GOP convention rule question. What does this mean?

[D. Medvedev Fan]

What does this mean?

"GOP rules call for states that schedule their nominating contests before Feb. 5 to lose half their delegates to the convention,"

From http://news.yahoo.com/featured (http://news.yahoo.com/featured) States poised to flout GOP primary rules By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer.

[Teallaura]

What does this mean?

"GOP rules call for states that schedule their nominating contests before Feb. 5 to lose half their delegates to the convention,"

From http://news.yahoo.com/featured (http://news.yahoo.com/featured) States poised to flout GOP primary rules By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer.

It means that if a state schedules its primary before Feb. 5 the GOP will only seat half that states delegates at the convention, effectively halving the states voting power. States have been clamoring to move up their primaries so that candidates/parties pay them more attention during the campaign. The Dems are threatening not to seat any of Florida's delegates because Florida moved its primary up so much.

It's kinda unfair since primaries of both parties occur at the same time so if Dems controlling the state legislature in state A move up their primary the GOP may penalize that state as well although the Republicans there had no role in the move (it's the other way around but that's basically what happened in Florida). The Dems are making a big mistake if they fail to seat Florida's delegates in my opinion - they could lose a tremendous amount of grass root support that way and possibly even the state. That's probably why the GOP is being a bit less draconian.

[Timothy Leary]

I thought the individual state parties were the ones that schedule their own primaries?

[DesertBerean]

:huh: but the state pays for the primary voting? Color me ignorant...I'm independent.

[Norrin Radd]

I thought the individual state parties were the ones that schedule their own primaries?

Yeah, but the parties are not obligated to accept their delegates unconditionally.

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Dems are making a big mistake if they fail to seat Florida's delegates in my opinion - they could lose a tremendous amount of grass root support that way and possibly even the state. That's probably why the GOP is being a bit less draconian.Actually, both are desperate because the primaries decide the candidate, not the Convention. When was the last Convention we were left wondering who the nominee would be? Even if they don't seat any Florida delegates, the strong influence of the primary will help decide who will be the nominee by the time the Convention arrives, making Florida's delegates being their irrelevent.

[Jackie Fox]

It's pressure on the states to stop moving up their contests. It means they'd cut the amount of their delegates by half, if they move up.

It is the province of the National Party since they decide the allocation of delegates. The Rs and Ds use formulas based on how reliable a state is in voting for them, how populous they are, and how many Senators, Congress members, and Governors are members of that party.

This is theoretical. I'm a Democrat and dumb about this stuff, but I'm from Alabama. So theoretically they could do this:

We're a reliably Republican state. We voted Republican every time since 1976, so they could give us 14 delegates for those 7 elections.

We have 7 Congressional representatives. That's determined by population so they could give us 14 just for our population.

Our ratio in the Congressional delegation is 5/2 Republican/Democratic. so they could give us 10 for that.

We have 2 Republican Senators: another 4.

We have a Republican Governor: another 2.

That's 46 total. But if we move up they could slash that by half giving us 23 instead.

The theory is the state parties will buckle under because everybody wants more delegates.

If push comes to shove it's unclear whether they'd really do it or not or if this is just bluffing.

[Teallaura]

Actually, both are desperate because the primaries decide the candidate, not the Convention. When was the last Convention we were left wondering who the nominee would be? Even if they don't seat any Florida delegates, the strong influence of the primary will help decide who will be the nominee by the time the Convention arrives, making Florida's delegates being their irrelevent.Not really - like the Electoral College delegates are not required to vote as their state dictates. It's rarely at issue but in a close contest it can be a big bit of leverage state parties can use to get more support from the national party.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not really - like the Electoral College delegates are not required to vote as their state dictates. It's rarely at issue but in a close contest it can be a big bit of leverage state parties can use to get more support from the national party.And I ask again, when was the last time we saw such a case? 1860?

In the 2004 primary, I was voting for who I wanted as the vice president, not who I wanted to run for president. That was already decided by then. The Conventions are meaningless with respect to choosing who will run under the ticket.

[Teallaura]

Jimmy, I said it's rarely at issue - I merely pointed out that it can happen.

And no, not 1860 (the convention system was very different back then anyway) the Kennedy election was the last time I know of it happening - but I'm not big on convention politics so there could easily be others.

[Jackie Fox]

When was the last Convention we were left wondering who the nominee would be?

1976, the Republican Convention, the margin between Ford and Regan was close, undetermined at the time of the convention's opening. However, rules back then allowed for more uncertainty.

[Jackie Fox]

That was already decided by then. The Conventions are meaningless with respect to choosing who will run under the ticket.

That has been effectively true since the advent of front-loaded primaries, in practice. However, theoretically, it is possibly not true all the time as a rule.

In this year's Republican contest there are four front-runners, possibly five if we count Huckabee. If two of them do not blow out the other three there is a possibility of a deadlocked convention. But it is unlikely. Traditionally Republicans have more valued practicality in selecting nominess than Democrats have. So we shall see if they choose an empty corporate suit with Salt Lake connections, an indolent pipe-smoking red pickup driving lobbyist cum character actor, an ex-mayor with anger management issues and ex-spouses and children who are problematic, a maverick former war hero who's hated by militarists, or a jackleg preacher more suited to being a The Biggest Loser contestant.