The Ron Paul Delegate count is growing.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Glad to see you clarify the distinction between the primaries and the general.

However, I still have to disagree with your love for the Electoral College. The thing you are forgetting is that the president is supposed to be a general representative of the numerical majority of the American people. The regional representation you seek for those places that are neither California nor New York comes in congress. That's why we have a house of representatives with proportional population based representation and a senate with equal representation for each state.

The Electoral College can only do two things: reaffirm or override the popular vote. If it reaffirms it, it is unnecessary. If it overrides it, it is (to my mind) evil.

The same can be said, to some extent, of the delegate system. I say to some extent because primary elections are essentially party business, not government business. As such, they can be conducted in whatever way the political parties see fit. Of course, there is also in here a strong case for the defunding of primary elections since they are not directly relevant to the actual administration of government and force independents to indirectly fund the actions of organizations in which they put no stock. Far better, of course, would be the eradication of political parties altogether, but that is a different more futile rant for another time.

Whatever the case, I wish you well. An Obama -vs- Paul race would be far more interesting than any of the other options and frankly if a bunch of Republicans get screwed over by this maneuver I will only be bothered by the broader implications and not this particular situation.

Ron Paul can't win, or even come close to winning, by only stealing...I mean winning delegates in the Caucus states.

In total, there are 439 delegates from states that have Caucuses. Even if Ron Paul stole...sorry...won every single delegate in every state that holds a caucus...he would still come up very short.

Primaries don't have the same system as caucus states...there aren't two votes like in a caucus. When you vote in the primary, you vote for the delegate...and those delegates are supporters of their candidate.

The same goes for the general election...Ron Paul can't game that system like he is the caucus system. When you go to vote in the general election, you are essentially voting for a delegate that supports that candidate. Those delegates are part of the candidates campaign. So unless you are saying that Ron Paul supporters are going to infiltrate Obama's campaign, lie to everyone, and fraud the voters who vote for them as a delegate....Ron Paul can't play the same game in the general as he is in the Caucus states.


But, Ron Paul can't even make it to the General if he doesn't start winning some Primary states...and he has done very poorly in states that are holding primaries so far.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


Oh come on. You know damn well that without it politics in this country becomes a very different animal. The focus would be on NY Chicago and California, the rest of the country becomes irrelevant in a strict popular vote.

The needs and concerns of the average New Yorker are nothing like they are for me in rural Minnesota, same with Chicago or California.

It may not be a perfect system, but it's what we have.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

...stealing...I mean winning delegates...

Be honest, your just trying to get a reaction here. I know your better than that.

You know that nothing is getting stolen. The Ron Paul delegates are not hiding their support or lying. The delegate election process is not in some private location. The delegates express their support in public, and are publicly elected by those who have attended to vote. The vote is open to anybody who shows up. No theft there just a free and open vote and you know it.

But, Ron Paul can't even make it to the General if he doesn't start winning some Primary states

You are right. He will eventually have to start coming in 1st place in some states. Four 2nd place finishes so far is not a bad start considering 42 Primary/Caucasus are left before this whole thing is over and considering how weak the competition is.

So lets take that and run with it. What happens if Ron Paul wins a few states tomorrow? That could certainly lead to more wins. I know you think it is unlikely but everyone knows that it isn't wise to count chickens before they hatch and there is no denying that Ron Paul does have a growing base of support. If he can get a 1st place finish we could really start to see him take off.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


He is asking his delegates to vote against the will of the people in their precinct...he is stealing those delegates.

Try to sugar coat it all you want...but people go to these Caucuses, cast their vote in the preference poll, see that in their precinct, let's say Romney won. They choose a delegate to go REPRESENT THEM. Not to go and represnt THEMSELVES.

Ron Paul delegates that are voting against their precincts popular vote are betraying their neighbors and telling them that THEY know better, that they are going to ignore their community vote and do whatever THEY want to do.

So yes...they are being very dishonest and stealing any delegate they get in this way.



As for tomorrow...Ron Paul has a good chance at Alaska, Idaho, and North Dakota...all Caucus states. Like I said...he can win every Caucus state with 100% of delegates and he will not be anywhere near winning the nomination. He needs to win PRIMARY states to be a serious contender.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


My neighbors are the ones who voted to send me to the state convention.

I have Ron Paul stickers on my cars and my entire fleet of work trucks, as well as signs on highway frontage land that everyone in town knows is mine and a 4 by 8 sign in the front window of my showroom.

Myself and the other delegates didn't backdoor anything, they voted us in knowing we were Paul supporters.

We didn't set the rules, we are only following them.


But if you want to talk about a party forcing it's will on the people we have at least 3 county convetions where procedures were not followed and rules were broken to keep Paul supporters out of delegate seats. And we are working with the county attorney's in all 3 to rectify the situation. Early word is that there might be 3 or 4 more, but we are waiting for the tapes to see.

You see we had a Ron Paul supporter at every convention overseeing the process because we knew there were forces in the Republican party that were going to try and subvert the rules. So once we have reviewed the other tapes we'll see if there are new counties to add. In one case the floor was never opened for discussion and the vote was to keep the previous delegates seated with no new delegates being chosen.

If anybody is doing anything shady it isn't the Paul people, it's the people who are afraid of Paul.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

He is asking his delegates to vote against the will of the people in their precinct...he is stealing those delegates.

No he is not. Please show me where he has stated such and maybe I will believe you. What he is doing is asking his supporters to participate in the delegate selection process. All of the candidates are asking for their supporters to do the same. The delegate process is free and open to the public. Nobody is stealing anything and you know it. No sugar coating is necessary. Facts are facts.

Ron Paul delegates that are voting against their precincts popular vote are betraying their neighbors and telling them that THEY know better, that they are going to ignore their community vote and do whatever THEY want to do.

Nobody is voting against anybodies wishes. Are you trying to suggest that the people voting at the straw poll are too stupid to know that the delegate selection process is separate? It is not a secret. The delegates are elected freely in a open to the public vote and nobody is being disingenuous about who they support.

What you are doing is trying to combine two uniquely different processes that are unrelated. What about non-binding is unclear? I know you understand that just fine. You are just trying to get a reaction out of people by sensationalizing what is really happening by using words like "stealing".

All of the candidates are asking their supporters to be involved in the delegate selection process. Ron Paul is winning that election process so you call it stealing because the outcome doesn't match up exactly to an unrelated straw poll which is not part of the process, simply another event that occurs in an election cycle.

He needs to win PRIMARY states to be a serious contender.

That is not exactly true. He needs to win caucus states AND place well in primary states. The primary states are either winner take all OR they give delegates proportionately. He will need to eventually win a primary state and build off that win but in many states a close 2nd place finish will give him the same amount or nearly the same amount of delegates as the winner.

What he needs to do is simply get as many delegates as he can, which is what he is doing. If he places 2nd in every primary state and each state chooses a different 1st place person every time guess who wins? Number 2. He needs to do well in every state and win a few outright.

Delegate Count Today, Monday:

Romney: 203
Santorum: 92
Gingrich: 33
Paul: 25
Huntsman: 2

Will revisit Wednesday morning.

On the Electoral College: It was designed with states in mind. The "United States of America" started out as a plural, a confederation of individual states. The Electoral College forces a party to pay attention to all the states, not just the heavily populated ones.

It was the same with the Senate. Senators were originally designed to represent the states, not the voters. They were appointed by state legislatures to work on behalf of the states. Of course, the whole idea that states had any power at all has been going through the process of subversion for many decades. But the 17th amendment changed that and effectively killed states rights.

Abolishing the electoral college would complete the process of eliminating the states as any kind of political power in favor of an overwhelmingly powerful federal government. Now the "United States of America" is singular, a single country with some geographical states that really have little power of their own.

People against the electoral college tend to believe the individual vote is most important. Originally it wasn't all about you. Individuals weren't the only players on the national stage. States were on the stage, too, as their own entities. We've lost that balance of powers. Bear in mind that individuals have always had input at the state level. Indeed, you can make a case that a citizen is more powerful as a citizen of a state than a citizen of the US. Their voices are more powerful at the state level.

The irony here is that eliminating the states as players does not elevate the individual voter at all. It diminishes it by ceding power to the federal government.

reply to post by schuyler

Romney: 203 Santorum: 92 Gingrich: 33 Paul: 25 Huntsman: 2

I think it is important to note (not that you don't know but others might not) that those are estimated counts. Everybody has a different count. Where is your delegate count from? Just curious. Theses counts are so wildly different that I don't think we can take any of them with more than a grain of salt. Here are some more.

Romney-187
Santorum-65
Gingrich-30
Paul-20
source

Romney-207
Santorum-86
Paul-46
Gingrich-39
source


As far as the rest of your post goes. Well said. Pretty much my thoughts on it as well. It is always hard to explain to people why State governments need representation in the federal government. Your thoughts summed it up pretty well in my opinion.

reply to post by AGWskeptic

Myself and the other delegates didn't backdoor anything, they voted us in knowing we were Paul supporters.

What way did your precinct vote? If they voted for Paul and you are going as a delegate...then you are perfectly fine in your precinct.

However...Paul and his supporters have openly said that they are trying to become delegates where Paul lost, so they can vote against the will of the people in that precinct. That is stealing delegates and is just as fraudulant than anything Paul supporters have cried about from the GOP doing.

You never mentioned what state you are from...care to share?

reply to post by sageofmonticello

No he is not. Please show me where he has stated such and maybe I will believe you. What he is doing is asking his supporters to participate in the delegate selection process. All of the candidates are asking for their supporters to do the same. The delegate process is free and open to the public. Nobody is stealing anything and you know it. No sugar coating is necessary. Facts are facts.

Well let's see..if he is telling people that he is going to come out of Caucus states with more delegates than he actually won by looking at the precinct results...that means he is encouraging his supporters to become delegates and vote against their precincts results at the county/state conventions.

Paul is a shrewd old man...he will lie, cheat, and steal just as much as anyone else. At least own up to it...instead of trying to pretend he is a saint that has done nothing wrong.

Nobody is voting against anybodies wishes. Are you trying to suggest that the people voting at the straw poll are too stupid to know that the delegate selection process is separate? It is not a secret. The delegates are elected freely in a open to the public vote and nobody is being disingenuous about who they support.

What I am suggesting is that most people trust that the delegate that is elected to go represent them isn't a douchebag that will vote for HIS OWN preference rather than REPRESENT his precinct.

That is not exactly true. He needs to win caucus states AND place well in primary states. The primary states are either winner take all OR they give delegates proportionately. He will need to eventually win a primary state and build off that win but in many states a close 2nd place finish will give him the same amount or nearly the same amount of delegates as the winner.

To date, he has won 3 delegates from Primary states.

Just because a state is "proportional" doesn't mean everyone gets their percentage of delegates based on their vote percentage.

In every primary for Super Tuesday, he is polling to low to probably win a single delegate out of the Primary states. Even in Virginia where it is just him and Romney...Romney will likely win all the delegates because he is going to destroy him in every congressional district and win the statewide vote.

So Paul is looking to come out of Super Tuesday with ZERO delegates won from a Primary. He will get some from the Caucus states...but like I said...he could win 100% of delegates tied to Caucuses and he won't come close to winning the nomination.


I would love for a Ron Paul supporter to create a thread giving a state by state roadmap for Ron Paul to win the nomination. If you think he has a viable chance...I challenge you to go make that thread.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

that means he is encouraging his supporters to become delegates and vote against their precincts results at the county/state conventions.

I know you are a intelligent person. I have read comments you have made that show that. How are you not getting this? NOBODY is voting against precinct results BECAUSE the precinct results are NON-BINDING. It is separate. It is impossible to vote against them as they have no bearing. If you think the people that are voting don't know this then it is my opinion that you are calling them stupid. It is obvious to anybody that goes there to vote. You are simply repeating propaganda that wants to make it seem like something sneaky is going on.

If they were binding you would have a point. They are non-binding so you do not have a point. The delegates are selected separately. It is a SEPARATE process.

Paul is a shrewd old man...he will lie, cheat, and steal just as much as anyone else. At least own up to it...instead of trying to pretend he is a saint that has done nothing wrong.

Please show some examples of how you have come to this conclusion. Not all people lie cheat and steal. I certainly don't and I am no saint. Making such a vast generalization is simply false.

What I am suggesting is that most people trust that the delegate that is elected to go represent them isn't a douchebag that will vote for HIS OWN preference rather than REPRESENT his precinct.

OK, and I am saying you are incorrect. Do you really think that these people don't know that the results of the straw poll are non binding? Of course they know. That is how their state and their party does it. It is not a secret. These delegates are not voting their preference over there precincts preference, it is there precinct that is voting them in as delegates. How do you not understand that?

You keep talking about Primaries and Caucasus. Do you realize that the only difference between the two is that at a Caucus people are encouraged to speak and discuss candidates before voting, it is a townhall style and a longer affair At a primary people are encouraged to simply vote and keep their opinions to themselves mostly beforehand.

I think what you mean to argue is he has to win bound delegates which is a different argument all together. Perhaps this is what you are not getting. It is not Caucus vs Primary it is bound delegates vs un bound delegates.

Just because a state is "proportional" doesn't mean everyone gets their percentage of delegates based on their vote percentage.

Yeah, I know, thanks. Each state does it differently. Some it only goes to the top two, others you have to have at least 15%, some award by congressional district.

Every state has their own process and from what I can gather that seems to be your beef with it. You think it should all be popular vote. Guess what, those States don't. Saying Ron Paul is stealing delegates because you don't agree with the process a state goes by is simply sensationalism.

reply to post by sageofmonticello

OK, and I am saying you are incorrect. Do you really think that these people don't know that the results of the straw poll are non binding? Of course they know. That is how their state and their party does it. It is not a secret. These delegates are not voting their preference over there precincts preference, it is there precinct that is voting them in as delegates. How do you not understand that?

I'm not calling them stupid...I'm calling them uninformed, a bit naive, and altogether way to trusting. Up until this point, no campaign has tried to game the Caucus system like this. It has always been accepted that if you win the precinct preference poll, the delegate that is elected to represent that precinct will vote according to the precinct results. Because this is a PARTY event...where everyone is supposed to be on the same side and just voicing their opinon on who they think is the best candidate out of all the candidates that allign with their parties beliefs. Meaning that even if your candidate loses, you are still going to support the party.

Only Ron Paul supporters have disrupted that. It's commonly known that Ron Paul supporters won't end up supporting the nominee if it isn't Ron Paul. But I don't think most of the general public really thought that they would stoop so low as to infiltrate the delegate selection process soley to vote against the preference poll.

Again...you can keep your blinders on all you like...but Ron Paul supporters are betraying their neighbors by not voting according to the precinct results. Because most people honestly think that the preference poll decides the delegate...because that has been the practice in all the previous years.

Just put yourself in their shoes. You are a life long Republican. You go to the Caucus every 4 years, cast your vote in the preference poll, but aren't an active member of the party and the party business...so you go home after your vote is cast knowing that the delegate that is selected will move on to the next convention and be your collective voice and vote according to the results of the precinct. Except this year...this year you go, case your vote, the candidate you vote for wins the prefernce poll...you go home happy that the candidate your support will recieve the support of your precinct...then you hear later that the delegate from your precinct actually voted for someone else.

You call that fair? You say there is nothing wrong with that?

I call that shady and dishonest and one of the worst betrayals that can be had in a "democratic" society...your voice being silenced.

You keep talking about Primaries and Caucasus. Do you realize that the only difference between the two is that at a Caucus people are encouraged to speak and discuss candidates before voting, it is a townhall style and a longer affair At a primary people are encouraged to simply vote and keep their opinions to themselves mostly beforehand.

A Caucuse has two parts...the preference poll and the delegate selection. In a primary that is combined into one vote. So the winner of the preference poll has their delegate elected to the convention.

A primary is a straight vote...walk in, vote, walk out. Ron Paul and his supporters have no way to game this system. In the Caucuses, since it is two seperate votes, they can.

Every state has their own process and from what I can gather that seems to be your beef with it. You think it should all be popular vote. Guess what, those States don't. Saying Ron Paul is stealing delegates because you don't agree with the process a state goes by is simply sensationalism.

No, I'm fine with the proportional system.

I'm not fine with a candidate winning a precinct and the delegate elected to REPRESENT that precincts decides to overrule that vote based on their own ideology.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Your entire argument is based on a belief that people don't understand the difference between binding and non binding votes and don't know what there state does. I simply don't accept that and I honestly have no idea why you think that.

I have noticed that the media has been hyping that this cycle. This is nothing new and what you call as Ron Paul gaming the system is simply what every single candidate has attempted to do with every single non binding delegate selection process. If a delegate is unbound, they go after them. This is not a new strategy, it is not dark and twisted, it is not gaming the system, it is simply what the process is.

People that vote in primaries are not like people who vote in general elections. They are well informed, passionate, and know the rules.

A Caucuse has two parts...the preference poll and the delegate selection. In a primary that is combined into one vote. So the winner of the preference poll has their delegate elected to the convention.

This is incorrect. Some Caucus states have bound delegates and unbound delegates. Some caucus states have only unbound delegates. Some primary states have bound and unbound delegates, some have only bound delegates. Being a caucas or a primary state has nothing to do with whether or not the delegates will be bound or unbound.

You can look that up for yourself but if you insist I will give you the links. That is the truth. I will admit that the primary states that have unbound delegates as well usually have more bound delegates but that is not inherent in the fact that they are primary states, it is just the current way they are doing it and they change these things every cycle.

Having bound or unbound delegates has nothing to do with if a state holds a caucus or holds a primary.

I'm not fine with a candidate winning a precinct and the delegate elected to REPRESENT that precincts decides to overrule that vote based on their own ideology.

I am not either, good for me, that is not what is occurring. The delegates give their preference and a speech, they are elected as a delegate based on that. It is simply a direct election of delegates.

Some states are bound, some states are not. This is just how they do it and I believe the people who participate know this as it is no secret and is the traditional way that this occurs. You saying that I am wearing blinders I say that you are sensationalizing something as twisted when in reality the process is well known.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I'm in Minnesota.

And Paul handily won my county with 60% of the vote. By delegates though he gets 88%.

Like I said before, we didn't set these rules, but we are using them to our advatage in the same way the establishment has been using them for decades.

reply to post by sageofmonticello

I have noticed that the media has been hyping that this cycle. This is nothing new and what you call as Ron Paul gaming the system is simply what every single candidate has attempted to do with every single non binding delegate selection process. If a delegate is unbound, they go after them. This is not a new strategy, it is not dark and twisted, it is not gaming the system, it is simply what the process is.

Show me evidence of any other candidate using this strategy...current or past.

This is incorrect.

You are not understanding my point.

In the Caucus system, Ron Paul can play this game of getting a delegate without winning the precinct in unbound states.

In a Primary system, Ron Paul can't place his delegate on the ballot under Romney's name...bound or unbound...the delegate that is "elected" in the primary vote will always be a supporter or part of the Romney campaign. There is no seperate vote to select delegates.

So unless you are saying Ron Paul supporters are infiltrating Romney campaigns and pretending to support him, being selected as their delegate, then when Romney wins that precinct the Ron Paul supporter who has won as a "romney delegate" switches his vote over....it is impossble for Ron Paul to game it.

If you are saying that is what Ron Paul is doing...having his supporters infiltrate his opponents campaigns...then that is even more dishonest and wrong than what he is doing in the Caucus system.

In short...Ron Paul can sneak in one of his own supporters as a delegate in a Primary system like he can in a Caucus system.

I am not either, good for me, that is not what is occurring. The delegates give their preference and a speech, they are elected as a delegate based on that. It is simply a direct election of delegates.

But that is what is happening.

Because in the Caucus it is a two step process. Supporters give their speech (doesn't have to be a delegate) for their candidates, the Caucus holds a preference poll vote. The results are counted and announced. Most of the time the majority of people leave after this, the chair will most likely tell them they can because the rest of the meeting is for "party business". During that party business, they select the delegate that will go REPRESENT their precinct...this is where Ron Paul encourages his supporters to stay for this vote and vote in a Ron Paul supporter that will go onto the county convention and vote for another Ron Paul delegate regardless of the preference poll results. What has traditionally happened, is that since this is a cohesive party...the delegate honors the results of the preference poll...because they are all ONE PARTY.

Like I said...you can ignore it, or say it isn't subverting the voice of the precinct...but it is.

There is even a thread on ATS of a delegate who says they are doing exactly what I described above.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I'm in Minnesota.

And Paul handily won my county with 60% of the vote. By delegates though he gets 88%.

Like I said before, we didn't set these rules, but we are using them to our advatage in the same way the establishment has been using them for decades.

Ron Paul's biggest win was in Benton County and it was only 55% of the vote. What County are you in that you say he won 60% of the vote?

And did Ron Paul win your precinct?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Show me evidence of any other candidate using this strategy...current or past.

Ok, but I don't have to go back very far. Take Texas in 2008. Clinton won the popular vote 51% to 47% but Obama ended up with 56% of the delegates to Clintons 44%. Texas used a system of primaries and caucuses. Two-thirds of the state's 193 delegates were at stake at the primary, while the remaining third were decided by the caucuses. With the support of the unbound delegates, Obama was able to win more delegates than Clinton despite loosing the popular vote. Nobody had a problem with it because there is no problem with it.

It happens every single election cycle. Just when it is Ron Paul winning delegates it becomes an "issue" as if it is not normal procedure. When people thought Ron Reagan was going to beat Ford for the nomination in 1976 they both had an all out war for the unbound delegates. This was also the last time there was a brokered convention.

This is simply the process, some States hold a straw poll to decide the delegates, some states don't and have the delegates elected directly rather than on behalf. Some states bind those delegates and some don't. It is not fraud, theft or anything else, it is just the process.

You are not understanding my point. In the Caucus system, Ron Paul can play this game of getting a delegate without winning the precinct in unbound states. In a Primary system, Ron Paul can't place his delegate on the ballot under Romney's name...bound or unbound...the delegate that is "elected" in the primary vote will always be a supporter or part of the Romney campaign. There is no seperate vote to select delegates.

No, you are not understanding my point. I understand your point quite well and have conceded early this afternoon in my first reply to you that Ron Paul is going to have to win some of the bound delegates if he wants to win. Maybe you just missed when I said that.

What I am saying is that even in some of the states where they have the bound delegates they also have unbound delegates. Just being a primary doesn't make it that the delegates are only bound to the vote. They do have a greater percentage of bound delegates though, which I have also said already. This doesn't mean that some of the delegates are still not bound by the primary results. Some are, some aren't, it varies by state.

Even in the states where it is winner take all, they may only be bound for a single vote a the national convention and if no winner is determined they can vote anyway they want to. They are no longer bound to the primary if no winner is immediately determined. Is it voter theft if they change there vote then? No it is simply the process.

this is where Ron Paul encourages his supporters to stay for this vote and vote in a Ron Paul supporter that will go onto the county convention and vote for another Ron Paul delegate regardless of the preference poll results. What has traditionally happened, is that since this is a cohesive party...the delegate honors the results of the preference poll...because they are all ONE PARTY.

This is all just your assumptions or the assumption or lies of somebody you have read or listened to. How many republican caucuses have you been to exactly? I assure you coming from a registered republican it is not the case. I also can assure you that every single candidate is asking their supporters to stick around and become delegates as well.

When someone makes the comment "This candidate has great organization" that is what they are talking about.

There is even a thread on ATS of a delegate who says they are doing exactly what I described above.

I wrote in that thread and told them how confused they were on the process a few minutes into the discussion, how it actually works and that they were elected a delegate in the proper way and because of there showing of support.

Like you, in our discussion today, they did not understand that this is the process and that they elect delegates separately for a good reason. Seriously, this is just how it works. It is only a problem when Ron Paul does it. The media planted the seed that this isn't common and Ron Paul is doing something wrong. Simply not the case

This conversation is getting a bit cyclic.

I gave you your evidence and gave you 2 examples. If you like I can get you an example for each four year election cycle. Seriously I can. I might just do a thread about that tomorrow if I have the time to get enough links so people don't dismiss it of hand because they just don't like Ron Paul and want to believe he is doing something wrong or unusual.

If you like, you can pick a random election cycle from anytime in this century and if they have records of the popular vote vs the delegate total I am confident I can find you something similar for every single race.

reply to post by sageofmonticello

Ok, but I don't have to go back very far. Take Texas in 2008. Clinton won the popular vote 51% to 47% but Obama ended up with 56% of the delegates to Clintons 44%. Texas used a system of primaries and caucuses. Two-thirds of the state's 193 delegates were at stake at the primary, while the remaining third were decided by the caucuses. With the support of the unbound delegates, Obama was able to win more delegates than Clinton despite loosing the popular vote. Nobody had a problem with it because there is no problem with it.

Sorry, but this is not the same thing.

You have not shown that Obama had his supporters be elected as delegates in a precinct that Clinton won. This is what Ron Paul is doing.

It is common to get more delegates and not with the popular vote in a proportional system. It almost happened last week in Michigan with Romney and Santorum. At one point, it was clear Romney was going to win the Statewide vote, but Santorum could have won more congressional districts and recieved more delegates than Romney.

This is not the same as losing a precinct, and sliding your own supporter in as a delegate to go against the precinct results.

A brokered convention is something altogether different...all bets are off at that point.

What I am saying is that even in some of the states where they have the bound delegates they also have unbound delegates.

Yes, but I am not talking about Bound/Unbound.

I'm talking about in a primary, you go to cast a vote just like in an election...most of the time electronic diebold machines. Some states have the names of the delegates right there on the ballot and the candidates they support. In other states, you just vote for the candidate you support and if they win, their delegate gets to go to the convention.

It's not like the Caucus where if you can just get the majority of your supporters to out stay the other voters that you can "steal" that delegate slot even if you don't win the preference poll.

This is all just your assumptions or the assumption or lies of somebody you have read or listened to. How many republican caucuses have you been to exactly? I assure you coming from a registered republican it is not the case. I also can assure you that every single candidate is asking their supporters to stick around and become delegates as well.

Compare the two messages from the Ron Paul campaign and the Romney campaign.

Ron Paul specifically tells his supporters to stay for the delegate vote...because that is his whole plan...who cares about the preference poll...just steal the delegates.

www.ronpaul2012.com...

www.mittromney.com...

He comes out and admits this, his campaign manager comes out and admits this...I don't know why you are trying to deny it.

I wrote in that thread and told them how confused they were on the process a few minutes into the discussion, how it actually works and that they were elected a delegate in the proper way and because of there showing of support.

A delegate is supposed to be a REPRESENTATIVE of the precinct...not of their own candidate.

You can try to twist that definition all you want...but it isn't true.

What you did in that other thread is confuse that man even more...he knows what he is doing is wrong...he knows that his neighbors that came out to participate voted for Santorum...then most of them left trusting that their neighbors that belong to the same party as they do will do the right thing and REPRESENT them.

It's shady dealings...and it doesn't even matter because Ron Paul is so behind in the actual delegate count that the few he steals in this way isn't going to matter.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I can't explain the same thing to you a thousand times and expect you will all of the sudden get it. I give up.

Maybe sarcasm will work. It always works on my nephew. Here is what you are saying.

Ron Paul is obviously stealing the election because he is obeying the rules of each state he participates in.

Anybody that follows the rules is obviously a delegate thief.

Nobody has ever asked their supporters to run as a delegate for them.

Ron Paul is the first person to ever ask his supporters to support him.

Barrack Obama didn't ask any supporter to ever be a delegate in his name.

Nobody in history has ever asked an unbound delegate to have any independent support for anybody except for what happens in the straw poll which has nothing to do with the delegate process and never has. That is why it is so important, because it has no weight or purpose with the delegate process.

All previous unbound delegates decided each independently that they would support whoever won the meaningless the straw poll.

Delegates aren't elected because of who they support, they are elected to support a meaningless poll.

No politicians have ever tried to win an election when they were behind. They have all conceded to whoever the media elected long before any vote ever occurred. No one EVER tried to win delegates that are entirely up for grabs and based on support and candidate organization.

When someone says a candidate has strong organization and a good ground game they mean that they use filing cabinets and use to be a running back for the ravens.

I don't care how much evidence you show me I can find a pundant with an excuse ready made for me for any occasion.

I have been brain washed by small government operatives. Pray for my soul.

One day I might just have freedom, money and liberty. sounds like a living hell. Please save me from Ron Paul and his thieving ability to obey every rule of the election process.



Am I speaking your language yet? Doesn't that all sound pretty silly?

You really think that no candidate has ever had any interest in winning a delegate that is completely up for grabs? Give me a break. This is asinine.