Texas Rnc Delegates May Mutiny Over New Rule

[BG45]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/texas-delegates-planning-floor-mutiny-over-rnc-rules-225837647.html"]Texas delegates planning floor mutiny over RNC rule changes[/url]

[quote]
TAMPA--On Monday morning, at a meeting of more than 100 Texan delegates and alternates at the Saddlebrook Resort 20 miles north of Tampa, one topic got the crowd more fired up than any other. Delegate Melinda Fredricks read aloud a letter condemning recent changes to the national Republican party's rules that would allow the GOP presidential candidate to veto and replace state delegates.

"Our delegates are in shock that such an amendment even would be presented before the Rules Committee much less passed into rule," Fredricks said. "Please know from the Texas delegation standpoint that the only way a floor fight can be avoided is for this rule to be stricken."

At that point, the entire Texas delegation stood up and applauded.

Texans don't necessarily want to have an ugly floor fight on the same day the party officially nominates Mitt Romney. But they're willing to do it if their concerns about the rule aren't satisfied.

The changes, which Mitt Romney's top lawyer put forward last week and Gov. Haley Barbour along with some other Romney supporters have embraced, are seen by opponents as intended to significantly weaken the power of grassroots politics and insurgent candidates such as Ron Paul. Many against the move worry that it would give national candidates the power to replace delegates--often grassroots party faithfuls--with big-time donors or friends.

"We truly consider that an infringement on our rights," Fredricks, a member of the rules committee, told Yahoo News of the changes. Today, states generally choose their delegates at state conventions, and then those individuals travel to the national convention to cast their vote for a candidate based on the share the candidate won of the primary or caucus vote of each state. But, the changes could allow a candidate such as Mitt Romney to boot out any delegates who are
assigned to vote for him and replace them.

While opposition to the rules began with Ron Paul supporters, it has spread to the entire Texas delegation and significant portions of those from South Carolina, Colorado, Virginia and Louisiana too. Mitt Romney's campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg proposed the rule last week, but even some Romney supporters are staunchly opposed to the changes. Indiana delegate and Romney supporter James Bopp wrote in an email to RNC members that it's "the biggest power grab in the history of the Republican Party." Fredricks, a Romney supporter, says only 30 people of the more than 300 Texan alternates and delegates support Ron Paul, yet the delegation is "united" in its opposition to the rule.

At 2pm on Tuesday, the Rules Committee members will debate whether the new rule should be struck down. Fredericks thinks she has the 29 members necessary to start a debate about the change, and is hopeful she can resolve the issue before the committee adjourns and joins the larger convention floor.

"We like to fight behind closed doors...Most of us are reluctant to do a floor flight," Fredricks said.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told Salon Monday [url="http://www.salon.com/2012/08/27/texan_gop_delegation_revolts/"]that he does not expect a floor fight[/url], though he did not explain why.

Paulites are among the staunchest opponents of the new rule. It would prevent insurgent candidates such as Paul from raking up delegate votes in caucus states where[url="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/gop-convention-floor-fight-threat-looms/"] party conventions instead of the statewide vote determine how many delegates are awarded[/url]. ABC's Chris Good points out that Paul would not have won a plurality of delegates in four states if this rule had been in effect during this primary.

Paul supporter Karen Skrill, an alternate delegate from Vermont, said she and her husband Stewart, a delegate, are upset about the changed rules.

"If this is how it's going to be, I don't want to be a Republican," Skrill told Yahoo News in a discussion on the floor Monday. The Skrills are retired farmers.

"Texas in general doesn't believe the national level should be picking delegates," added Jon Burgin, an alternate delegate from San Antonio who supports Paul. "It's pretty egregious."[/quote]

Call me an evil liberal, but essentially giving the nominee dictatorial powers to dismiss delegates seems a bit wrong and un-democratic to me...

[havok579257]

ron paul supports are funny to me. he is not a republican and will NEVER be voted in as a republican. why do they continue to support him for republican candidate when he is not republican and will never win the nomination.

[Winchester]

Republican has no objective meaning beyond party membership.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Winchester

[Groo the Wanderer]

Secede!

[BG45]

[url="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-supporters-walk-out-of-gop-convention-20120828,0,3246451.story"]Maine Ron Paul Supporters walk out of RNC after half their number are replaced[/url] by this new rule.

[quote]As the roll call of states commenced, several states listed votes for both Romney and Paul. When repeating back the count, those at the podium cited only the Romney votes.[/quote]

[Ed Normile]

Actually this was misreported the actual rule was to allow nominees to name their delegates. It was reported as a nominee being able to change anothers delegates, this stems from Ron Pauls attempt at a coup by using delegates he did not win but courted after his loss in the primaries, cheaters rarely prosper.

ed

[Winchester]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346210063' post='2475573']
Actually this was misreported the actual rule was to allow nominees to name their delegates. It was reported as a nominee being able to change anothers delegates, this stems from Ron Pauls attempt at a coup by using delegates he did not win but courted after his loss in the primaries, cheaters rarely prosper.

ed
[/quote]
It's not cheating. Have you been to a state convention?

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1346210345' post='2475576']
It's not cheating. Have you been to a state convention?
[/quote]

No, and this move was done after the conventions were over.

ed

[Winchester]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346210427' post='2475578']
No, and this move was done after the conventions were over.

ed
[/quote]
Delegates are elected by vote. You can claim you support one candidate or another, but you don't hand over your brain. Convincing delegates to vote for a different candidate isn't cheating.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1346210782' post='2475581']
Delegates are elected by vote. You can claim you support one candidate or another, but you don't hand over your brain. Convincing delegates to vote for a different candidate isn't cheating.
[/quote]

Delegates are delegated to the winner of the popular vote, they are representatives afterall.

ed

Edited August 29, 2012 by Ed Normile

[Winchester]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346211821' post='2475591']
Delegates are delegated to the winner of the popular vote, they are representatives afterall.

ed
[/quote]
Which convention were you at?

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346211821' post='2475591']
Delegates are delegated to the winner of the popular vote, they are representatives afterall.

ed
[/quote]

One of the men who signed his name on the Declaration of Independence said "It is my job to vote for what I believe is right according to my own prudential judgement, not just the popular vote." This was an idea very well liked by our founding fathers, and it is in line with Catholic teaching, in fact. If the country says abortion should be legal, does that mean you as president should do all that you can to keep it legal? Of course not. You must vote by your prudential judgement.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346211821' post='2475591']
Delegates are delegated to the winner of the popular vote, they are representatives afterall.

ed
[/quote]

To add more, your idea is an idea of absolute democracy, something not well liked by both the Church and the founding fathers. Absolute democracy is very bad, because that means whatever the people want happens. The people are just as stupid at times as the people they elect. That's why we have Obama and other terrible leaders in office.

[Ed Normile]

FuturePriest, perhaps this will enlighten you.

[b] Democratic Party[/b]

The [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29"]Democratic Party of the United States[/url] uses pledged delegates and superdelegates. A candidate for the Democratic nominee must win a majority of combined delegate votes at the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Convention"]Democratic National Convention[/url].
Pledged delegates are elected or chosen at the state or local level, with the understanding that they will support a particular candidate at the convention. Pledged delegates are however not actually bound to vote for that candidate, thus the candidates are allowed to periodically review the list of delegates and eliminate any of those they feel would not be supportive. Currently there are 3,253 pledged delegates.
Of the 4,047 total Democratic delegates, 794 are [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate"]superdelegates[/url], which are usually Democratic members of Congress, governors, former Presidents, and other party leaders. They are not required to indicate preference for a candidate.
The Democratic Party uses a proportional representation to determine how many delegates each candidate is awarded in each state. For example, a candidate who wins 40% of a state's vote in the primary election will win 40% of that state's delegates; however, a candidate must win at least 15% of the primary vote in order to receive any delegates. There is no process to win superdelegates, since they can vote for whomever they please. A candidate needs to win a simple majority of total delegates to earn the Democratic nomination.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate#cite_note-cnnpolitics.com-0"][1][/url][/sup]
[b] Republican Party[/b]

The [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29"]Republican Party of the United States[/url] utilizes a similar system with slightly different terminology, employing pledged and unpledged delegates. Of the total 2,380 Republican delegates (2,286 in 2012), 1,719 are pledged delegates, who as with the Democratic Party, are elected at the state or local level. To become the Republican Party nominee, the candidate must win a simple majority of 1,191 of the 2,380 total delegates at the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Convention"]Republican National Convention[/url].
A majority of the unpledged delegates are elected much like the pledged delegates, and are likely to be committed to a specific candidate. Many of the other unpledged delegates automatically claim the delegate status either by virtue of their position as a party chair or national party committee person. This group is known as unpledged RNC member delegates.
The process by which delegates are awarded to a candidate will vary from state to state. Many states use a winner-take-all system, where popular vote determines the winning candidate for that state, however, beginning in 2012 many states now use proportional representation. While the Republican National Committee does not require a 15% minimum threshold, individual state parties may impart such a threshold.
The unpledged RNC member delegates are free to vote for any candidate and are not bound by the electoral votes of their state. The majority of the unpledged delegates (those who are elected or chosen) are technically free to vote for any candidate; however they are likely to be committed to one specifically.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate#cite_note-cnnpolitics.com-0"][1][/url][/sup]

[sup][size=3]The uproar was over pledged delegates.[/size][/sup]

[sup][size=3]ed[/size][/sup]

[BG45]

Now for the most unbiased article I could find that addresses all our points:
[url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/28/republican-delegates-texas-maine-rules?newsfeed=true"]The Guardian: Republican delegates from Texas and Maine protest "power grab" rules change.[/url]

Part of it:
[quote]

The protest reflects to some extent the split in the Republican Party between the old establishment and the relatively new Tea Party activists and the libertarians gathered round Paul.

In a further sign of the continuing trouble Paul and his supporters pose for Romney and the Republican leadership, the delegations from Minnesota, Nevada and Iowa announced on the convention floor that they were voting for the Texas congressman, even though he failed to win those or any other states during the primary and caucus process.

This was possible because Paul's extensive grassroots network was able to dominate congressional district and state conventions in these states and elsewhere.

It is this sort of under-the-radar delegate strategy that the Republican leadership wanted to stop by changing the party's rules, to the fury of some delegates.

They objected to a change to Rule 12 that would allow Republican leaders to make changes to party rules between conventions. Until now, changes could usually only be made at conventions.

The other objection was to Rule 16 that would require states to allocate delegates according to the statewide vote rather than a winner-take-all approach. This is aimed at states such as Maine where Paul supporters are accused of taking over the nominating process, allocating 20 of the 24 delegates to Paul.

As part of the revolt, protesters attempted to gather the 29 signatures needed from members of the party rules committee. This would have allowed minority reports objecting to the rules changes to be heard on the floor. But the protesters failed to secure the necessary signatures.

One of the minority reports objecting to the changes came from the Texas delegation.

Melinda Fredericks, 52, is a member of the Texas delegation but also a member of the rules committee. She had supported the Texas minority report.

She expressed sorrow that the changes had gone through. "I am not happy about it," she said. "I have conflicting feelings." She was disappointed there had not been enough notice to allow time to discuss it with her delegation.

She added, however, that the Texas delegation had secured some concessions. The leadership power to make changes between conventions would only apply up until 2014 and not the next convention in 2016.
[/quote]