I've been gathering data and reports to keep track of how many delegates have actually been chosen so far, and who they support. And to try to come up with a more reliable estimate of how many delegates Ron Paul is likely to win in states that have not chosen their National delegates yet.
It is all here at the Mises Wiki: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
So the big question: how is Ron Paul doing?
Here is my analysis of the first 13 states. Between them, these 13 states send 426 delegates to RNC.
From the five states (169 delegates) where delegates have been assigned, we have: Paul 57 (40%), Romney 58 (40%), Other 29 (20%), plus 25 more to be assigned in MO. If these 25 are assigned in the same proportion as the first 27 in that state, we have an additional Paul 4, Romney 11, Other 10.
If the projections of a clean-sweep in ME and Paul majorities in IA, NV and WA are accurate, Paul can expect at least another 74, leaving Romney with no more than 49, from those four states. Assume the worst-case that all these 49 go to Romney. Adding these estimates to the totals, we get from these nine states (292 delegates): Paul 135 (46%), Romney 118 (40%), Other 39 (13%).
Assume that FL ends up using winner-takes-all and all 50 go to Romney. The mainstream media are projecting zero delegates for Paul in SC, AZ or MI. They project 94 for Romney, and 40 for Other. Taking these worst-case scenarios for these four states, we have Paul 135 (32%), Romney 212 (50%), Other 79 (19%). The delegates in the Other category were mostly candidates bound to Santorum or Gingrich, and many of these are now free to vote for whoever they wish.
The Ron Paul delegate strategy appears to be working. It looks like Romney might win less than 50% of the delegates from the 13 early states.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
This is incredible, Graham. Thank you so much for your work. Have you put up a new post at the DP? I think a new post there as well as the RPF is in order.
http://TheReal2012DelegateCount.com
So apparently, Ron Paul took 22 of 25 Nevada delegates to the national convention. But apparently, these delegates are bound by the proportional vote in the state...meaning many of them would have to vote for Romney on the first ballot. Now, as can be seen in the news report above, according to the rules, delegates cannot be bound. However, allegedly, there was an attorney Tim Morgan sent by the RNC to scare Ron Paul delegates by telling them that if they unbind the delegates that they may not be seated at the National Convention.
And apparently the final decision was to not unbind the delegates because they can instead simply abstain from voting in the first round, which would have the same effect...as the whole point is to make sure Romney does not have a majority.
John James:And apparently the final decision was to not unbind the delegates because they can instead simply abstain from voting in the first round, which would have the same effect...as the whole point is to make sure Romney does not have a majority.
Of course, it would be better if those delegates could both not-vote for Romney in favor of giving those votes to Ron Paul, but do the delegates know that they can abstain from voting?
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
John James:http://TheReal2012DelegateCount.com
That site certainly looks cool, and it's helping improve my knowledge of US geography, but many of the numbers are different to mine, and it includes some numbers where the delegates have not been chosen yet. Even his own numbers don't add up though. He has Romney with a total of 697, but if you add the numbers he gives for each state, they come to 629. I've sent him an email to let him know. It would be handy if he had links to sources and some explanation of what is included and what isn't.
Yeah I was pretty disappointed with it. It sucks that a sight specifically dedicated to "real delegate count" offers guessing just like everyone else.
(I also forgot for a moment that you weren't even American. Even more kudos for bothering with our ridiculous system.)
ThatOldGuy:Of course, it would be better if those delegates could both not-vote for Romney in favor of giving those votes to Ron Paul, but do the delegates know that they can abstain from voting?
I don't think you're understanding the process. Delegates from all the state caucuses and primaries are sent to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. There they will vote on a nominee for the Republican Party.
1) In multiple states, a majority of the delegates are supporters of Ron Paul.
2) In some of these states, there is an understanding that the delegates are "bound" based on the rules that the state Republican Party (i.e. the faction of the the Republican Party that operates in that state...it can set it's own rules so long as it operates under the general rules laid down by the national party). "Bound" means that the delegate cannot vote for whomever they wish, but must vote for whom the party rules designate. This means, that in the case of Nevada for example, Romney is due to receive a certain number of votes from the Nevada delegation because of his percentage of the Nevada Caucus vote, per Nevada Republican Party rules.
3) As illustrated by Ben Swann, according to the RNC rules for 2008 & 2010 (which evidently may be in effect for this year), Rule 38 states: "No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any State or Congressional district to impose the 'Unit Rule'". What this means to Ben's interpretation is that it may not be the case that delegates are bound at all, according to the Republican National Committee rules.
4) According to this thread on RPF, Ben may not be correct. It's fuzzy because of the definition of "unit rule", as that is the only thing Rule 38 applies to. From what it seems like, with the advent of unbound Super delegates, Rule 38 is null, and would only have any effect if a state tried to get rid of its unbound super delegates.
5) So 22 of the 25 25 of 28 delegates from Nevada are Ron Paul supporters. However, again, according to common understanding, many (if not most) of them are required by Party rules to vote for Romney on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention (the event in Tampa where a nominee for the Republican Party's candidate for the Presidency of the United States is selected). Again, The Daily Caller:
"The 16 delegates supporting Paul [in Massachusetts] are bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention. If Romney does not achieve the required number of votes on the first ballot, the delegates can vote for the candidate of their choice."
According to that RPF thread, that may still be the case. And allegedly, there was an attorney Tim Morgan sent by the RNC to scare Ron Paul delegates in Nevada by telling them that if they unbind the delegates that they may not be seated at the National Convention.
6) So instead of taking the risk of not being seated at the Convention (and not being able to cast a vote for Ron Paul as the nominee for the Republican Party candidate for the Presidency of the United States), again, apparently the final decision made by the Ron Paul Nevada Campaign was to not unbind the delegates (i.e. tell them to vote for Ron Paul anyway) because they can instead simply abstain from voting in the first round, which would have the same effect...as the whole point is to make sure Romney does not have a majority. After the first ballot (i.e. the first round of voting), if no one person has a majority of the votes, then another vote is taken, and the process is repeated until a person does have a majority.
This is how Warren Harding was able to go into the Republican National Convention with six percent of the delegates, and after ten ballots, come out with the nomination with 70 percent of the vote.
So one more time...the 25 of the 28 delegates from the Nevada delegate are Ron Paul supporters, however many of them are required to vote for Mitt Romney at the first vote of the Republican National Convention. Allegedly they were told that if the Nevada Republican Party unbinds them from that requirement (i.e. tells them that they can vote for whoever they want on the first ballot) then the Republican National Committee will not allow them to vote at all at the Republican National Convention. So instead of risk that, the Ron Paul Campaign of Nevada simply plans to have the Nevada delegates abstain from voting at all during the first ballot.
This will have the desired effect of making sure Romney does not have a majority of the vote (to secure the nomination for the Republican Party candidate for the Presidency of the United States) so that there will have to be another vote...in which all delegates can vote for whomever they want...Which means, Ron Paul would probably win the nomination, as he probably has more actual supporters who are delegates than any other candidate.
Capiche?
John James:(I also forgot for a moment that you weren't even American. Even more kudos for bothering with our ridiculous system.)
Only for Ron Paul.
You're right that I'm a bit fuzzy on the process.
I was just wondering if the delegates themselves knew that they could abstain from voting, rather than this being the words of advice of what some forum posters would do; as you make clear, the delegates are aware. I know that bound delegates can't vote for whoever they want- in that quote I was expressing disappointment that bound delegates are bound despite what Swann found. Of course, not voting at all is better than being forced to vote for Romney, but it would be better still if Swann's interpretation were the rules by which the RNC were playing.
Updated analysis of the Early States.
Between them, these 13 states send 426 delegates to the RNC. Here is a breakdown as of 7 May:
Analysis of the Super Tuesday States
Between them, these 10 states send 437 delegates to the RNC. Here is a breakdown as of 7 May:
Delegate Count
Actual delegate count (9 full states, 2 partial states): Paul 97 (27%), Romney 142 (40%), Other 120 (33%).
States won (9 full states): Paul 3, Romney 5, Other 1.
* Depending on how RNC Rule 38 is interpreted, states may not be allowed to bind their candidates even on the first ballot. Even if they are bound, these delegates may be able to abstain on the first ballot, after which they are unbound.
I love how the official media count has Romney at 856 delegates alone, when there's only been a total of 359 actually assigned.
There may have been some more from the post Super Tuesday states not included above, but nowhere near 800.
It's hard to tell in some cases whether the figures at The Green Papers are actual and final now, or whether something else is going to happen (like a state convention) that could change those numbers (meaning they are just guesses). For example, Alabama, Hawaii, Wisconsin. I don't know what's happening there. It could be that they just don't have a date for a state convention yet.
Only Kansas, Maryland and Delaware (from the post Super Tuesday states) have already had their state conventions, so these are the only ones where I presume the process is all over and The Green Papers numbers are final.
Graham Wright:There may have been some more from the post Super Tuesday states not included above, but nowhere near 800.
That's just Romney's alleged total. If you throw in all the other delegates they have assigned to people, the total number of delegates allocated is over 1,300.
This doesn't seem entirely accurate either, as I know that Alaska hasn't been decided yet, and I don't think it's fair to count MA for Ron Paul, as the majority of those delegates are bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot, so that's misleading. Things like that.
(RunRonPaul.com)
This news is amazing if true, but it really feels surreal because there's so little hard evidence to be able to see these results other than what RunRonPaul.com has collected.
Where can I find some reliable data that isn't from the word of the RP campaign? I've found an article by the Las Vegas Review Journal concerning Nevada so far.
EDIT: That above site is the best resource, correct? News entries seem the most substantial to me, so what I'm reading sounds very good indeed. Rachel Maddow wondering aloud isn't as reliable however.
Cortes: This news is amazing if true, but it really feels surreal because there's so little hard evidence to be able to see these results other than what RunRonPaul.com has collected. Where can I find some reliable data that isn't from the word of the RP campaign? I've found an article by the Las Vegas Review Journal concerning Nevada so far.
I couldn't find any, so I made my own, where you can find more sources. Add more if you have them or find them.
Cortes: EDIT: That above site is the best resource, correct? News entries seem the most substantial to me, so what I'm reading sounds very good indeed. Rachel Maddow wondering aloud isn't as reliable however.
That site is using projections like everyone else, just projections that are a bit more favorable to Paul.
Paul has only won Maine for sure, as far as I can tell. Colorado we are relying on reports that 13 uncommitted delegates are Paul supporters. Nevada we have a strong majority, but they may be bound to vote for someone else on the first ballot. Alaska is over and Paul didn't win. All the other Paul states on that map (IA,WA,LA,OK,MA,MO) are not final yet, although Paul could well win majorities in all of them.
Um. Holy crap.
I'd be wary about this (Swann seems too confident)...There is no authority that can tell anyone one way or the other. The GOP/RNC will fight Paul every way they can. I suspect we have yet to see how far they are willing to go.
Preliminary estimates are that Congressman Paul captured 95% of the Oklahoma delegates. This was an amazing feat and a political coup of epic proportions.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-establishment-makes-a-mockery-of-the-democratic-process-oklahoma
...where have I heard this before...
Ridiculous.
No matter how this ends - great work, Graham!
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
Huffington Post: Paul has more delegates than Romney
At the time of writing, the official bound state delegate counts out of the few states that have already held their state conventions are 33 for Paul and 73 for Romney, but the number of delegates from these states that are known to favor Paul and Romney are 65 and 59, respectively. All other delegate numbers are at this point projections or speculation.
Thanks Peter! Right back at you for your contributions to the Mises Wiki.
What If?
"What if Paul's supporters just ignore the binding rules and vote their consciences? What if, in Tampa, all those Paul supporters who are bound by state rules to vote for Romney put the ball firmly back in the GOP's court, and say, "Your move"?"...
Reality Check: Liberty Movement Taking Over GOP Part 1
Part 2, Part 3
Time for an update... (This analysis assumes that Ben Swann is incorrect when he says that no delegates are bound. It also assumes any delegates bound to Santorum or Gingrich are now unbound.)
From the 18 states/territories that have had state conventions (leaving out AZ and OK)… Bound delegates: Paul 51 (10%), Romney 192 (37%), Unbound 278 (53%). Assuming no stealth delegates… Supporters: Paul 112 (21%), Romney 252 (48%), Unknown 157 (30%).
Adding the 11 states/territories/districts that used slates or direct elections… Bound delegates: Paul 59 (7%), Romney 358 (41%), Unbound 461 (53%). Assuming that these methods always result in delegates who support the candidate they are pledged to… Supporters: Paul 120 (14%), Romney 462 (53%), Unknown 296 (34%).
Adding the 4 states that use committees and the 11 states that have had their popular vote (and/or CDC elections) but not their state convention… Bound delegates: Paul 78 (5%), Romney 762 (48%), To Be Bound 65 (4%), Unbound 699 (44%).
Adding the 2 disputed states and the 10 states yet to have their popular vote… Bound delegates: Paul 78 (3%), Romney 804 (35%), To Be Bound 628 (27%), Unbound 776 (34%).
For a more detailed breakdown, see the wiki page.
Why does that look incredibly similar to the mainstream totals?
I'm so confused.
And what has happened to the RP campaign? It's like they've gone silent:
About Ron Paul 2012 The official YouTube home of Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign. ronpaul2012.com by ronpaul Latest Activity Apr 10, 2012
The official YouTube home of Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign.
ronpaul2012.com by ronpaul
Latest Activity Apr 10, 2012
I'm starting to lean toward the quiet threat theory.
Clayton -
quiet threat theory.
Benton all but confirmed it. Something fishy is going on. I still have to hear from Ron Paul himself about any of it..
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76505_Page2.html#ixzz1vMEXOm4o
“Jesse acknowledges we have stealth Ron Paul supporters among the Romney delegates,” wrote one supporter on the DailyPaul.com, whose cyber-handle is Bob-45. “He knows delegates can abstain or may even be unbound. This chops the legs off the Ron Paul campaign at a critical juncture. I no longer have any confidence in Jesse Benton; and, if Ron Paul keeps him after this, I will have lost a great deal of confidence in Ron Paul.” Adam Kokesh, a radio host and head of Veterans for Ron Paul, went further in a web video this week, first reported by BuzzFeed, in which he said, “It’s been extremely disappointing to see that the official campaign — Jesse Benton, John Tate — have failed to contest this with the Republican Party. We didn’t come here to play nice.” Kokesh, who the campaign was once close to but says it’s split from, urges Paulites to convince delegates to flip at the national convention. ... Benton, on a conference call with reporters earlier this week, made it clear what a careful line the campaign is walking right now between sympathy for Paul’s supporters, who are part of the only movement that materialized this cycle on the Republican side in the presidential race, and deference to Romney. “What we learned this past weekend is that our supporters are going to get an excessive amount of blame for problems that arise in heated moments at conventions, and state conventions are in particular known for heated moments, and our supporters are going to get much more than they deserve when it comes to blame for any kind of [problems],” he said. “So, we’re going to emphasize that our people really need to emphasize respect and civility.”
Adam Kokesh, a radio host and head of Veterans for Ron Paul, went further in a web video this week, first reported by BuzzFeed, in which he said, “It’s been extremely disappointing to see that the official campaign — Jesse Benton, John Tate — have failed to contest this with the Republican Party. We didn’t come here to play nice.”
Kokesh, who the campaign was once close to but says it’s split from, urges Paulites to convince delegates to flip at the national convention.
Benton, on a conference call with reporters earlier this week, made it clear what a careful line the campaign is walking right now between sympathy for Paul’s supporters, who are part of the only movement that materialized this cycle on the Republican side in the presidential race, and deference to Romney.
“What we learned this past weekend is that our supporters are going to get an excessive amount of blame for problems that arise in heated moments at conventions, and state conventions are in particular known for heated moments, and our supporters are going to get much more than they deserve when it comes to blame for any kind of [problems],” he said. “So, we’re going to emphasize that our people really need to emphasize respect and civility.”
I'm telling you, the GOP told Paul that he will suffer a great embarassment if his supporters disrupt the convention. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul isn't even invited to it.
These counts are coming from where, anyway?
John James: Why does that look incredibly similar to the mainstream totals?
Several reasons...
Graham Wright: Time for an update... (This analysis assumes that Ben Swann is incorrect when he says that no delegates are bound. It also assumes any delegates bound to Santorum or Gingrich are now unbound.)
I've not looked at boundedness before. My previous figures referred only to supporters. It was also limited to early states before, which Paul did better in.
This includes states like SC, KS, MS, GA where Paul received no delegates at all, bound or otherwise, and for which I have not seen evidence any delegates are Paul supporters.
I should mention that among the unbound delegates here, 45 are known Paul supporters. Also 18 Romney-bound delegates support Paul and 2 Paul-bound delegates support Romney.
Previously, I omitted these 11 places completely, because I wasn't sure what was going on with them... they had no state convention listed. They are actually states that use the slate method, where before the primary or caucuses each candidate submits a slate with prospective delegates and then the allocated delegates are selected from these slates according to the primary or caucus result. I figure these delegates are already chosen and all done 'automatically', and they are highly likely to support the candidate whose slate they were on, because the candidates specifically chose them to be on the slate. Paul did really badly in all these states and territories, winning just 8 next to Romney's 210.
I don't have any reason to not include these states in the tally; nothing else is going to happen with them AFAIK. I have seen no evidence to believe anything other than that these delegates support the candidate that chose them.
The big committee states, NY and FL, award 142 for Romney, 0 for Paul. I have no idea who these delegates will actually support, but by state rules they are all bound to Romney. Its hard to guess who delegates support before those delegates have been chosen.
Among the 11 are states like MA and VA, where delegates elected in CDCs are supposedly bound to Romney but actually support Paul. And states like ID, IN, NC which have bound many delegates to Romney and few to Paul. Since the state conventions haven't happened in any of these yet, it is again impossible to know how many Paul supporters will be among those bound to Romney or unbound.
I should add that at least 107 unbound are Paul supporters, and at least 56 bound to Romney are Paul supporters. But with so many unknowns with this many states included, any guess about total supporter numbers can only be a wild one.
I guess these look like mainstream numbers because I assume here, like they do, that when state rules say a delegate is bound, they really are, and Paul victories in states like NV, MA and VA in terms of numbers of supporters can't change who the delegates are bound to.
If Ben Swann is right, none of this stuff about being bound matters, and it's all about who the delegates support. In that case, the important numbers are the first set I bolded. I include the bound numbers just in case Swann is wrong, to see if a second ballot is likely to occur in that case, or how many abstentions that would require.
Have you guys looked at my thread?
It looks like the GOP is threatening court actions against people who do not vote for Romney in States that claim to be bound.
Lawyers Confirm All Delegates Are Unbound
Lawyers for Ron Paul: http://www.facebook.com/groups/188334154612254/
So, why exactly won't Paul say anything in public about this, then? Still stealthing it up?
I read in an article that the GOP had been in "daily contact with Dr. Paul" discussing how they (the GOP) can win in November. That doesn't bode well for Paul delegates who think that he is still in it to win it.
Reality Check: Did Mitt Romney Really Secure GOP Nomination With Texas Win?
Paul won 27 of the 46 delegates in Louisiana to secure his fourth state win, after Maine, Nevada and Minnesota.
The win that was expected in Washington did not happen, with Paul winning just 5 of the 43 delegates.
And Paul won 0 of the 25 at-large delegates in Missouri, leaving Paul with just 4 of the 52 total in that state, which was considerably less than hoped for.
See the improved wiki page for a full breakdown, but I estimate from the 1,287 delegates selected so far, 191 (15%) are Paul supporters and 722 (56%) are Romney supporters.
That's depressing
There is this:
The guy running that site doesn't respond to my emails. I don't know what source he is using for the Colorado result (I have Paul 13, Romney 16, Santorum 7, he has Paul 18, Romney 16, Santorum 2) or the Georgia result (he says 10 Gingrich delegates are Paul supporters, which I can find no verification of), for example.