[PetroniDE]

I have NO problem with a standing vote, if the margin appears close. Since most of SD17 voted against, it was clearly louder for the "nay", but most of us felt that the vote would be close enough to require standing vote. Those that were against standing vote either were happy they won the vote and wanted to move on or just wanted to finish and go home. I think standing votes were taken on both the motion to indefinitely table and the final amendment vote (once each). I agree that standing votes do not take long.

The motion to combine Rules 40-42 was close. I was surprised it won without a standing vote (most of SD17 voted in favor) but enough voted against to understand and agree to a standing vote. I read that you voted against my motion. I have no problem with that, though I am of a different opinion. See my post why I agree with term limits (and we should be consistent regarding their enforcement). It appeared that most of SD17 was mostly for keeping term limits.

[Tex_GOP_Cruz]

The motion to combine Rules 40-42 was close. I was surprised it won without a standing vote (most of SD17 voted in favor) but enough voted against to understand and agree to a standing vote. I read that you voted against my motion. I have no problem with that, though I am of a different opinion.

Well, you made the motion. :-) But really, I thought the motion was necessary and worthy of debate. And to be honest, I had mixed feelings about the term limits rules as a whole. Being my first convention, one funny thing that stuck me was how many SDs were very cohesive units in voting. I guess the SD leadership does has some sway. Our chair went up and down the aisles on substantive votes with a thumbs up or thumbs down. (Did yours and others?) I generally agreed with him (Have I been indoctrinated? Or am I a RINO now, hehe?). However, I was also happy to play the role of maverick a few times in loudly voting against the SD15 caucus.