Talk:2012 Republican National Convention

Ron Paul is on the RNC ballot

From May 4th, 2012 as Foxnews already admitted that Ron Paul has already qualified to have his name on the ballot. The mainstream media hoax of "needing" Nebraska to win has been exposed.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/324280

Ron Paul wins 5 state plurality (May 5, 2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ24-Exqt-Q&feature=youtu.be

Ron Paul wins 7 states (May 8, 2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WJ52iU60zA&feature=youtu.be

Ron Paul wins 11 states (May 10, 2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b57gthBCuw&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.48.12 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Ron Paul did not secure at least 5 states based on delegates. [1] which he only has won 3 states out of the 5 that he needed to get votes in the first round. If you make the changes that Ron Paul will be considered in the first round of voting, I or others will remove it. ViriiK (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Rule #40(b)

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

Do you happen to count Nevada, Arizona, and a couple other states as one of those equations? Unfortunately due to those state party rules, they are "Romney's delegates" despite the fact the convention elected a majority of "Ron Paul's delegates" AND they are bounded to the primary or caucus results in the first round. ViriiK (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Federal law states that all elections that appoints people for federal position must follow federal law, which of course supersedes all state laws. And the federal law of interest here states that all delegates for such an election or nomination MUST BE FREE AGENTS, meaning that they are in fact UNBOUND, and that it is illegal to prevent them from voting according to their own coincidence.Drakoniam (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is clear for all, except devoted Paul supporters that he do not have plurality in five states even though libertarian delegates have a plurality in more state delegations, They are simply not bound to Paul but to others (mostly Romney). Getting this aside the subject of libertarian paul supporters getting elected at caucuses in states where other candidates and "wings" of the party won the primary elections are interesting and should included in the article about the primaries in an NPOV way. It doesnt really matter if we think it is disfranchising the majority of the republican registered voters or it is an example of vivid and true party democracy. It happened and it is notable. Could anyone suggest some good reliable allround references to use? Beside the states Paul have won (Maine, Minnesota, Iowa and maybe Louisiana) what states are we talking about. I have read newsreports from Massachusetts and Nevada. But nothing from any other. It seems that the different Paul support blogs are throwing numbers around (like 11 states) but no reliable about what states we are talking about. In Oklohoma it seems that Paul support felt the ought to win and got mad when that didnt happen, but that doesnt mean you win. What states are we talking about (with reliable sources) ??? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So let's recap:

States where majority of delegates are bound to Paul: Iowa, Maine, Minnesota

Disputed states that media sources have listed as, at different times, both Paul and Romney: Louisiana

States where Paul does not have a plurality, but potentially could if enough Santorum delegates side with him: Alaska, Colorado

States where Romney has a plurality of bound delegates, but a plurality of delegates personally support Paul: Nevada, Massachusetts

That puts Paul at 8 potential states, two of which he can't access on the first ballot, one of which is disputed, and another two require Santorum delegates to be counted as Paul. Mr. Anon515 19:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional states claimed are Washington and Rhode Island. Washington I know for a fact (and I live there) is not Paul's. Paul tried to win there, did well in the caucus, but lost the convention. I have yet to see a source validate the Rhode Island claim. Mr. Anon515 19:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

But is the Santorum delegates from Colorado and Alaske not bound to vote for Santorum on the first ballot? (In Colorado there is 16 delegates that was elected as unbound, 14 that was elected as delegates bound to Romney and 6 was elected as delegates bound to Santorum. 2 of the 16 unbound delegates have since pledge to Paul) Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's great and all for theories on what makes Ron Paul qualified but do you have any credible sources other than Ron Paul fansites and an outdated Fox News article that actually says Ron Paul will be on the ballot? All of the news organizations says Ron Paul will not be on the ballot and that's the general consensus of the latest information. ViriiK (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the Santorum delegates are really unbound, but count towards him for ballot purposes. Mr. Anon515 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a close personal friend (unfortunately not a legitimate reliable source we can use) who voted for Mitt Romney in 2008 as a delegate at that convention and sort of made news as a result. I'm also trying to contact some parliamentarians from within the local Republican Party where I live to see if they may have some sources that can be used for this article... but I'm not making any promises other than I'm trying to find some sources. As a personal opinion on the matter, I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul's name won't be on the actual physical ballot, it just seems unlikely that Ron Paul will be allowed to necessarily give a prime time speech officially at the convention. It would be nice if Mitt Romney would let Rick Santorum give such a speech. In other words, I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing, but I also have no sources to back up my assertions at the moment either. It also depends on how much freedom those delegates who are pledged to Rick Santorum may have, given RNC rules and what Santorum may grant as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If Santorum gives a speech, it will be for Romney, who he has explicitly endorsed. Mr. Anon515 02:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If the convention organisers wants Paul to speak it shouldnt be a problem, he could simply speak at another time, maybe even another day. But the nomination speeches have to be according to the rules, in what way they will be interpenetrated, and so will the name that will be officially on the ballot. It will not be possible simply to put a person on the first ballot simply because he is such a nice guy. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that even if Paul had won Nebraska, he probably wouldn't have gotten the chance to speak, since according to the RNC, Romney won Louisiana. Mr. Anon515 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you source this, Mr. Anon? I was gonna update the map but leave Louisiana grey. I can't sort out what's what through a quick google search. It's only casually mentioned that Louisiana is still being debated in this [[2]] article as of 2 days ago. Thanks, Naapple (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The insistence by some Paul supporters (that vandalize the page) that he somehow won 11 states or he's ahead of Santorum makes them all look bad. I know they must not all think that, but denial's not just a river in Egypt. J390 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul is not yet on the convention ballot

Consider two tallies: Louisiana_Republican_caucuses,_2012 and Green Papers for Louisiana[3]: Santorum(10); Romney(5); RonPaul(0); and (26) ‘available’. I.e., unless a new delegation is upheld, Paul gets zero delegate-votes from Louisiana at Convention, (so far). Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 has zero for Paul and 28 available. Remaining in gray are Montana and Louisiana. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Good, looks like the delegate map on this page is accurate then. Naapple (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the same map that are used in the infobox in the primary article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Add?

• Romney’s Palin Problem: Where’s Her Convention Invite? "Mitt still hasn’t invited Sarah to the GOP’s nomination assembly in Tampa, and the Tea Party is livid. Peter J. Boyer on how the snub could sabotage Romney’s tenuous ties to the grassroots—and why Palin is keeping the week open, just in case." Jul 16, 2012 NewsWeek (pages 36 to 38 in-print).

from Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 99.181.135.134 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the whole thing needs to go in there. Perhaps a list of notable speakers/attenders would be good, and then alternatively a list of notable persons who aren't speaking or non attenders (including Palin and both Bushes). Personally, I'd rather leave out a list of people not going and only have one of people who are and are speaking. The article you cited could go into Sarah Palin's wiki page. Naapple (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are many prominent Republicans who have said they don't intend to attend, such as Jon Huntsman. While I don't think we need a whole list, the fact that these prominent Republicans are refusing to attend seems notable enough for a mention. Mr. Anon515 23:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The title is not "invite" not "refusing". 99.109.125.100 (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

With 'egg on his face', Jon Huntsman is no longer 'prominent'. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Huntsman is prominent because he was a fellow presidential candidate, and recognized by some as the voice of the "moderate" GOP. Mr. Anon515 23:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He will be remembered as Obama's ambassador to China; and not being Conservative enough to win anything; another John McCain candidate. Plus, in my opinion, he does not want to attend having lost to Romney, Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich (in that order). Does he even want to have an influence at convention like Ron Paul does? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mainly, I think his decline to attend the convention is notable because he has expressed sentiments that the GOP has gone in a direction unsatisfactory to him. Bush senior has made similar sentiments, and that's why I think they should be mentioned. Mr. Anon515 03:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Accommodating Ron Paul & his supporters, even though he will not be on the ballot

Only Mitt Romney will be on the ballot and there will only be one voice vote.

Interesting insights from [4] 2012 Election Central: "Following the primary battle and now leading up to the convention in Tampa, it appears the GOP is working hard to avoid alienating Ron Paul and his supporters any further from the party. A new report out in the last couple days explains how the GOP is working to make sure Paul, and his supporters, are fully included and represented in August." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, Rick Santorum will be on the ballot, but he is unlikely to get very many delegates. However, that is certainly interesting. As I noted, it would be helpful to Romney if he reached a hand to Paul and his supporters. Part of my prediction appears to be coming true; Romney may allow Paul some speech time at the convention.

I'd like to note that Ron Paul has not ruled out endorsing Romney. People may point out that Romney's foreign policy positions are not consistent with Paul's, but as it turns out, Paul allows quite a bit more leeway than one might think when it comes to getting his endorsement. Mr. Anon515 23:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about Rick Santorum—I forgot—for the first and only vote. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you are correct for Ron Paul. No doubt his supporters will try to alter this page, though, given that Daily Paul has explicitly targeted this article for "improvement". I suggest placing a note at the top of this talk page that says "Ron Paul will not be on the ballot for the first vote, and the article will reflect that.". Mr. Anon515 03:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, there is NO ballot. The votes are announced by the head of the delegation by voice.Ericl (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

I've requested semi-protection which it was granted and the semi-protection will expire until after the convention is concluded. IP editors who want to edit this article to re-insert the idea that Ron Paul is on the ballot will not be able to do so. Unless editors like myself and others see that there is a reliable source that Ron Paul will be on the ballot, Ron Paul will remain off the list. Youtube, Ron Paul fansites & forums, Real 2012 Delegate Count, etc are not reliable sources, see: WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS, WP:RSEX. Follow those guides and there won't have a problem. Until then, this article will be on my watch list which it always has been and I will revert those who violate those guides. ViriiK (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ceasefire!

What many editors appear to have lost sight of is that conventional wisdom is not necessarily truth. I would like to explain how we may have an example of that when it comes to RNC Rule 40(b).

I have made similar points regarding this rule over at the talk page for the GOP primaries, but there are some editors here who don't visit there so I thought I'd partially repeat myself here. I apologize to those of have already read & acknowledged my views. For everyone else, I encourage you to peruse the archives there to better understand how I arrived where I have:

No one can dispute that Rule 40(b) is a new rule never before enforced. Therefore, seeing as there is no precedent, it is crucial for us to have reliable sources that cite, or at least claim to cite, the opinion of a person or persons who are responsible for interpreting that rule.

What's there to interpret? No one questions the five-state threshold itself. The controversial bit is what constitutes "support" from a plurality of delegates? Read by itself, nothing suggests that "support" = "bound to vote for." That would be like saying people "support" paying their speeding tickets. No they don't- but they're bound to, under threat of further fines or losing their license. It's a warping of the definition of the word. No one questions that most of the delegation of, say, Nevada would "support" placing Paul's name into nomination, but may not support such an action for Romney.

"But the delegates are bound!", you say. The state party has said that all but 8 of those NV delegates are "Romney delegates", whether they'd like to be or not! That is true- they are, ostensibly, bound to vote for Romney for the first ballot- of the roll call. As in, the roll call where the delegates actually cast ballots for the nominee. The national party has nothing to do with state bindings. The state parties make those rules, and it is up to them to enforce them (unless the national convention passes rules explicitly upholding or rejecting them). That being the case, how does the national party simultaneously whittle down a ballot to a finite list of candidates and carry out the vote in one action? It's logically impossible. One action has to precede the other. State bindings cover the roll call, and nothing more. Not parliamentary motions, platform planks, or any other petition. Those who wish to claim that the roll call and the submission of candidates for nomination are functionally inseparable need to provide evidence in the binding rules (within state party bylaws) that that is the case. As far as I know, they will not find anything of the sort there.

If state party rules provide no clarification for this national rule, who can? We need to establish who would be responsible for interpreting this rule. Ultimately, the Republican National Convention has the final say on this and other matters, and can motion to adopt, change, remove, or suspend any rule it likes, if enough delegates agree to do so. However, prior to the opening of the convention, the standing rules (those passed in 2008) are in effect, including Rule 40 in its current form. Before implementing any standing rule, the Convention will take the lead from the parliamentarian, who will in turn take the lead from the Rules Committee. That's it- no one else has a say. Not Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, the National Committee, John Roberts, or the Man on the Moon. Just the Rules Committee, the national convention, a parliamentarian serving as a liaison between those groups, or a spokesperson thereof, has the authority or credibility to offer up an interpretation of this rule. The convention has yet to open, no parliamentarian has spoken out, and we have just one reporter (Ben Swann) claiming to have talked to anonymous members of the Rules Committee about this, who are of the opinion that "support" does not equal "bound to vote for on the first ballot of the roll call." In other words, we have no idea. I agree that this report of his is not a reliable source, and wouldn't be unless and until those sources come out of the closet and make a public statement. Until a media source citing one of these people comes out with the official interpretation of "support" and how exactly it will be asked to be shown, everything here (or on the shows of talking heads like Rachel Maddow or Bret Baier) is wild speculation, and should not be in the article. For all we know, staffers for those news shows are running to Wikipedia for their information and reporting that back to their bosses as credible information- I wouldn't be surprised given the direction the news media in this country has been going.

So, where does this dearth of information leave us? It means we have no justification for pretty much everything in the entire "Nominations" subsection. We can't have a table listing the top two candidates, top three, four or even everyone who ran in the primaries because we don't know everybody the delegates will want to see voted on. We don't even know if delegations are permitted to "support" multiple candidates. Since it's well formatted, I would propose hiding this section and then adding it back into the article when we have more information from sources who know what they're talking about, and not just engaging in speculation- that goes for the Paul camp, the Romney camp, or any other casual observer. As an added bonus, it is my hope that if this proposal is adopted, it may allow us to remove the page's semi-protection status, as it seems that most of the consternation revolves around the "Nominations" section. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you summarize this? ViriiK (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. It is a bit long, I admit. It is not easy to overturn conventional wisdom in a couple of sentences :-) Basically, I am proposing that we remove/hide the "Nominations" section from this article until it has been established via credible sources citing the RNC Rules Committee or a parliamentarian close to them that the interpretation of Rule 40(b) (aka the "five state rule") that everyone here is using is the accurate one. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that won't be possible. Unless you show me with Reliable Sources that any other person other than Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum will be on the ballot, it will not be removed entirely or modified. It's not up to myself or you on interpreting the rules of the convention because that would mean Original Research. These men listed are based on well-founded media articles. ViriiK (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Limiting the list to just Romney & Santorum is Original Research. It assumes a specific interpretation of Rule 40(b) that may or may not be true. That is why the entire table should be removed. Simply adding Ron Paul as a third name would similarly be Original Research. Can you list media sources that state the roll call will be limited to those two men? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no it isn't "Original Research". They are listed because there are Reliable Sources that puts them there and excludes Ron Paul. There is also precedence of who gets listed on the ballot in the first round of voting. ViriiK (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The article's current source for the statement that none of the other candidates have met "this requirement" is the GP's delegate count, and the RNC's rulebook itself. What does that have to do with interpreting that requirement, or saying who has or has not met it? The Green Papers doesn't say anything about Rule 40. Can you name one source that does (citing anybody from the Republican Party, rather than just stating it as fact)? I'm not sure what you mean by there being precedence for who gets listed? If you meant precedent, then no, there is not. This is a brand new rule, I'm afraid. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Rule #40. I'm talking about there is precedent of candidates that have been voted on in the conventions. As for the rest of your question, the world is at your fingertips and you can find them yourself as long you stick to the policy defined by WP:RS ViriiK (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean then by "precedent of candidates that have been voted on." Every convention has different candidates... As for your other point about searching for a source, trust me, I have looked. As far as I've seen, no member of the RNC, no parliamentarian, nor any spokesperson for them has said anything about how Rule 40 is to be interpreted. We can say Romney will be on the ballot because, as the presumptive nominee, it's a rather safe assumption. Beyond that, how do we have any idea how large or small the roll call ballot will be? Two answers: Rule 40(b), or time. Therefore it is relevant how the rule is interpreted, and I have not seen one authoritative source explaining how it will be read. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

We have hard facts based on the fact that A) Both Romney and Santorum have cleared the minimum of at least 5 states which qualifies them for the first round ballot. That's based on the rules itself. B) Recently, Ron Paul failed to win Nebraska which based on Reliable Sources, they confirmed that Ron Paul will not be listed on the ballot in the first round. I cannot endorse any changes to this article until after the convention is concluded which is why I requested the semi-protection in the first place. To prevent vandalism from Ron Paul fans because they are quite content to list Ron Paul without following the rules of WP:RS. I cannot make changes based on your Original Research arguments. ViriiK (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"That's based on the rules itself." Right, meaning Rule 40(b). You are reading the rule in a particular way, and using your interpretation to say that Romney & Santorum have met the threshold. That is Original Research. My reading of that rule says that only the delegates decide when they convene who makes the ballot. Neither one of us works for the Rules Committee and is therefore qualified to present such statements as fact. I am perfectly aware of why you requested semi-protection for this page. It should be clear by now that I am not asking simply for Paul's name to be added. I am asking for either 1.) A definitive source from the Republican Party explaining how this rule will be implemented, if such a source exists, or 2.) For the removal of the table until that is made available. Besides, you are speculating that Santorum will be on the ballot (mind you, I'm not saying he won't be). Even if your interpretation of the rule is correct, he may lose his 5 states if MS's 3 unbound RNC delegates side with Romney, and the ND delegates break their pledge to follow the non-binding caucus and side with Romney or someone else. Again, not saying that will happen, but we can't be presenting it like it's a certainty. You are correct in saying that Paul did not win NE's delegation. All of the media that I've read that said that was his proverbial 'nail in the coffin' have provided zero citations to the RNC rules or statements from them explaining precisely why that would be the case.

Finally, your statement "I cannot endorse any changes to this article until after the convention is concluded" concerns me. I understand you have been burnt by vandalism here recently, but to oppose any changes to this article for another month seems rather draconian to me. If you are really going to be that uniformly opposed to any change that I really think we ought to wait for another opinion. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate. How many states have Romney and Santorum won based on Reliable Sources? 42 & 6 respectively. That question is easily answered. How many states have Ron Paul won based on Reliable Sources? 3. Now apply that to the rule of the minimum requirement of the convention which is again based on Reliable Sources. Now you're using the WP:CRYSTAL which is invalid in this case because you are not sure if these delegates will change their minds. Right now, we have to assume that these delegates based on Reliable Sources will be bounded to their respective candidates. As for the "Nail in the Coffin", you are basing your assumption on Original Research which I cannot abide by. They say Ron Paul will not be on the ballot and we have to assume that automatically under the policy of Reliable Sources unless new Reliable Sources contradicts older Reliable Sources. I've exhausted the discussion. Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm just not getting through to you here. "Now apply that to the rule of the minimum requirement of the convention which is again based on Reliable Sources." What Reliable Sources?! You haven't named one. A reliable source in this context is one that contains a statement from a Rules Committee member or parliamentarian, or at the very least, some member of the RNC that says that Rule 40's requirement is ascertained before the convention even begins, rather than during the convention. If it is the latter, than it is irrelevant how many primaries each candidate won- what matters is the opinion of the delegates when they arrive in Tampa. No one that I've seen has gone on the record and settled this publicly. Until then, this is all based on Original Research, period. Albeit OR that you have come to accept as fact. And if you had read my Santorum scenario carefully, you would have seen that I wasn't challenging state bindings. I said if the unbound delegates from MS, and the unbound delegates from ND change their votes to Romney, then Santorum no longer has 5 pluralities. You are using WP:CRYSTAL by listing him as if that can't and therefore won't happen. You are dancing around the issue. Until you can provide evidence that anyone from the Republican Party, much less those who actually have control over the matter, have spoken about Rule 40, then this discussion is most certainly not exhausted. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 is a good start. Have fun. ViriiK (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read that article. As I mentioned at the top of my first comment, I have written extensively on that article's talk page, and contributed to its content. I am not questioning here state bindings, popular vote winners, or the validity of counting the pledges of unbound delegates. You are still stuck in the mindset that the roll call=submission of names for nomination, and that the binding towards one applies to the other. There is NO reliable source that I have found that says that is the case (or that it is not)- it has been assumed. Besides, another Wiki article does not count as a Reliable Source. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand the whole policy regarding WP:CIRCULAR but the citations are there demonstrating the states that the candidates have won and their sources. However WP:CIRCULAR only applies when I'm using citations in the main article to other sources within Wikipedia which therein lies the difference. It is generally agreed by other editors and myself who have reverted Ron Paul fan changes adding Ron Paul to the ballot list that is the correct form. It will be subjected to change after the convention if that won't be the case especially if there is indeed a hypothetical Round 2 that the Ron Paul fan base hopes for. ViriiK (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

One more try: "States that the candidate won" does not necessarily equal "states whose delegations may offer up someone's name for inclusion in the roll call ballot." I know that Romney has 40-some delegations pledged and/or bound to him for the roll call, and Santorum 6, and Paul either 3 or 4 (depending on how LA shakes out). I'm saying that being bound to Candidate A does not preclude someone from saying "hey, I'm bound to vote for Candidate A and I promise to do so, but I'd sure like to see Candidate B get a chance to have the opportunity to get a few votes too!" Therefore, our example delegate decides to support a motion, brought by a state delegation that is free to vote for B, to have that candidate's name included for the roll call. Meanwhile, his friend that also got elected as a delegate hates Candidate A with a passion, but also is bound by his state party to vote for him in the roll call. So for every other vote, he has vowed to oppose him, and will even abstain from a motion to place A's name in for nomination. If the delegates-for-A and all the delegates like them stick to their pledges, does that mean B has any chance for the nomination? Probably not. Does that mean the exercise is entirely pointless? Maybe not- it still allows Candidate B to get his guaranteed 15-minute speech, plenty of airtime for his ideas and supporters, and a proper sendoff that delegates may feel B deserves. Do you understand the difference yet? Again, I'm not saying delegates can do this, but no one from the GOP has said that Rule 40 means they can't. This article, as currently written, presents the rule with the unequivocal and unsourced message that they can't. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

And that is WP:CRYSTAL talk which doesn't apply as a reason to modify the main article. You're right, this exercise is indeed getting pointless. ViriiK (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Give this a break

I've given this a long and hard review of available sources that I've been able to dig up, but this feud over trying to add or remove Ron Paul from the formal list of candidates at the convention is pointless. For myself, I'd like to simply get rid of the table altogether at least until the convention itself starts, because it is causing far too much grief and none of it is based upon reliable sources. As for the rest of the article, those items which are questionable and don't have sources to back them up have largely been eliminated. I've questioned several assertions, including this whole business of putting up this fancy table that is for now largely a place holder.

I know that some off-wiki canvassing is going on in terms of people who aren't really familiar with Wikipedia policies are trying to make changes to this article in an organized fashion. That is by definition vandalism and won't be tolerated, no matter how else you may be right. This is not the forum to discuss the hair splitting of who is going to get the nomination, and unless you can find a good secondary reliable source that discusses this kind of information, I would say that it should be simply left out. Certainly don't push to have Ron Paul's name added to that list simply because you think it sounds logical. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I am not pushing for Paul's inclusion. I am pushing for an explanation for how everyone made the assumption that state bindings for the roll call also apply to Rule 40(b). Until we have that, I propose that the table be removed. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who disagrees, you both can propose that the table will be removed but there is already one guaranteed person on the ballot which is Mitt Romney. The table will be subjected to be changed AFTER the convention as I've maintained. The only people that stand to gain from this is Ron Paul either removing the table entirely or including him in the table. But as it stands right now, WP:CRYSTAL applies and we cannot make assumptions other than the media telling us what is going to happen. Such as the link to the CNN article today tells me that Ron Paul isn't on the ballot so they're trying to contest as many convention delegations as possible in order to meet the minimum requirement of Rule 40. So here's a proposal. Remove Rick Santorum from the ballot since he's dropped out and there isn't exactly any late supporting Reliable Sources that says Rick Santorum will be considered for the ballot at the convention. If he has been after the convention, he can simply be re-added just like Ron Paul can be added in later which there is precedence of him earning delegates ie: 2008 Republican National Convention ViriiK (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's the point of a table with one name? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Plenty. Such as confirming that Mitt Romney will be voted on in the first round of the convention. Omission of this does not give any impression that Mitt Romney to outside readers he will not be voted on in the first round. The whole point is to clarify that this will be the case. Otherwise we can eliminate the table and modify it into a paragraph explicitly stating that only Mitt Romney meets the minimum requirement since Rick Santorum dropped out but that does not mean that delegates cannot vote for Rick Santorum in the first round. Now additions can be made before the convention if there is Reliable Sources that confirms this. Otherwise we can just have Mitt Romney and Others in its current format which can later be clarified after the convention. ViriiK (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think readers need this table to know that Romney will receive votes during the roll call at the convention. We cannot say, via a paragraph or table, that only Romney meets that requirement because we don't know what that requirement is, because we don't have Reliable Sources (that is, citations from the Republican Party) that explain what is required to meet that requirement. That is to say, how is "support" from 5 delegation pluralities demonstrated? While it is a very safe assumption, saying that Romney (or anyone else) will get this support violates WP:Crystal. Until we get confirmation that state bindings apply to submission of names for nomination and not just the roll call, a list with any name is speculation, not fact. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

And you know this how? There are plenty of articles talking about Ron Paul trying to acquire a speech at the convention but that decision is up to Mitt Romney apparently. There is a reliable source here [5] lost that chance at a speaking role which in turn is only allowed based off the rules of the convention if he makes the plurality list thanks to the same Rule #40 that you like to throw around. Rick Santorum can speak at the convention because he is allowed to since he did meet the plurality of states again by Rule #40. [6] can somewhat supports this claim. The table stays. I understand, it's frustrating. ViriiK (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Santorum "is allowed to since he did meet the plurality of states again by Rule #40." What is the basis of that statement? To arrive there, an assumption had to have been made that binding for the roll call=binding for support of motions for submission for nomination. The second article doesn't cover this topic at all- it mentions Santorum but once in passing. It discusses who has and hasn't been invited to speak at the convention, which is a largely pointless topic because no one has been invited to speak yet. Besides, the issue is not who is invited to speak, it is who is entitled to speak by virtue of receiving a 15-minute nominating speech, which as far as I can tell is only decided at the convention by the delegates. The only pertinent sentence in the first article is this one: "Paul’s loss in Nebraska means he will not be guaranteed a speaking role at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla." Ms. Tysver is basing this on what, exactly? Instead of simply echoing this statement, something, somewhere along the line needs to have been tied back to a statement or action by the RNC's Rules Committee, the RNC parliamentarian, general counsel, or a spokesperson thereof. Otherwise, it is not credible. I haven't been the one claiming to "know" that my opinion is correct- you have. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. And please stop acting as if you unilaterally get to decide what stays or goes. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Who knows what she's basing that on. It's a Reliable Source and that's all Wikipedia editors can say on that subject. ViriiK (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine. You'd like to use some random reporter from Omaha who doesn't back up her statements with sources? I'll counter with another random reporter from Cincinnati who claims to have spoken to the Rules Committee which holds the opposing view- see here. Now which is the reliable source? Trick question- neither. Besides, since she doesn't care to reference Rule 40, then we can't infer for her that she is, meaning that it doesn't have much to do with the issue of whether his name will be on the roll call ballot. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your link violates WP:RS rules so I cannot let it influence my editting decision regardless if it was a trick question. Now you're at the point that you've convinced me that you are advocating for Ron Paul. ViriiK (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't link to Paul radio b/c I wanted you to hear a biased report- I linked to it because it is the only full explanation that I found that was given directly by this reporter for what his sources have told him (apart from the posts on his official FB page tied to the local news affiliate he works for). It is not my fault that he is the only reporter bothering to try to dig into the technicalities of this matter (rather than just making assumptions) or that he chose that venue to speak. I expect he will put together a more formal report soon. However, again, that investigative journalism was done in an attempt to prove my interpretation of what constitutes "support." Can you name a single RS for your claim (that "support" = "bound to") that claims to have spoken to the RNC, even anonymously?

I am not advocating for Ron Paul. I am advocating for a proper interpretation of the rules (or rather, the exclusion of an unsourced interpretation of a rule). Whatever my political beliefs, I would think that a just and proper goal.

It's OK to accept any secondary media report of something that is a uncontroversial. For example, we can use some random local paper's report that says "Mitt Romney won the MI primary" w/o numbers or other facts and sources because no one disputes that (although it wouldn't be the best source). However, when something is as controversial as this is, we ought to more vigorously investigate the matter, and make sure that the sources we use are deriving their information from the relevant authoritative source. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But based on WP:RS, I cannot let that link influence my editing here so I have to omit anything based on that. The Omaha link qualifies under the WP:PRIMARY. As for the rest of your "advocating for a proper interpretation of the rules", that's Original Research and that cannot be considered here on Wikipedia without Reliable Sources. We can go play on the Merry-Go-Round until we've reached the point of ad-nauseum but I'm not going to do that. Now, since you have time writing up long essays and rebukes to my every answer, I suggest you start reading up the policies here at Wikipedia starting with WP:RS or even WP:OR. I'm done on this topic and good luck to you. ViriiK (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, one last time

AS the person who put the table there in the first place, I put the names of the people who had pledged delegates. Those were Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul. The delegates are required to vote for them, the precedent being the vote for Pete McCloskey in 1972. A unpledged delegate can vote for whomever they want, as the person who voted for Eliot Richardson for President in 1976. If you look at the last Convention, Mitt Romney got some votes, even though he he had withdrawn and endorsed McCain. The Democrats are different. Bradley delegates were FORBIDDEN to vote for him at the 2000 convention, and over half the Kucinich delegates were forbidden to vote for him in 2004 (I know, I was actually ON the floor at the time). This may have confused some of the people here. The rules for the Democrats and Republicans are different. The Demorcrats have a ballot, it was used in '08 and placed in ballot boxes.

Some, if not all, of Paul's delegates will vote for him on the sole ballot. Therefore his name should be on the chart, and will be when it's all over. Whether Santorum or Gingrich will be is another matter.

Just to repeat for the umteenth time: There is NO ballot. The 5-state rule, is for the speeches ONLY. The speeches ONLY.Ericl (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, precedent does not apply here, since rule #40 is a new, unprecedented rule, and as the IP pointed out, we don't know how it will be enforced. Mr. Anon515 16:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. What's confusing is that the right to a 15-minute speech is one of the things automatically conferred upon any candidate who gets support from at least 5 delegations. But the primary purpose of the rule is limit who delegates may vote for at the roll call. One possible reason that this was implemented was to make sure eligible candidates have a sufficiently broad base of support, which most favorite son candidates did not. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the original "5 state rule" was all about denying Pete McCloskey, who had ONE delegate in 1972, a nominating speech. It was all about the speeches. The new rule with the plurality instead of majority was the fear that no one might qualify for a speech this time out. The rules still lets un-nominated candidates get votes.Ericl (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed this, but you're absolutely right, Ericl. A version of Rule 40 that is worded almost exactly the same as it is now was used in the last convention, and it did not prevent delegates from voting for other people. Practically speaking, it would appear that the only tangible benefit of being nominated by 5 delegations is the right to claim an 'earned' 15-minute speech, rather than one gifted to you by someone else, which would give one some valuable time to air their views, along with other more abstract benefits. Anyways, congrats for being on top of this. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold on here

What the IP is proposing is interesting, but it is original research unless he or she can provide a source. The fact that Ron Paul requires a lawsuit to obtain Louisiana's delegates indicates that the RNC currently sees the state as not Paul's state in terms of plurality. Mr. Anon515 16:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree my opinion is OR. What I also said is that the status quo opinion here is also OR. Paul did not file a lawsuit over LA, he has filed a contests challenge. The RNC has not yet made any decision. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Also in response to the IP, the CNN article lists Ron Paul's states as Iowa, Minnesota, and Maine, with him currently fighting over Louisiana, Oregon, and Massachusetts. Strangely, Nevada is not mentioned in that article, even though Paul could obtain a plurality there if he unbinds the Massachusetts delegates. Mr. Anon515 16:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I talked about this a little more on the talk page for the primaries, but the argument they're making in that blog post is a logically inconsistent one. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

While the idea of mutual self destruction AFTER you've lost may sound good to someone with nothing to lose, every reputable journalist has Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney listed on the ballot. All this rule 40 stuff is original research. In my opinion, the table stays until something changes (not future speculated change). I don't mind putting up with the constant IP changes for 4 more weeks. Naapple (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I argued that it was original research, and I've been critical of that table (as can be seen in previous discussions as well as this one). Regardless, it will all be over in a matter of a few weeks, so I think it is best to simply give this whole discussion a rest and just let things happen as they may. In this case, I think there will be plenty of reliable sources which will tell the tale of who was on the ballot after the ballot is cast. In future elections, I may simply argue to get rid of such a table in the first place if a similar situation pops up again... explicitly because of this fiasco. It seems more WP:POINT right now to remove the table. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing credible and sourced information to appease a vocal minority is not the objective of WP:POINT. I don' think the editors here are trying to keep the table to stick it to the Paul crowd, it really does belong there. I see the point you're trying to make, I just disagree.

This latest gambit is just to remove the table now because their candidate isn't in it. No one was arguing this before when they thought Ron Paul had 5 states. Nothing has changed since then. Again, I see how you may think this sounds a lot like WP:POINT, but I'd argue just the opposite. Now that the Paul crowd is angry, they're trying to justify removing the entire table. This behavior is the essence of what WP:POINT is stating to avoid doing. The table belonged then and it still belongs now. Anyone else feel different? Naapple (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The other issue is that they simply cannot wait until the convention has concluded to get the official result so the table must go. I think it has to do with the fact (and it's public) that they're trying to get all the delegates they can to come over to the Ron Paul category despite the fact that Romney (at least his campaign did) chose those delegates himself that are his own. I've always seen Nevada and several states thrown out there that supposedly are "Ron Paul states" but those state delegates are bounded to the primary/caucus election result in the first round so they are by extension "Romney Delegates" giving the plurality to Romney, not Paul. As I keep saying, the table should stay and be left to be modified until 'after the convention. People just don't have patience. ViriiK (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, stop lumping me together with your stereotype of generic Paul supporters. I, and I alone, have been diligent enough to be making these points regarding Rule 40, nomination motions, and what constitutes "support", and I have been doing so for some time now. If you must know, I suffer no delusions that anyone but Mitt Romney is likely to win the nomination next month. Secondly, you say that I have no patience to wait until after the convention to propose changes to that section. One can argue that you similarly lack patience to wait to see who all the delegates can and will vote for. Third, it has very recently come to my attention that we have all been mistaken (with the exception of Ericl) regarding when Rule 40 was first enacted. It turns out that it is not entirely a new rule, but was in place at least as far back as the 2008 convention (which operated under rules adopted in 2004). The only difference was the replacement of the word "majority" with "plurality." There is more discussion of this, including a link to that set of rules, over at the talk page for the 2012 GOP primaries. Since Paul & Romney both received some votes in 2008 (lack of support from 5 delegations notwithstanding), I believe this proves once and for all that this table, as currently portrayed, violates WP:CRYSTAL. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not violate WP:CRYSTAL since the people listed are Romney and Santorum both of which are and did gain plurality in the minimum states so that part is true. It makes no assumption of how many delegates that have voted for them in the first round since it currently stands at nothing for either or Other categories. ViriiK (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If this article was the 2008 article, and Ron Paul and Mitt Romney didn't have plurality of 5 states, they would be lumped in the "other" category. The link of rules is more original research. Find an article. Naapple (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Viriik, the only reason that section & table are there is because of Rule 40, which is why it's written out right above it. Since we now know that Rule 40 places no limit or arbitrary threshold of support required to be met to receive votes from delegates, the table can no longer imply only those two candidates will get votes. If you want to say that Mitt Romney will almost certainly get votes & therefore belongs in the table, then you need to at least add Bachmann, Huntsman, Gingrich, and Paul to the list since none of them have released their delegates. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Naapple, I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? The link to the 2004 rules isn't "original research"- it's a primary source with the rule clearly stated in black & white. That changes things because it now means that there is meaningful precedent to use to say how Rule 40 will be applied this year. It will not control who can get votes from the delegates, period. Paul's name not only was not formally placed into nomination, the votes that were cast for him were ignored and not tallied until a proper review of the count took place after the roll call ended. Romney's name was not nominated either, but his votes are correctly labeled next to his name in the 2008 table. I don't see why 2012 should be any different. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at some of the other pages of past years. Since we don't know who will definitely get votes, it makes sense to either add everyone who could potentially get them (everyone in the race from Iowa, and onward), or to include those who are guaranteed to get votes, which is only Romney.

I don't see the point in removing the table as in 4 weeks it'll be there anyway with the final results with only those persons who received at least one delegate. Naapple (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing the Table

Unlike the claims that User:Naapple has made, I did suggest back in May that this table needed to be removed. I've been consistent on that issue the whole time, and it wasn't due to any kind of bias for any candidate, but rather because I was tired of the edit warring that has taken place.

On the positive side, the edit warring is taking place on the talk page in what appears to be a civil discussion rather than fights over particular edits, but it still seems to be a problem. Still, I think this table and interpretation of the rules is very much original research that needs to be pulled out, unless you can find some reliable sources talking about the issue. About the only place I've seen the issue even discussed is here on Wikipedia, and on a Facebook page I posted trying to solicit some feedback in terms of assistance trying to dig up some reliable sources of information. The more I dug in to those sources, the more I saw that the status quo was supported rather than refuted BTW, but that still is largely original research and interpretation.

At this point, I think the burden of proof lay with those who want to change the article to be something different, including removing this table. It seems very reasonable that in a month or so there will be plenty of reliable sources to flesh out the table with real information, including a definitive statement from somebody that Ron Paul's name was or was not submitted before the convention, how many votes he got, or what kind of reaction may or may not happen if his name was or was not on the ballot. It can be reliably asserted that some vote is going to happen and furthermore seems very likely that Mitt Romney is even going to get the nomination in one round of voting, with such an assertion backed up by reliable sources.

What I want to understand is why it must be removed in the next four weeks or so when it will just be added right back again. We can fight about who shows up on that table when the time comes, for the moment I'm content to just let dead dogs lie where they are sleeping and be done with the whole thing. Less than a month to worry about this is a relatively short period of time even for wiki editing. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

While technically speaking it is impossible to know the full list of everyone who will receive votes at the convention before it actually happens, I would be willing to, as you suggest, let dead dogs lie if we include everyone that we can expect to receive votes due to the binding rules currently in place. That is, everyone who won at least one delegate after Iowa- Bachmann, Huntsman, Gingrich, Paul, Romney, and Santorum. Have those six names, plus a line for "Others" (to leave a space for votes cast for any as-yet-unknown people by unbound delegates), and call it a day until we have the actual numbers. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Naapple (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of a consensus so I added in the names by delegate count. If this is still an issue I won't be offended if the table is reverted; so long as it's discussed here. Naapple (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What will be the criteria to included candidates in the table right now? A unbound delegate can vote for anyone they like so every person any editor think would be voted in a sort of write-in way could be added. Only candidates with 5 states plurality or more will have a nomination speech and in that way be on the "ballot", who else will be voted for at the roll call is everybodies guess. Only delegates that are bound to a candidate that have nomination speech have to vote for the person, the other will be unbound, but can as I understand it vote for their candidate. I have not been able to see that in any source but concluded it on the basic of the 2004 convention. So that would be OR and are not to be included.

Either we should remove the table for a few weeks or we should keep it with the persons that will have nomination speeches and others to show that delegates may vote for other than the two that have made the criteria. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to kindly disagree. If we want to leave all the text surrounding the table intact, with Rule 40 and all, then the table should include everybody we know will get some votes (those with delegates bound to them) + others for, well, others. Either that or remove the table & section altogether. Alternatively, if you'd like to see a table with just those two names, then it should be rewritten to say those are the candidates who will be giving nomination speeches, not just getting votes (to the exclusion of others). Although I must admit, I'd be surprised if Santorum ended up using his speech. I still maintain nomination motions have nothing to do with bindings, which our count of pluralities is based off of. However, no one here seems to believe that, so do what you will. In a few short weeks we will know who is right :P 68.58.63.22 (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack makes a good point. These guys could vote for Mickey Mouse if they wanted to. Naapple (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote above, "While technically speaking it is impossible to know the full list of everyone who will receive votes at the convention before it actually happens"... Yes, unbound delegates could hypothetically vote for Mickey Mouse. That's why I'd prefer the table not be included at all. However, since there seems to be a consensus to have a table, then the names should be everyone we reasonably expect to receive votes- the 6 candidates who have bound delegates. "Others" is for Mickey & his sort. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack, if I understand you correctly, you are saying the criteria for choosing which names are listed (rather than lumped into "other") should only be those guaranteed nominating speeches, because along with that comes a guarantee the delegates bound to them will stay that way. You believe delegates bound to other candidates will become unbound if their candidate fails to be "supported" by 5 delegations. Do you have a source for that? If not, I think we can only assume every bound delegate will stay bound, unless the lawsuit changes that, or those delegates are released by their respective candidates. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

When the different delegation will be bound to vote for a candidate or when they will not differs from state to state. The delegates are often, but not always, released when a candidate withdraws. It seems a little fuzzy when that is. I think we should either remove the table or included all the ones with five state plurality or bound delegates, since they will be in the final table. Any of the options are good with me.

The best place to find the every different state rule is The Green Papers. I haven't checked all states but to me it seems to come down to Texas. Gingrich won South Carolina, that seems not to unbound delegates, check yourself: [7]. Santorum and Romney also have bound delegates in five states or more. The rest of the candidates, including Paul, only have bound delegates in Texas. That would included Paul since he is in every definition still running (at least until he endorse Romney), but does it included the other delegates that have stop running long before these delegates was assigned to them? Here is the GP link: [8]. As I see it these Texas delegates became unbound in the moment they was bound to such a candidate. But that depends on what withdrawal means in Texas. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Bachmann, Huntsman, Gingrich or Santorum ever formally withdrew. I don't know if they quietly did recently, but initial reports had them all "suspending" their campaigns, which is not a term found in or recognized by the rules of the RNC or any state. Paul we know never suspended his campaign, much less formally withdraw. Speaking of Paul, he has bound delegates in many states other than Texas, including NH, where Huntsman also has a couple. Texas only saw Bachmann join the club with her single delegate. If Santorum or any of the others withdrew & released their delegates, I would imagine that someone would have reported it by now. I think it has become typical for "withdrawn" candidates to wait until the convention actually begins to release their delegates, because there are no downsides to waiting, and a huge upside for them if something happens that incapacitates or otherwise makes the presumptive nominee withdraw before then. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspending instead of withdrewing is mostly an economic thing, the way to settle campaign debt and maybe even collect for the next campaign is very different in these two cases. in Illinois the state party consider a suspension to be a withdrawl, so these terms are a bit fuzzy. New Hampshire consider Huntsmans delegates to be unbound, any you are right Paul has bound delegates in several states. South Carolina does not seem to recognize any withdrawl (as I read the Green Papers). So if we are to follow these criterias it is Romney, Santorum, Paul and Gingrich and then we have to find out what they mean by withdrawn in Texas fir the rest. Or we could just remove the table :) :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's true about campaign debt being a factor- I remember Santorum putting up a special donation page after he left the race. Where did you find that the NH state party regards Huntsman's delegates as unbound? Everything I read (admittedly all secondary sources, whose reliability of late is very debatable) said that they were still technically his unless he released them. I'm not sure about TX, but I think the burden of proof should be on those proving delegates are unbound, not the reverse. But since we are both sure that the major 4 all have bound delegates (barring the lawsuit being heard tomorrow), we should go ahead and add them to the table, no? Or yes, we could remove the table (which I would support), but there seems to be a couple people here who feel rather strongly it should stay, so there is 'proof' Romney will get votes... 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Add economic effect for Tampa area?

• Strip Clubs in Tampa Are Ready to Cash In on G.O.P. Convention July 26, 2012, regarding strip clubs

99.181.143.157 (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's irrelevant. WP:NOTNEWS ViriiK (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, add. Economic impact is an often-discussed aspect of conventions. groupuscule (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Naapple (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding anything specific about strip clubs violates WP:UNDUE. The burden is to show how it is relevant to the article as a whole, which this is not. Something about the overall economic impact on the Tampa Bay area might be useful as it certainly will happen, just find several reliable sources about the issue. It should certainly be following NPOV guidelines and be generally tasteful. Please don't go for shock value on this, such as talking about whoring among the delegates or something equally stupid. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. The NYT thought it was important enough for an article, as did dozens of other sources. WP:Notability (events) seems like the relevant policy page. Does this fall under "sensationalism"? I'm not sure it does... it's been part of the narrative of Republican and Democrat conventions for years, and actually emerging more and more as a significant component. I would caution against an inverse reaction, based on the idea that "whoring" is automatically unimportant, "personal," and tangential. love, groupuscule (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that the fact that different nightclubs are getting more bussiness (prostitution is illegal in Florida, so "whoring" will not have an impact on the legal economy and any text about that would be better in the police section) is not the only impact on the Tampa economy. I think that it would be interesting to read a section about the whole economic impact on Tampa, negatives (more money to police) and positives (full hotels and bussiness in the shops), but simply to focus on a few nightclub would not be relevant. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sex work isn't part of the economy like porn isn't part of the internet. And it's not the part of the convention that will be policed. That being said, I don't feel extremely strongly about its inclusion or exclusion. (Maybe if there were academic studies of sex work at political conventions?) Of course if we do include it on this page, we should do the same for the folks in Charlotte. shalom, groupuscule (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Demand for hotel rooms and rental cars is expected to be particularly high." It's a double standard to include this sentence but not mention that strip clubs are expecting four times as much business. What do all three industries have in common? They all have been mentioned by reliable sources, have an effect on the local economy, and all have nothing to do with the convention itself. Since it's a given that these sorts of businesses benefit every time there's any sort of event that brings a lot of people into town, it seems unnecessary to include it. It'd be like saying the roads are expected to wear at twice the normal rate that week. If anything is newsworthy about it, it's this tidbit: "...an informal survey of convention business in New York and Denver had determined that Republicans dropped more money at clubs, by far. “Hands down, it was Republicans,” she said. “The average was $150 for Republicans and $50 for Democrats.'" It's an interesting thing to discover about a party that goes out of its way to tout "family values." That said, I don't support including that, because it would stir up everybody's partisan passions & lead to an edit war. More broadly speaking, I oppose including any of this information (including the bit about hotels & rental cars), but as I said, it's wrong to include that but not something else that will have an economic impact and has been discussed by at least as many sources as those services. It makes it look like Wikipedia is ignoring it just because of a few persons sensitivities to anything related to sex. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)