This outcome would mean that the magic figure – a simple majority – to win the nomination would drop below the stated requirement of 1,237 delegates. The practical effect of Rule 40, in wiping out the delegates won by candidates who cannot meet the threshold, makes a first-ballot victory a virtual certainty if there are only one or two candidates who are able to get their names placed in nomination.
Not sure that's right.
"40 (d) When at the close of a roll call any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States has received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention, the chairman of the convention shall announce the votes for each candidate whose name was presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this rule."
The winner needs a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention, which is always 1237.
The implication is Rubio, Kasich, etc's voters would vote for their candidates on the first ballot [they are bound to do so], even though those candidates are not validly nominated. No official record of these votes would be kept, and if Trump didn't have the 1237 it would go to a second ballot, where the also rans' delegates would become unbound, and the free to vote for either of the validly-nominated candidates [assuming just two]. No other candidates could be added to the mix.
London to Toton at 200 mph. Toton to Nottingham at 20 mph!
While at present it is possible to travel to Nottingham from St Pancras in 90 minutes at present, with no change.
In the East Midlands we have an excellent service to St Pancras, with onwards connections to the continent. The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient.
For you. Fortunately, transport policy is not set according to what benefits Mr Sox. That would be absurd.
You also ignore the other potential benefits from HS2, which I linked to earlier.
"The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient."
It may not be if HS2 does not get built and a capacity crunch occurs.
Although the MML does have a fair amount of leeway for expansion: firstly electrification, then quadrupling. Some of this is already being done though, and after the easy things are done it gets very expensive very quickly.
London to Toton at 200 mph. Toton to Nottingham at 20 mph!
While at present it is possible to travel to Nottingham from St Pancras in 90 minutes at present, with no change.
In the East Midlands we have an excellent service to St Pancras, with onwards connections to the continent. The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient.
For you. Fortunately, transport policy is not set according to what benefits Mr Sox. That would be absurd.
You also ignore the other potential benefits from HS2, which I linked to earlier.
"The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient."
It may not be if HS2 does not get built and a capacity crunch occurs.
Although the MML does have a fair amount of leeway for expansion: firstly electrification, then quadrupling. Some of this is already being done though, and after the easy things are done it gets very expensive very quickly.
London to Toton at 200 mph. Toton to Nottingham at 20 mph!
While at present it is possible to travel to Nottingham from St Pancras in 90 minutes at present, with no change.
In the East Midlands we have an excellent service to St Pancras, with onwards connections to the continent. The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient.
For you. Fortunately, transport policy is not set according to what benefits Mr Sox. That would be absurd.
You also ignore the other potential benefits from HS2, which I linked to earlier.
"The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient."
It may not be if HS2 does not get built and a capacity crunch occurs.
Although the MML does have a fair amount of leeway for expansion: firstly electrification, then quadrupling. Some of this is already being done though, and after the easy things are done it gets very expensive very quickly.
But still, if it doesn't benefit Mr Sox, I guess it shouldn't happen.
Just an example! It is going nowhere near Cambridge either so not likely to benefit Mr Jessop either.
A classic white elephant in the making.
But I'm in favour of HS2 and the investment in the current network, so that's rubbish. Even if it does not advantage me directly on a day-to-day basis, I can see the bigger picture. You only seem interested in what benefits you directly.
I suspect the aspiration for trains to run at 250 mph came about to help make the business case for the project. Personally I would pull the plug on it.
The thing you need to bear in mind is that in 30 years, the need for HS2 will be unarguable. As with Crossrail and the Thameslink programme, "cancelling" it will merely put it on ice until it's desperately needed - and then we'll have to wait 20 years for it to be built.
I think adding new capacity is unarguable. We are never given alternatives. It is either HS2 or nothing ?
Well, you could build another Victorian style line, but I'm not sure why you would want to.
You mean one where passengers can get on and off at intermediate stations and interchange with other lines? One suitable to commuters?
We already have one of those. Because of the lack of capacity the intermediate stations don't have enough trains stopping.
Build a modern line for the long distance passengers and free up capacity on the old line. Not rocket science.
No point in a second network that doesn't link in.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands.
Because nearly nobody currently lives where there isn't a station...
Actually, there are plans to extend the Nottingham tram system to link into Derby and HS2 at Toton.
London to Toton at 200 mph. Toton to Nottingham at 20 mph!
While at present it is possible to travel to Nottingham from St Pancras in 90 minutes at present, with no change.
In the East Midlands we have an excellent service to St Pancras, with onwards connections to the continent. The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient.
The project is not designed entirely for your benefit.
London to Toton at 200 mph. Toton to Nottingham at 20 mph!
While at present it is possible to travel to Nottingham from St Pancras in 90 minutes at present, with no change.
In the East Midlands we have an excellent service to St Pancras, with onwards connections to the continent. The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient.
For you. Fortunately, transport policy is not set according to what benefits Mr Sox. That would be absurd.
You also ignore the other potential benefits from HS2, which I linked to earlier.
"The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient."
It may not be if HS2 does not get built and a capacity crunch occurs.
Although the MML does have a fair amount of leeway for expansion: firstly electrification, then quadrupling. Some of this is already being done though, and after the easy things are done it gets very expensive very quickly.
London to Toton at 200 mph. Toton to Nottingham at 20 mph!
While at present it is possible to travel to Nottingham from St Pancras in 90 minutes at present, with no change.
In the East Midlands we have an excellent service to St Pancras, with onwards connections to the continent. The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient.
For you. Fortunately, transport policy is not set according to what benefits Mr Sox. That would be absurd.
You also ignore the other potential benefits from HS2, which I linked to earlier.
"The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient."
It may not be if HS2 does not get built and a capacity crunch occurs.
Although the MML does have a fair amount of leeway for expansion: firstly electrification, then quadrupling. Some of this is already being done though, and after the easy things are done it gets very expensive very quickly.
But still, if it doesn't benefit Mr Sox, I guess it shouldn't happen.
Just an example! It is going nowhere near Cambridge either so not likely to benefit Mr Jessop either.
A classic white elephant in the making.
But I'm in favour of HS2 and the investment in the current network, so that's rubbish. Even if it does not advantage me directly on a day-to-day basis, I can see the bigger picture. You only seem interested in what benefits you directly.
We would benefit much more from other transport infrastructure, its all about opportunity cost.
London to Toton at 200 mph. Toton to Nottingham at 20 mph!
While at present it is possible to travel to Nottingham from St Pancras in 90 minutes at present, with no change.
In the East Midlands we have an excellent service to St Pancras, with onwards connections to the continent. The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient.
For you. Fortunately, transport policy is not set according to what benefits Mr Sox. That would be absurd.
You also ignore the other potential benefits from HS2, which I linked to earlier.
"The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient."
It may not be if HS2 does not get built and a capacity crunch occurs.
Although the MML does have a fair amount of leeway for expansion: firstly electrification, then quadrupling. Some of this is already being done though, and after the easy things are done it gets very expensive very quickly.
But still, if it doesn't benefit Mr Sox, I guess it shouldn't happen.
Just an example! It is going nowhere near Cambridge either so not likely to benefit Mr Jessop either.
A classic white elephant in the making.
But I'm in favour of HS2 and the investment in the current network, so that's rubbish. Even if it does not advantage me directly on a day-to-day basis, I can see the bigger picture. You only seem interested in what benefits you directly.
We would benefit much more from other transport infrastructure, its all about opportunity cost.
Would we? From what you're writing, it seems you only care about what benefits you in Leicester. Leaving aside the advantages Leicester may gain from HS2, even if it does not have a station outside your house door.
Read what I've written before about the costs of upgrading existing lines, and think how much worse that gets as lines get busier.
Interesting to have an intelligent debate for a change , not many of the usual nutjobs around today, but I have to leave . Some gardening and plants to pot. I will depart with this one thought.
"UK governments have had 300 years to get Scotland into a healthy shape, but it’s somehow Scotland’s fault that it is a mess"
Can anyone explain that one.
After all the Scottish Leaders of the UK - you blame the UK.....
They were working for the UK and themselves, obviously not in Scotland's interests. When they get up the greasy pole and join the establishment they act just the same as the English, Welsh etc. Why can you not see that they will always favour the partner that is 85% of the union and ignore the under 10% partner, it is called political expediency.
Hint: unless we vote LEAVE, there won't be a referendum before 2020. I'll offer £1000 at evens on that. I very much doubt there will be one before 2030.
Hosie said this morning there won't be a referendum even if we vote leave. Sturgeon said as much yesterday, although the Zoomers didn't hear it
That was not what the conference delegates thought they heard as the First Minister announced a new independence ‘initiative’ to be launched ‘this summer’ but it was what they were told nonetheless. There are no plans for IndyRef2, at least not yet. Ms Sturgeon prefers to bide her time, trusting that the arc of history bends in her direction. Patience, people.
All those things that were going to ‘trigger’ another referendum? Unmentioned. At least for now. Brexit? Not enough. At least not on its own. Not yet.
No point in a second network that doesn't link in.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands. It would take as long to get there from Leicester as it currently takes to get to St Pancras. And the East Midlands at least has a track!
How many journeys actually start at Euston and go to Brum without a journey at either end?
HS2 links in very well. Many trains will be running over the rest of the network, then onto other destinations using HS2 tracks. Hence Scotland, Preston, Liverpool etc will get HS2 services, which is why the first phase has been extended to Crewe early, so trains from up north get the advantage early.
It's more choice and more trains. And it's not as if the existing rail network is being forgotten: Leicefoster's line is being electrified in the next few years, further improving journey times that (from memory) were improved just a year or two ago.
For potential advantages of released capacity to Leicester, see Network Rail's 'Better Connections' report.
You are kidding , they are talking 50 to 60 years before it reaches Scotland which means never in reality. Cuckoo.
No, I'm not kidding. The rails do not need to reach Scotland for trains from Scotland to gain an advantage, as they can join the high-speed route further south near Wigan.
That old chesnut , get train to Wigan and then get a bus, great idea.
Hint: unless we vote LEAVE, there won't be a referendum before 2020. I'll offer £1000 at evens on that. I very much doubt there will be one before 2030.
Hosie said this morning there won't be a referendum even if we vote leave. Sturgeon said as much yesterday, although the Zoomers didn't hear it
That was not what the conference delegates thought they heard as the First Minister announced a new independence ‘initiative’ to be launched ‘this summer’ but it was what they were told nonetheless. There are no plans for IndyRef2, at least not yet. Ms Sturgeon prefers to bide her time, trusting that the arc of history bends in her direction. Patience, people.
All those things that were going to ‘trigger’ another referendum? Unmentioned. At least for now. Brexit? Not enough. At least not on its own. Not yet.
No point in a second network that doesn't link in.
For example the only HS2 station in the East Midlands will be halfway between Nottingham and Derby. Convenient for nearly no-one in the East Midlands. It would take as long to get there from Leicester as it currently takes to get to St Pancras. And the East Midlands at least has a track!
How many journeys actually start at Euston and go to Brum without a journey at either end?
HS2 links in very well. Many trains will be running over the rest of the network, then onto other destinations using HS2 tracks. Hence Scotland, Preston, Liverpool etc will get HS2 services, which is why the first phase has been extended to Crewe early, so trains from up north get the advantage early.
It's more choice and more trains. And it's not as if the existing rail network is being forgotten: Leicefoster's line is being electrified in the next few years, further improving journey times that (from memory) were improved just a year or two ago.
For potential advantages of released capacity to Leicester, see Network Rail's 'Better Connections' report.
You are kidding , they are talking 50 to 60 years before it reaches Scotland which means never in reality. Cuckoo.
No, I'm not kidding. The rails do not need to reach Scotland for trains from Scotland to gain an advantage, as they can join the high-speed route further south near Wigan.
That old chesnut , get train to Wigan and then get a bus, great idea.
I think you've been drinking a little too much turnip juice.
Comments
"40 (d) When at the close of a roll call any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States has received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention, the chairman of the convention shall announce the votes for each candidate whose name was presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this rule."
The winner needs a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention, which is always 1237.
The implication is Rubio, Kasich, etc's voters would vote for their candidates on the first ballot [they are bound to do so], even though those candidates are not validly nominated. No official record of these votes would be kept, and if Trump didn't have the 1237 it would go to a second ballot, where the also rans' delegates would become unbound, and the free to vote for either of the validly-nominated candidates [assuming just two]. No other candidates could be added to the mix.
You also ignore the other potential benefits from HS2, which I linked to earlier.
"The HS2 service will be more expensive and less convenient."
It may not be if HS2 does not get built and a capacity crunch occurs.
Although the MML does have a fair amount of leeway for expansion: firstly electrification, then quadrupling. Some of this is already being done though, and after the easy things are done it gets very expensive very quickly.
As an example, the line through Market Harborough is going to be straightened to increase line speeds and increase platform lengths.
http://www.harborough-rail.co.uk/latest-news.php
But still, if it doesn't benefit Mr Sox, I guess it shouldn't happen.
A classic white elephant in the making.
Read what I've written before about the costs of upgrading existing lines, and think how much worse that gets as lines get busier.
Never seen the Unionist press and Ruth so off message.
Scott is not too bright , he cannot connect the two and realise it is an oxymoron.
Ha Ha Ha , you daft Tories are a hoot