Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Polling order

In Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2012#Polling_order, we are having a dispute concerning whether polls should be listed in chronological or reverse-chronological order. We would appreciate any outside input from the broader group of editors who contribute to these articles. Thanks! Light-jet pilot (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevada state convention

What do we do with this? It appears that the delegates are supposed to be bound, but this does say that Paul won 22-3. Also, it says even without that, the proportional allocation would be 17-8 (not incl superdelegates) because S&G dropped out. So what exactly should we do?--Metallurgist (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point! plus, didn't Ron Paul win a lot of delegates in Minnesota, Missouri, Maine, and Washington too (that were unexpected)? Athleek123 (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We really don't need to do anything with this info. From the above article: "At the national convention, Romney still will be entitled to receive 20 Nevada delegate votes on the first ballot and Paul is entitled to eight because Romney finished first in the Feb. 4 GOP presidential caucuses in the Silver State. So most of the Paul-aligned delegates must cast a ballot for Romney."

Romney is entitled to the NV delegate votes that he won as a result of the Feb. 4th contest. As for MO, their convoluted process isn't over until June 2nd. WA's process isn't over until June 2nd as well, and none of the delegates selected there are bound at all, yet. Guy1890 (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The rules say "Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of the candidate for nomination." I'm not sure how bound delegates count, but I'm assuming they count for Romney even though they support Paul? I don't know. --Gyroid (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No delegates from those states have been elected, so Paul has won nothing from them. Of course a lot of projections show Romney or Santorum has won those delegates, but the primary schedule and the infobox dont use projected counts, so no Paul delegates (or any other delegates) from Minnesota or Washington for some time. Maine is electing today and even though some delegates have been elected from Missouri it will not finish the process before June 2. Just shows how dangerous projected counts is for NPOV. When it comes to Nevad the source Mettalurgis stated says: "At the national convention, Romney still will be entitled to receive 20 Nevada delegate votes on the first ballot and Paul is entitled to eight because Romney finished first in the Feb. 4 GOP presidential caucuses in the Silver State. So most of the Paul-aligned delegates must cast a ballot for Romney" It would be good to write some lines about the Nevada State convention (and Massachusetts where the same thing happened) in the Late state section, but the state still goes for Romney as far as nominating a Republican candidate. For all other convention matters I am sure both the Nevada and the Massachusetts delegations will be interesting to watch. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevada is one of the states binding their RNC delegates. So the bound count (that the delegates have to vote by) according to above source is 20 for Romney and 8 for Paul. I will correct the primary schedule to say so. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you know if NV counts as one of the fives states needed for Paul to be on the Tampa ballot (Rule 40, which I quoted above)? Or does it count as plurality for Romney since they are bound to him? --Gyroid (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking for a source on that, but have found nothing. My best guess is that they will count for Romney since the whole plurality thing is for the first ballot and on the first ballot the plurality is voting for Romney. I would love to see any news article or anything on the subject. Remember it is not just Nevada, it is also Massachusetts' delegation and who knows how many delegations more to come. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Santorum and Gingrich didn't drop out. They 'suspended'. Their campaigns still can raise money and keep delegates. -- Avanu (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right, but the Nevada rules doesnt seem to take the difference into account. At least not according to the source Metallurgist have put at the top. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me Paul won Nevada: [1] Jørgen88 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Romney most certainly does NOT have 20 delegates from Nevada. The only delegates that are bound to him would be the RNC delegates, and the CD delegates that he won. These delegates were awarded PROPORTIONALLY per Congressional District; even if Romney won 51% in a district, that does not mean he wins all of the delegates from that district. On another note, Ron Paul won all 15 of the "delegates at large". His number should be AT LEAST 15 + the number that were bound from the Congressional District voting. As it currently stands, you took the majority of the 6 Newt delegates, and the 3 Santorum delegates, and gave them to Romney. If ANYTHING, these delegates are "uncommitted" on the first ballot. With Ron Paul supporters winning the majority of delegate spots, there is no way Mitt Romney has 20 bound delegates in any way, shape or form. Please get your facts right, and stop trying to "fudge the numbers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.143.17 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

[2]:"At the national convention, Romney still will be entitled to receive 20 Nevada delegate votes on the first ballot and Paul is entitled to eight because Romney finished first in the Feb. 4 GOP presidential caucuses in the Silver State. So most of the Paul-aligned delegates must cast a ballot for Romney." Not my numbers Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Romney does, in fact, have 20 first round national delegate votes from NV (see above). Guy1890 (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My question is more is it the four way count or 20-8?--Metallurgist (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What about stripes for NV and MA on the delegate map? The delegates may be bound but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are Romney's "delegates" because (hypothetically) if there is a second round of voting those delegates will vote for Paul. --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

More importantly as far as I can read the rules they are free to vote for anyone for vice presidential candidate. And of course they are free to vote for platform, rules and all other none presidential matters on the convention. But the map is in the article on the presidential primary, and when it comes to who will be the nominee, those states are still Romneys. Of course if there is a concensus for stripes we could do that even though I dont agree :), we will have to make another map though, it is not easy to put stripe on this one for some reason. (have been an technical issue after the nonbinding Missouri primary) Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

People - let's be serious here. Romney has secured the majority of delegates from both MA & NV. There's not going to be a second round of voting for President at the 2012 GOP national convention, and Romney will be allowed to pick his own Vice-President. There's no need to further confuse the issue at hand (which is who is eventually going to win the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination) on these pages. Guy1890 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that this is the Presidential nomination article, but it is not neutral to completely ignore the fact that, while Paul's delegates may be bound to vote for Romney, they are not bound otherwise, including voting to amend the party platform or motioning to suspend convention rules. These delegates are not your normal delegates, and it is a little unprecedented. We can't simply follow past precedent in this case. By ignoring this fact, I believe, we are giving this article an undue (if slight) slant.--haha169 (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

why dont you write some lines about it in the late state section? Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all NO delegates are bound due to Rule 38. This rule has been enforced before. All delegates are free agents that may wish to vote for whom ever they choose regardless of state party bylaws or state party rules. No state party can force them to vote in units. All the Ron Paul delegates are not bound to any candidate and can vote for Ron Paul in the first round of voting. Although some states have laws and penalties to discourage not voting for the bound candidate. Ploxhoi (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Baloney. The "Rule 38" issue has been fully-vetted elsewhere on this talk page. States can & have bound their delegates to vote a certain way in any first-round of voting that may or may not happen at the 2012 GOP convention. Guy1890 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, it would be reasonable to include some mention of Ron Paul's delegate strategy (using reliable sources, of course) and how sources view this changing the primaries. For example, how unique is it actually? How often have such things been done before, even to a limited degree? What prompted Ron Paul to take this approach? etc etc etc. -- Avanu (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do, it would be a good start on the late states section. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule 39

If I read rule 39 right then it will give room for some motions (and roll calls) from the floor if Paul controlls 6 delegations. It could be an interesting convention. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

RULE NO. 39 Record Vote
If a majority of the delegates of any six (6) states severally shall demand a roll call vote, the same shall be taken of the states in the order hereinbefore established.

That just says that a roll call vote can be demanded. Normally the chairman just states X for candidate A, Y for candidate B. Demanding a roll call means every delegate votes individually. That would really slow things down, but really shouldn't change the outcome. How is this relevant to the article? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Roll calls don't unbind...so it doesn't make any difference.74.67.98.207 (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the chair might report the votes per the binding, while with a roll call any number of the individual delegates might abstain. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No state delegates that are bound to vote a certain way on any first-round of voting will be abstaining, period. This has been fully-vetted in other sections of this talk page, and it's a dead issue at this point. Guy1890 (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A tie of 2

Since Newt and Paul are now tied with 2 apiece (by state delegate majorities), and Newt is now out of the race, I suggest Paul be placed to the left of Newt in the photo thumbnails. I realize the argument can be made that Newt got more popular votes, but the fact he and Paul are tied in another way, and Newt is out of the race, suggests Newt's picture should be listed fourth. I do realize that Rick is out of the race as well, but the fact he has more delegate majorities than Paul, means Rick's picture should still stay second. Stopde (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Im not opposed to it, but I think we should hold off until Paul wins a third as he is slated to soon.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Matallurgist, Once he has the three that are likely to happen and more it'll happen regardless. Raymond SabbJr (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Does this qualify as his third win (Nevada)? Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47314259/ns/local_news-reno_nv/t/ron-paul-takes-bulk-nevada-delegates Stopde (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont have strong feelings for one or the other but wasnt there an consensus in january that it was the delegatecount that the candidates was sorted by? Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish there was an "ignore user" feature on here, so that I could ignore everything you say on this page, because you are obviously here to corrupt the data and facts. I ignore 99.9% of everything you say, and maybe you should do the same to me, because I understand your purpose is not to provide an accurate article or a page that is enjoyable. I find it sad how you have continued for months to disrupt this page. Stopde (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich currently has more delegates and more votes. --Gyroid (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue of who is displayed where in the infobox is an extremely minor issue. Paul hasn't "won" NV-Romney did a long, long time ago. That issue has been fully discussed elsewhere on this talk page. From the above link: "Under party rules adopted last fall, Romney was to get 20 of Nevada's 28 delegates for the national convention, and Paul was to get eight.

Paul backers say delegates will abide by those rules in the first round of balloting at the national convention in Tampa." Guy1890 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone has updated it as showing Paul has won Louisiana, so Paul's picture should NOW move to the left of Gingrich's. Stopde (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Except no one have "won" Louisiana since they have not had their conventions yet. All in good time. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I skip over nearly every single thing you say on this page -- I read what other people have to say. You are the cause of the reason the map colors look like a sloppy mess, due to your weird fascination with color blindness. Everything you say has zero credibility. Try again. Your corruption of this article is grounds for banning. Stopde (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I love that the you still hold the map colors discussion against me, since that is proberly the one thing about this article I didnt take an active part in the last months. Back then I didnt know how to do anything with maps. Pretty much any other contreversity I have a small or big stake in, but not that. I simply had 2 or 3 comments about it months ago. Being more seriouse though: Be careful to be polite on this discussionpages, someone that had never read your comments could be very offended. On the other hand if you think I should be banned, and you are not simply shouting out uncivil comments, you should go through the proper procedure and get it done to protect the intergrity of Wikipedia. In any case: Have a good day. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

LA's long process for selecting their remaining, unbound delegates doesn't conclude until June 2th. Please wait until then to declare anyone the "winner" there. If anyone needs to be "banned" from these pages, it's the Ron Paulers that seem to be desperate for their candidate to "win" more contests before anyone has been declared a winner in those actual contests. I personally don't care who wins the 2012 GOP nomination. I only care that we are accurate in describing the the long, convoluted process that the GOP is unfortunately using to select their 2012 nominee. Guy1890 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Holding back on commenting on the future . . .

I'm at the annual pharmaceutical conference in San Francisco CA for SAS programmers/mgrs and JMP programmers/mgrs; hence, will not be assisting in the TALK discussion much. Actually, I think it appropriate to withhold and limit comments for the next few weeks. I'll have one comment just before the voting in Texas, the homestate of Ron Paul, and one commnent soon after and before the major delegation is selected in California. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegates are NOT bound.

[3]

Looks like some changes have to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.10.10 (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Benn Swann 5/10/2012: ALL RNC delegates are free agents and unbound

Swann's source? Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC, who apparently made the following statement in a letter in 2008:

The RNC does not recognize a state's binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.

Reality Check: Why all RNC delegates are 'Free Agents' and unbound

I can't find a copy of the Sheehan letter online, but there is this reference to it in this January 2009 blog post on the Utah county GOP website: Utah County GOP: Mr. Jenkins Goes to St. Paul. And there is a reference to Sheehan here and here.

I don't think this is solid enough to run with it in the article yet, but if the veracity of that statement is verified, we must, because that changes the delegate counts completely, making them virtually unknown, actually. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Only 10 states binds their RNC delegates (and of course there is ND with is alternative rules) so it will in all cases only be 30 delegates. If this was true then the these 10 state parties would have to reapportion their delegations. And several of them have already had their conventions and their delegations are elected and ready to go to Tampa. So why havent the RNC said anything about it, they have been very strict in - trying to - inforce the new rulebook on the state parties. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The RNC hasn't said anything because now the rules go against their candidate. 69.134.10.10 (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

After researching this issue for a while online, the only thing I can say for sure is that this is super confusing.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features//2008/0804W.auspitz.html

This guy Josiah Lee Auspitz sounds like an expert in understanding party rules.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/main/republican_conventions.pdf

Taft won easily on the first ballot with 556 votes, although 348 delegates present at the convention abstained from voting in protest

http://wygop.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2010.bylaws.pdf

The unit rule method of voting is defined as:

a. Permitting a delegate to vote on an issue on behalf of other delegate; or,

b. Binding a delegate to vote in any particular manner; or,

c. Any device which would cast a vote to the delegation as a block rather than pursuant to the wishes of the individual delegates

-- Avanu (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The result is that many state delegations will decide to jump on the Romney bandwagon on First Vote. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Romney has 811 hard count votes and Paul has 60. Republican 2012 Delegate Count, Current Summary Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

But the Green Papers data is based on the assumption that bound delegates are actually bound. For example, for Nevada they give Romney 14 hard delegates, Gingrich 6, Paul 5 and Santorum 3. Yet of those 28 delegates, 22 are hardcore Paul supporters; only 6 are Romney supporters [4]. How do you think those 22 will act and vote at the convention?

If the assumption that bound delegates are actually bound is not true, then everything changes. So if we adjust just for Nevada, Romney's "hard" 811 drops by 8 (14 - 6) and Paul's goes up by 17 (22 - 5), so we have 803 for Romney and 77 for Paul. But this is true in many more states than Nevada (including Massachusetts, where 18 of 27 -- more than half -- are Paul supporters[5]).

So, unless they find a way to actually bind "bound" delegates to vote for the candidate to which they are bound, there is nothing "hard" about the 811 delegates that are presumed to be Romney delegates, and if we start counting delegates that actually support a given candidate, Romney's numbers plummet and Paul's numbers go way up. Enough to win? Probably not, but not necessarily not. There is just no way to know.

Now, if we were talking about a minority of delegates in a few states, then the Chairman and the majority of that delegation could easily enforce the binding. But that's not the case. What we're seeing in state after state is a majority of the delegation, often including the Chairman, supports a candidate different from the one to which they are supposedly bound. Who, in all those cases, is going to enforce the supposed state binding, and how?

It seems to me we're in unchartered territory and only time will tell. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to why I made this section, it's my understanding now that the article will have to be modified in terms of delegate counts. The delegate map will also have to be altered as many of the states featured on it are only filled out because of binding rules. Most of them haven't had their conventions yet.

If by most you mean a simple majority I guess you are rigt a week or two more. Right now a little less than half the delegations have finished their delegation electing process. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This probably doesn't fit wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, but here's something to give you an idea of how things really look right now. [6] 69.134.10.10 (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

In a way all this talk about delegates are really not about the Presidential primaries but more about what else would happen at the convention. It does do a lot more than simply elect a candidate to run for president. Now even though this article is mainly about electing that candidate, I do think all this deserves a some lines in the article but it is not the main thing. It is welldocumented with sources and statements from the candidate (Paul) and from the actual elected delegates that they will vote according to how they are bound when voting for a Nominee. So when it come to that person and his campaign all the numbers and maps are correct. Ok, there may be a little confusion about 30 bound RNC delegates but that is all - 30 out of 2,286. If this trend with Paul supporters taking over state conventions continues, maybe a section in the National Convention Article would be better, since it is about the national convention and all the things that will be decided and vote on and not mostly about the process of electing a Republican candidate for president. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This entire section of the talk page is about a completely & totally bogus set of issues. From the above-cited links: "But to win its coveted early caucus state status, Nevada had to promise to make the results of the caucus binding. Under those rules, 20 of the national delegates must vote for Romney on the first round of balloting and eight must vote for Paul.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76125.html#ixzz1udreJPGK" and "According to Josh Putnam, a scholar on the presidential nominating process at Davidson College in North Carolina, the rule is a throwback from the days when party bosses would strong-arm a state delegation into backing a single candidate.

Most party officials and observers say it doesn’t apply to states that have binding caucuses.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76125_Page2.html#ixzz1udrlWOIe" and "RNC rules clearly say a delegate can abstain from the vote. Wouldn’t that set Paul loyalists free from voting for Romney?

Well, probably not.

In practice, when a majority of delegates decide they are going to abstain from the nominating vote, that state’s delegation is skipped over in the roll call.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76125_Page2.html#ixzz1udrr5Fu8" and "But Nevada Republican Secretary Jim DeGraffenreid notes that the roll-call vote doesn’t allow individual delegates to shout out their vote.

Instead, the delegation chair submits the state’s total. In Nevada’s case, the chair would shout out 20 votes for Romney and eight for Paul.

Any delegate looking to circumvent that bind would likely be replaced by an alternate delegate, DeGraffenreid said. And all of the alternates elected at the state convention are Romney supporters.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76125_Page2.html#ixzz1udrwIWkH" and "Bradford P. Wyatt, a Worcester businessman who helped lead the pro-Paul movement, has promised the bad dream will not become a reality for Romney.

'We like Ron Paul a lot, but Mitt Romney is our nominee,’’ Wyatt said. 'We’re not going to abstain. I’ve had conversations with most of the delegates, and I’d say we’re of the same mind that it would be a horrible thing to show disunity at the convention.’"

Of course, there's also this about "Rule 38": http://www.dailypaul.com/230881/urgent-ben-swann-and-matt-larson-are-wrong-about-38-and-delegates-being-unbound-based-on-rnc-rules

These are really bogus issues people. Guy1890 (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to talk about this sily unbound thing (as if some nobody local affilaite reporter is an expert on the rules) then we may as well delete this page entirely since we would have to preent to know all the rules that are also in place to prevent this sort of stupidity of disenfranchising millions of voters. (Gee...you think that maybe Ben Swann doesn't know about ALL the rules?) It is not going to happen, and even if it was attempted (even thogh Ron Paul has been very clear that he does NOT want his supporters to do this) then there are plenty of safeguards in place to prevent it...within the rules. Which of course would make the RonPaulians whine about how they were manipulating the rules to prevent them from manipulating the rules.74.67.106.1 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul and Nevada

Ron Paul has won the plurality of delegates in Nevada as well as Maine and Minnesota. AP. Just an indication to whoever is editing the contest maps that Nevada should be yellow in the first. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Qoute from your source (AP): "In Nevada, for example, 22 of the 25 delegates chosen Sunday to go to the national convention openly support Paul. Under party rules, Romney was supposed to get 20 delegates, based on party caucus results in February. The delegates have agreed to vote for Romney on the first ballot at the convention, but no one can stop them from cheering for Paul." Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well said Jack. People need to read the sources that they are using before posting here. These same issues keep coming up over & over & over again. MN's process doesn't end until May 19th, but Paul is currently ahead in the unbound delegate count there. Patience! Guy1890 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For your interest in latest counts: The Green Papers: "Republican 2012 Delegate Count, Current Summary." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

He has shown a strong showing in Romney's home state, Massachusetts, getting the majority of delegates there.[106] Also, he has won a majority of delegates in Louisiana, with 74% of them [107]. Paul also managed a delegate win in Nevada, with 88% of delegates supporting him.[108] (Ron Paul campaign wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.95.190 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

All of the GOP MA delegates are bound to vote for Romney. LA's long process for delegate selection isn't over until June 2nd, and the only thing that's known for sure so far is that Santorum beat out Romney for the 15 delegates that have been legally bound in LA so far. Please be patient. The delegate situation in NV has been discussed at length in several places on this talk page. Guy1890 (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New Paul states?

Paul took 22 of the delegates in Nevada. He has 13 of the delegates in Iowa, meaning that he will win the state regardless of what happens at the state convention. He just won Oklahoma and Arizona, and is looking good to win MA and Missouri.

This site keeps track of the convention, but has yet to include Paul's recent OK and AZ wins: http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/ FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• That site is laughably ridiculous. It doesn't even pretend to be unbiased.74.67.106.1 (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul did not win 22 delegates in Nevada. The delegates remain bound by the Feb vote, so even though Paul supporters make up 22 of the delegates coming out of Nevada, only 8 of them will be permitted to vote Paul. Iowa has allocated zero delegates so far, so the wikipedia page is right to keep the totals for Iowa at 0, even though it does seem likely Paul will eventually win the plurality there. His win in Maine has been officially noted, and included in the page. There hasn't been a "recent OK" or "recent AZ" win for Paul. Romney won both those states long ago, and the delegates haven't been unbound by any motion. As for that site, it's laughably inaccurate. It even gives Romney MORE delegates than he has for a couple of states, and declares winner take all states as "no delegates yet" but is quite happy projecting Paul as having won Iowa. The site is little more than Pro-Paul propaganda so doesn't constitute a adequate source. Wikiditm (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"The delegates remain bound by the Feb vote". Bound by what authority? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Nevada delegates are bound by their own word and the recommandation of the candidate (Paul) they are supporters off. This has been talk to death and all the sources are in the many different sections above. The Paul supporters was trying to take over the Oklahoma state convention and elect a delegateslate that would go against the majority of the voting members of the Republican Party like they had successfully done in Nevada and Masschussett. But in Oklahoma they actually failed in doing that, so we might even go so far as to say that the Paul supporters lost big way in Oklahoma, and have been very sore losers. Here is the source to what happens in Oklahoma [7]. I cant find anything about Paul supportes trying the same routine in Nevada, its seems they simply was very unpolite, booing at Romneys son, not allowing him a chance to speak in a civiliced manner. Here is that info: [8] Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"bound by their own word and the recommandation [sic] of the candidate". Does that seem like a real binding to you?

"...go against the majority of the voting members" Isn't that why we have a republican/representative delegate system rather than a pure democracy?

"booing at Romneys son, not allowing him a chance to speak in a civiliced manner" Have you watched the actual video? My understanding is that Romney as well as Paul supporters booed when he tried to nominate a particular slate, which was out of order. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Where I am from a man's (or woman's) word still means something, but what do I know maybe it is not like that in America or the Republican Party anymore. I dont really care why the Republican Party have their party election as they have, they are nothing more or less than a political party and they can elect their leaders anyway they like, I simply stated that it is against the majority of the voting members and that is true since there has been a primary in Nevada and Masschussett. I will you give you the one about not allowing Romney to speak in a civil manner, that was a little POV of me. The very reliable source simply states that he was not allowed to speak, I dont judge how it went I simply states reliable sources. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevada delegates are bound by the Feb vote, as per Nevada state rules. Wikiditm (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

IA's long process for selecting its 28 unbound GOP delegates isn't over until June 16th. Please be patient until then people. Romney won all of the bound AZ GOP delegates on February 28th, and nothing can change that before the beginning of the 2012 GOP convention later this summer. All of MA's GOP delegates are legally bound to vote for Romney at the 2012 GOP convention as well. MO's long, convoluted process for selecting its bound delegates doesn't conclude until June 2nd. As for Oklahoma, I'll quote the referenced article from above: "Pinnell said the official vote was to approve the Republican Party's primary results that provided 14 national delegates to Rick Santorum and 13 each to Romney and Newt Gingrich with the state's three remaining delegates being Pinnell and the state's national committeeman and committeewoman.

Paul said those results will be appealed to the national Republican Party.

Santorum and Gingrich have dropped out of the race since the Oklahoma primary, which was won by Santorum, and Pinnell said he believes delegates committed to those candidates will vote for the party's nominee, presumed to be Romney."

The Paul campaign is apparently, nearly out of money, but we'll see how his "appeal" to OK's legally binding delegate selection process goes in the future. Don't hold your breath Ron Paulers...ugh... Guy1890 (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither Santorum nor Gingrich have dropped out - they have suspended their campaigns. Whatever (if anything) actually prevents a delegate bound to Romney from voting for Paul, also prevents a delegate bound to Santorum or Gingrich from voting for the presumptive nominee, or anyone else.

If delegates bound to Santorum or Gingrich can vote for Romney, then those same delegates, along with delegates bound for Romney, must be free to vote for Paul. You can't have it both ways. You can't say Santorum delegates can ignore their binding and vote for Romney, but Romney delegates can't ignore their binding and vote for Paul. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost all bound delegate can be released by their candidate, I dont know if Santorum have released his candidates but since he has endorsed Romney he might have. If he has such delegates would be free to vote for anyone they like and are not bound to what their former candidate tells them. But as long as the candidate havent released his delegates they are bound to vote for him recardless what their personal views might be. Something tell me that Romney are not going to release any of his candidates. Of course it doesnt really matter because with Paul stopping his campaign in the remainding primaries Romeny will secure a hardcount bound majority on June 5. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. AZ, MA, MO & Oklahoma legally bind their delegates to vote the way that they were selected, but Mr. Bornholm is correct in what he says about a candidate being able to "unbind" their delegates from supporting their nomination at a later date. All of IA's delegates are unbound as per that state's selection process. Guy1890 (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Overkill in candidate box?

Do we really need to be told that the candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination are Republicans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.139.201 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this HERE. >>Light-jet pilot (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone can remove it from this template without messing up the infobox they are welcome. As the earlier discussion says no one have been able to do that and still keep the same infobox format that have been used to all primary elections. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

After experimenting for about 30 minutes, I've come up with a way of no longer having to display the party name and have made the change to the template. Note that this change seems to make having a color bar below each candidate's image no longer possible, however. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well done. It looks much better. Sometimes the simple way is the best - Just say No Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And now it's inconsistent with all the other primary infoboxes, which list party affiliation. I don't see why the red bar even mattered -- nor do I see why we need to switch out to a new Romney image every other day. Pick one image and stick with it, for goodness' sake. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to change all the other primary infoboxes. The red bar is important to the construction of the infobox, it is a technical matter. The bar normally show the party colour automatic. When a new and better image is uploaded (the current was uploaded yesterday) it would be stupid not to use it. The one used a week ago was removed from Wikimedia commons so it can not be used anymore. I guess there was copyright problems but I dont know. So something new was needed instead of no picture avaible. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Michigan primary results

I'm a bit confused as to the specifics of the Michigan primary rules, but it appears that the Paul campaign has won at least 6 of the 30 voting delegates (state party officials say 6; Paul organizers say 8), with the remaining being won by Romney supporters. Some sources ([[9]], [[10]]). Also, a tweet source by Michigan national committeeman (and Romney supporter) Saul Anuzis [[11]]

What appears to be going on with the delegate votes are that some of them are in districts which Romney won (and hence are bound to Romney); the others are in Santorum districts (and now technically 'uncommitted.')

Going from this article [[12]], it appears that Paul took 2 delegates each in the 1st and 2nd CD, plus one delegate each in the 4th and 9th CD; a delegate in the 6th CD is debated (Paul organizers say they won one; state officials disagree.) Comparing to the primary results, all of these except the 9th CD were Santorum districts. As a result, it appears that Paul has 5-6 delegates in Michigan free to vote for him.

I would really appreciate it if someone could check this interpretation (as I'm an amateur), and if necessary, adjust the numbers on the delegate results chart. 68.42.243.198 (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right there is a change in the delegate count for Michigan. The delegates in question is those allocated to Santorum at the primary. In Michigan a suspended candidate can not be given delegates, as the Boston Globe says and as the Green Papers explains. This is the quote from GPs Michigan page: Presidential candidates may not be allocated National Convention delegates if they withdraw, suspend their campaign, endorse another Presidential candidate And since Santorum have done both before the Michigan state convention his 14 delegates is officially unbound (soft count). It is important to say that all states have different rules and simply because Michigan does it in one way then another state can do it the direct opposite way. It was wellspotted to see the difference. I have tried to find source on what number is correct, but there seem to be a little confusion about it right now. So I have changed the 14 Santorum delegates to uncommitted in the primary schedule table, hopefully the tables two mainsources will get the info monday morning or reliable news sources will have it in some hours or days. Then we can give the 14 delegates to the right candidates or let the remain uncommitted if they are such inclined. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a reliable source: The Detroit News. It talks about 8 voting delegates for Paul, but what is important is what districts they are elected in. As the article says: In the districts where Santorum won, those delegates head to the convention "uncommitted" since Santorum dropped out. In districts where Romney won, winners must sign a pledge they'll vote for Romney on the first round to honor the Feb. 28 results.. So the question is: Are we talking about 8 delegates former bound to Santorum or are some of them (maybe two) actually elected in districts won by Romney and have to vote for him just like the Paul supporters from Massachusetts? This count is for the election of a republican candidate to run for president only, not a count to predict what else will happen at the National Convention. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, there's a rundown of the districts Paul won in the article, and it appears that all of them are Santorum districts except the 9th CD. In short, Paul has 5-7 delegates that can vote for him in Tampa 68.42.243.198 (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The GP (one of the main sources for the table) have on their michigan page a tweet from the former chairman saying 6 to Paul so say Michigan Radio. the rest (24) should be committed to Romney according to GPs source. I will put that in the table, if new information becomes avaible it can always be changed. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nebraska

I'm confused. Nebraska had its primary a few days ago, so why is this not listed and why is it listed as having a caucus on June 7th? Alphius (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the absence of the primary, but some states have both a primary and a caucus (such as Louisiana). Mr. Anon515 02:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The primary says Romney won; the caucuses select their delegates. See Green Papers for Nebraska schedule, [13] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, click on the ninth column in our Table, 'contest', to go to Nebraska_Republican_primary,_2012 and read your answers: "The 2012 Nebraska Republican primary was a nonbinding primary that occurred on May 15, 2012.[1] This primary was purely of an advisory nature, and consisted of county conventions caucusing to elect delegates to the state convention from June 1 to June 10. The elected delegates will not be bound to vote for any candidate, but will, at the state convention on July 14, elect 32 bound National delegates. 3 party leaders will attend the National Convention unbound, making a total of 35 voting delegates going to the national convention from Nebraska." — Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Alphius (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually that is not entirely correct. It was not even the start of the election process (witch is why it is not listed in the Primary Schedule, see its Legend) but can be compared with the Missouri primary. The caucuses (county conventions), that elect delegates to the state convention, will take place from June 1 to June 10. (so saying June 7 is actually a mistake, it should have and will in the future say June 10). The state convention will elect the National delegates on July 14, these delegates will be the last delegates to be both elected and allocated. So the Nebraska State Convention (July 14) marks the end of the primary process, just as the Iowa Caucuses (January 3) marks the beginning of this 194 days long process. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Right. From the Green Papers for Nebraska: "Saturday 14 July 2012: The Nebraska State Republican Convention convenes. Congressional District Caucuses made up of the State Convention delegates from each of Nebraska's 3 congressional districts choose the 9 district National Convention delegates (3 per congressional district). The State Convention as a whole selects 23 (10 base at-large plus 13 bonus) at-large delegates to the Republican National Convention. Prospective delegates must indicate their Presidential Preference and are bound to vote for that candidate for the first 2 ballots at the National Convention." [14] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible error on definition of "Plurality"?

The Wiki article makes the following statement:

"Plurality: A candidate secures a delegation when he has the highest number of delegates that can vote for him on the first ballot in the nomination at the National Convention. According to the current RNC rules it takes plurality in five delegations to be on the first ballot at the National Convention, and it takes 1,144 delegates at the roll call of the ballots to become the Republican nominee. [3]" Specifically, the statement under question is: "A candidate secures a delegation when he has the highest number of delegates that can vote for him on the first ballot in the nomination at the National Convention".

Careful examination of this reference does NOT validate the proposed definition. The most relevant Rules include 15 (c) and 38. For convenience, the relevant paragraphs of the relevant Rules are reproduced here to demonstrate the utter lack of corroborating language supporting this definition of plurality:

RULE NO. 15. Election, Selection, Allocation, or Binding of Delegates and Alternate Delegates.

(c) General. In all elections or selections of delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention, the following rules shall apply: (1) Delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention may be elected, selected, allocated, or bound only in one of the following manners: (i) by primary election; (ii) by the Republican state committee, where specifically provided by state law; (iii) by state and Congressional district conventions; (iv) by any method consistent with these rules by which delegates and alternate delegates were elected, selected, allocated, or bound to the most recent Republican National Convention from that state; (v) by Rule No. 13 (a)(2) of these rules. (2) Only persons eligible to vote who are deemed as a matter of public record to be Republicans pursuant to state law or, if voters are not enrolled by party, by Republican Party rules of a state, shall participate in any primary election held for the purpose of electing delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention or in any Republican caucus, mass meeting, or mass convention held for the purpose of selecting delegates to the county, district, or state conventions, and only such legal and qualified voters shall be elected as delegates to county, district, and state conventions; provided, however, that in addition to the qualifications provided herein, the applicable Republican Party rules of a state may prescribe additional qualifications not inconsistent with law, which additional qualifications shall be adopted before October 1 in the year before the year in which the national convention is to be held and published in at least one (1) newspaper having a general circulation throughout the state, such publication to be at least ninety (90) days before such qualifications become effective. (3) No state law shall be observed that permits any person to participate in a primary delegate and alternate delegate selection process that also permits that person at the same primary to participate in the choosing of nominees of any other party for other elective office. Delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention shall in that event be selected pursuant to state Republican Party rules that are not inconsistent with The Rules of the Republican Party; provided, however, that the selection process established by the state Republican Party rules shall provide that only persons eligible to vote who are deemed to be Republicans pursuant to state law or state Republican Party rules shall participate in such delegate election or selection process. (4) In any jurisdiction in which Republican representation upon the board of judges or inspectors of elections for primary elections is denied by law, delegates and alternate delegates shall be elected as provided in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(4) of this rule. (5) In electing or selecting delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention, no state law shall be observed which hinders, abridges, or denies to any citizen of the United States, eligible under the Constitution of the United States to hold the office of President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, the right or privilege of being a candidate under such state law for the nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States or which authorizes the election or selection of a number of delegates or alternate delegates from any state to the national convention different from that fixed in these rules. (6) Alternate delegates shall be elected to the national convention for each unit of representation equal in number to the number of delegates elected therein and shall be chosen in the same manner and at the same time as the delegates and under the same rules; provided, however, that if the law of any state shall prescribe another method of choosing alternate delegates, they may be chosen in accordance with the provisions of the law of the state in which the election occurs, except that no alternates shall be selected for Republican National Committee members. (7) Any process authorized or implemented by a state Republican Party for selecting delegates and alternate delegates or for binding the presidential preference of such delegates may use every means practicable, in the sole discretion of the state Republican Party, to encourage active military personnel the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. (8) Delegates and alternate delegates at large to the national convention when serving as delegates and alternate delegates shall be residents of and duly qualified voters in their respective states. All delegates and alternate delegates allocated as delegates and alternate delegates at large shall be elected at large in the several states; provided, however, that such allocation and method of election may be varied in any state to the extent, and only to the extent, necessary to avoid conflict with state law applicable to the selection of national convention delegates if such varying allocation and method of election were those pursuant to which delegates at large and alternate delegates at large were elected to the 1988 Republican National Convention from that state. (9) Delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention representing Congressional districts shall be residents of and qualified voters in said districts respectively when elected and when serving as delegates and alternate delegates. There shall be three (3) delegates and three (3) alternate delegates allocated to represent each Congressional district of the several states, who shall be elected by each such Congressional district; provided, however, that such number of delegates and alternate delegates allocated to represent, and elected by, any Congressional district of a state may be reduced or increased to the extent, and only to the extent, necessary to avoid conflict with state law applicable to the selection of national convention delegates if such varying allocation was that pursuant to which district delegates and alternate district delegates were elected to the 1988 Republican National Convention from the state. (10) No delegate or alternate delegate, or candidate for delegate or alternate delegate, to the national convention shall be required to pay an assessment or fee in excess of that provided by the law of the state in which his or her election or selection occurs as a condition of standing for election or serving as a delegate or alternate delegate to the national convention. (11) There shall be no automatic delegates to the national convention who serve by virtue of party position or elective office, except as provided for in Rule No. 13 (a)(2). (12) No delegates or alternate delegates shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound pursuant to any Republican Party rule of a state or state law which materially changes the manner of electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates or alternate delegates or the date upon which such state Republican Party holds a presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention if such changes were adopted or made effective after October 1 of the year before the year in which the national convention is to be held. Where it is not possible for a state Republican Party to certify the manner and the date upon which it holds a presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention in effect in that state on the date and in the manner provided in paragraph (e) of this rule, the process for holding the presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention shall be conducted in the same manner and held upon the same date as was used for the immediately preceding national convention. If it is not possible to hold a presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention upon the same date as was used for the immediately preceding national convention, then delegates or alternate delegates shall be elected or selected by Congressional district or state conventions pursuant to paragraph (d) of this rule.

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.

Since the RNC Rules do NOT establish that a Candidate "secures" a State Delegation through a plurality of bound delegates, the conclusion, especially considering the effect of rule 38, which the GOP has already determined in 2008 that each Delegate from any State votes as a free agent, strongly suggests that Plurality should be defined as follows, since a "bound" Delegate (as a free agent) is free to vote "present" (abstain) during any round of balloting, including the first (bound or allocated) ballot:

ALTERNATE DEFINITION: "Plurality: A candidate secures a delegation when (s)he has the highest number of pledged delegates that can vote for their nomination at the National Convention. According to the current RNC rules it takes plurality in five delegations to be on the first ballot at the National Convention, and it takes 1,144 delegates at the roll call of the ballots to become the Republican nominee. [3]"

The practical effect of correcting the definition in the Wiki article, is to reduce the number of State delegations "won" or “secured” by the Romney Campaign, and increasing the number of States “won” or “secured” by the Paul campaign. The current tables showing which States have been "won" by delegate count in the Wiki article are incorrect. Finally, the ONLY use of the term "plurality" in the referenced RNC Rules occurs in Paragraph 40, reproduced below:

RULE NO. 40. Nominations (b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

Note, once again, the use of the term “plurality” is not used in connection with “securing” of a State delegation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.52.42 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right it is better to say that a candidate have demonstrated that he has a plurality in a state than saying he has secured a plurality in a state. Of course it is excactly the same thing but the first wording is a little more correct. The rest of the point have already been discussed at lenght on this talkpage, look at archive 9 and 10 (and maybe also 8) to see all the references and arguments. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for including the text, reader-71-181-52-41. I had a few observations and hope you see the wit. (1) It was fun reading, but hope you are like Bill Clinton and can read 13,000 words a minute; (2) Can you rephrase in plain English? (3) Is it like Pelosi said about Obamacare, "We have to pass it to know what is in it" and for these rules, 'we have to make it to Convention to know how these rules all apply'; (4) Is it like Democrat John Conyers said about Obamacare: "What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” In our case, we have Jack of Denmark to not only rephrase to be understandable but also interpret correctly. Such a blessing! Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul himself disagrees with yours (and Ben Swann's) interpretation of Rule 38, which actually is very clearly worded to PREVENT disenfranchising voters, not allow Ron Paul supporters to do just that. It says that a state chairman can't arbitarily give all his state's delegates to one candidate even if the rules said it was proportional. It doesn't apply AT ALL to states that were set up to be winner take all in the first place, or states where only one candidate reached the threshold to redeive votes. Again...unless Ron Paul...who has been doing this for decaes, understands the rules less than a nobody local Fox affiliate making $22,000 a year, then delegates are bound, no matter how desperate the Ron Paul Cult is for it to not be so. At this point, you are literally calling your own candidate ignornat of the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Ron Paul (and his team) are not interested in winning the Nomination away from Romney—they want to change the GOP. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Preface_to_the_Republican_presidential_primaries,_2012

Jack Bornholm the great and others have started a new and excellent page: Preface_to_the_Republican_presidential_primaries,_2012. ... It seems to me that this will be important as the election pages evolve. There is an apparent interest in making 2004, 2008, 2012, etc., page/articles standardized. To me, only 2012 is currently important and of highest interest. I'm sure this is the case with current Wikipedia readers as we have a lot of hits to our 2012 page/article. You see this with 'History'. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

that article is more or less how this article looked like 4 monts ago and it was a way to save the info. Otherwise it would have been edited away as the election went on. I am not sure it would be easy to make such articles for the older electioncycles. It really are the efforts on this article from editors in 2011. The Page view statistics is actually interesting. More than 1 million views in the last 3 months. That is not a total disaster. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Margin graph...

... is terrible. Graphs are supposed to help you quickly understand information. It's not even like the color palette was chosen to obviously distinguish e.g. Rick Santorum's lead over Mitt Romney by 20% from Ron Paul's lead over Newt Gingrich by 20%... could someone either split this up into multiple graphs or pick a better color scheme please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.179.101 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify? What section are you referring to? Mr. Anon515 04:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the map. When you have this many candidates running, you can't put all the permutations into one map. Multiple maps would be extremely messy and would be time consuming. It's just there to give viewers a concise understanding of the intensity of voters in various counties, not the specifics. Mr. Anon515 04:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the maps—they are great. The human mind assimilates more than you imagine, without you even thinking about it. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Washington state (Upcoming contests)

From what I've read, WA will be holding its state convention from May 31st-June 2nd, not another caucus like the Wiki page associated with this talk page says right now. See: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Washington_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Conventions

 Done Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, apparently MT is having a non-binding Presidential Primary on June 5th, which will have no effect on their delegate allocation. See: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MT-R Guy1890 (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are delegates awarded after Primary votes in the state rather than after the States Convention?

The GOP rules for some states says that the State Convention will decide how many delegates a candidate will receive, regardless of the Public Primary election results. e.g., Ron Paul's 2012 campaign won 12 of 13 Minnesota delegates at the state's Republican convention this past weekend yet under delegates won the article shows that Ron Paul only won 6 delegates in Michigan and Romney won 24? This is only one State used as an example. others are in question. Also the real confirmed delegates by State Convention vote for Romney is 496 and Paul 186, those are the verified actual delegate counts.....has Wiki now gone the way of the MSM spinning and assuming the election results instead of reporting the truthful and actual counts?
I am a newbie at Wiki and am just learning my way around and thought this was the best way to find answers for my questions.
Jim Randleman (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, let's make a distinction between Primaries and Caucuses. Rules may vary, but generally, primary delegates are bounded - in other words, no matter who the delegates personally support, they have to vote for the candidate that the voters want them to vote for. Caucuses, on the other hand, work differently, and the delegates are generally chosen at the convention rather than by the polls. As a result, Michigan (a primary state) is won by Romney while Minnesota (a caucus state) is won by Paul.

As a result, there are many primary states where, as a result of the popular vote, Romney is guaranteed a certain amount of delegates. As such, his "hard count" is nearly 1000 delegates, while Paul's "hard count" remains below 150. Mr. Anon515 23:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like a citation for that 496-186 delegate claim, if you don't mind. Mr. Anon515 23:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr Anon speaks well; I hope Jack Bornholm weights in also. We try to report reality, as do the major sources, like Green Papers. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Take a homework assignment and read through all of Green Papers for each of the 50 states and five provinces plus DC, (or just those that hold your highest interest). You will see that they all have their own rules for deciding whom they support. It is the American way. Here are counts from the Green papers, currently: Romney leads Paul by 907 to 75 in dedicated delegates.
Projected (soft count) is Romney=1,043; Santorum=256; Gingrich=143; and Paul=125.
Hard Delegate Count is….. Romney=907; Santorum=232; Gingrich=136; and Paul=75.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-HS.phtml — Take a look, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is really all in the schedule and process section. It is a complex process but delegates can be divided into two main groups. Allocated and Unallocated. Most delegates are allocated at a primary election (mostly a primary but some caucuses also allocated delegates). When an allocated delegate is elected he or she is bound to vote for the candidate they are allocated too, at least for the first to third ballot depending on state rules. So the delegates elected in Massachusetts will all vote for Romney even though many of them are Paul supporters. The caucuses (and a some delegates from primaries) that do not allocted delegates elect them in the same manner as the once that does, but no one can know who this delegates will be bound to or if unbound support before they are elected. Again, if you want to know about the primaries read the article, especially the Schedule and Process section. In the Primary Table each states election process is listed so it is easy to se if the different delegates are unbound or bound. If they are allocated or not. If they are elected direct, by congressional convention, state convention, committee or party meeting and so on. Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. About the counts in this article. It is the GP hardcount corrected for the mistake they have in their the Nevada site where they say one thing in the article and another in the table. A hardcount is the delegates that have to vote for a candidate like it or not.

As you see this count is very low for Paul because he got many of his supporters elected in caucus states where they are unbound, meaning they can vote for the candidate they like. He lost the popular vote in Minnesota but because of his wellorganised and engaged supporters he either stole the election or he in a true party organisation way got the real dedicated result. That depends what political views you have. The same will most likely happen in Louisana, Washington and Iowa. Many of those delegates will be unbound too. So the hardcount really dont give the true picture of the delegate count.

Then you ask if Wiki has gone mediaspinning. Rather the other way, it has been impossible to find a good unprojected softcount so the primary schedule is derived from two reliable sources: GP and USA TODAY (actually AP). And in that way we have a softcount without projections for the future and without unbound RNC delegates that are outside the election process. Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Take another assignment: go to our table and double-click on the Ron Paul column. You will see that the only states in double-digits for Ron Paul are MN(32) and ME(21) as reflected on our first map of delegate wins. Then double-click on the column of undeclared delegates and you will see that TX and CA are huge! Remaining undeclared delegates are diminishing. Let’s talk again after California votes. Thanks for asking the original question since other editors and readers may be thinking about the same question. Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, California and New Jersey will be time bombs; they are winner take all states, which means that Romney will get all their delegates. Texas is proportional but based on popular vote, so it's unlikely that Ron Paul will do well there. Of course, Ron Paul, as you explained, does not want to win, but rather just get a plurality of delegates from at least 5 states, which will let him "spread the message" at the convention. Just a question though: when did John McCain reach his 1144 delegates? I remember it being much earlier in the primaries than now. Is it uncommon for primaries to continue this long after most of the major opposing candidates have dropped out? Mr. Anon515 17:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In 2008 (and earlier) far more states were winner take all which makes it far easier for the front runner to clinch the number needed much earlier. Not only did it take away delegates in states that Romney won, but it kept Santorum and Gingrich in the race much longer. Under 2008 rules, both likely would have dropped out after Super Tuesday (which itself was several weeks later this year than in 2008) and Romney would have clinched much sooner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the only candidate campaigning (and with an organization in California) will win most delegates, BUT from W-Post/blog/: “California is technically a winner-take-all state, but because basically all of its delegates are awarded by congressional district, there is the possibility that they get sliced up any number of ways.”[15] [I added the bolding.] And from Green Papers: “159 district delegates are to be bound to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the 53 congressional districts: each congressional district is assigned 3 National Convention delegates and the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in that district will receive all 3 of that district's National Convention delegates.” [16] [I added the bolding.] Does it matter when Romney is the only candidate that is campaigning and has a structure in California? Yet, California is not 'winner take all' except district by district. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

So essentially California works in the same way that Nebraska and Maine work in the general election? I did not know that. Not quite "winner take all", then, is it? Mr. Anon515 18:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes...it is winner take all by district for most delegates. (Winner take all by state for the At Large delegates.) However, for all intents and purposes this year, it is winner take all. Romney hasn't come close to losing a district since Santourm dropped out. And he had a HUGE lead in California even before Santourm dropped out. So Romney will easily win every district, and take every single delegate.74.67.106.1 (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There are also 10 at-large delegates all "bound" to the statewide winner, and of course the 3 automatic delegates (RNC Committeeman, RNC Committeewoman, and state chair), who are officially unbound. I'm not certain but I believe all 152 of the bound delegates are directly elected as a slate on the primary ballot, like New Jersey & New York, rather than at a state convention or committee meeting. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your earlier question: "Republicans won't officially nominate Romney until late August at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida. Romney, 65, is clinching the presidential nomination later in the calendar than any recent Republican candidate -- but not quite as late as Obama in 2008. Obama clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3, 2008, at the end of an epic primary battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Four years ago, John McCain reached the threshold on March 4, after Romney had dropped out of the race about a month earlier. [17] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The MAPS are great .!.

Excellent job on the maps! The five maps tell the story with a lot of content. As noted by some editors and readers, there is some extrapolation necessary when viewing, which is fine. It is easy for the human mind to assimilate. The last map, (Margin of Victory, by country) will be updated for Texas when the data is available. Another refinement that 'would be nice' (on a different note) would be putting "J F M A M J J A S O N D" (the first letter of the months) under the "Timeline of the Race" graphic. But, there again, the mind can rather easily see without it. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles into one article for each state

The proposal is to merge all articles on different state primaries (both democratic and republican) and the articles on the presidential election (where such exist) in to one single article for each state. See United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008 It is possible to see how the 2008 and 2012 articles will look like if this large merges was completed. This issue have been discussed for a month on this talkpage without a clear consensus and the merge proposal is so massive that it would be good to get a wide range of editors to comment on it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposal

I suggest merging the individual states' articles on the primaries into the states' articles on the general elections. This would involve a large merger, but I believe it is a sensible alternative to the proliferation of micro-articles.

• Format: [[United States presidential election in State, year]]

In only a few states is there enough of an article to merit a separate article on that one election for that one party, so it seems unnecessary. Typically with elections to other offices, for example U.S. Senator, the primary and general elections are together in a single article, not three. I suggest, therefore, merging the potential 150 articles (plus three for each territory/DC), into merely 50 (plus one for each territory/DC).

• For example:
  • New Hampshire Republican primary, 2012 and New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, 2012, would be merged into United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2012.
  • New Hampshire Republican primary, 2008 and New Hampshire Democratic primary, 2008, would be merged into United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008.
  • Texas Republican primary, 2012 and Texas Democratic presidential primary, 2012, would be merged into United States presidential election in Texas, 2012.
  • Texas Republican primary, 2008 and Texas Democratic primary, 2008, would be merged into United States presidential election in Texas, 2008.

• Also, in Massachusetts, I've already added the word "presidential" to the articles names because in Massachusetts there is a separate primary much later in the year for all offices other than President.
  • Massachusetts Republican presidential primary, 2012 and Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, 2012, would be merged into United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2012.
  • Massachusetts Republican presidential primary, 2008 and Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, 2008, would be merged into United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2008.

I welcome your discussion and seek a consensus.—GoldRingChip 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Initial discussion

I could mention that articles are not proliferating since the states are all set up, awaiting their elections. I consider it up to Wikipedia editors in those states (mainly) to amplify the most, as some have done, Viz: Texas, Ohio, Idaho, Florida, and others. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC) PS: Can we talk about it after it is 'history'?

Please note, however, that this merger is suggested to apply to earlier years' elections, as well. It certainly isn't premature for 2008. As for this 'history' point, wikipedia is intended as a historical encyclopedia, not a running score sheet or a news site. Thus, the 2012 articles are history already; otherwise, they wouldn't belong here. Furthermore, what about other elections in 2012, such as Senate, Governors, House etc?—GoldRingChip 16:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see the consern about stubs that will never be real articles. But it should also be considered not to confuse election in the sovereign republic of the United States of America with the internal party election of some parties that have nothing to do with the state. It might be every day life for US readers, but the very special american system can easy be made more confusing for readers from the rest of the world. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

But the presidential general election is just an election run by the state to pick its electors. Each state theoretically has a different electoral election system, too. —GoldRingChip 16:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes electors who are mentioned in the constitution and elections run by states that are part of an sovereign union. States and a constitution that will exist when the Republican and Democratic parties are long gone.the general election of 1848 saw the Free Soil and Whig parties. They didnt have primaries, but if they would have had party primaries it would still not be a part of the sovereign country USA. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand why sovereignty would argue against merging these articles.—GoldRingChip 16:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I might be wrong but if they make it to the ballot any party can run a candidate for president. The american people simply choice to vote for the two major parties - until they collapeses, witch have happened several times in american history. So the primary election of the republican or democrat or green or any other party dont have the same status as the election of the states and the union. It is simply the partymembers that choice who they want to run in the real election. Maybe a merge will be a good idea, but the party primary are not really a part of the "real" election. And that have to be clear also for non us readers. That will have to be kept in mind when making the articles. the election of the current two major parties are not first step of the official US election. (the founding fathers, at least Washington, really didnt want any parties at all) Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. However, in all other elections, primaries are included in the general election article, with a section about the primaries. See, e.g., United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2010. That's what I propose here.18:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that. I have been looking at state primary articles for both parties and it seems that (generally speaking) the only articles are from this and the last presidentiel election cycle. So it can be done, but if it is done it would be a major change in the articles pattern and it should be done with all the articles, both republican and democrat for both elections and for all state/territories. That is more than 200 articles! Can you really do all that work alone? Maybe it was an idea to bring this to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections This seem to be a dicussion to big for this talkpage. Do checkout the old merge proposal on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 also made to keep the wikipedia from being flooded in stubs. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jack some. Something similar has been discussed on the Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 page. What it seems you are proposing is redirecting the primary articles into the main general election articles. Are you going to be the one to take all that info and merge it into the new articles? Don't think it really should be done. The way it is now would be for the main general election article to have links to the primary articles. What is wrong with that? Frankly, the primaries need to have their own articles (or redirected to Dem or Rep presidential primaries 2012 article if they don't warrant their own. The presidential primaries are distinct elections for the party nominations. It would especially be a disservice to the articles and readers to merge major elections like the 2012 Republican primaries in New Hampshire or South Carolina. Those absolutely need their own articles. And in 2008, both major parties had competitive primaries. If merged into a general election article, you will invariably lose some info as it would become too cumbersome and not read well to have both the primary and general elections covered in the same article. Again, these are separate elections and should be treated as such. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see some potential for incorporating the party primary articles into the state articles, perhaps for convenience and since some states do not generate a lot of media coverage or interested Wikipedia editors, but I'm officially still neutral on the idea for now. However, I've thought for a while that the "[State] Republican primary, [year]" format was poor, as it does not specify the office the primary is for. If it's a presidential primary, just referring to it as a state's "Republican primary" seems—while most certainly not intended to be—misleading. Connecticut Republican primary, 2012 is a presidential primary, but the state will have another primary in August for U.S. Senate, Congress, and state legislative seats. I'd like to see the word "presidential" added to the titles of all the state articles for the major party presidential primaries for clarity (unless, of course, they are merged instead if there is a desire to do so). —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That is true, they definitely need to specify that they are presidential primaries. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep the parties separate: There is often a lot of interesting detail in the state parties' processes of contributing to the choice of a candidate (campaigns, caucuses, primaries, platforms, conventions), and I think that too much of that would be lost or muddled by merging all (or should I say "both"?) descriptions of those processes into one article per state. More important, those processes should remain conceptually associated with the state parties, not with the states themselves. Merging them would obscure the distinction and permit a mistaken concept that choosing candidates is or should be a function of the states, rather than a function of the state parties. The states choose the president, but they are not supposed to be choosing the nominees. The articles should remain separate for most of the same reasons the state political parties are not housed in the state capitols.CountMacula (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing to do all the work. I created a sandbox article with the New Hampshire election. That's the most involved of all the articles, I think, so it should give you a good idea of what's involved. The new article I created is much easier to read, more compact without removing any information. Looks like yet another article, New Hampshire primary, 2008 was also created which would be incorporated into it. So here it is: United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008/sandbox—GoldRingChip 13:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

New Hampshire 2008

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008#Merge proposed. —GoldRingChip 15:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008 merge completed without discussion/dissent:.—GoldRingChip 12:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it that you have claimed there was no discussion or dissent? Right here I see ample opposition to your proposal to negate any claim of consensus.CountMacula (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

GoldRingChip, how do we get access to the original articles on the 2008 NH party primaries you have apparently deleted or somehow removed?CountMacula (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I can help. write the name New Hampshire Republican primary, 2008 in search or just press the link. You will then be redirected to the article "United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008" but just under the title there will be a line saying: "(Redirected from New Hampshire Republican primary, 2008)" press on that link and you will be back on what use to be the republican party primary. Go to history and undo the blanking of the page (properly the last edit and anyway the edit that erases a lot of bites), then you will have the old article back. Use the same procedure for the Democratic party or any other article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Current discussion

Full support. For this year we have merged the Democratic primaries into the general article for all of them, but I will support including the Republican primary information in a main state article with general election information like United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2012 when the time comes. Some of the 2008 primary articles are quite long, but I would support merging them into the general election articles for each state. It is silly to sometimes have articles that include only the final numbers of a meaningless primary, and even for those that include more analysis, combining it with the relevant information about the other side and general election would be a good idea. Reywas92^Talk 18:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Strongly opposed — This is one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever seen proposed. There is no Democratic article to even merge. The Missouri article is well sourced and deserving of its own article. Its plausible that it could reach featured article status in its own right, so this is absolutely ridiculous. Theres nothing significant to the Democratic primary and the Republican primacaucus is completely separate from the general election.--Metallurgist (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks as according to Wikipedia's rules. Stidmatt (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack. I see an attack on an idea and a proposal.CountMacula (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have virtually no tolerance for personal attacks and I think WP is greatly harmed by the high tolerance for personal attacks that is currently accepted by the culture in general, and admins in particular. However, in this case, CountMacula is correct - referring to an idea as being idiotic is not a personal attack on the person who presented the idea. I'm sure even Einstein came up with some idiotic ideas - my saying that does not mean I'm saying Einstein was an idiot; it's not an attack on Einstein at all. That said, I also have to agree with Metallurgist - it's a truly idiotic idea. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly support Agreed, it is very time consuming to drag through all this prose, and putting all these pages together would save a lot of time and be more useful to everybody. Stidmatt (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose This makes absolutely no sense and would be confusing to a great deal of people. 81.98.167.142 (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. These are separate and independent topics. There is virtually no overlapping information. Merging them makes about as much sense as merging Super Bowl XLVI and 2011 World Series. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly support. Far easier, simpler and organised. --Inops (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose merging before Tampa; Consider it in 2013. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it would be an idea to make a consensus about the 2008 articles first. They will not be hugely expanded or improved as the 2012 articles still could be. And if we agree on the merge for the 2008 articles only there will be enough work to keep the dedicated editors busy to after the November 6, where it will be much easyer to talk about the 2012 articles. What do you all think about only making a consensus to only merge the 2008 articles? Would you all still have the same opinions as you have already stated? Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Just to weigh in here, I've got a couple of thoughts: First, the parties should be kept separate. The processes in each state vary wildly from party to party (and even from cycle to cycle in a given state), and merging articles together would likely muddle this (not to mention that in a lot of cases, you'd have a big article on one side and a small one on the other). Second, I'm strongly opposed to merging primary and general election stuff...again, it's night and day, and in a lot of states there's nothing to really note in either the primary or the general (but plenty in the case of the other) save for the result. On the other hand, I'd be in favor of merging the process information on flatly uncontested states into the party's page (i.e. VA on the Democratic side) and using redirects on those unless something of note happens (for example, WV, OR, AR, and a few others would probably clear this bar this time). Merging, as proposed, is likely to make for more confusion; we could trim more by eliminating "non-event" states on each side (and perhaps offering a link to The Green Papers for more information on those states, since that site acts as a pretty good archive for this sort of information).Tyrenon (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose changing this article Take a look at the new and excellent page: Preface_to_the_Republican_presidential_primaries,_2012. ... It seems to me that this will be important as the election pages evolve. Is there an interest in making 2004, 2008, 2012, etc., page/articles standardized? To me, only 2012 is currently important and of highest interest. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. For having no more than two articles per state, per election year/cycle (with several exceptions perhaps for New Hampshire, for example). But one for the primary, one for the general should be more than enough.

It concerns me that you young folks don't realize that these articles are supposed to propagate clear back to 1790! History didn't just start when you were born!  :) That is a lot of (mostly missing) articles. Many of which are a lot more important than the elections of 2012 BTW. Like 1860, 1940, 1932, for starters. Student7 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The primary elections are not that old. Just 60 years ago only a few states had primary elections Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Coming here by bot invite to comment, and as an Australian, I think a single article for all contests in a single state that comprise the before and after of the presidential election makes more sense for most readers, particularly if those single state pages still had the scope for expansion into subsidiary articles if needed. Too much detail about a particular party or state might suit the private fascinations of particular readers, but almost certainly makes the material harder for dispassionate visitors seeking only a quick grasp of the most pertinent information, particularly if they had the option of digging deeper if they wish to. It is an encyclopaedia, not news media coverage of election bunfights after all, right? Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose

I am responding to RFC and I have had no previous involvement in the article. As I understand it each political party is involved in slecting its own candidate for the presidential election. Given that each political party has its own separate selection process, I cannot see that there can be any usefulness in bringing the selection process for different political parties together. I think that you would agree that it would be nonsense to have all the prospective candates for London Mayor in an article on the election for London Mayor I think this principle should apply to the US presidential campaign. I wonder if the need for streamlining the articles because of the number of states you could be dealt with by creating an overall page for each political party that could summarise the keys factors in the selection process. I hope you find remarks helpful. Isthisuseful (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose

I see no reason to merge articles. They are completely separate elections and they are all linked together anyway through the state election template on the page. Rxguy (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul is behind, (but wants to influence GOP in Tampa).

Romney will have the requisite nominating number of delegates after Ron Paul's homestate of Texas votes in one week (Tues-5-29); but Ron Paul has a strategy to make the Republican Party more Libertarian (for liberty and smaller government, spending within a budget, etc.) I have removed the tag in May saying that Ron Paul information was not up-to-date, since I found none there. If you want to add more about Ron Paul strategy, then please do—otherwise, I'll add more in a week. For now, I note the Paul strategy to seek delegate support after the primaries and during the state caucuses. Check out what I added, and also read [18] "Ron Paul wants to change the soul of the GOP: Paul’s most ambitious goal is to influence the Republican Party as a whole, making it more amenable to his libertarian principles. That appears to be the point of his so-called “delegate strategy," whereby Paul supporters out-organize rivals in caucus states to win as many delegates as possible. In some cases, such as in Maine, the Paul forces have won outright control of state party organizations. On May 19, for instance, Paulites won 12 of the 13 delegate slots up for grabs at Minnesota’s GOP convention. Combined with previous victories in the North Star State’s complicated selection process that means 32 of the 40 Minnesota delegates to Tampa will be Paul supporters. Sorry about that, Rick Santorum. (Mr. Santorum won Minnesota’s nonbinding caucus presidential nomination vote on Feb. 7 with a plurality of 45 percent of the vote.) This is why Paul has eschewed any interest in a third-party bid." Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are five of many points: 1. Ron Paul wants to change the soul of the GOP: Paul’s most ambitious goal is to influence the Republican Party as a whole, making it more amenable to his libertarian principles…; 2. Paul wants an orderly show of force on the floor; 3. Paul wants to irritate Ben Bernanke; 4. Paul wants to prohibit indefinite detention; 5. Paul wants the internet to remain wild and free; [plus more]. [19] — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is damn good IMO. Jørgen88 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We may work this quote in later: “The real goal was to seize control of party apparatuses in states that rely on caucuses. With that in hand, Paul’s organization can direct party funds and operations to recruit and support candidates that follow Paul’s platform, and in that way exert some influence on the national Republican Party as well, potentially for years to come” [20] — (Ron Paul wants to influence the Republican Party and America for good.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this kind of "sending a message" rarely works, at least historically. Kennedy's bid against Carter did not make him substantially more liberal, nor did Buchanan's run against Bush change him. Nor will Ron Paul running as a third party help; Thurmond and Wallace did not make either party more racist, nor did Nader make the Democrats more liberal.

Paul as he currently is cannot win. This is not based on my opinion, it is a statement of fact. Romney currently has some 900 delegates either pledged to him or having committed support. California and New Jersey, with a combined 200 delegates, are winner take all states, and Ron Paul is not going to win there. Even if Paul wants to speak at the convention, he has only won three states - Minnesota, Maine, and Louisiana. He must win another two in order to carry his campaign to Tampa.

In relevance to the article, I do not think it is necessary to add more information about Paul's campaign, since as I have explained he cannot do anything of substance at this point. Mr. Anon515 02:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your assessment is correct (Paul can't win). You miss the point that he does not expect to win at this point. He wants to change the GOP and that will be important to our article/page, later. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul will not be running 'third party' ! — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a minor point for sure, but no one has "won" LA yet. Their long delegate selection process comes to an end tomorrow (June 2nd). Guy1890 (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

An interesting thought is, "Who will run Convention?" and I suppose the answer is, "The RNC, Republican National Committee". That is what they are for, and they have declared Romney their Nominee. The remaining races are just to reach the requisite number of delegates. I am wondering if Ron Paul will have opportunity to speak and make his points at Convention. I suppose he will, and to find out, perhaps I will read the Wikipedia article about the Republican National Convention, in Tampa, Florida, beginning August 28th. Will much happen between now and then? Probably: (1) The clincher for Romney will be winning the homestate of Ron Paul, Texas; (2) 'The Hammer' will be California, which I think is not 'winner-take-all-of-the-state' but 'winner-take-all' in each of the voting districts (am I right, after reading Green Papers for California?); (3) as state conventions are held to finalize their state delegations, momentum will continue to build for Romney, with only small slivers of the delegation going to Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul (in that order); and (4) on the First Ballot, Romney will be nominated as the Republican nominee for president of the United States of America. Count on the leader of each state delegation taking the microphone from where he or she sits with his or her state delegation and proudly for a minute or two saying how great their state is for supporting Romney, the next president, etc, etc, etc, and defeating the bla-bla-blah current occupant, to make America great once again. How many of our editors are olde enough to have seen prior Republican national conventions? ... (9) Of course there will be some "and two votes for Gingrich, two for Santorum, one for Paul, and 99 for Romney" and how will that affect the First Vote? (I'm just preparing thoughts for future editing, coming up fast.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If Paul can show a plurality in five states he dont have to ask anyone for a oppertunity to speak, he will according to the rules get 15 minutes. That is, among other things, why the five states are som important. Without them Paul might suffer the faith of Pat Buchanan (I forgot if it was in 1992 or 1996) that was then the leader of a strong minority bloc but was almost totally ignored by the convention leaders. With five states they can not ignore Paul, he will have the time to talk and, if they dont make a unifying deal with his bloc, destroy Romneys chances. That treat will be enough for the RNC to make the deal, whatever it will be. Paul 2012 will not be a Buchanan Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll see who the RNC invites to speak. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule 37(b) allows any state delegate to take exception to votes announced by that state's chairman

Rule 37(b) of the RNC Rules states:

(b) In the balloting, the vote of each state

shall be announced by the chairman of such state’s delegation, or his or her designee; and in case the vote of any state shall be divided, the chairman shall announce the number of votes for each candidate, or for

or against any proposition; but if exception is taken by any delegate from that state to the correctness of such announcement by the chairman of that delegation, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of members of such delegation to be called, and the result shall be recorded in accordance with the vote of the several delegates in such delegation.

So, let's say the Chairman of State X announces all 37 delegates to be in favor of candidate A, because per the rules of that state's party all delegates are bound to that candidate, but in reality 33 of those delegates favor candidate B, and one of those delegates takes exception to the correctness of the chairman's announcement, thus requiring the convention chairman to "direct the roll of members of such delegation to be called"? And what if during that roll call all of the 33 delegates supporting candidate B vote for candidate B rather than candidate A? Perhaps there are some repercussions with the party or maybe even the law when they get home, but as far as the RNC rules are concerned, it seems to me that the convention officials are required to record the results "in accordance with the vote of the several delegates in such delegation". No?

This is relevant to the article because I note that on the map that records who has won which state according to delegates, we're assuming the delegate votes will be counted based on binding, rather than actual preference of each delegate without regard to "binding". I don't know of any reason to believe that that will be true (and hundreds of reasons to believe it will not, LOL!) and, as such, there is some hocus pocus going on here. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegates will be supporting Romney more, not less, between now and the First Vote in Tampa. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We (and you) put into the Article that which is reflected in media. Feel free to edit. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, yet another bogus "issue". At the 2012 GOP national convention, if any delegate tries to vote any way other than the way that they have been bound to vote (and not all states bind their delegates BTW), they will be immediately replaced by an alternative & likely sanctioned from participating in that state's GOP Party business for a period of time. We've gone over these bogus issues again & again & again at this point, and there's absolutely nothing to them! Guy1890 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me modify what I said earlier. (1) I agree with what is said here. (2) We are not going to change our table; it is what readers want to see and learn; (4) If text is going to be added to explain what everybody already knows, (we will know what happens in Tampa only when we see it live) then feel free to add it and some will re-edit it, if necessary; (4) Yes, the unexpected could hypothetically/theoretically happen, but probably won't; (5) You can see Ron Paul's website and the five main points he hopes to accomplish, including an orderly process; (6) Hence, don't look for anything bur Romney to be formally voted in on First Vote [caps are original with me]. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a fact. It is not the delegation as a whole or its chairman that are bound, it is every individual delegate. How? Some are only morally bound, that meaning they are bound on their word of honor. In some cases it is a bit unclear, like in Nevada where it seem that the state party are generally a bit light when it comes to the legal stuff. But most bound delegates have clearly legally bound themselves before they can go to the convention, like in New Hampshire where every delegate have signed a statement, a contract between themselves and the state party. If they break this contract at the convention it is a matter between themselves and the state party under NH law, just as if they had broken any other contract. So what if their candidate will not be on the ballot (as the Georgians bound to Gingich's) or their candidate have made a Shermanesque statement? All these statements or contract have stated that if such a thing happens the delegates will be unbound. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This is mostly correct. I wouldn't say "most" of the bound delegates are bound with a written contract, but some definitely are (or the party is currently trying to get them to be, as in MA). Delegates who are bound only by a verbal pledge really should just be called pledged delegates, not bound ones, to avoid confusion, but it is what it is. As far as I know, there are only 3 ways delegates can get around such contracts: 1.) Abstaining (controversial, see above section & the archives) 2.) They are released from the contracts either by a candidate's written statement, death, or disqualification through Rule 11(b) or Rule 40(b) (not likely to happen for Romney or Paul) or 3.) The national convention body rules as a whole to change the rules & unbind delegates; case law has established that national party rules take precedent over state party bylaws or state statutory laws regarding contracts insofar as party business is concerned (see the court case I posted above for an example of this). Any other way would have had to have been stipulated in those contracts, which I have not read. Unless and until any of those three things happen, we have to respect the official bound delegate counts. A roll call of individual delegates can be taken either via Rule 37(b) or the 6-state rule I mentioned (Rule 39). Abstentions would be duly recorded during that roll call, as would the votes of "faithless delegates" (I'll call them that due to the analogy with faithless electors), but unless the rules are changed first, the latter would be adjusted according to the standing rules of the convention before being entered formally into the record. The abstentions would likely hold up and be officially recorded. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Louisiana

Well, I can't say I'm surprised, but the LA State Convention today turned out to be another clusterf***. Multiple reports of a divided convention resulting in two delegations being elected (an even more clear-cut situation than Oklahoma, b/c Paul delegates had a clear majority & the convention never claimed to have been adjourned, improperly or otherwise). It also appears that Rick Santorum currently has no intention of releasing his delegates before the convention. The RNC's Committee on Contests will need to review this one as well, and there is plenty of video evidence of improprieties, with delegates being arrested for "trespassing" without being removed by 2/3 vote by the body (as called for by Robert's Rules of Order). The first video shows Alex Helwig being escorted out, and the second shows Henry Herford, a Paul supporter on the LA State Central Committee who had been elected chairman shortly after the Helwig incident. The first video also shows at the end Paul delegates turning their chairs around to proceed without the improperly appointed convention chairman & state party chair Roger F. Villere, Jr. This video, a compilation of the day's events, shows Chairman Villere ignoring requests for information at the beginning of the meeting. Herford's hip was dislocated while being taken out. Another Paul supporter had a couple fingers broken. A messy affair to say the least.

The important thing to remember about LA is that unlike virtually every other state party, the SCC is the supreme rulemaking body, not the state convention. That is why Villere & others felt they could do what they did. The last-minute change on quorum was specifically designed to carry on without the Paul majority. What is also important to know, however, is that at the rules committee meeting yesterday Helwig was elected to replace the prior appointee. Apparently Villere & gang chose to ignore that memo... Additionally, as I believe was brought up here when discussing Nevada, an attorney from the RNC claimed that the RNC wouldn't recognize any rule change by a state party regarding the allocation of bound delegates if it is made after October 1, 2011. Nevada's convention went on to ignore the letter's call for a delegate litmus test, but ultimately respected the advisory opinion regarding unbinding. If we have accepted that here (as I think we did in Nevada), then all these rules enacted to require a "true supporter" litmus test for Santorum & Romney primary delegate spots in LA are invalid. If Phillippe's opinion about that cutoff date is true, they'll need to be consistent about applying it and seat the Paul-sponsored delegation. That is what in theory should happen. What the RNC will actually do is anybody's guess.

So I think that for now we have no choice but to leave all those delegates in the unallocated/unpledged column until this is resolved, and perhaps add a short note about the situation into the article. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Sources aren't even giving tentative delegate counts. Mr. Anon515 04:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably a good idea for Ron Paul's supporters to finally start LISTENING TO HIM when he explicitly says that he does NOT WANT his supporters who are bound to Romney to vote for anyone but Romney.74.67.106.1 (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And that justifies criminal felony assault & false arrest how exactly? Besides, only 15 of the 43 delegates to be chosen were bound to the primary. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the Paul supporters uncompromising convention style and their delegate stealing (as I understand they call it) methodhs have made the non-Paul wing of the party seem to think they can not be trusted. This primary election have been betwin Romney and Not-Romnney, but I am not sure it will stay this way, the very last part could be betwin Paul and Not-Paul. And Not-Paul have about 90% of the popular vote. Nothing united people as a common enemy. The Barry Goldwater Conservatives have been owning the party for decades, they are not just going to hand it over to the Ron Paul Libertarians without a fight. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If they're being honest with themselves, most Republicans are not happy that they've ended up with Romney. From what relatively little direct exposure they've had from Paul, they're not completely sold with him either. His mannerisms, debate style, and age don't match up with notions of what makes someone "presidential", and there are many misunderstandings that have been spread about his foreign policy. Other than that, I think many more would be willing to support him. Perhaps there is something to the taller candidates having more electoral success in America? I've always believed that this was a Romney vs. Paul race, not b/c I was big into Paul or particularly disliked the others, but because I could see that those were the only two candidates that had the campaign organization & fundraising to see this race through to the end, not to mention that they were always the two that polled best vis-à-vis Obama. So if they don't especially like either candidate, then we return to the "lesser of two evils" argument that drives much of the general election turnout in this country. Is "anybody but Paul" sentiment stronger than "anybody but Romney" right now? Perhaps. Since it doesn't appear we will see a one-on-one Paul v. Romney debate, we will never know how primary voters would have responded to the outcome of such a level playing field. Instead, that debate will play itself out between delegates at these conventions.

As far as 'convention style' is concerned, both campaigns have had people act a little more raucously then they'd like. But I can tell you that as far as following the rules goes, no one knows the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure like Paul loyalists. A favorite quote of theirs, borrowed from West Point (from Paul's time in the Air Force) is "I will not lie, cheat or steal, nor will I tolerate those that do." They certainly don't consider what they're doing "stealing delegates", yet some who oppose them do. To them, they are simply following the existing rules of the party- many of which were written for a time when party bosses negotiated who would be the nominee in "smoke-filled backrooms." The ghosts of that era are now returning to haunt the current party "bosses." There is, sadly, much mistrust on both sides, and I wonder how the Republican Party will move on after everything is all said and done and this election enters the history books. There is no doubt to what you say, that no one gives up power without a fight- in this case, a physical one. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a question: if something were to happen to Romney, say he drops out due to personal reasons, then would the convention instantly become brokered? Would Santorum and Gingrich go back into the race? This is just hypothetical, and I think this sort of thing has happened in the past. Still, if Ron Paul were to win without winning the popular vote of a single primary or caucus, I imagine we might see something similar to the 1968 Dem convention. That said, given the enthusiasm of Ron Paul's supporters, we might see such an uproar either way. Mr. Anon515 16:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I imagine yes to both questions. While Paul will have a great many delegates there, I still don't see him quite breaking 50% without support from former Santorum, Gingrich or other uncommitted delegates. If Romney were to drop out, I don't think Paul getting it would be too controversial, since no other candidate has any kind of popular mandate. If he (or anyone else) gets the nomination with Romney still in it, there would be some backlash, but it's hard to say how injurious it would be for the general election. Americans love a comeback story too, so it might depend who controls the ensuing media spin. There have been plenty of candidates who came from behind in the delegate count to take the nomination (Warren G. Harding comes to mind), but I don't think there have been any such cases since a veneer of democracy was applied to the process with the rise of state administered primaries, which actually became widespread because of the violence at the 1968 DNC. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ron Pauls campaign have put out a statement: [21] Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Jack, Thanks for the tip/link which concludes “Our thoughts and prayers are with those who were injured at the convention. And, we thank all responsible convention participants for ending the day on a more unified note.” Isn't that interesting? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that the Romney campaign has not put out a statement yet. They might feel that doing so would draw attention to the fact that the primary process isn't quite over. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a new section of TALK over at Louisiana_Republican_primary_and_caucuses,_2012 :: "== There was fighting at the state convention June 2nd" == ::: "I was going to put something at the bottom of the article from the Green Papers, but upon further examination it looks like Green Papers for Louisiana have not been updated yet. Here is what I was about to add (at the bottom of the article) :: After the Louisiana GOP state convention on June 2, the Green Papers have the following delegate totals for candidates: Rick Santorum (10); Mitt Romney (5); Ron Paul (0); Newt Gingrich (0); five others (0); uncommitted (5); available (26); for a total of 46 delegates. Other sources of the results remain unclear at this point." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Those 15 delegates are from the primary. The remaining caucus delegates have not been decided yet. Mr. Anon515 16:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Its official; Ron Paul is sending 27 out of 46 Louisiana delegates to Tampa. Louisiana should be colored Ron Paul yellow on the delegate plurality map.[1]. --Raymond SabbJr (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldnt actually find anything in the stated source that said it was official. But I did notice this: "According to a statement released by the national Paul campaign, the newly elected delegates met with Scott Sewell, the Louisiana Chair of the Romney campaign, who said “he would do everything he could to make sure the delegation was seated.” The State Central Committee also met after the convention but reportedly disbanded due to lack of quorum." So nothing seems to be decided since there currently is two delegations from Louisana, not one. So witch one will be seated if a compromise is not made? Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It does appear that the majority-convention/Paul delegation includes some Romney supporters, otherwise I doubt Sewell would have given his endorsement. This greatly improves the chances that this delegation will be the one seated. However, Jack's right, we still aren't certain that will happen until we get some sort of official statement from the state party or the RNC. We also don't have a complete breakdown of the numbers in that delegation. 27 Paul + maybe 5 Romney + 10 Santorum still leaves us 1 short of 43. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait aren't there always three unpledged delegates? Or are they not being included here? Assuming the latter, I'm guessing the remaining one delegate goes to Romney. Mr. Anon515 20:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

With the 3 unbound RNC delegates there is 46 members of Louisianas delegation Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Plot twist

According to one source, Romney might actually win a plurality with 19 delegates (5 official, 14 unpledged that support him). Mr. Anon515 21:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I would think it would be fairly easy for Paul to win the Caucus delegates, given he has over two thirds of the state delegates. Mr. Anon515 21:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks like the composition of the minority convention/state party delegation? That AP report is pretty thin on the details of that, so it's hard to tell. If it is, I doubt the Paul people would accept that, seeing as it would leave them without the plurality they sought. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In any case, it is sad to see a convention descend into violence over something like this. I am no Republican or a Paul supporter, but the two sides here have quite a lot in common in their views. Ron Paul himself has mostly a Republican economic policy, and fellow candidates Santorum and Gingrich have already conceded a lot of foreign policy issues to him (notably Afghanistan withdrawal). As much as I support the president, if the Republican goal is to mount a serious opposition to him, surely both sides of the convention should start off by finding what they agree on. Mr. Anon515 01:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I mean, just look at the last time a major party had a race this divided: the 1968 dem convention. That split the party and caused a major shift in party power. The Republicans would control the agenda until Obama (Clinton and Carter were moderates and failures respectively). I know many Ron Paul supporters do not care much about party status, but I will offer this word of advice: dismantling the two-party system does not start at a national level. If you want Ron Paul's ideas to be carried out in the short term, it must happen through Romney winning the presidency. The left has had this problem a lot, of being disappointed in Obama when he has to compromise. The political system as it is (and as the founders intended) relies heavily on compromise. I have little ideological views shared with Ron Paul, but it would be sad to see his supporters' activism go to waste. Mr. Anon515 01:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no comparison to 1968. The party is NOT divided. Ron Paul's supporters make up a TINY fraction of the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

True. However, their enthusiasm means they take up a disproportionate amount of primary and convention participation. As increasing polarization threatens to lower turnout, Paul's supporters, while remaining a relatively constant number, will take up larger percentages of the polls. Mr. Anon515 05:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The comparison stems from the large amount of violence that is occurring in Louisiana, and occurred in Maine and Washington. The 1968 convention was notorious for being bloody for a political event, and while we haven't reached that point, I fear it may come. Mr. Anon515 05:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that, 74.. No one is saying that we'll see the sort of violence they saw in 1968 (I hope with all my heart we do not), but America's younger generations are, on the whole, more libertarian than their elders insofar as economic & foreign policy is concerned, and they are more socially tolerant. Party leaders would be foolish to ignore these trends forever. This transition for the party will have to manifest itself sooner or later, and time will tell whether it will be at this convention or another. Interestingly, it may be Romney who represents a minor remnant of the party, a fiscally moderate, pro-corporate businessman from the Northeast who bears some resemblance to a group once termed as Rockefeller Republicans, albeit now putting on the coat of social conservatism. In this race, it would seem primary voters (who skew older) have opted for this old minority rather than the new one of fiscal conservatism & social libertarianism. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Not making any comment on Ron Paul's "movement", but the youth has always been more socially liberal and libertarian on foreign policy. As one grows older, views can change. I would not, however, make claims about economic policy; movements like Occupy might indicate otherwise (many young voters don't care much about social security and medicare anyways). Mr. Anon515 19:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I almost wanted to lecture you guys about going off topic by turning this into a forum, but I'm giving in now too. I think the Tea Party and Ron Paul stuff has a mirror counterpart in the Occupy movement. I believe that both of these phenomena are a result of the continual divisive narrative, and rather than people simply breaking along the predetermined democrat/liberal vs republican/conservative lines, they are further dividing along more strict ideological lines. This seems to line up with the Ron Paul types being very rule and justice oriented and the Occupy people being very rule-free and social-justice oriented.

I think both parties are losing their base because they believe they can simply do as the party elites like without regard for the greater voter base. -- Avanu (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"I almost wanted to lecture you guys about going off topic by turning this into a forum" - so I'll do that now.  ;) This is not the forum for these kind of debates, as they have nothing to do with the subject(s) of this Talk page. Guy1890 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to what happens next I think it is important to remember that Louisianna is a bit different from the other states in the way that their state party central committee is elected directly and is the highest authority in the state party. That means it is not the state convention as in most state parties. That also means (if I got my facts right) that the convention can not appoint a new convention chairman and really cant do much at all. Not at all like the other states. If understand these rules correctly the convention lead by a new chair (the majority convention) was unlawfull under state party rules. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about the state party's structure. The state convention & its duties are directly created & amendable by the SCC. However, if a state rule is found in violation of a national rule, then the national party rule will take precedence. There was a SCC meeting scheduled for after the state convention's conclusion, but it immediately adjourned due to lack of quorum. I don't know when or even if it was rescheduled. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

US News & Word Report: Paul captured 27 of LA's 46 delegates

...supporters of Paul and front-runner Mitt Romney split the vote and Paul apparently won a majority of the delegates to the national gathering.

...

Paul strategists say the Texas congressman, who is the lone remaining challenger to presumptive nominee Romney, captured 27 of the 46 delegates to which Louisiana is entitled.

link.

I don't think this means it's official yet, but it's getting close. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Summary

The following is a summary of what we know so far:

On June 2, a divided LA State Convention marked with violence elected 2 delegations of 43 members (plus 3 shared unbound RNC delegates), with 10 delegates purportedly bound to Santorum, 5 to Romney, and 28 unpledged. The RNC Committee on Contests (whose decisions may be appealed to the national convention body) will decide which of these two should be credentialed & seated if no agreement is reached before the National Convention:

Delegation A/Majority Convention: Endorsed by Paul & Romney (?) campaigns. 5 Romney supporters bound to him. At least 27/28 unbound pledged to Paul. Unknowns include whose supporters filled Santorum's 10 slots, and which candidate the 28th unbound delegate supports. This delegation gives plurality to Ron Paul.

• Reported as the official delegation by U.S. News & World Report. US News
• Fox News reports: "Since the convention literally split in two, the national party will have to eventually decide between two competing delegations, but the Paulite convention had the majority." Fox News

Delegation B/Minority Convention: Endorsed by LA GOP Executive & State Central Committees. Santorum submitted a list of 20 supporters (10 delegates + 10 alternates) prior to the convention, which the party went on to approve for his bound slots. Mitt Romney supporters elected to 19 spots, including the 5 bound to him. 1 unbound delegate to Paul. That leaves 13 unpledged delegates slots that have been left open, which was reported to have been done "to allow talks with Paul supporters who refused to participate in the convention." Although the LA GOP is set up to allow the SCC to be the state party's highest rule-making body, this delegation may nevertheless be ruled invalid under RNC Rule 15(c)(2). This delegation gives plurality to Mitt Romney.

• Reported as the official delegation by the Associated Press, citing the LAGOP statement

Note to editors: Feel free to edit the above as we learn more. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• LAGOP's statement
• Ron Pauls statement
• Newsreport on numbers in the "Ron Paul" delegation
• Background story and all video assembled in one place
• Not a source but interesting comments on what seems to be a Libertarian blogger I think this must be a site for Paul faithfulls, just notice the comments this articles gets
  Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That fourth link is a good find! The author is certainly biased, but it covers some important details about the state party's rules and includes a couple new videos I was planning to post here separately. For anyone following all this I recommend watching the last video- particularly at the 3:40 mark, when Scott Sewell gives a speech to this meeting of "Delegation A", and after he finishes at the 7:30 mark, when Alex Helwig returns, cane in hand, to also give a speech. Interesting comments from both men. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Ron Paul delegate strategy

The Ron Paul delegate strategy has been the plan for at least the grassroots, if not the official campaign, all along. Here is a post about it from April 2011. Here is a website devoted to the effort, and here appears to be their main blog, which features "delegate training". These guys are not playing around. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes..but if the candidate they are trying to do this for has said that he will NOT accept the nomination that way, what good is it? Ron Paul knows it won't work, and doesn't want it attempted. He is not about to let his ignorant supporters wreck everything he has worked for for the last 30 years. (Not to mention, that not even the most optimistic (delusional is a better word) count claims that Ron Paul will have anywhere near 1144 delegates. So Romney will take it anyway.)74.67.106.1 (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: "if the candidate they are trying to do this for has said that he will NOT accept the nomination that way". What do you mean by "that way"? Cite your source, please. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please try not to arbitrarily link to a candidate's campaign or the website of his (and I use this word lightly) fanbase. I know you may have intents to improve the article, but make these clear. Otherwise - no offense here - it just looks like you are spamming. Mr. Anon515 01:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Romney Momentum

Green Papers have been updated to reflect the sweep of delegates yesterday: CA(169) + NJ(50) + NM(20) + SD(25) = Romney(264) and Paul(0). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Green Papers numbers assume bound delegates are bound. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is the correct assumption. Why do I get the feeling like Born2Cycle will STILL be complaining in September even after Romney has the nomination? He will STILL want this page to say simply "RON PAUL IS GOD!" Again...there is not going to be some massive attempted coup at the convetion. Because that would require HUNDREDS of stealth delegates going AGAINST THE WISHES OF RON PAUL HIMSELF. At which time, Ron Paul would simply withdraw his name for consideration anyway since he has been very clear on what he wants to happen at the Convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. As far as I've seen, Born2cycle and the 68 IP have not made any inappropriate comments here, and are only trying to ensure consistency and accuracy. GOP delegate count is a tricky matter; just look at what happened in Louisiana. And no, I'm not a Paulbot - I'm a liberal Democrat who supports Obama. Mr. Anon515 01:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

View reader suggestions

Maybe i am a bit behind but that reader-option-box in the top of the talkpage (right corner) is new to me. So just a shout-out to get more editors to take a look. They are suggestions from readers and even thanks in a few cases — (rather nice!) Besides the suggestion saying this article is totally biased and we are all lying and the article should be changed to saying that Paul is winning, I actually think we have meet many of the requested things already. But it is a good page to visit from time to time to see what the readers need. It provides a help for this article to reach a higher classification. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I had to look twice to see the one-liner-reader-request-feedback-box. (It is above the standard yellow box, to the right, as Jack said.) I read through the 212 comments, going back five months, and searched for two of the reported errors (using 'Find' on our Article/page) and didn't find the errors. They must have been fixed. Also, I voted for a few suggestions with 'yes' (helpful) so they would sort to the top. I'll read through them again. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Our Article/page is very popular because of the current race to the White House. Hence, it needs to be timely, which it is. Further, it evolves and becomes 'history'. Some of the criticism seems to not understand and is totally-off-base, but that is OK, we understand. Other criticism doesn't consider that things can change quickly (RE: Ron Paul viability.) We need to be timely/accurate with current status (and at the same time historically encyclopedic). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I voted for a few more suggestions (some of them a month or more old, but still good) and they should sort to the top. Some of the ideas will be resolved in the coming few days as states finalize their delegations to the national convention. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Romney has won the primaries

Now that Romney has gotten for certain over 1144 delegates, I think we can bold his section of the infobox. Originally, I was hesitant to do this until the convention, since Ron Paul was planning on doing something there. However, I realized that in our article about Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1968, we bold Eugene McCarthy, even though he lost the convention. So if nobody minds, I'm going to bold Romney, since he's won the primaries at this point. This doesn't mean he's the nominee, but he's won most of the delegates and popular vote at this point. Mr. Anon515 02:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with this. Romney has clinched a plurality (if not majority) of the primary popular vote, as there are not enough eligible voters in the last primary (Utah) to even hypothetically overturn that. Also, since we're not going to be adjusting delegate counts backward for so-called "faithless" delegates, Romney has clinched a majority of those as well (as far as this article is concerned) as well as a majority of states. By all measures included in the infobox, Romney has indeed won the primaries. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with both of you, we can notice that the Republican Party leadership presses for unity and called Romney the 'Nominee' a while ago (Texas was the 'clincher' in my mind; and California+NJ+SD+NM was the 'hammer'). So what does he have? 80% of the delegates? Yes, it still has to be formalized, but with others having such a small contingency, it is only a matter of formalization on the first vote. It is OK to wait to write this in August. Meanwhile, let's keep TALKing. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul's latest letter to supporters

Should there be any mention to the fact that Ron Paul himself (his supporters can't hide behind Jesse Benton or Doug Wead anymore) has come right out and said that he will have around 500 supporters in Tampa and that he is not winning the nomination?

He also refers to his delegate totals as bound...meaning he himself knows that delegates ARE bound despite what small time TV reporters say. This seems significant since we are dealing with the "bound or unbound" debate. Ron Paul has weighed in on that debate and has taken the side of "bound." 74.67.106.1 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this letter? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you have a reliable secondary source that analyzes the content of the "latest letter"? If not, you cannot add your conclusions to the article. You could potentially add some quote from the letter, but you would need to be very careful to avoid seeming to create original research by the arrangement of selective quotes. You cannot say that Ron Paul has decided what "bound" means even if he referred to some delegates as bound, because that is your conclusion, not the conclusion of reliable secondary source that analyzed the content of the letter. We do try not to just make things up here. See WP:RS and WP:V. -- Avanu (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: "He also refers to his delegate totals as bound...meaning he himself knows that delegates ARE bound despite what..."

That's not what it means. If Paul recognizes that the binding rules ultimately have no legal teeth does not mean he won't refer to those who are technically bound to him as bound delegates. On a purported copy of the letter in a forum I see that he refers to 500 delegates that support him, which includes delegates technically bound for Romney, suggesting he himself knows that they're not actually bound.

Anyway, as Avanu says, all this is moot with respect to what can actually go in the article unless we have a reliable secondary source. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, cult members, but he used th word "bound" VERY specifically. Notice he gave TWO totlas for his numbers. 200 and 500. The 200 are rightfully his. (Though they are not all bound, really.) The 300 are people that would PREFER to vote for Ron Paul, but can't.

If Ron Paul himself didn't KNOW that delegates wre bound and will STAY bound, there would have been absolutely NO reason for him to split these numbers up. He would have said simply "I have 500 delegates." There is NO way to spin that e-mail into a positive hting for Ron Paul. At least not his chances for nomination. That letter was clearly a statement TO his supporters saying "Look...I am not winning the nomination. But if you don't screw things up and get yourselves replaced by alternatves, we CAN make gains in other issues." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing the debate is what Ron Paul has always been about. Despite having strong convictions and principles, the man is a realist. He didn't think it likely that he would overpower the machinery of the press and politics, but he gave it a shot. Incidentally, many (or most) of the alternates to these 500-ish delegates are also Ron Paul supporters. -- Avanu (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as we are not talking about the nomination this could be al right. But maybe you could put a link to this letter here so all editors can see it and maybe to put in the article. And instead of arguing on what Paul will or will not do it would be more interesant to see a list of states where these 350 ekstra delegates are from. That would actually be useful to put in the article. Where actually have Paul supporters become delegates bound to another candidate, is is spread out in all delegations or are we talking about a few delegations. Good sources, proberly only avaible on a state level would be most useful for the article. The rest is not very useful right now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul letter discussed in Washington Post

In an e-mail to supporters Wednesday night, Paul said his campaign will send “nearly 200 bound delegates” to the Tampa convention, along with hundreds of Paul supporters bound to vote for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. “We will likely have as many as 500 supporters as delegates on the Convention floor,” Paul wrote. “That is just over 20 percent.

link --Born2cycle (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really much analysis there, if any. Also, I notice it is full of poorly fact-checked sentences. It seems to be a collection of summaries of things and not really a proper article. -- Avanu (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good link with a lot of links to interesting articles inside it. I noticed that according to the article Paul should have been reading that he would send nearly 200 candidates bound to him to the convention. Right now Paul haves 101 bound delegates and there is only 95 more bound delegates that havent been allocated. That must be a mistake in the article, I am sure Paul dont excpect to win in Utah, where he will not campaign, at all against the first mormon nominee ever. The most likely outcome for a person that have stopped campaigning in the primary would be that he looses the primary and a very intelligent man as Paul knows such a simple fact. So it must be a misunderstanding of the original letter, or maybe a mistake in the letter. The pledge of unbound delegates, the how bound delegates can be and where the real alligence of these delegate is can be discussed. But not how they are bound according to the current rules. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

At most, Ron Paul will have over 200 supporters, because this count would have to include Nevada and MA delegates that personally support him. Perhaps the 500 number he is referring to includes Gingrich and Santorum's delegates, which would total over 500 "non-Romnney" delegates. Mr. Anon515 23:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul simply used the wrong wrd in his e-mail. Where he said "bound" he should ahve said "pledged." That he is saying is that there will be 200 or so delegates who are free to vote Ron Paul on the first ballot. Half of those will be bound and HAVE to vote for Ron Paul, even if they didn't want o, while the other alf technically could vote for someone else. Then there will be another 300 or so that are actually Ron Paul supporters, but bound to Romney. (Notice that Ron Paul used the word BOUND.) This was a very telling e-mail actually because it shows that under the BEST case scenario of pretending that no one is bound and that every Ron Paul delegate is willing to go against their duy, Romney would still win 1786 to 500. The e-mail really couldn't have been more clear.74.67.106.1 (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

74 is partially correct. Paul should have said 200 "pledged", rather than bound, as only some of them are. He lays claim to 200 delegates who may vote for him under existing rules (as they are currently understood), and around 500 delegates in total who support him, regardless of bindings. This is what I was alluding to a while back when I said he had around 300 delegates. My own canvassing of the delegates suggests the truth is now somewhere in between those numbers (300 & 500), but if it really is 500 that would make things quite interesting. I say that because the "critical mass" I wrote of earlier is not only in the number of delegations he needs to control (at least 5) but in the overall number of delegates on the floor. That "critical mass" to push motions forward & prevent being "bullied" would, in my opinion, be in the neighborhood of at least 500-600. It's easy to drown out a couple hundred delegates. One-third or more the attendees? Not so much. That number can certainly grow over the next couple of weeks, as most of the delegates are elected in June.

There was a nuance in what Paul said in that letter that, as could be expected, the media failed to catch. He did not explicitly concede the nomination. What he said was the obvious: 500 delegates is not enough to win the nomination. That does not preclude doing other things to grow that number, such as turning other unbound or uncommitted delegates, and of course continuing to win delegates wherever they are still up for grabs. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

He clearly (VERY clearly) said that he WILL have 500 delegates...not that he has that now and hopes to get more. There w2as no nuance. You are just inventing it. And actually, he didn't even say delegates. He said he will have 500 supporters. Most bound to other...and notice that Ron Paul HIMSELF used the word BOUND. Go figure. He must be ignorant of the laws! Not to mention, at NO point does Ron Paul, or any sane human being, think that he would be able to sway 645 ADDITIONAL delegates willing to face the penalties for goign against the bound vote, and then also not be replaced by algternates. If this was a baskletball game, Romney has aa 50 point lead with 31 seconds left, and Ron Paul just decided to stop fouling to get the ball back.74.67.106.1 (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I see now that he did say "will." So that proves that this is a guess, not a precise fact. Only a fraction of those delegates would need to worry about having to "face the penalties." Regarding your point about alternates, I just don't think that's going to happen, but even if it does, nearly all of those alternates (except for NV) are Paul supporters too, so what then? As for your analogy, Romney might be up 50 points, but there's a whole heck of a lot more than 31 seconds left.. more like 6,955,200 seconds (80.5 days* 86400 sec/day). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and now we know it only conceded as much as was absolutely necessary to allow his son to say the nominating process is over and endorse Romney. I'd like to find a secondary source that talks about the timing of Ron's letter and Rand's endorsement the next day. That should be in the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop taking a candidate's letter to his supporters as being absolute fact. Ron Paul is not an RNC official; he does not know for certain how many delegates he has. Currently, it is very difficult for him to get over 200 delegates, at least by the rules as they stand. Nevada and Massachusetts delegates would count towards the number of delegates that "just support him". By state rules, those delegates are legally bound towards voting for Romney. Mr. Anon515 17:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Green Papers, http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ , Ron Paul has 98 "hard" delegates, and at least 40 more "soft" delegates. It is conceivable that the total of 138 might be extended via agreements and so on that we are not fully aware of, and we have certainly seen the stories where Ron Paul supporters are being elected as delegates but are "bound" to another candidate. Ron Paul's letter says "we stand to send" 200 bound delegates. "Stand to send" is not the same as "we have", and given the level of debates on what is bound or not, we can't necessarily assume what Ron Paul means by "bound". In addition, Paul says "we will likely have as many as 500 supporters". Again, it is "likely", not absolute. My impression is that while Paul knows that he will have a sizable delegation, many of these things are still being contested and decided and without knowing the outcome of those contests, he can't say 100% what he will have. In addition, some delegates may not attend and their alternates might attend in their place. In short, let's not get so caught up in absolutes with a process that is terribly complicated and weird. Let's understand that Paul's letter was to formally tell his supporters 'well done!' and that Romney got the majority and it is time to look toward changing the Republican Party. Beyond that, the arguments I'm seeing here from both sides are kind of silly and certainly not being supported by any sources but just by speculative editors. Play nice, remember that this nominating process is a bugger of a thing and stick to Reliable Sources. -- Avanu (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Attention switches from winning the Nomination to picking the VP

Media sources we report and include as references are giving more attention to (1) What Romney says about Obama; (2) What Obama says about Romney; and (3) who Mitt Romney will choose as his VP running mate. This is because presumptive nominations are now assumed, (and not news). We can have a sentence on this for now, but most editing should be done over at the companion article: Republican Party vice presidential candidate, 2012 — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Near the top of the Article, the new material shows the race ending quickly:
> > > "Upcoming primaries and state conventions" < < <
Events left that allocate bound delegates or (s)elect unbound delegates:

• June 9, Illinois and Indiana state conventions
• June 10, Pennsylvania central committee meeting and Nebraska caucuses
• June 16, Montana and Iowa state conventions
• June 26, Utah primary
• July 14, Nebraska state convention

This weekend is big. Let's watch. Is it predictable? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In Illinois, despite a close voice vote, calls for division were ignored and the state party's proposed (aka pro-Romney) slate was pushed through. Doesn't appear that any Paul or Santorum supporters got on to that slate. Just a heads up- still looking for an official source. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A map color for unknown pluralities

What do you all think of adding a new color to the delegate plurality map to represent states that have elected delegates but where there is no clear winner? Maybe red or blue? States that fit this description would include:

• Alaska- currently an 8-8 tie, with plurality resting on which RNC members are chosen on June 9 to go to Tampa.
• Colorado- the numbers we're using now in the chart (which are disputable) show a 14-14 tie.
• Louisiana- I don't imagine anyone disagreeing with this one.
• Pennsylvania- Depends if the 10 at-large chosen on June 10 will announce who they support. If they don't, "unpledged" would outnumber any particular candidate.

Perhaps the label for this color, which must be short so it fits nicely in the box, could be simply: No clear winner ? Are there other states I missed that fit this description? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

dont we not already have a colour for that - Gray. I think you have something about Alaska, I dont know so much about that. But it will be decided tomorrow. A plurality is not a majority so until the PA or CO unpledge delegates choices to pledge themselve the one with the most pledge delegates can show a plurality no matter how few delegates he has. Of course there is a chance that such a plurality would change before the convention and if so we will change the map. Remember the tricky part is that the plurality counts before anyone starts to vote, when the voting have started no one cares about it. The only very important reason is that without five states that shows pluralitý for you no one is going to be able to vote for you. As you say right now I dont think anyone disagrees about Louisiana but I think the easy thing would simply to leave it gray. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Gray should only represent states that have not finished electing delegates yet (delegates not bound, that is). Right now there is no marker to differentiate between those that have & have not elected their delegates. I figured it might be informative to readers to show where there are such unclear cases, which would prompt them to read further in the article for more information. I know plurality is not a majority, and that it can change, but I don't understand the idea of awarding, say, Pennsylvania, to Romney when there are more unpledged delegates than known Romney delegates. If those unpledged go to Romney, we could certainly change the map back to orange at that time. Alaska is a tie- if we are not considering RNC delegates for the other states, we shouldn't for Alaska. It should either have this new color, or at least be striped between Romney & Santorum. Same with CO. I disagree with that interpretation of Rule 40, but I have already discussed that in previous sections. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In two days and three days, major states will be finalizing their support: June 9, Illinois and Indiana state conventions; June 10, Pennsylvania central committee meeting and Nebraska caucuses. And the last group of 264 delegates from CA, NJ, SD, and NM were not divided—they all went to Romney. Things will be settling down as states finalize relatively soon. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The only state you mentioned that I listed was PA. What of the others? LA doesn't look like it will "finalize relatively soon." 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That we dont count unbound RNC delegates conform to the Primary Shcedule. I dont rememember that we have dicussed it at all when it comes to the maps. I dont know if we should go one way or another on those, but that is not entirely up to you and me. But a good thing to get into the debate. Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Currently, Alaska and Colorado are not tied, but merely have enough unpledged delegates to change the outcome. Santorum's tie with Romney in Alaska rests on a certain amount of "unpledged" Gingrich delegates supporting him. Similarly, in Colorado, the plurality of delegates are unpledged. Perhaps states like these, where unpledged delegates who have not yet announced their choice will dictate the outcome, should be colored seperately, like the IP has suggested. Mr. Anon515 17:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In Alaska it is so close that also the 3 party delegates have been a part of it. Especially because the new chairman in supporting Paul and the old Romney. The plurality map is based on what secondary sources (mostly GP and AP as they are shown in the primary schedule but also others) says about what unbound delegates that have publishly they pledge themselve. I am not totally against making more colours if it will not become a source of bigottering among supporters of different candidates. But there is one important fact: If an unbound delegates refuse to pledge himself to any delegate before the election that delegate will have no impact on the plurality at all. So if the Colorado unpledge are not going to say anything they do not dictate anything. Of course they are free to say something in the future, but I would think that what they wanted to say they have said when the whole race was still on. What they vote at the convention will not change the plurality of the state because at the second the first vote is cast in the convention the whole plurality question is meaningless. Even if Nevadas whole delegation choices to become faithless at the convention it will not change that right now the state shows plurality for Romney. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Reader '68.58', your question about Louisiana intrigued me and so I went to the LA election article and linked to Green Papers for LA. What I found out I put on Talk:Louisiana_Republican_primary_and_caucuses,_2012. — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything we know about the situation in LA is in the section titled "Louisiana" above, with a summary at the bottom of that to get quickly caught up. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Bottom Line: "Wait and see." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The politics of illegal voters

Some consider this an important issue. I'm thinking we can wait to mention this, but when all is "said and done" it may find a place historically/encyclopedically. [22] "Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) said he will sue the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [led by Democrat Eric Holder] to move forward with his controversial attempt to purge the voter rolls in his state of ineligible voters." Legal voters are watching and noticing and other states have similar concerns, like with "photo ID", or status quo of no voter ID. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Republican primaries have already happened and this was never mentioned in the debates. If you feel it is important it belongs on the page for the general election. Mr. Anon515 04:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Republicans only have concerns when Democrats are in the race (in November) and Democrats only have concerns when Republicans do something like mentioned in the article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean: these comments/observations would be more appropriate at United States presidential election, 2012. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Mr. Anon515 15:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Federal law prohibits "binding" delegates.

We should re-word the article to remove references to being "bound". the gop claims the law does not apply to caucuses or primaries, however, 11 CFR 100.2 - Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1)), clarifies such proceedings are actually covered by law, 42 USC § 1971 - Voting Rights. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this original research or do you have reliable sources saying this? I guess in this case a reliable source is a source that is not a part of any of the campaigns or support any special campaign besides meeting the normal criterias for reliable sources. Maybe you could also put the link to the GOP claim or articles about it here. With good reliable sources we could put both sides into the article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about 42 USC § 1971 (b)?

(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

If so remember that no voter is bound at any primary or caucus election. Delegates to the Republican convention is bound. Convention, not primary. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the point is that enforcing any such "binding", even at a convention -- which is an election per section(f) of 100.2 Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1)), which follows -- is a legal violation of 42 USC § 1971 (b) which you just quoted above:

§ 100.2 Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1)). (a) Election means the process by which individuals, whether opposed or unopposed, seek nomination for election, or election, to Federal office. The specific types of elections, as set forth at 11 CFR 100.2 (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are included in this definition.

...

(b) General election. ...

(c) Primary election. A primary election is an election which meets one of the following conditions: (1) ... (2) ... (3) ...An election which is held to elect delegates to a national nominating convention is a primary election.

(d) Runoff election. ...

(e) Caucus or Convention. A caucus or convention of a political party is an election if the caucus or convention has the authority to select a nominee for federal office on behalf of that party.

(f) Special election. ...

Although we prefer secondary sources to tie all this together and spell it out, these are valid primary sources... the text of the actual relevant law. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess we prefer secondary sources because few editors and fewer readers have a law degree. Just by reading from this paragrafs I would say that the GOP might argue that the authority to select the nominee lies with the allocating primary or caucuses, not with their representives at the National Convention. And from a laymans perspective they would be correct since the bound delegates have to vote as their authority tells them. It is understood this way by the RNC, The Romney campaign and The Paul campaign. Unless or until any of the parts involved in the process will challenge this understanding no court will try the vality of it. So unless reliable sources shows that it will be challenge or reliable sources cites legal authorities (professors or others) in that there is a problem this is all just something in the blogsphere. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the main stream media is on it yet, but we certainly have enough to support the statement that Paul supporters are arguing "bound" delegates are not legally bound based on these laws. See www.examiner.com/article/federal-law-all-delegates-are-unbound. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to link to a reference site that are not listed on the Wikipedia Spam Blacklist?

How about the FEC[23]?

1. A national nominating convention is considered a federal election. 11 CFR 100.2(e).

--Born2cycle (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, some kid "Mason Buran", from something literally called the "Ron Paul Examiner" says something is true, so it's true?? This looks & sounds like yet another ploy by obvious RonPaulers to distract from the established precedent that the GOP has lived by for literally decades now. Color me not impressed. Guy1890 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

He's just quoting from actual law, which you too can read for yourself, as I did. And that last quote I posted, stating unambiguously that conventions are considered federal elections, is not from him or any other Paulite, but from the Federal Election Commission. See FOOTNOTE #1 at www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/delegate.shtml#1.

The precedent has been established, but, so far as I know, it has never been legally challenged. I was skeptical at first, but from what I'm seeing now, it sure looks like not only does no one have any legal authority to require any "bound" delegate to vote as he or she was "bound", but, in fact, attempting to interfere with a delegate's voting (such as by dismissing him and using an alternate simply because the delegate will not vote in accordance with the "binding"), is itself a violation of federal election law. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is actually that The precedent has NOT been established. I might be wrong since I am not use to US law, but as I understand the law then it operates under the basic principles of Roman Law. So to have precedent it must have been tried in a court of law, and as far as I know it have never been. The law can be interpreted in different ways, as already stated the GOP interpreted it differently than you, so a court of law must set the precedent, and as long as no one is interested in taking it to a court of law that will not happen. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC: RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” And, “The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar, I'm starting to tire of having to dig up the citations to the content you comment about. If you're going to bother to copy/paste, please also include the link of your source, or, better yet, their source (when cited). I just cited what I believe to be the original source for this quote on the internet. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Jack, you're talking about legal precedent, while Guy1980 was talking about "precedent" in the sense of tradition... that that is how they operated for decades. However, Guy is wrong, given what happened in the Utah delegation in 2008. If you read the full account, you'll see that that this exact issue was addressed by the RNC legal counsel then. That was four years ago. The Ron Paul delegates appear to be much better prepared this time. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Tradition is what in Roman Law is known as the customary law, wish also can be a legal basic. In other words if you have no precidence from a court of law and no law (aka your interpretation of the law) says otherwise your tradition is the legal precedence until it is challenged. How litteral the US code follows this I dont know, but all western judicical systems have the concept. As far as I can read in the very interesting article this was simply a statement from a legal councel, not a ruling by a court? It was simply the RNC's opinon at that moment? If this will reach a court it would be very interesting part and hard for the RNC to fight and I think such a court case would be interesting. But who would take it to court? I dought very much that Paul is going to and I think he would try to stop any of his supporters that wants to. He is not going to destroy his longterm gains for this. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I also take the word 'precedent' to mean legal precedent or case law. To avoid confusion (particularly when interpreting statutory laws), it may be better to use another word for non-legal precedent, such as 'tradition' or 'customs'. Another phrase for customary law is common law, which may be used by courts in the absence of statutes.

As for the likelihood of this matter being heard by a court, I also doubt the Paul campaign would pursue it, but I can't speak for the grassroots- they have already taken the "delegate strategy" much further than the campaign I think expected them to. They have also continued efforts to turnout supporters in primaries like CA & SD. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

born i hope you recover from your fatigue, here's a cup of tea. i rarely give sources as everyone knows i only speak the truth, however if challenged i will supply sources, since no one has yet, i retire. Jack, i don't think the strategy is to go to court, rather the delegates will simply follow the law and vote their conscious the first round. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar I dont think anyone knows you around here and the sources are not to prove you speak the truth but to help other editors improve this article since your word cannot be used as a reference in a Wikipedia article, and this talkpage is about improving the article it is not a general forum on the topic. Thanks 68, common law that was the english word I was looking for. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

i said i will provide sources to any TALK PAGE discussion challenged, unlike the actual ARTICLE, sources for talk are not commonplace. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. In a wikipedia talkpage you dont provide sources to win a discussion but to help the other editors, many references in articles are first posted at the articles talkpage and editors help each other to improve the article. This is a place where editors through talk finds ways to make the article better. If you havent already read these articles I am sure you will enjoy them: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Verifiability Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

perhaps you are being a bit pointy? i created this section, no one challenged the laws (who givens a citation for a law, isn't the fact that it is law suffice?). Quoting the RNC legal council also strikes me a bit self explanatory, either she said it or not, if you dont believe her, perhaps she would confirm herself? see rnc.org for her address. i am happy to help any editors who ask and not happy to hear grief over not helping people who didnt request a source. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree I don't think it has to go to court. It only has to go to court if:

1. One or more delegates who are bound for candidate A try to vote for candidate B
2. The votes are unaccepted, ignored, challenged, or substituted.
3. The state chairman insists on sticking to votes as "bound"... for A rather than B
4. A debate ensues, the arguments based on rules and laws are made, the state delegation chairman does not relent, and announces the votes as bound.
5. An exception is taken by one or more delegates per Rule 37(b)
6. The convention chairman takes a roll call vote of each individual member of that state's delegation (also per Rule 37(b)).
7. The delegate(s) in question vote for B rather than A
8. Some objection is taken by the state chairman (or someone else).
9. Despite what the rules and laws quoted above say, and what the RNC legal counsel said in 2008, the RNC somehow backs the state chairman and counts those votes in favor of candidate A, as bound.

Only then would there even be basis to go to court. I suggest such a big fight would not be worth it to Romney or the RNC, and somewhere along the way, perhaps before the convention even starts, they will opt to recognize and respect the right of each delegate to vote per his or her own conscience, as they should, and which is likely to ultimately result in Romney's nomination anyway, but not with the numbers being publicized which are based on the assumption that "bound" delegates are really bound.

And, yes, Darkstar, we providing links in talk page discussions to help each other know about the relevant information and their sources, not to establish credibility (though it helps there too). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"'Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC: RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.' And, 'The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not'" What absolute drivel. This is 2012, not 2008. There are specific, new GOP rules as to when a candidate's name can be out into nomination & when a "roll call" vote can be demanded. Ron Paul's not going to meet either of those thresholds, period. Any attempt to throw the 2012 GOP national convention into chaos will seriously injure the so-called "Ron Paul Revolution" that so many hold near & dear to their hearts, and, specifically, the future prospects for Ron Paul's son in the U.S. Senate & politics in general. Guy1890 (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Some rules changed from 2008, others did not. We know about Rule 40. If you are aware of other rules that have changed that are pertinent to this discussion, go ahead and mention them. We do not know if Ron Paul will get his 5 states yet- that depends on the outcomes of the last few state conventions, as well as one's interpretation of Rule 40. So please do not state it as if it is a fact. Additionally, while your last sentence would be best served in a relevent section regarding, say, Paul's delegate strategy (or not at all, if we are to strictly follow your own advice above that this is not a forum), if you must write it please construct the sentence to make clear that this is your opinion, lest anyone interpret it as a threat. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"lest anyone interpret it as a threat." LOL - take it somewhere else Mr. "68.58.63.22". This is a joke. We're done here. Guy1890 (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Guy could you state specifically what new rule by its number? Rule 38,No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or congressional district to impose the "Unit Rule. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The so-called "Unit Rule" has been discussed at length on this Talk page. Check the archives yourself Mr. "i only speak the truth". Stop trying to re-hash things that were settled weeks & weeks ago. Guy1890 (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Guy, you said new rules, i ask you which, unless such rules actually exist, i suggest you refrain from editing here until you can get up to speed on the rnc rules. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This is just original research. We cannot know if the law applies to convention delegates unless we examine all relevant legislation and court decisions. It may be for example that another law creates an exemption and note that some delegates may be legally obligated to vote for a candidate. You need to provide reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Quoting laws that are clearly relevant (but possibly not complete) are primary sources, not OR. I agree we need secondary sources to put something in the article, but raising the relevant questions and issues here on the talk page makes it more likely that all known relevant information will be shared here, and, ultimately, hopefully used to improve the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Forming conclusions or leading readers to form conclusions based on a personal interpretation of primary sources is OR. It is not btw "clearly relevant" because it says nothing about conventions, where participants are delegated to select candidates on behalf of primary and caucus voters. TFD (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: "it says nothing about conventions"... You obviously did not read everything quoted above. The federal law in question, § 100.2 Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1)) (c), references conventions specifically, and explicitly defines them to be federal elections. The Federal Election Commission website, as a secondary source, explicitly states conventions are elections, citing this law as its primary source. That's also quoted above. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Think about this...from a rational point of view if you can....1 week ago you had NO IDEA this law existed. Nor did your poster boy GENIUS Ben Swann making $22,000 a year at a rinky dink Fox affiliate (until he gets fired in September). 5 weeks ago, NONE of you knew about Rule 11 or Rule 38. So...don't you think it is just POSSIBLE that there are still rules that you don't know about? Rules designed to prevent a few hundred immature whiners from, against he wishes of their own favored candidate, trying to disenfranchise over 50% of the voters to nominated one favored by just 11%? Moot point anyway siunce Ron Paul won't have 1144 delegates even by the BEST case scenario for him...and that is assuming that MA and NV vote for him even though they have both said they will honor the will of the people.74.67.106.1 (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mr. 74.67.106.1, please understand that while I have no desire to curtail honest and passionate discussion, I already reverted one of your comments because it was over the top in terms of its vitriol and divisiveness. Please understand that this Talk page is not for airing your personal grievances or petty descriptions of the various candidates, political pundits, or other editors. This Talk page exists to assist in developing the "Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012" page. So while you might have personal feelings on the various players, unless you can be more collegial in your tone, you will be reverted again, and I might also request a topic ban for you. Simple request, be nice. -- Avanu (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I seconded that Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Bu**hurt much? For the record, there are plenty of us here who read & studied the RNC's entire rulebook ages ago. It's a little long, but most of it is actually written very clearly & is easy to comprehend- so I encourage you to give it a glance. If there are other rules relevant to this discussion that "we don't know about", then by all means, please share them. If you study history a bit more, you'll actually find that the rules you imagine exist to prevent disenfranchisement of the will of popular voters were actually in place to do more of the opposite, to make things easier for the candidate favored by party elites. For example, it is no coincidence many conservative states' primaries were moved to May while many Mormon-heavy contests (e.g. Nevada) were moved up in the nominating calendar. All these "unbound" delegate positions filled by conventions & committee meetings are usually stuffed by party bosses. The fact that supporters of a 'minority' candidate are taking them instead may be unprecedented, but they are entirely within the rules to do so.

Funny that you would be so hypocritical as to talk about what I said and then START OFF your comment with the juvenile "bu**hurt much".74.67.106.1 (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you can acknowledge that such comments are juvenile- this is progress. Maybe now you'll review your own comments more carefully. Seeing as we've both taken a turn flinging a little mud at one another, perhaps we can move on to more constructive discussions? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but Romney is not at this point over 50% of the cumulative popular vote, despite turnout being depressed by the fact that the media has been incessantly declaring a winner had been effectively chosen weeks ago, with the implication that voting is now meaningless, and leaving voters with the impression all of the other candidates have dropped out. As Avanu said, please be more courteous and thoughtful with any future comments. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes he has...as of This week, Romney is over 50%. Wikipedia just hasn't updated their popular delegate count in awhile.74.67.106.1 (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is why comments are timestamped. You can see that at the time I wrote that, he was not. You must admit, given how long he's worn a cloak of inevitability (and sunk hundreds of millions in an effort to keep it), that it must be somewhat discouraging to him he has not done any better than half the vote. I guarantee you all these recent lopsided wins are not because people are voting for Romney, but because there were other interesting local or state races to show up for, and they just dutifully place a check to support "the nominee" while they're there. The Paul campaign is partially to blame for this- simply no one is competing for their primary vote anymore, so why go with anything but the default? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This silliness really needs to stop at some point people. The GOP national convention rules from 2008 aren't going to specifically apply to a convention in 2012. As for "Mormon-heavy contests", UT is almost dead last in this year's cycle, and NV has been occurring early in these kind of cycles for a while now. As for "conservative states", states like SC, AZ, WY, AK, ID, ND, OK, KS, AL & MS all occurred this cycle in or before March. Some of you people are unfortunately trying to grasp at straws that just aren't there. Guy1890 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Utah is an exception, yes. Other sorts of states that got moved up early include those in the liberal Northeast. States that are proportional (rather than winner-take-all by district or state) included those conservative southern states that Romney was not expected to do well in. He was therefore able to get some delegates there despite a poor showing. As the saying goes "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." The party has expected Romney to be the nominee for months, and there were many things that were adjusted to give him an easier path to the nomination. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on now - "the liberal Northeast"? NH's early status in these kind of cycles is legendary. I don't like it any more than many other people do, but that is the truth. At least MA & VT have been voting on Super Tuesday for quite a while now. VT has had its "Town Meeting Day" in early March for well over a century now. I'm not sure about ME, and CT, NY & PA may or may not have been "moved up" to April this time around. As for proportional vs. winner-take-all states, you can pretty much blame that decision on Michael Steele, who apparently was trying to gin up the kind of enthusiasm that the Democrats had in their 2008 primary season. Obviously, that didn't work out so well. Some early, winner-take-all states were even penalized for making their contest too early in this cycle. Neither Party should be having proportional delegate allocation (except maybe in ME & Nebraska) in their Presidential processes IMHO, but that's off-topic. Guy1890 (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You may be unaware that one of the things the GOP National Convention does is adopt rules for the next convention. Therefore, all these rules everyone is citing from 2008 are what will apply starting in 2012. So the 2008 rulebook I posted will be the standing rules of the convention this year unless suspended or modified by the delegates. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

These rules are more important in close races. With 2012, delegates will join momentum: [24] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)