The Delegate Fight: 2012

[J. J.]

Going to wait until the morning before seriously tackling Michigan.  A first glance would seem to suggest Romney has at least 13 delegates in the bag, and Santorum has at least 7.  I expect a majority of the remaining districts will break towards Santorum.

RCP is giving Romney 14, Santorum 12.  It looks like an even split of CD's.

[J. J.]

Politico reporting that Santorum may not qualify for upwards of 18 Ohio delegates because he didn't qualify for any in nine different congressional distircts.


I mean, we can talk about "momemtum" day and night but if THIS is how Santorum's campaign is being run, combined with failing to qualify for the VA ballot -- then wow. I knew Romney's campaign was organized, but I think it's the failure of the other campaigns to have any semblance of organization that is helping him more.

He is at least on the ballot in 6 of those congressional districts (he isn't in the other 3, for the purposes of district delegates), so he has a shot of 'winning' those delegates.  I assume the Ohio GOP will coordinate with his campaign when choosing whatever additional delegates need to be allocated.

I think there is a thread on the party rules on this issue.

[J. J.]

Maybe Gingrich wants to be the kingmaker. Paul probably won't have enough delegates to help Romney in August, Gingrich will. He can give Romney the nomination and ask for something in return (like the second spot).

I think that is it.

[J. J.]

Have no fear, Dick Morris is still an idiot.

• Some of the "Winner take all" states he counts for Romney are actually proportional (Oregon, Puerto Rico, etc)
• He also thinks Pennsylvania and North Carolina are WTA for some reason; PA elects delegates directly and NC is proportional

I agree that Morris is an idiot, but PR is WTA, if a candidate gets above 50%.

PA does elect delegates directly, but no preference is listed on the ballot, and they are totally unpledged.  It is very possible that Santorum will win big in the popular vote in PA, and lose a plurality, or even a majority, of the delegates.

Phil and I both agree on the unpledged aspect (though not the result) in PA, and, despite the fact that we support different candidates, neither of us like it.

[J. J.]

Nice job everyone.

[J. J.]

Plus it's very likely that Florida will be made proportional, which means Romney loses another 25 delegates from the current estimates. (Possibly Arizona as well)

No, that will never happen, unless the non-Mittens get a majority without having done that, in which event it will be moot.

Are you sure?  What would it take for the Santorum people to mount a credentials challenge of Florida at the convention?

A majority, including one of the contested delegations.  If Santorum challenges FL, AZ gets to vote on it.  If Santorum challenges AZ, FL gets to vote on it. 

[J. J.]

Plus it's very likely that Florida will be made proportional, which means Romney loses another 25 delegates from the current estimates. (Possibly Arizona as well)

No, that will never happen, unless the non-Mittens get a majority without having done that, in which event it will be moot.

Are you sure?  What would it take for the Santorum people to mount a credentials challenge of Florida at the convention?

A majority, including one of the contested delegations.  If Santorum challenges FL, AZ gets to vote on it.  If Santorum challenges AZ, FL gets to vote on it. 

If Romney is short of 1144, it won't matter. After both challenges, he will be well short of 1144.

What you are describing is an act of a banana republic.

What I am describing is found p. 616, ll. 20-30 of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (2011).  That is the rule.  He will need only to have a majority, minus the largest delegation.

For example, if there is a challenge to the FL delegation, Romney will only needs 1119 votes to have them seated.

BTW:  This is how Eisenhower got the nomination on the first ballot in 1952, IIRC.

[J. J.]

Plus it's very likely that Florida will be made proportional, which means Romney loses another 25 delegates from the current estimates. (Possibly Arizona as well)

No, that will never happen, unless the non-Mittens get a majority without having done that, in which event it will be moot.

Are you sure?  What would it take for the Santorum people to mount a credentials challenge of Florida at the convention?

A majority, including one of the contested delegations.  If Santorum challenges FL, AZ gets to vote on it.  If Santorum challenges AZ, FL gets to vote on it. 

If Romney is short of 1144, it won't matter. After both challenges, he will be well short of 1144.

What you are describing is an act of a banana republic.

What I am describing is found p. 616, ll. 20-30 of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (2011).  That is the rule.  He will need only to have a majority, minus the largest delegation.

For example, if there is a challenge to the FL delegation, Romney will only needs 1119 votes to have them seated.

BTW:  This is how Eisenhower got the nomination on the first ballot in 1952, IIRC.

Um, he will need 1169 since that counts the 50 delegates from Florida who won't be able to vote to seat themselves.

No, those fifty won't be counted in the majority. 

2286 total, with 50 from FL (according to RCP).  Subtract FL, 2236 total.  One half of that, 1118.  Majority in whole numbers 1119.

[J. J.]

Yes, that's right JJ, but BSB's point, is that if the 50 Florida Mittens delegates cannot vote, Mittens will need 1169 delegates in his corner, to get to 1119 without his 50 Florida delegates voting. Are you sure the Robert's Rules or Order apply here?

It lowers the majority needed to adopt.  As long as Romney gets to 1119, without FL. he has it.  The majority, according to RCP, is 1,144, with FL.  If FL is challenged, the majority drops to 1,119, without FL.  He'd need 1,169 only if you do count FL.  Or, Romney needs 1,119 without FL.

I know that Robert's Rules Newly Revised, current edition is their parliamentary authority, but the convention is covered by US House Rules, .  I checked and it is in their own rules, (Rule 23).  Only one delegation may be challenged at one time.

Further, if FL would be challenged, it would be up to the state chair to appoint the delegates.

[J. J.]

Torrie, here is the rule regarding the penalty:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the only challenge could be that FL should get its full number of delegates.  Then that would create a vacancy that would default back to the state rules:

Rule 17 c

(c) Where neither the rules adopted by a state
Republican Party nor state laws provide a method for
filling vacancies in its national convention delegation,
the state Republican Party should make every effort to
elect those individuals filling the vacancies in the
delegation in the same manner as the delegates were
originally elected or selected, or by vote of the state
Republican Party executive committee or if the state
executive committee has not filled the vacancy by ten
(10) days prior to the convention, by vote of the state
delegation. This section shall not apply to the delegates
allocated to the state in Rule No. 13(a)(2).



The problem is that the FL rules then would kick in:

Rule K:
In the event a delegate or an alternate delegate is unable to attend the Republican National Convention, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, or his or her designee, shall select his or her replacement.

Rule M (part):

In the event that the Republican National Convention refuses to seat the full allotment of Florida delegates, all remaining delegates shall be Delegates at Large and shall be selected by the Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida from the original delegation. In that event, the Chairman shall select at least one (1) delegate from each congressional district, with the advice and consent of each State Executive Committee Congressional District Chairman.

http://rpof.org/wp-content/uploads/RPOFRule10.pdf

If the credentials committee were to rule that they shouldn't be penalized under Rule 16, arguably under Rule M, but definitely under Rule K.  It doesn't do any good unless the credentials committee decides to violate their own rules.

[J. J.]

Those rules are not helpful if some additional penalty is decided upon for winner take all early states, as to who will be removed, and who added.

However, in the rule below there is one critical word in there, "and" which makes it clear to me that even if you violate the no winner take all primary if it is too early rule and hold the primary too early, the sole penalty even for the double violation is just losing half your delegates. There is no ambiguity. Therefore, I just don't see it happening.

My inserted text is in brackets, and I bolded and underlined the critical "and/or" words.  It is not a close case.

RULE NO. 16
Enforcement of Rules
(a) If any state or state Republican Party
violates The Rules of the Republican Party relating to [1]
the timing of the election or selection process with the
result that any delegate from that state to the national
convention is bound by statute or rule to vote for a
presidential nominee selected or determined before the
first day of the month in which that state is authorized
by Rule No. 15(b) to vote for a presidential candidate [to wit, too early a primary]
and/or [2] elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates or
alternate delegates to the national convention [that word allocate here covers an illicit winner take all primary], [then the penalty for either the one or both violations is that] the
number of delegates to the national convention from
that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), and
the corresponding alternate delegates also shall be
reduced by the same percentage. ... .

I would not agree, and would note that the rule is covered by Robert's p. 591, "The imposition of a definite penalty for a particular action prohibits the increase or diminution of the penalty (p. 592, ll. 1-2)."  Robert's would apply as this decision is not made within the convention and the committee is covered by RONR.

Even if we were to follow you logic here, the majority needed would be reduced to 1131.

[J. J.]

In a reminder to us all that the whims of the superdelegates may be fickle, we have the first switch of the season:

Carlos Méndez (PR) has switched his support from Gingrich to Romney.  This gives Romney the unanimous support of the Puerto Rico delegation.

There were six additional GA delegates (I'm guessing statewide) given to Romney, possibly some to Gingrich as well.

[J. J.]

Now 1131 pops up for some reason. So many numbers, so little time. Anyway, I revised my post above, while you were responding to my earlier text, deciding that I should read rule 15(b) as well just to make sure I was not putting my foot in it, which upon reading, just reinforced my opinion I think. So maybe you want to revise yours, or not.

No, the penalty is the number of delegates to the national convention from that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), not "75%."

[J. J.]

The Committee on Contests, the Republican National Committee, and the Committee on Credentials will I'm sure take all of these fine points into account, but nothing prevents the convention as a whole from simply rejecting their findings out of hand, so long as the contest was appealed all the way to the convention.

The would still need a majority (without FL) to do it, which comes back to 1119.

[J. J.]

Now 1131 pops up for some reason. So many numbers, so little time. Anyway, I revised my post above, while you were responding to my earlier text, deciding that I should read rule 15(b) as well just to make sure I was not putting my foot in it, which upon reading, just reinforced my opinion I think. So maybe you want to revise yours, or not.

No, the penalty is the number of delegates to the national convention from that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), not "75%."

Who implied that it was 75%?

99 normally, 50 with a 50% cut, 25 with a 50% cut of that.  A total reduction of about 75%.

[J. J.]

There are a few reasonable ways to contest Florida delegates:

1) Remove all sanctions, delegates are allocated as they were by the original FL rules (WTA by CD and At-Large.  Gingrich picks up a few delegates, but Romney is the net winner).

I think it would be possible to remove the early sanction, and permit a proportional seating and this would be the cleanest way, but it won't help Gingrich very much, if at all.  I would raise the majority to 1,168.  In other words, if Mittens gets 25 of the newly seated delegates, he still has a majority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there is a political problem.  Newt has to say "I want one rule to apply, but not the other."  It is possible, but it could offend a lot of people.  Conversely, Mitt could move to remove the early penalty but keep the WTA rule without a penalty.  I think there would be outrage at either, if it effects the result.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is, this violates the rule.  In fact, everything here contemplates the existing rules being amended or suspended. 

The National Committee could amend them prior to the convention, but the convention can, in adopting the rules, amend them.  The problem is that the certification of the delegates occurs prior to adopting the rules.  Approval could be laid on the table, by a majority vote.  The problem is, the delegates from FL will be seated at that point.

I don't see this as workable solution if Romney has 1144 delegates, with FL, who will the way he wants them too, or Santorum/Gingrich can persuade the National Committee to amend the temporary rules.

Gingrich/Santorum might have a better shot challenging at the state level.

[J. J.]

The Florida rules say that 50 At-Large delegates will be seated if "the Republican National Convention refuses to seat the full allotment of Florida delegates," but it really doesn't seem that the Florida rules could possibly apply at that point.  The Republican National Committee (which decides which 50 of the 99 delegates will appear on the Temporary Roll of the Convention) could defer to the Florida rules, but I don't think they'd need to.

The RNC Rules defer back to the state:

RULE NO. 17
Vacancies in a State Delegation
(a) Where the rules adopted by a state
Republican Party provide a method for filling vacancies
in its national convention delegation, they shall be filled
pursuant to such method.
(b) Where the rules adopted by a state
Republican Party do not provide a method for filling
vacancies in its national convention delegation, and
where the state laws do provide such a method of
replacement, they shall be filled pursuant to such
method provided by state laws.
(c) Where neither the rules adopted by a state
Republican Party nor state laws provide a method for
filling vacancies in its national convention delegation,
the state Republican Party should make every effort to
elect those individuals filling the vacancies in the
delegation in the same manner as the delegates were
originally elected or selected, or by vote of the state
Republican Party executive committee or if the state
executive committee has not filled the vacancy by ten
(10) days prior to the convention, by vote of the state
delegation. This section shall not apply to the delegates
allocated to the state in Rule No. 13(a)(2) [RNC members].

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless there is something worked out, FL will either provide 50 delegates for Mittens, or the majority will be 1119.  I do not see any method for Newt to get them, unless he goes through the National Committee or the Florida State Committee.

[J. J.]

RULE NO. 17
Vacancies in a State Delegation...

99 is greater than 50.  We're not dealing with vacancies in a delegation, we're dealing with Excess Delegates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republican National Committee decides which 50 of the 99 delegates is placed on the Temporary Roll, then the normal contest procedure ensues.

That rule only deals with more delegates elected than there are positions.  There, in that circumstance, would be less than the authorized number of delegates, not "more."  It is a vacancy and would be filled as such.

[J. J.]

According to the rules of the Republican Party (including the 50% penalty in rule 16), Florida is entitled to 50 delegates.  Florida, according to its own rules, will be sending a list to the RNC secretary with 99 delegates on it, more than they are entitled to.  This is an excess of delegates, and falls under Rule 18.

Okay, I see what you are referring to.  I'm not sure, however, that they will send more than 50 (49 to be precise).  It would probably be safer not to.

[J. J.]

what is an unplegged delegate? A free delegate with no obligation to vote for "his" candidate?

A delegate that is not bound to support any candidate; he may use his own judgment when voting.

[J. J.]

Erc, I don't think you're reading the rules right. The delegates that would have gone to candidate who did not meet the threshold become uncommitted. It should be Santorum 10, Romney 5, Uncommitted 5 (+5).

You are in agreement with Fox. 

[J. J.]

Any updated results on CD's? I know Santorum only won IL-12, IL-15, and IL-17, and Romney the rest of IL. LA is of course Santorum except for possibly LA-2.

I think someone mentioned they were not up at this point.

[J. J.]

So were the caucuses just a beauty contest? It truly is a joke that 3rd place can get the vast majority of delegates.

It is like MO in that circumstance.