Debunking the Real Delegate Count Website:

reply to post by tothetenthpower


While Federal Law does supersede state law in this case it doesn't matter. While 42 USC 1971 does say that voters cannot be threatened, intimidated, or coerced it doesn't mention national conventions as being covered. In order to get around this fact people have tried to claim that 11 CFR 100.2 is pertinent. However this isn't true. Laws that fall under the Code of Federal Regulations are tied to specific and serve to further define a single US Code. In this case 11 CFR 100.2 is tied to 2 USC 431. 2 USC 431 is the Federal Election Campaign Act. This deals with campaign contributions. So when 11 CFR 100.2 does define a national convention as an election it only does so in regards to campaign contributions. It has no bearing on 42 USC 1971

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Man, you can argue this until you are blue in the face. It won't matter. The basic premise behind all of these "delegates are not bound" threads, and the thoughts of some Ron Paul ninja team becoming delegates at the National Convention and voting him as the nominee, is that the people chosen to be delegates of each candidate in each state are all unknown mystery people that just show up and become delegates.

Like the delegates chosen to represent Romney are somehow not known to the heads of the state convention. It's an asinine argument. There will not be some influx of covert Ron Paul supporters being elected as delegates for Mitt Romney, arriving at the convention, and then voting for Ron Paul. Some of Ron Paul's elected delegates will actual vote for Mitt Romney at the national convention, because that is what Ron Paul will tell them to do once he gets what he wants out of the deal.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


This is why American elections are so corrupt. No unified rules, the ones that do exist seem to be able to be argued back and forth for months on end without actually having a clear answer.

~tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

This is why American elections are so corrupt. No unified rules, the ones that do exist seem to be able to be argued back and forth for months on end without actually having a clear answer.

~tenth

Nah! Only ron paul supporters are arguing about rules which they do not understand as some last ditch effort to maybe get their guy more delegates even though Romney at this point is untouchable!

Why would the map want me to register before knowing their full information?

This is what a scam looks like people!

OPEN YOUR EYES, stop being servants to politician promises and be the change that you want them to do. because if you put all of your hopes and dreams in one basket, you are going to be very disappointed and lead a crappy life. You have to look for opportunity everywhere!

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
So how they have been awarded based on the popular vote doesn't matter? You are essentially telling me, that my vote doesn't matter, the delegates get to pick everyone!

Actually, you are laughing as you say your vote does not matter but the truth is... IT DOESNT!

The Popular vote has never mattered. Al Gore WON the popular vote, did he become President? No he did not. I have no idea why you continue to ignore FACTS and the thing is none of this is anything new. Let us look at the vote totals from the 2000 election. Al Gore vs George W Bush.

Al Gore (D)
Popular vote total: 50,999,897
percent of popular vote: 48.38

George W Bush (R)
Popular Vote total: 50,456,002
percent of popular vote: 47.87

Source

So maybe you can explain to me how the popular vote mattered in the 2000 election? If the popular vote truly mattered, Al Gore would have been declared the winner and President elect, but that did not happen. This is a FACT you can not run away from. So feel free to laugh it up, but guess what? How delegates are awarded based on the popular vote does not matter and NEVER has. If the 2000 election did not teach you that, then there is no helping you. You are living in a fantasy world. It is for this very reason that MSM's delegate count is completely flawed and inaccurate. The MSM awards delegates based on the popular vote, which is why you always see the word "projection" on their delegate count listed. It is an assumption, an estimate, a projection. Which is just another word for a "guess" and silly people like yourself grasp onto these things and pass it off as fact when the real fact is the count is nothing more than a guess.


Now let us talk about delegates. Delegates are unbound. RNC attorneys pointed out this FACT in 2008 when a Utah delegate refused to cast a vote for John McCain (who won the State of Utah) at the Republican Convention and instead cast his vote for Mitt Romney (who had already dropped out of the race). Rule 38 has nothing to do with Ron Paul. It is just the rule, it is part of the process. I certainly did not hear anyone complaining in 2008 when Mitt Romney was the benefactor of this rule which was upheld by the RNC legal counsel.

If you want to actually "debunk" these things, you are facing an uphill battle. If you think the popular vote matters, then let me see you "debunk" how Al Gore won the popular vote and still not become President. Let me see you "debunk" the Utah Delegate who successfully cast his vote for Mitt Romney even though John McCain won the State and he was "bound" to vote for McCain. There is nothing to debunk, these things happened. It would be like trying to "debunk" the fact that water is wet.

The people who keep bashing Ron Paul and keep propping up Romeny, clearly just feel better when they think they are winners for siding with the victor of a corrupted election. They don't care about the policies or the fact that nothing he promises will happen, they care that they get to be on the team that wins. Just like the majority of the Obama supporters in 2008. Just recall how elated they were when he won. They felt empowered by being told they were choosing correctly by the news.

If i were as delusional as them, i would just vote for whoever the media told me to, because then when they won (via a corrupt and flawed voting system designed to let the powers remain in power) i'd feel like my voice mattered and i helped vote them in. YAY!

Siding with the popular main stream media created candidate doesn't make you free, it enslaves you, and trying to debunk the truth with regurgitated lies spread by the MSM doesn't make your correct, it proves only how blind you really are.

You don't need to like Ron Paul, and you don't have to hate Romney. But it's clear based on all the facts(aka bs) you are all referencing, that you simply want to feel justified by goose stepping with the rest of the sheep and the wolves leading them to the slaughter.

Popular vote DOES NOT matter. 2000 election proved it, and any denial of that is simply that....denial. Deny the truth if it makes you feel better, but you won't get the pat on the back you are seeking from anyone who has their eyes open to the truth.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


You are correct in what you are laying out here. That the Paul supporters are still clinging to stealth delegates and irrational math does not change that. Also, bringing up the Electoral College in the context of convention delegates is completely irrelevant. That's a different subject. I'm sure we'll discuss it again in the future much as we have in the past, but its relevancy to Romney's nomination is non-existant.

Also, Rule 38 is irrelevant: Observe:

This is defined very clearly in your state bylaws as well as the meriam websters dictionary. UNIT RULE MEANS : :

A rule under which a delegation to a national political convention casts its entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote.

The key word here is ENTIRE :

The states get around this rule by not binding the ENTIRE group of delegates, they always have at least 1 delegate unbound and it is usually 3 unbound delegates. So they are not enforcing a UNIT RULE in any way.

Therefore; rule 38 does not apply to the argument.

Now, who would dare say such sacrilege? Why, The Daily Paul, of course. So The Daily Paul is attempting to educate the paultards on this issue, yet still they bring it up time and again. The argument belongs in the trashbin.

The pattern of deception continues. The Paultards claim victory after victory that simply are not true. After the Washington State caucuses, they claimed they "won Washington." What is the final delegate count? 36 or 37 for Romney. 6 for Paul. (Romney MAY have one delegate, but only Greensheets thinks so.)

In all the popular votes cast so far in all the states that have voted primaries, Paul has managed about 11% of the vote. He certainly has loud supporters, but Paul clearly has not captured the p[oular imagination here. Ross Perot captured 19% of the popular vote in the 1992 presidential election running as an independent. George Wallace captured over 15% of the popular vote in 1968 and won five southern states. Robert LaFollette got 16% in 1924. Theodore Riosevelt got 27% in 1912, beating out Repubican William Howard Taft, but losing to Woodrow Wilson, which rounds out the 20th century. Stats for this are here.

Of course, Paul's standing in the nomination process is not the same as a nationwide election, but you can see that popular vote wise, he isn't all that popular. All we have here are the Paultards with theior bliners on, attacking everyone who points out the painfully obvious: The Emperor has no clothes. Like it or not, Romney has the nomination.

Originally posted by MrWendal
[
Al Gore (D)
Popular vote total: 50,999,897
percent of popular vote: 48.38

George W Bush (R)
Popular Vote total: 50,456,002
percent of popular vote: 47.87

Source

HEY! At least Bush and Gore got more than 11% of the vote nationwide. So you think the popular vote doesn't matter and some say voting should only be done by the popular vote. If elections were done only by the popular vote, then Paul would have lost a long time ago!!!! The only reason your delegate conspiracy theory exists is because there is a delegate process that can be easily manipulated by ron paul online fanatics, because so few people are unaware that it exists!


Again you are twisting the facts. The popular vote matters in the primary which can be defined as: the state by state selection of the delegates which is measured per state based on the percentage of the popular vote! Each state has their own process of selecting said delegates to go to Tampa and vote the way they pledged to do so. If they abstain, no federal laws are broken but they can be held liable under state laws! Then the nominee is elected after the first round of voting is complete. (97% likely).

No delegate will dare go against the Party and state rules as some ron paul delegates claimed that they would abstain from voting for Romney, if that was the case, the state can do one or two things. They can recall those delegates home, and submit a new slate before the convention. Or the state can actually force the pledges to sign a paper stating that they will vote for Mitt Romney. All this does is ensures that the delegates are honest and obeys the state and party laws!

As usual the anti Paul people ignore the facts, let me repost them and maybe this time you can adress them.


You whole argument is moot.
The facts are:
1.The GOP rules for the 2012 national convention over rule state rules.
2. Ever state had state GOP representives vote, to accept and adopt those rules IN 2008.
3. Rules 25 through 42 were accepted and adopted IN 2008 by every states GOP representive, and will be according to rule 42 ,be in full affect in the 2012 GOP national convention, regardless of what the MSM says or anti Paul supporters claim.

And as far as superdelegates, you better check who the delegates selected for those positions.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
1.The GOP rules for the 2012 national convention over rule state rules.

And let me re-post Xcalibur's quote here:

while Federal Law does supersede state law in this case it doesn't matter. While 42 USC 1971 does say that voters cannot be threatened, intimidated, or coerced it doesn't mention national conventions as being covered. In order to get around this fact people have tried to claim that 11 CFR 100.2 is pertinent. However this isn't true. Laws that fall under the Code of Federal Regulations are tied to specific and serve to further define a single US Code. In this case 11 CFR 100.2 is tied to 2 USC 431. 2 USC 431 is the Federal Election Campaign Act. This deals with campaign contributions. So when 11 CFR 100.2 does define a national convention as an election it only does so in regards to campaign contributions. It has no bearing on 42 USC 1971

Can you read or are all these numbers and lawyer speak too confusing for you? We have already addressed and debunked your claims. OLD HIPPY DUDE

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Try reading it again . The party rules are not federal laws or regulations, and therefore are not governed by federal law but by the GOP rules.
Try to pretend you know what you are talking about. OK ?

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


While national party rules supersede state party rules that doesn't come into play. In many states delegates are bound not through the party but through the state itself. As an example Massachusetts has a law that binds delegates to national conventions for at least the first round. There are also states that with laws that bind delegates for more than one round. If I remember correctly Texas is an example of this.

For those states that don't have laws binding delegates the state party will generally have their delegates sign affidavits or take a legally binding oath that binds them to the delegate to which they are pledged. So while these delegates are not bound by party rules they are bound through law. If a delegate refuses to sign such a document or take such an oath the state party can simply choose to use one of the alternates instead.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Try reading it again . The party rules are not federal laws or regulations, and therefore are not governed by federal law but by the GOP rules.
Try to pretend you know what you are talking about. OK ?

But the federal law states that all the delegates are unbound and then there is the entire unit rule thing...while the state laws have requirements that bound the delegates proportionally related to the popular vote.

WOW The RNC and the gov't really confused you guys! This is what happens when fanatics try to read the law and try to prove one thing or another based on whatever side they are on. It happens all the time in Intellectual Property cases.

Wowwwwww....You wrote a previous post about Romney clinching Texas last week, and now you wrote this thread which debunks what you've been saying all along. Contradict enough?

Anyways. Till the convention

The PAUL DELEGATE troll is at it again lol.......This guy really hates Ron Paul delegates, not sure why, but he just doesnt understand that WE WILL VOTE FOR PAUL REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY RULE SAYS. He also doesnt realize that , like me, I am a Newt delegate from S.C....I pledged to vote for Romney to get to the convention,,WILL i ??? HAYLE NO.......PAUL ONLY,,DONT CARE ABOUT ANY RULE , NO ONE IS GOING TO FORCE ME TO DO ANYTHING, OR ANY OTHER PAUL SUPPORTER, The fact that you spend so much time on this anti Paul delegate stuff really says alot about ya man,,,dont take it so personally.

Amazing. It's pointed out that Paul has received about 11% of the vote nationwide, when people were allowed to vote. The reply to this is that the popular vote doesn't count, as is proven by the fact that the Electoral College system can result in a candidate winning the electoral vote without winning the popular vote, though the spread between the popular vote in every election where this has happened has been relatively small. See the link I provided above if you care to research when this has happened and by how much.

So you appear to be saying that if Paul received 11% of the popular vote, but finangled his way to the presidency regardless, that would be okay with you. In other words, if Paul doesn't have the will of the people behind him, that's just tough. The people do not count. Paul winning does.

I've always maintained people with a cause are dangerous. And you just proved it. You would go for a dictatorship if it meant Paul was president. Thank God you won't get your way.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Let me see if I understand you correctly. You claim I am "twisting the facts" but yet you completely sidestepped my entire post so you can rant some more?



This would be so much more comical if it was not so pathetic.

The GOP national committee made rules to punish any state that was not allowed to hold their primary before April 1, by taking away 50% of their delegates, say like Florida.
And you claim , even though every state GOP committee member voted to accept the punishment at the national level, the states rules can now supercede the national rules.
I guess we'll have to see at the convention if Florida gets all it's delegates.... Oh wait they lost those same delegates in 2008.
Again the party rules are set at the national level before the states and do not involve any violation of federal laws or regulations. Again nice try.

The problem is the anti Paul folks can not accept the fact the both partys have used the rules to maintain control of both partys for decades and over the years they have become complacent.
Now that people have organized and are using the same process that gave the public the same old lesser of two evils for years , some people want to cry about it, and call foul.
It's the same process except this time the people can particapate in the process.