All delegates are unbound

[Mechanicos]

You actually just posted the Supreme Court cases that provides support for unbinding delegates. It says the State can't compel a delegate- it is based on the party rules. As posted in the original article, party rules state delegates are unbound.

oops.

To recap:
The argument to keep the bound was the State rules, in violation of party rules- USSC said in that case Party rules trump state rules.

Read it it Again its says the Party controls over States and the delegates wishes. Here, the anti-Trumps are in the same position as these delegates were as they were trying to take over the convention and party. What side is the RNC on? That is who controls.  What you missed was the fact the delegates 1st and 14th were subordinate to the Party rules.

[Mechanicos]

You actually just posted the Supreme Court cases that provides support for unbinding delegates. It says the State can't compel a delegate- it is based on the party rules. As posted in the original article, party rules state delegates are unbound.

oops.

To recap:
The argument to keep the bound was the State rules, in violation of party rules- USSC said in that case Party rules trump state rules.

The State rules for bound and unbound are the same as the Party rules they copied them from. Thus they are the Party rules. And the Party rules control bound and unbound. 

[L9teen]

Bingo.   Since Indiana, all Trump's had to do is start acting like a statesman and the GOP would have united behind him.  Instead,  he's spent more time ripping conservatives than Clinton, continued to treat his campaign like a reality show, and made only half-hearted attempts to fund-raise and build an organization.

It's not a matter of rejecting the will of [a plurality of] the voters.  It's about fixing a problem that cries out to be fixed.  Trump is neither qualified to be President, nor interested in doing what it takes to be President.   His followers (at least those who aren't Democrats) surely don't want Hillary to be the next President.  But the present reality is stark:  nominate Trump, and Hillary's the next President.

The delegates have no moral or legal obligation to commit political suicide.  To the contrary, their duty is to stop the GOP from nominating a sure loser.   Like the nation itself, the GOP is a republic, not a democracy.

YEP

[ABX]

The State rules for bound and unbound are the same as the Party rules they copied them from. Thus they are the Party rules. And the Party rules control bound and unbound.

....and no...
RULE NO. 38
 Unit Rule
 No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule. A “unit rule” prohibited by this section means a rule or law under which a delegation at the national convention casts its entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote of the delegation.

It is the States that bind delegates, not the party. The party says, 'no delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound....'

[Gov Bean Counter]

....and no...
RULE NO. 38
 Unit Rule
 No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule. A “unit rule” prohibited by this section means a rule or law under which a delegation at the national convention casts its entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote of the delegation.

It is the States that bind delegates, not the party. The party says, 'no delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound....'

Mech needs to get the updated talking points from the mother shi(p).

[Emjay]

Clever #nevertrump tricksters, ignore the will of the voters ?? #nevertrumpers are sore losers.

The party elites, eastern liberal "Republicans," phony ass conservatives, journalists like Bill Kristol, politicos like Jeb Bush, and the #nevertrumpers go to their knees before these operators ?

Please.  No one is more elite and phony ass than Trump.  And voting your conscience is not 'going to your knees,' it's voting your conscience.

[L9teen]

Delegates Unbound: Read this Free, Online Book


As this book demonstrates, this principle has been embedded within the rules of the party established at the first national nominating convention held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1856, recognizing that each
and every delegate to the national convention had a full and unfettered right to vote as he wished on matters ranging from approval of rules, credential challenges, whether to uphold or overturn rulings of the chair and perhaps most importantly, on the nomination of the Republican Party’s candidate for president and vice president of the United States.

This will likely come as a surprise to many, accustomed to hearing that delegates to the convention are allocated to one candidate or another based on the results of a primary, caucus, or other event, or media counts of how many delegates are officially bound to vote for a specific candidate at the convention, or speculation on how delegates might vote if a second ballot or even more are required to select a nominee.

But as this book makes clear, delegates to the Republican National Convention have had, at every convention from 1856 through 2012, the full freedom to vote their consciences on all matters recognized and protected in the convention rules – with the single notable exception of 1976, when the campaign of incumbent President Gerald Ford pushed through a change in the rules as part of a strategy to deny the nomination
to former California Gov. Ronald Reagan.

This conclusion is based on a careful historical analysis of the official records of the Republican National Convention and Republican National Committee, such as rules committee meeting transcripts and the official
proceedings, as well as academic research and contemporaneous media accounts. As documented here, both the rules and rulings from the convention chair on the matter have consistently upheld this right, and the
statements of delegates and rules committee members consistently state the purpose of what are now Rule 37 (b) and 38, which is to preserve and protect the freedom of delegates to vote their consciences in all matters.

[INVAR]

....and no...
RULE NO. 38
 Unit Rule
 No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule. A “unit rule” prohibited by this section means a rule or law under which a delegation at the national convention casts its entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote of the delegation.

It is the States that bind delegates, not the party. The party says, 'no delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound....'

Mech is just going to take the opposite side of whatever proofs you provide and simply declare them to be what he says they are, as he does with absolutely everything else. 

You're dealing with a paid shill/operator of the Trump campaign, his job is to shill for his prince as divine and sow confusion and spread bovine excrement among non-supportive Conservatives as far and wide as possible on all the forums and sites he spends his days on (which is like 10 or something according to what he told Mystery-AK).

[Mechanicos]

....and no...
RULE NO. 38
 Unit Rule
 No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule. A “unit rule” prohibited by this section means a rule or law under which a delegation at the national convention casts its entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote of the delegation.

It is the States that bind delegates, not the party. The party says, 'no delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound....'

State laws regulating the affairs of a private organization are not automatically invalid. They are only invalid if the state law violates the organization’s exercise of its First Amendment right of political association through the adoption of a contrary rule. the Supreme Court has already ruled that in a conflict between state law and national-party rules, the national-party rules take precedence. What you omitted was the Party Rules language for bound and unbound the States use came from the Party Rules as their written guidelines for the States to use to avoid the problems of prior conventions. So where a State duplicated the bound and unbound guideline language from the National Party they adopted the party's rules.

Finally, the First Amendment right here is not an individual right of each delegate but a right of political association that requires the association to act. This conduct is an attack on the Party by a small group of fanatics just like with Wis, just Like the Paul bots. The National Party has every legal right and the duty to unseat any delegate who formally tries this national party destroying maneuver.

[Free Vulcan]

In Iowa, our votes are bound and can't be unbound. It is a simple issue of doing the math and determining the proportions to each candidate, explained better by our SCC member David Chung in his blog:

http://www.hawkeyegop.com/?p=1651

Last June I posted an article about a proposed amendment to the RPI bylaws defining how Iowa would bind delegates at the 2016 Republican National Convention. Unfortunately the article is out of date and is not an accurate description of the process. Let me explain:

Ron Paul’s 2012 candidacy for president put the Republican National Committee in full panic mode. At the 2012 Republican National Convention, the RNC changed the rules midstream to prevent Ron Paul from being officially nominated and earning a prime time speaking spot alongside with the eventual nominee, Mitt Romney. To prevent a possible repeat of the situation that gave Paul, the third place finisher on caucus night, a super majority of Iowa’s delegates the RNC ruled that every state must bind their National Convention delegates based on the results of their primary or caucus. As a result, the Republican Party of Iowa amended its bylaws to be in compliance with the RNC Rule 16(a)1 (relevant portion shown here)

    Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, …

Therefore, for the first time ever, we in Iowa are required to bind our delegates. This was not our choice, but in my role as Chairman of the party’s Organization Committee, I oversaw our committee’s effort to come up with a binding method that in compliance with Rule 16. Our original proposal was to bind the delegation on the first ballot based on the Caucus night vote and the candidates who are formally nominated at the convention. After extended back and forth discussions with the RNC legal staff we were told to make modifications to our proposal.

Now, I know that some of you reading this are thinking,

    Why didn’t you stand up to the RNC Rules Committee? Why did you let them push you around like that?

The answer is simple,

    We Iowans cherish our First-in-the-Nation caucuses!

The RNC passed a rule that required us to bind our delegates but also guaranteed us firs-in-the-nation for 2016. When I ran, unsuccessfully, for National Committeeman in 2012 I quickly learned something: Job #1 is retaining First-in-the-Nation! In my role on the State Central Committee, I am not going to do anything to push back against the very rule that gives us this privilege. There are already enough states working to take FITN away, the last thing I want to do is give them ammunition.

So, this is the rule that we negotiated with RNC legal and adopted into our state party bylaws:

    ARTICLE VIII – BINDING OF NATIONAL CONVENTION DELEGATES
    1. The Iowa delegation to the Republican National Convention shall be bound on the first ballot to vote proportionally in accordance with the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses. The proportional delegate allocation shall be rounded to the nearest whole delegate. In the event that a delegate is unallocated due to mathematical rounding, the unallocated delegate vote shall be cast in favor of the candidate closest to the rounding threshold. In the event that delegates are over-allocated due to mathematical rounding, the over-allocated delegate shall be removed from a candidate based on the rounding threshold. Delegates shall be bound to the candidates in direct proportion to the candidates’ respective vote shares in the Iowa Caucuses regardless of whether any such candidate has withdrawn from the race or otherwise does not have his or her name placed in nomination at the Republican National Convention.

    2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this article, if only one candidate’s name is placed in nomination at the Republican National Convention, all delegates shall be bound to vote for such candidate on the first ballot provided that the candidate received votes in the Iowa Caucuses.

    3. The Chairman of the Iowa delegation, or his or her designee, shall announce the vote of the delegation in accordance with this Article.

So what does this mean? It means that individual Iowa delegates will not vote on the first ballot at the convention. The chairman of the delegation will simply do the math and announce Iowa’s vote based on this rule.

So, if only one candidate meets the threshold to be officially placed into nomination, they will receive all of Iowa’s votes.

If more than one candidate is officially placed into nomination, then Iowa’s votes will be recorded in proportion to the caucus night totals. In other words, Iowa will cast  some votes for candidates who have suspended their campaigns and are no longer running. There will be no recalculation, there is no opportunity for a candidate to release or pledge his votes for another.


The rules about what it takes for a candidate to have their name officially placed in nomination are equally byzantine and may have very serious consequences … the topic of a future blog post!

-----

Note the bold. Some people think this is a violation of Rule 38, the 'Unit Rule' some not. Not sure myself.

[r9etb]

State laws regulating the affairs of a private organization are not automatically invalid. They are only invalid if the state law violates the organization’s exercise of its First Amendment right of political association through the adoption of a contrary rule.

Which is to say, state laws have no effect.  Party rules, not state laws, govern the behavior of delegates to the party convention.

[NavyCanDo]

Mech needs to get the updated talking points from the mother shi(p).

 

[Mechanicos]

Which is to say, state laws have no effect.  Party rules, not state laws, govern the behavior of delegates to the party convention.

Haugland also noted in an interview in September 2015 that some of the party's rules appear to be internally contradictory. For example, Rule 16(a)(1) allows for winner-take-all primary contests. Rule 38, however, prohibits a state delegation from casting "its entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote of the delegation."[5][21][22]

Another member of the Convention Rules Committee, Morton Blackwell, said a modification to the delegate binding rules was "highly unlikely." He continued, "In fact, I believe that while it was possible in January [2016] to dispassionately discuss changes of the rules respecting the procedures at the convention in terms of what is most fair and what is most helpful to the Republican Party, that time has passed.”[23]

On April 3, 2016, RNC Chair Reince Priebus agreed with Blackwell that delegates would remain bound. "There's no way around it. If a delegate is bound to a candidate, even if that delegate decides later, 'I don't care, I'm not voting for that person,' the secretary at the convention will read the roll as if that delegate voted for the person that they're bound to, period," Priebus said.[24]

https://ballotpedia.org/Rule_16_and_its_impact_on_the_2016_Republican_National_Convention

It will be fun to watch the RNC eject the Cruz fanatics/Party destroyers who try this at the convention.

[Gov Bean Counter]

 

[txradioguy]

You actually just posted the Supreme Court cases that provides support for unbinding delegates. It says the State can't compel a delegate- it is based on the party rules. As posted in the original article, party rules state delegates are unbound.

oops.

To recap:
The argument to keep the bound was the State rules, in violation of party rules- USSC said in that case Party rules trump state rules.

This is what happens when a Liberal from DU tries to act like a factually based Conservative.

[Machiavelli]

Unfortunately, the delegates don't have the balls to follow through and vote their consciences.

You see, they are deathly afraid of committing political suicide, no matter how unlikely that might happen.

Therefore, they will pee all over themselves and vote for Trump.

[RoosGirl]

Curly Haugland, who wrote this article and the book Unbound, has been talking about delegates being unbound for years.  Well prior to Trump being the presumptive nominee.  He may or may not be NeverTrump, but whether he is nor has not changed his tune on this issue.  He has a pretty well laid out case for why the delegates have always been unbound with the exception of 1976 where the rules committee passed the rule for that convention to bind them.  If the rules committee that year had to pass the rule to bind them, then it's common sense that they historically were and are unbound.

[Mechanicos]

This is what happens when a Liberal from DU tries to act like a factually based Conservative.

Why don't you 1. Stop calling a person who is more conservative then you a liberal. The fact is you are a Hillary helper which means the results of your actions if allowed are to advance the DU agenda not a conservative one. 2. Leave the case law interpretations to the ones who know how to do it. The only time the State rules are invalidated is when its in conflict with the National rules. Here there is no conflict and the States adopted the National Party rules for bound and unbound. The Unit rule is related but not the same as the bound rules. So its not going to help.

The fact is the National party probably will void any contrary delegate vote, have the secretary record the vote how they should have voted and then eject the delegate from the convention. You are not as many as you think you are. 

[r9etb]

On April 3, 2016, RNC Chair Reince Priebus agreed with Blackwell that delegates would remain bound. "There's no way around it. If a delegate is bound to a candidate, even if that delegate decides later, 'I don't care, I'm not voting for that person,' the secretary at the convention will read the roll as if that delegate voted for the person that they're bound to, period," Priebus said.[24]

Priebus can say what he likes, but what he's describing sounds like a variation on the "unit rule," which is specifically against the convention rules.

Be that as it may, it's up to the convention to decide on the rules it will follow in terms of how the secretary of the convention treats delegates' votes.  If the convention allows for abstentions, or even a "conscience clause," then the secretary of the convention has to follow those rules.

[Mod2]

Enough of the back and forth insults guys.

[ABX]

Curly Haugland, who wrote this article and the book Unbound, has been talking about delegates being unbound for years.  Well prior to Trump being the presumptive nominee.  He may or may not be NeverTrump, but whether he is nor has not changed his tune on this issue.  He has a pretty well laid out case for why the delegates have always been unbound with the exception of 1976 where the rules committee passed the rule for that convention to bind them.  If the rules committee that year had to pass the rule to bind them, then it's common sense that they historically were and are unbound.

Interestingly enough, he is a RNC Standing Committee on Rules member, so if anyone knows the rules and how they apply, it would be him.

[L9teen]

[txradioguy]

 

[NavyCanDo]

Now That's Funny!   

[RoosGirl]

You are not as many as you think you are.

You have no proof one way or the other as to how many will or won't support a rule for binding delegates at this convention.