Republican Delegate Math

[Full-Auto]

Do you realize you ******* moron, that the GOP doesn't just get to skirt parliamentary procedure just because they might not like the outcome? IF a majority of delegates on the floor of the convention nominate a certain slate, that's binding. The GOP doesn't have any recourse other than to break their own rules, which if we watch what went down in Missouri last week, they end up losing that battle. They tried doing that in St. Charles County, and the majority Paul delegates reconvened at a later date and nominated a slate of delegates the LEGAL way.

Why you don't seem to understand that the process has certain RULES, is beyond me. Majority of popular votes is not what dictates our electoral process in this country. This is a representative republic. The minority can win if it organizes properly. That's how it works in this country.

Embrace it.

And do you realize, you ******* moron, that you are arguing a completely irrelevant point? Romney could get zero delegates in Missouri and he will still win without a brokered convention. It doesn't seem to be sinking into your head that at the end of the day Romney will need about 10% of the total delegates you keep harping about to win the nomination without a brokered convention.

Paul will not win. Give it the **** up.

Republican Delegate Count - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

 

[BluePhantom]

Do you realize you ******* moron, that the GOP doesn't just get to skirt parliamentary procedure just because they might not like the outcome? IF a majority of delegates on the floor of the convention nominate a certain slate, that's binding. The GOP doesn't have any recourse other than to break their own rules, which if we watch what went down in Missouri last week, they end up losing that battle. They tried doing that in St. Charles County, and the majority Paul delegates reconvened at a later date and nominated a slate of delegates the LEGAL way.

Why you don't seem to understand that the process has certain RULES, is beyond me. Majority of popular votes is not what dictates our electoral process in this country. This is a representative republic. The minority can win if it organizes properly. That's how it works in this country.

Embrace it.

And do you realize, you ******* moron, that you are arguing a completely irrelevant point? Romney could get zero delegates in Missouri and he will still win without a brokered convention. It doesn't seem to be sinking into your head that at the end of the day Romney will need about 10% of the total delegates you keep harping about to win the nomination without a brokered convention.

Paul will not win. Give it the **** up.

Republican Delegate Count - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

Yep...that's precisely where I said it was and where it would be at this time. It's going completely according to the math I have laid out twice now

 

[Jackson]

Romney was not my choice, but it is all about ABO. Time to close ranks around Romney. It's better than four more years of Obama.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Why are they worried then?

MORE Ron Paul Election Fraud 3-24-12 GOP Vote Rigging Hidden Cam - YouTube

 

[BluePhantom]

Why are they worried then?

MORE Ron Paul Election Fraud 3-24-12 GOP Vote Rigging Hidden Cam - YouTube

THAT'S election fraud? Someone trying to convince others to vote a certain way is what is known as "campaigning".

 

[Paulie]

Do you realize you ******* moron, that the GOP doesn't just get to skirt parliamentary procedure just because they might not like the outcome? IF a majority of delegates on the floor of the convention nominate a certain slate, that's binding. The GOP doesn't have any recourse other than to break their own rules, which if we watch what went down in Missouri last week, they end up losing that battle. They tried doing that in St. Charles County, and the majority Paul delegates reconvened at a later date and nominated a slate of delegates the LEGAL way.

Why you don't seem to understand that the process has certain RULES, is beyond me. Majority of popular votes is not what dictates our electoral process in this country. This is a representative republic. The minority can win if it organizes properly. That's how it works in this country.

Embrace it.

And do you realize, you ******* moron, that you are arguing a completely irrelevant point? Romney could get zero delegates in Missouri and he will still win without a brokered convention. It doesn't seem to be sinking into your head that at the end of the day Romney will need about 10% of the total delegates you keep harping about to win the nomination without a brokered convention.

Paul will not win. Give it the **** up.

Why do you keep going back to Romney? I'm not trying to claim any certain candidate is going to win I'm just pointing out where your errors in delegate math are because you're giving certain candidates delegates in states where they're clearly not going to win them.

The fact that you think the popular vote has anything to do with delegates in a lot of these states is pretty retarded on your part.

Here's an example, using North Dakota's GOP rules for delegate allocation:

Rules and Modes « North Dakota Republican Party

Delegate Allocation:
North Dakota’s delegates to the Republican National Convention in 2012 shall caucus prior to or at the convention to discuss voluntarily apportioning delegate representation on the first ballot to reflect the results of the Presidential Caucus, with any fractional result rounded to the nearest whole delegate. However, any such apportionment on the first ballot shall be strictly voluntary. The delegates remain free to vote their conscience on all balloting.

There's no rule that prevents delegates from choosing who they want if they're unbound delegates. Would you PREFER that they choose according to the popular vote? I can see why you would. But are they REQUIRED to? NO.

And that's in any of the caucus states. The GOP can try to skirt their own rules and prevent slates from being nominated and elected, but they're doing so at their own risk because it's AGAINST THE RULES.

 

[kaz]

So with the below analysis the writing is on the wall here. The following questions must be asked:

1) Isn't it finally time for Santorum and Gingrich to simply pack it up and throw support behind Romney?

2) Isn't it time for Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich supporters to accept reality and start asking the question: "am I really going to vote for Obama or refuse to vote out of protest and allow Obama to win?"

3) Isn't it time for Santorum to shut the hell up and stop giving the media juicy sound bytes that serve only to humiliate the Republican Party and give the left weapons with which to stereotype the Republican Party?

I agree with #3, but it's hard to decide to stop being an idiot when you are one. But as for the rest, I don't agree with your assumption that a prolonged process harms the Republican candidate at all. With a Marxist as the Democratic nominee, it's frankly not going to be hard to rally the supporters of the losers, particularly with a good VP choice. Most elections at this point there is one Republican left and I've already decided to vote third party. This year there are three and I'm voting Republican even though I don't like any of them. Particularly Santorum who's as big an oaf as Al Gore.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Romney was not my choice, but it is all about ABO. Time to close ranks around Romney. It's better than four more years of Obama.

I hope you never ask the question as to why you can't seem to get a Conservative as the GOP nominee for President.

 

[Paulie]

Romney was not my choice, but it is all about ABO. Time to close ranks around Romney. It's better than four more years of Obama.

I hope you never ask the question as to why you can't seem to get a Conservative as the GOP nominee for President.

It's pretty sad. They settled for McCain last time and now they're settling for Romney.

The GOP is definitely not a conservative party anymore.

 

[Paulie]

Do you realize you ******* moron, that the GOP doesn't just get to skirt parliamentary procedure just because they might not like the outcome? IF a majority of delegates on the floor of the convention nominate a certain slate, that's binding. The GOP doesn't have any recourse other than to break their own rules, which if we watch what went down in Missouri last week, they end up losing that battle. They tried doing that in St. Charles County, and the majority Paul delegates reconvened at a later date and nominated a slate of delegates the LEGAL way.

Why you don't seem to understand that the process has certain RULES, is beyond me. Majority of popular votes is not what dictates our electoral process in this country. This is a representative republic. The minority can win if it organizes properly. That's how it works in this country.

Embrace it.

And do you realize, you ******* moron, that you are arguing a completely irrelevant point? Romney could get zero delegates in Missouri and he will still win without a brokered convention. It doesn't seem to be sinking into your head that at the end of the day Romney will need about 10% of the total delegates you keep harping about to win the nomination without a brokered convention.

Paul will not win. Give it the **** up.

Why do you keep going back to Romney? I'm not trying to claim any certain candidate is going to win I'm just pointing out where your errors in delegate math are because you're giving certain candidates delegates in states where they're clearly not going to win them.

The fact that you think the popular vote has anything to do with delegates in a lot of these states is pretty retarded on your part.

Here's an example, using North Dakota's GOP rules for delegate allocation:

Rules and Modes « North Dakota Republican Party

Delegate Allocation:
North Dakota’s delegates to the Republican National Convention in 2012 shall caucus prior to or at the convention to discuss voluntarily apportioning delegate representation on the first ballot to reflect the results of the Presidential Caucus, with any fractional result rounded to the nearest whole delegate. However, any such apportionment on the first ballot shall be strictly voluntary. The delegates remain free to vote their conscience on all balloting.

There's no rule that prevents delegates from choosing who they want if they're unbound delegates. Would you PREFER that they choose according to the popular vote? I can see why you would. But are they REQUIRED to? NO.

And that's in any of the caucus states. The GOP can try to skirt their own rules and prevent slates from being nominated and elected, but they're doing so at their own risk because it's AGAINST THE RULES.

^ This right here is why this country is a republic, not a democracy. It doesn't matter if 99% of the people vote for Santorum in Missouri. If the other 1% of the people who don't want him elected, get themselves placed as delegates and are diligent enough to work their way through the conventions, they can keep him from being elected. This country wasn't set up to aid the majority, it was set up to protect the rights of the minority.

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

 

[BluePhantom]

Why do you keep going back to Romney? I'm not trying to claim any certain candidate is going to win I'm just pointing out where your errors in delegate math are because you're giving certain candidates delegates in states where they're clearly not going to win them.

The whole analysis is about Romney genius. If Romney can get to 1,144 delegates then what the other three get or how they get it is completely irrelevant.

The fact that you think the popular vote has anything to do with delegates in a lot of these states is pretty retarded on your part.

And as I have pointed out...the total number of unpledged delegates...the delegates you are referring to that can do whatever they want...is 567 out of 2,286 total delegates. That's roughly 25% of the total delegates that are unpledged and can do as you are arguing.

If you read post #57, you will see that the whole point is that Romney only needs a small amount of those to avoid a brokered convention. Now in reality he will probably get 40% or so of them. That's WAY more than he needs. Assuming my projections on future bound primaries hold up (so far they have), Romney would have to be held to below roughly 10% of those unpledged delegates in order to force a brokered convention.

That's the only point that matters in regard to your argument. Paul can take 80% of those unpledged delegates and as long as Romney get's that 10% or so...it's over.

 

[kaz]

Romney was not my choice, but it is all about ABO. Time to close ranks around Romney. It's better than four more years of Obama.

I hope you never ask the question as to why you can't seem to get a Conservative as the GOP nominee for President.

It's pretty sad. They settled for McCain last time and now they're settling for Romney.

The GOP is definitely not a conservative party anymore.

No, they are not

 

[Paulie]

Why do you keep going back to Romney? I'm not trying to claim any certain candidate is going to win I'm just pointing out where your errors in delegate math are because you're giving certain candidates delegates in states where they're clearly not going to win them.

The whole analysis is about Romney genius. If Romney can get to 1,144 delegates then what the other three get or how they get it is completely irrelevant.

The fact that you think the popular vote has anything to do with delegates in a lot of these states is pretty retarded on your part.

And as I have pointed out...the total number of unpledged delegates...the delegates you are referring to that can do whatever they want...is 567 out of 2,286 total delegates. That's roughly 25% of the total delegates that are unpledged and can do as you are arguing.

If you read post #57, you will see that the whole point is that Romney only needs a small amount of those to avoid a brokered convention. Now in reality he will probably get 40% or so of them. That's WAY more than he needs. Assuming my projections on future bound primaries hold up (so far they have), Romney would have to be held to below roughly 10% of those unpledged delegates in order to force a brokered convention.

That's the only point that matters in regard to your argument. Paul can take 80% of those unpledged delegates and as long as Romney get's that 10% or so...it's over.

As long as Santorum and Gingrich keep splitting the vote in the winner take all or proportional bound delegate states, it is not a lock for Romney.

Gingrich is probably out soon, but Santorum is KILLING it for Romney. There isn't a clear path to 1144 for him right now with Santorum still in. And it's anyone's guess as to who Santorum's delegates would choose if he dropped between now and the RNC. I know a lot of people who voted Santorum but still like Paul. And most who vote Santorum despise Romney.

So you can go ahead with your little fantasy analysis that is already flawed as it is, but he doesn't have a clear path as of right now.

 

[BluePhantom]

As long as Santorum and Gingrich keep splitting the vote in the winner take all or proportional bound delegate states, it is not a lock for Romney.

Jesus H. Christ. Santorum and Gingrich splitting the vote in the winner take all states HELPS Romney. They split the anti-Romney vote and Romney ends up with the most and wins the state...since it's a "winner take all state" he takes all the delegates of that state. In the cases of Virginia and Idaho it didn't matter anyhow. Romney got over 50% of the vote which in those states turns it from proportional to winner take all. The same is true of New York and Connecticut. It's proportional unless one candidate gets 50% and then it's winner take all. Gingrich being in the race will hurt Romney in those two states but it will help him in Wisconsin, DC, Maryland, California, etc.

Gingrich is probably out soon, but Santorum is KILLING it for Romney. There isn't a clear path to 1144 for him right now with Santorum still in.

Read post #54. I have spelled that path out VERY clearly.

And it's anyone's guess as to who Santorum's delegates would choose if he dropped between now and the RNC. I know a lot of people who voted Santorum but still like Paul. And most who vote Santorum despise Romney.

Paul can have all of them. Paul can take 100% of Santorum's delegates (which he can't by the way...that's not the way it works) and Romney would still win.

So you can go ahead with your little fantasy analysis that is already flawed as it is, but he doesn't have a clear path as of right now.

As you are clearly mathematically challenged I suppose I can see how you might believe Paul has a prayer in hell. Enjoy your little fantasy of a Paul nomination.

 

[Paulie]

As long as Santorum and Gingrich keep splitting the vote in the winner take all or proportional bound delegate states, it is not a lock for Romney.

Jesus H. Christ. Santorum and Gingrich splitting the vote in the winner take all states HELPS Romney. They split the anti-Romney vote and Romney ends up with the most and wins the state...since it's a "winner take all state" he takes all the delegates of that state. In the cases of Virginia and Idaho it didn't matter anyhow. Romney got over 50% of the vote which in those states turns it from proportional to winner take all. The same is true of New York and Connecticut. It's proportional unless one candidate gets 50% and then it's winner take all. Gingrich being in the race will hurt Romney in those two states but it will help him in Wisconsin, DC, Maryland, California, etc.

Gingrich is probably out soon, but Santorum is KILLING it for Romney. There isn't a clear path to 1144 for him right now with Santorum still in.

Read post #54. I have spelled that path out VERY clearly.

And it's anyone's guess as to who Santorum's delegates would choose if he dropped between now and the RNC. I know a lot of people who voted Santorum but still like Paul. And most who vote Santorum despise Romney.

Paul can have all of them. Paul can take 100% of Santorum's delegates (which he can't by the way...that's not the way it works) and Romney would still win.

So you can go ahead with your little fantasy analysis that is already flawed as it is, but he doesn't have a clear path as of right now.

As you are clearly mathematically challenged I suppose I can see how you might believe Paul has a prayer in hell. Enjoy your little fantasy of a Paul nomination.

In the winner take all states, Virginia for instance, it's not based on 50% of the entire vote count for the state, it's congressional districts. Paul won 3 delegates in VA because he won more than 50% in a district.

You spelled out nothing. You've given Romney more delegates than he actually has right now currently. All acounts out of IA and NV are showing Paul delegates winning the majority of slates so far in their conventions. Paul is most likely going to win almost all of the delegates in those states. I know you don't believe that because the media didn't tell you, but if I have to go dig up all the local news station reports in those states showing clear Paul delegate victories all over the states, I will.

Then there's ME, CO, and WA. Romney is being given 30 delegates in WA by the MSM, while Paul is sweeping many of the conventions there. Same with Maine. He's doing pretty well in CO too, with accounts of getting at least 50% delegate representation going into the district conventions.

Alaska and Idaho are also very strong Paul delegate states right now as well.

Sorry bro but you're giving Romney way too many delegates as it currently stands and you're refusing to listen to the reports on the ground from all those conventions where Romney is clearly NOT winning delegates.

This is where you rebuttal with "the GOP won't allow that" and then I remind you AGAIN that they have no choice because the game is being played by their own rules.

 

[BluePhantom]

In the winner take all states, Virginia for instance, it's not based on 50% of the entire vote count for the state, it's congressional districts. Paul won 3 delegates in VA because he won more than 50% in a district.

In regards to Virginia I stand corrected. The at-large delegates (13) went to Romney because he got over 50% of the vote in Virginia as a whole. Paul won one district and got the 3 delegates for that. Virginia's 3 RNC delegates have yet to declare.

However, that's Virginia and they do it a bit differently. D.C. and Florida, for example, are straight winner take all.

"All 99 50 of Florida's delegates to the Republican National Convention are allocated in today's Florida Presidential Primary. [Republican Party of Florida Rule 10 B. and D] The candidate receiving the greatest number of statewide votes shall receive all of the At-Large Delegates. (Since Florida has been sanctioned, all delegates will be elected at-large.)"

Florida Republican Delegation 2012


"16 of 19 of the District of Columbia's delegates to the Republican National Convention are pledged to a presidential contender in today's District of Columbia Presidential Preference Primary. 16 National Convention delegates are to be pledged to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary [Rule IV. C. 4]."


District of Columbia Republican Delegation 2012

Then there's ME, CO, and WA. Romney is being given 30 delegates in WA by the MSM, while Paul is sweeping many of the conventions there. Same with Maine. He's doing pretty well in CO too, with accounts of getting at least 50% delegate representation going into the district conventions.

read post #54. Did you see me allocate any delegates to Romney from IA, WA, CO, ME, MO? NO...I didn't. I grouped them into the 567 unpledged delegates that you keep crying about that Romney needs 10% of.

Regarding Nevada, you are wrong

"28 National Convention delegates are proportionally bound to Presidential contenders based on today's caucus vote.

Romney: 16,486 votes, 50.119%, 14 delegates" <-- those are bound delegates, sorry pal.

Nevada Republican Delegation 2012

Alaska and Idaho are also very strong Paul delegate states right now as well.

"Tuesday 6 March - Saturday 24 March 2012: 24 of 27 delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to presidential contenders based on the results of the voting in today's District Conventions. "

"Romney 24 × 4,554 ÷ 14,132 = 7.7339
Round up to 8 24 8

Santorum 24 × 4,254 ÷ 14,132 = 7.2245
Round up to 8 16 8

Paul 24 × 3,410 ÷ 14,132 = 5.7911
Round up to 6 8 6

Gingrich 24 × 1,878 ÷ 14,132 = 3.1894
Limited to 2 2 2"

Alaska Republican Delegation 2012



"Due to Article VI, Section 5 of the Rules of the Idaho Republican Party pertaining to Apportionment and Selection of Delegates to the Republican National Convention, once certified, Mitt Romney will receive all of Idaho&#8217;s 32 delegates."

Idaho Republican Delegation 2012

Sorry bro but you're giving Romney way too many delegates as it currently stands and you're refusing to listen to the reports on the ground from all those conventions where Romney is clearly NOT winning delegates.

Sorry bro but you clearly don't understand the difference between a non-binding caucus (IA, MO, etc) and a binding caucus (NV, ID, etc). In my analysis in post #54 I did not include any delegates from unbound states. I lumped them all together in the 567 total unbound delegates nationwide that Romney needs about 10% of. Are you starting to get it now?

 

[Paulie]

Yeah you're right on NV, I forgot about the proportioning there. ID and AK as well. I'm going to have to really go over your math and cross check to what the MSM is reporting because I have a feeling you're using at least some of their calculations which is not going to do you any favors.

I'm still having trouble getting over you claiming that the GOP can just change rules at will to keep delegate slates from being elected, even when there's a majority on the floor against it.

 

[BluePhantom]

Yeah you're right on NV, I forgot about the proportioning there. ID and AK as well. I'm going to have to really go over your math and cross check to what the MSM is reporting because I have a feeling you're using at least some of their calculations which is not going to do you any favors.

I'm still having trouble getting over you claiming that the GOP can just change rules at will to keep delegate slates from being elected, even when there's a majority on the floor against it.

Feel free to check. The math is complicated and I certainly could have made some calculation errors. The other thing to keep in mind is that of those 567 unpledged delegates, 165 of them are RNC delegates. The RNC delegates are the chairman of the state republican party, the state's national committee person, etc. In other words they are the top three officials for the Republican party for each state that has them. Those people are NOT Ron Paul supporters. They are professional (or at least semi-professional) politicians who play the game of politics. They are not just people who hang around after a caucus and get elected to go to the state convention by default. Thus far, according to RCP, 34 of those RNC delegates have declared and 27 of them have gone to Romney. That's 79.4%. ONE has gone to Paul.

Now let's say just for argument that Romney's rate of acquisition for RNC delegates falls to 50% of the remaining RNC. He still pulls 66 of those remaining RNC delegates for a total of 93, which is 16.4% of the total unpledged delegates....that is well above the 10% of the total unpledged delegates he needs to secure the nomination. In other words, Romney will get the number of unledged delegates he needs to avoid a brokered convention just on RNC delegates alone.


RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Republican Delegate Count

 

[Paulie]

Yeah you're right on NV, I forgot about the proportioning there. ID and AK as well. I'm going to have to really go over your math and cross check to what the MSM is reporting because I have a feeling you're using at least some of their calculations which is not going to do you any favors.

I'm still having trouble getting over you claiming that the GOP can just change rules at will to keep delegate slates from being elected, even when there's a majority on the floor against it.

Feel free to check. The math is complicated and I certainly could have made some calculation errors. The other thing to keep in mind is that of those 567 unpledged delegates, 165 of them are RNC delegates. The RNC delegates are the chairman of the state republican party, the state's national committee person, etc. In other words they are the top three officials for the Republican party for each state that has them. Those people are NOT Ron Paul supporters. They are professional (or at least semi-professional) politicians who play the game of politics. They are not just people who hang around after a caucus and get elected to go to the state convention by default. Thus far, according to RCP, 34 of those RNC delegates have declared and 27 of them have gone to Romney. That's 79.4%. ONE has gone to Paul.

Now let's say just for argument that Romney's rate of acquisition for RNC delegates falls to 50% of the remaining RNC he still pulls 66 of those delegates which is 11.6%....that is above the 10% of the total unpledged delegates he needs to secure the nomination. In other words, Romney will get the number of unledged delegates he needs to avoid a brokered convention just on RNC delegates alone.


RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Republican Delegate Count

You've got a few errors, but nothing that really changes things drastically. I think FL forfeits some delegates for moving their primary, for instance.

The problem is that there's a lot of winner take all primaries left in areas where Santorum isn't going to win.

I never claimed this was going to be a sure fire open convention, but I still don't see the path being a lock quite yet.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Romney was not my choice, but it is all about ABO. Time to close ranks around Romney. It's better than four more years of Obama.

I hope you never ask the question as to why you can't seem to get a Conservative as the GOP nominee for President.

It's pretty sad. They settled for McCain last time and now they're settling for Romney.

The GOP is definitely not a conservative party anymore.

And will likely never be again unless there's a legitimate threat of a third party candidate.

The problem there is that a Conservative Third Party candidate will almost certainly result in a Democrat in the White House, so a lot of Conservatives will keep falling in behind a GOP candidate, who is essentially a Democrat anyways, simply out of fear of electing a liberal.

Its the reason that Conservatives are largely irrelevant on the Presidential level. Just as Liberals are largely irrelevant too. It's only at the Congressional level that they actually have the ability to mount a challenge internally and pull a candidate towards the Left or Right.