Posted on 04/12/2016 11:11:22 AM PDT by gg188
But all of the rules could be changed?
Technically, yes. For example, the rules could be changed to enable delegates to immediately unbind themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
What do you think are the chances of this? Cruz's strategy now seems clearer in light of this possibility.
What would be the repercussions? Cruz Supporters: Would you support this rule change?
The GOP delegate fight explained:
They are weasels
No. That would be, even by political standards, shockingly corrupt. They make marginal changes, like they did going from 5 to 8 states in 2012 to block Rand, but unbinding bound delegates would offend everyone.
We will know when the rules are approved a week before the convention how many delegates are loyal to Trump and to Cruz, and how loyal they are. I’m not ruling out sleaze, but even sleaze has to appear fair. They won’t go that far.
I heard a local party official say that the public is too low information and easily manipulated by the media to be of any use in selecting a Republican candidate. So, the party will act in its own best interests in selecting a candidate themselves.
..How about a new rule that any candidate who skipped a debate without first suspending his campaign is not eligible...
Brilliant. That would have kept Reagan out of the Presidency.
Don’t worry, it won’t be retroactive to 1980.
..Don’t worry, it won’t be retroactive to 1980...
Sounds like a rule the GOPe would come up with, doesn’t it?
However, if the rules allowed for all delegates whose candidate is no longer running to become ‘ubound’ - I could get behind that. Saves time and money.
The rules exist for good reason, and does allowing rules to change.
It's also a good idea for the party to control - to some extent - who is nominated. I know that's going to sound horrible to some right now but if a true leftist ran as a republican (think somewhere to the left of kasich) and masses of democrats flocked to the GOP in every liberal state they could take over the party. That would be very bad.
Generally speaking, I think the rules should stay in place until after the nomination is made.
Rules changes should be in place at least six months before the first vote is cast. (By caucus or direct vote). If the campaign can't get it's act together in six months they'll likely be a disaster in office where you don't get six months to learn how legislation works.
Interesting to see, but no.
That map looks organized. Lol this one is a mess.
...Indiana has strange delegate apportionment... It was a tossup still as of yesterday. Pennsylvania will probably be the deciding point.
The delegates make the rules though, so how could you set the rules before the first vote is cast? The only thing we could do do is set them 4 years in advance, which means we’d be bound to Romney’s rules now. Or let the entrenched GOP establishment set the rules without control by candidates.
But Indiana and 95% of states are bound to the statewide winner on first ballot, so their presence is a mere formality in the first round. PA is a rarity by having 54 delegates who are not bound and who cannot even declare on the ballot who they’re supporting. Some of their answers as to who they’ll support are amusing in the below survey. About 20 Cruzers and 20 Trumpsters so far, with 2 Rubio hangers-on and just 1 guy who might consider Kasich. A lot who will vote for whoever wins their district and a lot who will “make up their mind later.”
http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/10253036-74/district-whoever-wins
In 1976 Reagan campaigned on making a Pennsylvania Senator his V.P. solely to woo the unbound PA delegates. But the guy was so liberal that a bunch of other delegates deserted Reagan after the pick was made.
I didn’t intend for this to be a partisan thread, but if there’s a rule about debates it needs to be: If one candidate kicks the ass of another candidate, humiliating him 11 straight debates, giving the guy rematch after rematch with the same result-—KO-—the loser is ineligible for the nomination. No other Heavyweight Champion other than Trump would give a minor contender 11 rematches only to beat the guy to a pulp each time, with the loser, bloody on the mat, crying out, “I demand a rematch!” LOL. Would Muhammid Ali give 11 rematches to Sonny Liston? LOL. Life and competition don’t work that way. If you can’t bring it ELEVEN freaking times, dude, you’re no longer a contender.
An open letter to America from the Pennsylvania Veterans Party of America Chair Gary Garvine: This is why to vote for Third Party: The biggest objection to voting for a Third Party is the “wasted vote” argument — the idea that if you vote for someone who will not win, then the vote does not count.
Voting for a third party, contrary to popular belief, is not a wasted vote. It’s a chance to tell the country — and perhaps even the world — what your vision of government and society really is. But how do most of us vote? Most of us vote the “lesser of two evils” — a defensive vote, rather than an offensive one.
So what happens after you vote the defensive vote? Well, then you have sold out your personal beliefs. You have become a political prostitute. You aren’t standing up for what you believe in by voting “the lesser of two evils.” I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being a political hooker.
If you think the Republican or the Democrat really does best mirror your beliefs, by all means, vote for that candidate. But if you don’t, and you still vote for them, you’re helping to preserve the status quo you probably despise. So What’s the Point of Voting?
We vote to tell everyone else which choice best represents the direction which we want the country to go. When you vote, you gain a certain power that a non-voter doesn’t have; the power to change America. Hence voting lesser evil sends the wrong message; it’s sending a message of compromise. In effect, a defensive vote says “I will settle for a good America, not the best America possible.”
I urge you not to settle. In other words, if you want change, then create change. The history of third parties in America is that they serve as the vanguard for new ideas. It is these ideas that make the world go round. If a Third Party begins to draw votes, one or both of the two big parties steal their ideas.
The most successful third party in the 20th Century was the Socialist Party. While never winning any significant elections, their small but growing vote totals were a threat to the Democrats. Thus the Democrats, and then later the Republicans, adopted piecemeal every major tenet of the 1916 Socialist Party platform.
So rather than waste your vote on Democrats or Republicans, cast a meaningful ballot that clearly says what you believe. #VPA #VPPA #VPofA @VetsPA www.vpofa.org www.veteranspartyofamerica.org www.chriskeniston2016.com
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.