secretive and just answer everybody's questions about this already, but they haven't. You can give sources saying Romney & Santorum will be on the ballot due to the number of states they've won, but that's just one-half of the puzzle. Unless you have a source that provides the other half, then the bindings-rule 40 connection that the table is based on can't be proven. Substituting your deduction for what that other half would be, as I have, is also Original Research. You have asked me to stop worrying about this until after the convention, but you haven't explained why it is so important to you to have a table up now that won't be filled in until that time anyway. It'd be like putting the table of all 50 states up on the 2012 presidential election page with all the columns & rows filled with zeros, except at least that table would be more credible based on the fact that there is precedent for all states participating in past elections and sending electors to the Electoral College. Ben Swann is no longer reliable because of what other third parties have to say about his reporting? Then you'd have to basically exclude anything from Fox News, because conservatives love their reporting, or MSNBC, because Democrats love their reporting, and on and on. You can't exclude a source because of who chooses to listen to it. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting source

This seems to put doubt on Ben Swann's claim that the RNC has acknowledged any further pluralities by the Paul campaign. The fact that he is filing suit over the contested delegates in Louisiana means that the RNC is refusing to consider those in favor of Paul at the moment. Another interesting piece of information is the fact that Paul appears to be going after Oregon and Massachusett's delegates. If the contested delegates in question are enough to shift the plurality, we may need to move these states into the "disputed" area as well. Mr. Anon515 16:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That article just says what we already knew- the state party believes their "minority convention" produced the valid slate of delegates, and they have now gone on to announce them as such. The Paul campaign believes their slate is valid, so they have filed a challenge with the RNC. LA is not part of any lawsuit, it is a contests challenge. Regarding MA & OR, if Paul manages to get his delegates seated, that does not mean it would change anything with the map, because most of those delegates, whomever they may be, are bound for the roll call to Romney. If we changed their map color in spite of those state bindings, we would have to rework the entire map to be consistent. What winning the challenge may allow, however, is for those delegations to have the opportunity to support placing Paul's name in to nomination, among other things. That is dependent on the as-yet-unknown true interpretation of Rule 40. "Paul's campaign is also making challenges to delegates in Massachusetts and Oregon, though not their entire slates. Currently, he holds the majority of delegations in Iowa, Minnesota, and Maine. Under RNC rules, a candidate needs the majority of delegates in five states to enter their name into nomination." This blog post is not only stating this without an explanation or a source, it is being inconsistent. We already know it's inaccurate, because it's a plurality, not a majority that is required. Yes, Paul has majorities in those 3 states, but if they are ignoring bindings and considering MA & OR for that list, then they also need to add NV, VA, and several other states. Read by itself, I have no objection to the last sentence- the question is whether that plurality is decided before the convention, with state bindings also affecting the motions for submission of names, or decided at the convention by the delegates. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now Paul has plurality in 3 states (Iowa, Main and Minnesota) one is contested (Louisiana), that means he does not have 5 states. In Massachusett and Nevada a plurality (maybe even a large majority) of the delegates are dedicated Paul supporters, they are simply bound to vote for the nominee the electorate in their state primaries have told them to. This state party rule could/wil be(?) challenged in court. But Paul dont have to go after the delegates of the Massachusett delegation. They are going to vote with him and support him in any thing he say at the convention, the are just not allowed to show plurality and vote for him as nominee.

Besides these 6 states I havent seen any reliable source about any other plurality of delegates elected for Paul but bound to another candidate. Would anyone help me with the source for Oregon and maybe even the several "other" states everybody is alway ending their comments by refering too? It seems that a lot of other states are going aroung. I have even read that Washington State delegation should be just packed with Paul supportes and it was just because "the man" was keeping them down by some technicality. I actually watched that state convention on a live fee (lying home sick and feeling sorry for myself) and Paul got a big can of whop-ass at that convention, from the state delegates of Washington State Republican Party State Convention. So forgive me if I have a hard time with all the other states. But please educated me with some reliable sources. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't disputed that the delegates specifically from MA, NV, etc. are bound to Romney. One can question whether any delegate can be bound, but we will have to await the result of the lawsuit for an answer to that (the hearing for that has been set for August 6). But assuming that they will remain bound, then those delegates are indeed obliged to cast their ballots for Romney, or perhaps abstain. The point of contention with respect to Rule 40(b) is not whether they are bound at the roll call, but if they are also bound for motions made to submit names for nomination- the demonstration of "support" that the rule calls for. The point that I've tried to make many times is that no one from the RNC Rules Committee or even the RNC at large has issued a statement on this matter. Everyone on Wikipedia is running with the assumption that "support for nomination motions" = "bound for the roll call", which has never been explicitly stated by a single reliable source.

Before the WA State Convention finished meeting on June 2, there were many erroneous reports going around (including from many media sources that some here would have been happy to accept as "reliable") that said either that Paul had won WA, or that it was all but assured to happen. This was based on how well Paul (or rather, Paul & Santorum) did at the county & district conventions. I did not watch the live feed like you did, Jack, but your amusing description of it as being a 'whoopass' for Paul is pretty accurate. The reports I got back indicated that the main thing that changed between the county & state conventions was the breakdown of the Paul-Santorum coalition. By the time June rolled around, most of the Santorum folks either stayed home or sided with the slate endorsed by the state party bigwigs (aka pro-Romney). It didn't help that the attendance by Paul's state delegates was not 100% like it was elsewhere- about 90% of them showed up. The final breakdown was Romney 33, Paul 6, Santorum 1, with the alternates breaking down about the same way. I'm not sure what you've been reading, but unlike OK, LA, MO, or a few other places, my understanding is that the WA convention was orderly and followed the rules, so no contests challenges are expected to be filed there.

What happened in Oregon is a bit more challenging to find out. Unlike most other states, they did not hold a state convention. Rather, both CD & at-large delegates were elected across 5 district conventions that were scheduled to begin and end at the same time. After they concluded (but before they formally adjourned), the votes cast at each site for the 10 at-large delegates & 10 at-large alternates would be added together via video conference to determine the winners. The problem was that unlike most years, the "establishment" slate was not rubber-stamped by the district delegates, so most of the meetings ran longer than expected. Some districts approved motions to extend the meeting, while others were abruptly adjourned w/o regard from motions from the floor to continue. At two of the meetings, state party officials mistakenly told (or purposely lied to) attendees that the other meetings had all adjourned, and therefore they had to adjourn. All 5 meetings managed to finish casting ballots for the at-large & CD delegates. Because not all of the meetings (officially) voted for the alternates, the state party took it upon itself to appoint (presumably pro-Romney) people to those seats, which is rather convenient for the Romney campaign, as I believe it is the policy of the state party to replace delegates who ignore their pledges to particular candidates to be replaced by the delegation chairman with alternates (assuming, of course, that the delegation chairman has not been replaced himself). There are some videos on Youtube of state party officials ignoring motions & trying to shut down the meetings, and also there is some evidence of those officials trying to leave the building with ballots uncounted. At some point after the designated closing time of 5pm, all those meetings went "dark", and anyone who was there is being asked by both campaigns not to say anything publicly, lest it interfere with the credentials challenge that is being filed.

Since we're counting delegates according to the binding rules, I don't think this information needs to be placed into the article. However, since you asked, my notes have Paul holding pluralities of support in the delegations from AK, CO, IA, ME, MN, NV, and VA. He will also have LA, MA, OK, and OR if he can get his delegates seated. GA, TX, and WI are also not out of the question. He did very well at the TX convention, but the exact numbers are being kept quiet by the campaign. I haven't heard back from the AR State Committee Meeting or ID State convention, but Paul supporters do hold at least 6 of the 12 CD delegate seats from Arkansas. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that puts an upper bound of 14 states and enough to put Paul into an easy second place should a second ballot occur. However, since most of these delegates are bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot, Romney is still guaranteed the nomination.

So the real area of dispute is which of these states are counted towards Paul. If I understand correctly, LA, ME, MN, IA, and possibly AK and CO if enough Santorum delegates switch their vote (not sure what rules bind them) can vote for Paul in the first ballot.

Since a second ballot is extremely unlikely, it is unintuitive to allow the 5 state rule to apply to delegates that will never get the chance to vote for their candidate. On the other hand, it makes intuitive sense for the 5 state rule to be based off of first ballot delegates, since that is what the current contest is centered on. On the convention page, someone claimed that this rule has existed for some time, and the only difference this year is that "majority" has been changed to "plurality". Can someone verify this? That would clear up the confusion. Mr. Anon515 02:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Unintuitive that would be, but many things in life are. But I agree with everything you say. I had heard about that change from "majority" to "plurality", but I thought that had only happened sometime between when the rule was first drafted & when it got adopted. I guess the only way to find out is if someone can dig up a copy of the RNC rules from 2008 (as adopted in 2004). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Boom. Found it- [16] (see page 17). Turns out they had the exact same rule back then, apart from the change from 'majority' to 'plurality'. Since Paul (and Romney) both got a handful of votes when those rules were in effect in 2008, this pretty much proves that nominations & roll call bindings are two separate things. That is, unless there is another rule at play here this time around, but I don't think so. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold on. Someone who edited the article earlier claimed that there was always a "write-in" option for ballot voting at the Convention, and that the 5 state rule was mainly reserved for speeches. Ron Paul did not get a speech in the last convention. But were his votes chosen from the ballot or written in? I wish someone was here who was at the last convention, so that they could clear this up. I also know that in 2008, Paul didn't even have a plurality in support from 5 states (correct me if I'm wrong). I do thank you for bringing this up, as I think this is very helpful. Unfortunately, it seems that answers can lead to more questions. Mr. Anon515 03:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it will be a roll call there is actually not a physical ballot every delegate put a x on. It is simply proverbial speaking that there is a ballot and write-in option. If a similar rule in 2008 allowed voting for person without a nomination speech then this rule must allow the same. So an unbound delegate could vote for anyone (including donald duck I guess) Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct. The Democrats do use a physical ballot (or at least they did so in the past), while the Republicans just shout out the names during the roll call. As I wrote over at the convention talk page, it would appear that the only tangible benefit of being nominated by 5 delegations is the right to claim an "earned" 15-minute speech, rather than one gifted to you by someone else, which would give one some valuable time to air their views, along with other more abstract benefits. My understanding is that it will be up to each of the state delegations to file paperwork with the folks planning the convention's schedule that states they are submitting a particular candidate's name for nomination as called for by Rule 40, by a deadline that I don't think has been set yet. This is done beforehand to save time once the convention gets underway. However, I'm pretty sure motions can still be raised from the floor to do the same thing if so desired, which the delegations from LA, MA, OK, and OR may need to do since their case probably won't be resolved until the last minute. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We will have to wait to see what happens. discussing this it is important to remember whater ever happens Romney will still have a majority and will be nominated. The question is; Will Paul make noise at the convention or will he make a deal and get speakingtime at another time than the nomination procedure and influence on the party platform for the next four years. The question is also will Romney pay the price not to get a little trouble at the convention? Soon we will know. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The other interesting thing will be how the convention works (RNC in control) as noted by WP reader 68.58 in the section above: "First, the RNC Committee on Contests (composed of 9 members) is required to promptly hear the case (as it also will for MA & OK), and view written presentations from both sides before publishing its report. It's decision may be appealed to the full Republican National Committee (168 members- 3 from each state & territory), which would render a decision." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.