Delegates can violate their state laws and vote for whomever they please - and those votes count at the convention.

But then the states can prosecute, fine and jail them when they return. The states cannot go to court to change the votes, but they can punish the criminal behavior.

So, delegates can vote for whom they please on the first ballot? Good: Carson's delegates can vote for Trump. Christie's delegates can vote for Trump, and Trump can strike a deal with other delegates to vote for him, and put him over the 1237, if it comes to that.

Trump has more to offer than the pathetic losers who are trying to stop him.

Delegates can violate their state laws and vote for whomever they please

I've read only some states have written such laws.

According to FairVote:

State Control of Electors There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:

Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2) Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090) California (Election Code §6906) Colorado (CRS §1-4-304) Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176) Delaware (15 Del C §4303) District of Columbia (§1-1312(g)) Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1)) Hawaii (HRS §14-28) Maine (21-A MRS §805) Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505) Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8) Michigan (MCL §168.47) Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785) Montana (MCA §13-25-104) Nebraska (§32-714) Nevada (NRS §298.050) New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9) North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212) Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40) Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102) Oregon (ORS §248.355) South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80) Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c)) Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304) Vermont (17 VSA §2732) Virginia (§24.2-203) Washington (RCW §29.71.020) Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75) Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)

Most of these state laws generally assert that an elector shall cast his or her vote for the candidates who won a majority of the state’s popular vote, or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector.

Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state’s law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District’s unfair voting rights. Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's desire.

The CO REP Party changed the rules this and did not allow voters in the primary to elect delegates that were pledged to any candidate. As I understand it all of the delegates are uncommitted and can vote for anyone they want. So much for representing the voice of the people. I guess the CO REP party PTB decided early that there will be a brokered convention and wanted to be courted hard. Had I not left the CO REP years ago this would have done it for me.

Delegates can violate their state laws and vote for whomever they please - and those votes count at the convention.

But then the states can prosecute, fine and jail them when they return.

I believe the primaries are governed by party rules, not state law.

I believe the primaries are governed by party rules, not state law.

I thought we were talking about conventions.

State Control of Electors There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College.

That applies to a general election (electoral college) governed by federal law, not a party nomination governed by party rules. The party rules are up to the party.

Haugland's letter does not seem to comport with the actual, existing rules. The rules may be modified for this convention right before the convention.

https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf

See Rule 16(a):

RULE NO. 16

Election, Selection, Allocation, or Binding of Delegates and Alternate Delegates

(a) Binding and Allocation.

(1) Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.

(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates under these rules, if a delegate (i) casts a vote for a presidential candidate at the national convention inconsistent with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule, (ii) nominates or demonstrates support under Rule No. 40 for a presidential candidate other than the one to whom the delegate is bound or allocated under state law or state party rule, or (iii) fails in some other way to carry out the delegate’s affirmative duty under state law or state party rule to cast a vote at the national convention for a particular presidential candidate, the delegate shall be deemed to have concurrently resigned as a delegate and the delegate’s improper vote or nomination shall be null and void. Thereafter the secretary of the convention shall record the delegate’s vote or nomination in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule. This subsection does not apply to delegates who are bound to a candidate who has withdrawn his or her candidacy, suspended or terminated his or her campaign, or publicly released his or her delegates.

[...]

See also Rule 40:

RULE NO. 40

Nominations

(a) In making the nominations for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States and voting thereon, the roll of the states shall be called separately in each case; provided, however, that if there is only one candidate for nomination for Vice President of the United States who has demonstrated the support required by paragraph (b) of this rule, a motion to nominate for such office by acclamation shall be in order and no calling of the roll with respect to such office shall be required.

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a

39 of 42

majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.

(c) The total time of the nominating speech and seconding speeches for any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States shall not exceed fifteen (15) minutes.

(d) When at the close of a roll call any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States has received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention, the chairman of the convention shall announce the votes for each candidate whose name was presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this rule. Before the convention adjourns sine die, the chairman of the convention shall declare the candidate nominated by the Republican Party for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States.

(e) If no candidate shall have received such majority, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of the states be called again and shall repeat the calling of the roll until a candidate shall have received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention.

And according to FairVote, 29 states and DC have enacted such laws.

But 21 have not (or 22, if CO really has undone CRS §1-4-304 as soso posted).

If they pull shenanigans to steal the election from Trump, there will be hell to pay. It will be the end of the Republican Party.

And according to FairVote, 29 states and DC have enacted such laws.

Fairvote explicitly addresses the Electoral College. I do not see the applicability to the party convention.

http://www.fairvote.org/how_the_electoral_college_works_today

How the Electoral College Works Today

[...]

Each political party with a candidate on the ballot designates its own set of electors for each state, matching the number of electors they appoint with the number of electoral votes allotted to the state. This usually occurs at state party conventions. Electors are typically strong and loyal supporters of their political party, but can never be a U.S. Senator or Representative.

Electors are also generally free agents, as only 29 states require electors to vote as they have pledged, and many constitutional scholars believe those requirements would not stand in a court challenge.

[...]

http://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors">

Faithless Electors

"Faithless Electors" are members of the Electoral College who, for whatever reason, do not vote for their party's designated candidate.

Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 157 faithless electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast its votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the elector.

Sometimes electors change their votes in large groups, such as when 23 Virginia electors acted together in 1836. Many times, however, these electors stood alone in their decisions. As of the 2004 election, no elector has changed the outcome of an election by voting against his or her party’s designated candidate.

Despite these 157 faithless votes, and a Supreme Court ruling allowing states to empower political parties to require formal pledges from presidential electors (Ray v. Blair, 343 US 214), 21 states still do not require their members of the Electoral College to vote for their party's designated candidate.

There are 29 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require faithfulness issue a small variety of rarely enforced punishments for faithless electors, including fines and misdemeanors.

[...]

http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

State Control of Electors

There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College.

...

Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state’s law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District’s unfair voting rights. Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's desire.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42533.pdf

The Presidential Nominating Process and the National Party Conventions, 2016

Frequently Asked Questions

Kevin J. Coleman
Analyst in Elections
December 30, 2015

Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42533

[at page 13]

Republicans

Republican rules for translating 2016 primary and caucus results into the selection of national convention delegates vary considerably. In some contests, the preferences of rank-and-file voters in a primary or caucus have no effect on choosing the delegates, while in others, the outcome results in a proportional or winner-take-all allocation of delegates at the congressional district and statewide levels.

One measure to gauge the effect of primary and caucus results on the elected delegates is whether the delegation is “bound” to reflect those results when voting at the national convention, and for how long (discussed in greater detail in the next section of this report below).[29] Some state parties bind the national convention delegation for one ballot or more. Delegates who are unbound presumably are free to vote for any candidate, regardless of the caucus or primary results in the state. Furthermore, national Republican Party rules state that:

Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.

Further instructions say that:

Delegates at large and their alternate delegates and delegates from Congressional districts and their alternate delegates to the national convention shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound in the following manner:

(1) In accordance with any applicable Republican Party rules of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or

(2) To the extent not provided for in the applicable Republican Party rules of a state, in accordance with any applicable laws of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or

(3) By a combination of the methods set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this rule; or

(4) To the extent not provided by state law or party rules, as set forth in paragraph (e) of this rule (which outlines the national party rules for electing national convention delegates in congressional district and state conventions).

The category of automatic delegates to the national convention—who are the three members of the Republican National Committee from each state—are usually bound along with the rest of the delegates.

[29] In some states, the delegates might be bound to reflect the preferences of delegates to the congressional district or state conventions, state committee members, or some other group, rather than rank-and-file voters in first stage primaries and caucuses.

[at page 14]

What Happens to Delegates Pledged to a Presidential Candidate Who Drops Out of the Race?

As noted, Republican rules for binding or not binding the delegates to vote for a certain candidate at the convention vary from state to state. Consequently, in some states, the entire delegation is bound for one or more ballots at the national convention, whereas in other states, some delegates are bound and some are not, or the entire delegation is unbound. Some states specify that delegates are bound unless released by a presidential candidate or when the candidate has dropped out of the race, or by a vote of the delegation.

For Democrats, the relevant national party rule states that “[d]elegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”[30] A related provision states that “[n]o delegate at any level of the delegate selection process shall be mandated by law or Party rule to vote contrary to that person’s presidential choice as expressed at the time the delegate is elected.”[31]

[30] Rule 12 (J), Democratic National Committee, Delegate Selection Rules for the 2012 Democratic National Convention, issued by the Democratic Party of the United States (recommended for adoption by the full DNC at its meeting August 20, 2010), p. 12.

[31] Ibid., Rule 12 (I).

If they pull shenanigans to steal the election from Trump, there will be hell to pay. It will be the end of the Republican Party.

As Trump and Cruz control around 70+% of the vote, it would be suicide to try to throw the election to Kasich or someone like Paul Ryan. They would deserve to go the way of the Whigs.

If it became known that was what they were going to do, Trump and Cruz could combine to shove it up their butt.

The existence of this thread should be proof enough of just how dysfunctional, ineffectual, if not corrupt, the REP Party has become. Not voting for the person that voters elected you for may be legal (which is questionable) but it certainly is immoral. The Party of Stupid is on the verge of becoming the Party of The Extinct.

RNC Rules Comm. Member: Every Delegate At GOP Convention Not Bound On First Ballot

Meaning: We've developed an argument that will allow nullification of the popular vote and stick the people with a continuation of more of the same corrupt assholes.

Of course if 70% of the people present in the room are Trump and Cruz supporters, and there really is no judicial oversight of the process, the 70% could PHYSICALLY EXPEL the 30%, hold a vote, and declare the nominee and Veep from the podium.

What could the 30% do? Go to court?

I do not see the applicability to the party convention.

You may be right.

But I don't think so.

States laws or corporate bylaws (the national committees are privately held corporations or llcs or at least used to be) can declare a primary or caucus binding or nonbinding. At least, that what I was taught in civics way back when.

The election of 1824 was stolen from Andrew Jackson in this way. The net result was a massive revanche in 1828, the election of Jackson for two terms, and the establishment of the Democratic Party.

Now, any sort of brokered convention that doesn't end with Trump as the nominee will simply mean the election of Hillary Clinton and the end of the Republican Party as we have known it.

If they steal the nomination from Trump, you can bet that the Trump supporters will stay home, or vote for Hillary in retaliation.

Want to wipe out the GOP in Congress too? Then steal the election from Trump at the convention.

Want to wipe out the GOP in Congress too?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

Go Trump, go.

Of course if 70% of the people present in the room are Trump and Cruz supporters, and there really is no judicial oversight of the process, the 70% could PHYSICALLY EXPEL the 30%, hold a vote, and declare the nominee and Veep from the podium.

Well, that is one way to do it. I would find more likely a joining up of Trump and Cruz, and they will easily have the required majority of delegates for the first ballot. There are nearly there already.

Trump accepting Cruz as VP would be acceptable if he fails to win the required delegates for a solo win on the first ballot. I do not see Trump being stopped from winning a majority.

Trump has 646, Cruz 397, and Kasich 142.

1,103 are available. 1,237 are needed.

Kasich is mathematically eliminated.

Trump needs 591 of 1,193 or 49.5% of the remainder.

Just who is going to win 51.6% and stop him? Who is going to do it, and where. Cruz' best states are behind him. Kasich's only state is behind him.

Kasich and Rubio combined did not reach a majority in ANY state, not even Ohio. Give Kasich all of Rubio's slim support, and where does he win?

Trump beat Cruz in all five state yesterday.

81.4%, MO, Trump/Cruz
69.1%, IL, Trump/Cruz
77.0%, NC, Trump/Cruz
62.8%, FL, Trump/Cruz

49.7%, OH, Kasich/Rubio
48.7%, OH, Trump/Cruz

OH
Kasich 46.8%
Trump 35.6%
Cruz 13.1%
Rubio 02.9%
Other 1.5%

MO
Trump 40.8%
Cruz 40.6%
Kasich 10.1%
Rubio 06.1%
Other 02.3%

IL
Trump 38.8%
Cruz 30.3%
Kasich 19.7%
Rubio 08.7%
Other 2.5%

NC
Trump 40.2%
Cruz 36.8%
Kasich 12.7%
Rubio 07.7%

FL
Trump 45.7%
Rubio 27.0%
Cruz 17.1%
Kasich 06.8%
Other 3.3%