Summary: "Oh, no. Another post about the RNC rules. Let me see how fast I can click away from this..." Stop! I get it. Who cares about a political party's internal rules? And when I see "Rule 16(a)(2)" and "delegate’s affirmative duty under state law or state party rule", my eyes glaze over a little, too. Read on, for why you should care. This stuff determines who gets elected and how much freedom you continue to enjoy. As a result of rules changes made at the Republlican National Committee Spring Meeting in Hollywood, grassroots activists regained a little bit of control in how elections are carried out, and assured that political candidates were a little more honest. RNC insiders, for all their talk of letting voters decide candidates, would in fact rather nominate by consensus. That means continuing let the people in Washington, DC and the media choose candidates based on personal wealth, seniority, or whose turn it is. Rules about the order and type of primaries determine the type of candidates we get to vote for. If you want to choose among lackluster, uninteresting candidates whose sole skill is playing by Party rules, do nothing. The insiders are happy to supply you with them. But if you want to open the process to candidates willing and able to run on their ideas, you have to get involved with the rule-making process, and that means joining a political party, starting at the precinct level. Many people who think the way you do are already there. It's time you joined the fight. At the meeting, a motion to restore full grassroots control of the Party was quashed (video and state-by-state vote below). We haven't taken over enough of the delegations. But members undid the worst change pushed through by Romney operatives at the party’s 2012 convention in Tampa, making sure candidates are beholden to delegates and not the other way around. As reported by Newsmax.com, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said after the rule change that “presidential candidates can neither veto delegates nor unseat delegates." Why is that important, really? Here is the heavy-handed Romney version of Rule 16 (a) (2), which said (pdf) (emphasis added):(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. The effect of that was to bind delegates to candidates, turning them into mere functionaries or placeholders, centralizing power with the nominee and the RNC. I was a convention delegate in 2012, campaigning in my congressional district. I had to choose, before any states had voted, which of the many candidates I would support. Since no candidate is perfect, I had to choose the one among several that I thought would be popular enough in my area to make campaigning for him or her a positive experience. I had to collect signatures, going door-to-door in the snow (though thankfully it was only uphill one way). I also had
