............... We Are Not Amused.....
Posted on 02/28/2016 3:53:01 PM PST by LS
We have discussed Rule 40 which says, I think, that a candidate must win a majority of delegates in 8 states to have his name put in nomination. You can't just win the state, right?
Do I have this right? So Iowa would NOT count for Cruz, but Nev. would count for Trump?
I forget, what were the splits in NH and SC?
“He got 8 delegates, Trump and Rubio got 7, Carson got 6, Rand Paul got 3, Bush got 1... anyhoo Cruz got a majority.”
Nope, Cruz got a plurality; majority by definition means more than 50%.
“The calendar and rules were all set up for ¡Yeb!”
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
As was the switch in Florida in 5/2016 from a proportional state to a winner-take-all-state.
The article even has this little “fact”:
“The last time a contested convention produced a winning U.S. president was Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.”
Wrong. In 1968, both the Democrat and Republican conventions started without a candidate having a majority of delegates.
They also almost doubled the number of delegates.
“They also almost doubled the number of delegates.”
Thanks for pointing that out. Yep, Florida doubled the delegates even though the population of Florida definitely didn’t double. Both changes were supposed to be a double whammy that was presumed to favor Yeb.
Rule 303 will come into play...
The Secret Service uses Rule Number 270 to insure safety.
The rules can be changed. Check Rule 27. (The Rules Committee can present a different set of rules than what was approved in Tampa)
Also Rule 30 - A motion to suspend the rules could be offered from the floor.
OK, I’ve done some more digging - the 5 state rule was not in effect in 1968. But the vote for Elliot Richardson in 1976 although he wasn’t nominated did count.
Can someone explain what it means when one candidate gives another candidate his delegates? There’s been some talk on this forum of Cruz “giving” Rubio his delegates if he gets out. Not understanding that. Thx.
If a candidate suspends his campaign, then his delegates are not legally bound to vote for him. Now the candidate can endorse another candidate, but this does not force the delegate to vote for the endorsed candidate.
It counted in 1976 because there was no rule about who would be eligible for nomination.
Rule 27 specifies the order in which rules are to be presented and acted upon. But those rules cannot change the already agreed upon rules during the current convention.
Rule 30 specifies that the rules of order that govern the House of Representatives will be used by the convention to conduct business.
Rule 32 specifies that those rules (i.e. The Rules of Order in reference to Rule 30) can be suspended by motion.
I am a Cruz supporter. I will vote for Cruz in my primary. I am not a fan of Trump running around saying he will sue anyone. But I would 100% support a law suit by Trump to prevent any breach of contract in regards to the convention.
But the rules established by the Republican Party for their convention is a binding legal contract and they cannot just changed the rules at a whim. They must follow the agreed upon procedure for doing so. If they attempt to break the contract, they will be forced to comply by the courts. Count on it.
Note this line in 40(b):
Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives...
See that? That means that 40(b) is not debatable. What follows that phrase is set in stone.
A candidate “owns” his delegates, i.e. they are pledged to vote for him, but a candidate can release his delegates from their pledge. Usually, but not always, those delegates will then vote for whoever their candidate wants them to vote for.
............... We Are Not Amused.....
It appears to me that Rule 40 is the same as it was in 2012, except that it was raised from 5 to 8 (I could not find 1976 Rules but I know the 5 state rule was in effect then).
The goal of raising the bar to 8 states was to deny Ron Paul a nominating and seconding speech in 2012. The votes for him counted.
And how exactly did raising it from 5 to 8 stop him? Ron Paul only had a majority of delegates in Iowa, Minnesota, and Maine. He only had a plurality in one other State, Louisiana. The 5 rule would have done the same job as 8. Nonsense.
The 2012 rules were written to go into effect in 2016. Just as the rules written at the convention this year will be in effect for 2020.
So a person doesn’t have to have 1237 after all .. just a majority of the 1237 ..??
I’ve never heard this before.
And, is this how they kept some from getting the nomination by not telling them that only a majority of the 1237 was needed ..??
This is crazy.
Really .. and why on earth would Cruz be getting out .. or is this somebody’s pipe dream in order to get rid of Cruz?
If all of the delegates vote, then the winner would need 1237.
Let me explain it this way. If you are a delegate pledged to Rubio, but Rubio doesn’t clear the 8 contest hurdle, he isn’t eligible to be voted for. But you are pledged to vote for him. So what do you do? You abstain from voting.
That means that you don’t vote.
The nominee must win the majority of votes that are cast.
Suppose nobody has a majority in 8 delegations. Is it then impossible to nominate anyone?
With 18 winner-take-all contests, it is highly unlikely, even in a crowded field, that at least 8 of those would not fall one way.
Add to that the 14 winner-take-most contests, and it is almost impossible for that to occur.
Were that to occur, then yes, the way the rule is written, there could be no nominee until some candidates released their delegates and each set of released delegates were to work out who they would support. Once a majority of delegates in at least 8 States or territories decided they were going to vote for a particular candidate, then they could produce written support to the committee and that candidate would be nominated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.