Posted on 04/14/2016 8:21:36 AM PDT by Hojczyk
But I’m thinking that some of the state party rules are in direct conflict with the amended Republican National Party rules. I recall something to the effect that if a candidate drops, suspends, dies, etc. that they are not still bound to the candidate. And that no candidate can assign his delegates to another candidate.
I guess that’s why they have lawyers to settle conflicts and disputes.
“He should be thanking the system that gives him 22% more delegates in proportion to the individual voting ...”
Given his margins, he should be wondering why he isn’t 42% more in delegates, as Jeb would be now, if he had performed the same.”
Great post, awesome points. All very well taken.
Good question that’s way over my paygrade.
If there is a conflict between the state rules and the RNC rules, the state rules generally prevail in this case, because in many cases the state rules are tied to state laws as well. For example, in CA delegates are bound for 2 ballots by rule but also by state law.
As far as the RNC rules, there is a rule that says that if a delegate voted for any other candidate than the one to whom they are bound (for as many ballots as they are bound), then then are removed from being a delegate. That does not apply if the candidate to whom they are bound has withdrawn, but any state restrictions still apply. So if the state says you are still bound to Rubio on the first ballot even if he has suspended his campaign, for example, and you try to vote for Trump, the RNC will not kick you out - they just won't count your vote on that ballot because it violates the state rule.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.