481 replies to this topic

[acidhead]

The Silver Thong, on 23 February 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

Delegates can buy votes as far as I know

Incorrect...  what you've probably heard is delegates can be bribed before casting their votes... you know, like finding a nice box of chocolates under the hotel bed pillow a night before they cast their vote.

[The Silver Thong]

acidhead, on 23 February 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

Incorrect...  what you've probably heard is delegates can be bribed before casting their votes... you know, like finding a nice box of chocolates under the hotel bed pillow a night before they cast their vote.

Delegates have more roomates that influience voting paterns. Saying that may sound wrong as voting practice but it deligates influiencing the work force. I could be way off though.

[acidhead]

BlindMessiah, on 23 February 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Can you explain how Paul is in second? I mean, he's been doing well in plenty of states, but he certainly isn't second in votes received, so how does the delegate system work? Does this mean he's second in locked in delegates, or delegates total?

Paul's campaign has been keeping track of how many delegates have been chosen from each precinct in Caucus States.  Not all the caucus states award their delegates the same way but to get an idea it kind of works like an elimination process.  

On the day of the announced and media hyped elections, after the popular votes, each precinct then has a vote amongst itself to choose delegates to attend the district convention. The district convention, will then vote on county delegates, who vote on state delegates who will then go to the National convention.
Imagine the NCAA March Madness field of sixty four whittling down to 32,16,8 etc. Only the delegates vote on who will advance. Thus the “team” with the most delegates in round one has a vastly increased chance of advancing in each successive round.

Paul's campaign feels very confident that they have the majority of delegates from the first step so its a no brainer that as the elimination process runs its course Paul delegates will survive the cuts and represent in the end.  I don't know the numbers Paul's campaign is talking about but they sound very confident.

Some may cry foul and say the Caucus awarded delegates do not represent the will of the Straw poll results.  True.  Though, keep in mind, that the campaign that is the most devoted to their message is the campaign that ensures that their voice and ideas are heard at these caucuses.  The people who show up to caucus are the same people voting who their delegate representatives will be.  Not everybody wants to invest the time and energy into the election process but those who do eventually become delegates.

Hope this answers your question.  I posted a couple videos in this thread about how delegates are awarded.  One video is by Ben Swann and the other is from Doug Wead's interview by Rachel Maddow.

Edited by acidhead, 23 February 2012 - 07:24 AM.

[acidhead]

The Real Delegate Score: Romney 93, Paul 82

Submitted by valleyforge on Tue, 02/21/2012 - 08:26
http://www.dailypaul...mney-93-paul-82

Every media outlet seems to have a different delegate count. But almost invariably we're told Ron Paul is in last place and far behind the leader Mitt Romney.

But none of these delegate counters properly estimate how the caucuses will allocate their delegates. According to the Paul campaign, Ron is well positioned to win 50% of the delegates in Iowa, 75% in Minnesota, 50% in Colorado, and 75% in Maine. So what is likely to be the true delegate count once the caucus states select their national delegates?

Add together the bound delegates from New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada, and extrapolate the caucus states' delegates using the Paul campaign's estimates and you get:

Total Delegates (IA, NH, SC, FL, NV, MN, CO, ME)

Romney: 93 (6, 7, 2, 50, 14, 2, 7, 5)
Paul: 82 (13, 3, 0, 0, 5, 28, 17, 16)
Gingrich: 29 (0, 0, 23, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0)
Santorum: 25 (6, 0, 0, 0, 3, 7, 9, 0)

Unpledged: 14 (3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3, 3, 3)

*Unpledged includes Huntsman's delegates in NH as well as unbound party leader delegates in certain states.

The caucus/convention process for selecting delegates has plenty of quirks along the way - the eventual delegates could be more evenly dispersed or could skew even more heavily to Paul as the majority candidate. But this is a far more accurate portrayal of the true state of play than allocating delegates proportionately to the straw poll or entirely to the straw poll leader.

*****

[DieChecker]

acidhead, on 23 February 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

Paul's campaign has been keeping track of how many delegates have been chosen from each precinct in Caucus States.  Not all the caucus states award their delegates the same way but to get an idea it kind of works like an elimination process.  

On the day of the announced and media hyped elections, after the popular votes, each precinct then has a vote amongst itself to choose delegates to attend the district convention. The district convention, will then vote on county delegates, who vote on state delegates who will then go to the National convention.
Imagine the NCAA March Madness field of sixty four whittling down to 32,16,8 etc. Only the delegates vote on who will advance. Thus the “team” with the most delegates in round one has a vastly increased chance of advancing in each successive round.

Paul's campaign feels very confident that they have the majority of delegates from the first step so its a no brainer that as the elimination process runs its course Paul delegates will survive the cuts and represent in the end.  I don't know the numbers Paul's campaign is talking about but they sound very confident.

Some may cry foul and say the Caucus awarded delegates do not represent the will of the Straw poll results.  True.  Though, keep in mind, that the campaign that is the most devoted to their message is the campaign that ensures that their voice and ideas are heard at these caucuses.  The people who show up to caucus are the same people voting who their delegate representatives will be.  Not everybody wants to invest the time and energy into the election process but those who do eventually become delegates.

Hope this answers your question.  I posted a couple videos in this thread about how delegates are awarded.  One video is by Ben Swann and the other is from Doug Wead's interview by Rachel Maddow.

Isn't that a little like having 75% of the Countys in the US vote red, with like 30% of the popular vote, and thus appointing a Republican President, dispite 70% of people voting for the other guy?

[Bama13]

DieChecker, on 24 February 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Isn't that a little like having 75% of the Countys in the US vote red, with like 30% of the popular vote, and thus appointing a Republican President, dispite 70% of people voting for the other guy?

Not sure what you point is, other than using some way off base numbers to provoke Republicans, but in the US we do not appoint Presidents, we elect them.

[BlindMessiah]

DieChecker, on 24 February 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Isn't that a little like having 75% of the Countys in the US vote red, with like 30% of the popular vote, and thus appointing a Republican President, dispite 70% of people voting for the other guy?

Well, they sort of do that with the electoral college, but not to such an extreme. In this situation though, with the delegates, the Republican Party can set up their system however they want, even if it is a horrible and confusing way to do it.

[DieChecker]

Bama13, on 24 February 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Not sure what you point is, other than using some way off base numbers to provoke Republicans, but in the US we do not appoint Presidents, we elect them.

You're not sure what the point is????

Isn't that the whole reason we broke off from England... lack of representation? If this happened in city, local, or state elections, it would be called voting fraud. It smacks of Disenfranchisement, where the votes of specific groups of people don't count.

In what democracy is it OK for someone with a minority of popular votes to get the majority of electoral votes?

How is "Liberty" pushed forward by disrespecting the voting choices of the public? That sounds like the facism before communism, rather then democracy. Taking charge for the publics "Own Good".

[DieChecker]

BlindMessiah, on 25 February 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

Well, they sort of do that with the electoral college, but not to such an extreme. In this situation though, with the delegates, the Republican Party can set up their system however they want, even if it is a horrible and confusing way to do it.

That is true, but like 99% of the time the delegate votes according to the majority from his area, otherwise he would face sanctions from back home. They are free to vote as they want, but so are all Congressional members, and we know how they vote don't we? Pretty much as they need to to remain in office.

What is being suggested is that Paul has somehow rigged it so that dispite the public vote, his guys will be delegates and vote for him. That smacks of corruption. Not just good organization and timing, but open corruption meant to directly influence future votes by those delegates.

Otherwise, I have to believe that, even knowing that these are Paul-bots (Assuming they are locked in), their local officals still appointed them as delegates. That would lead me to believe that dispite being RP supporters, these delegates are honest and worthy people. And that would lead me to believe they are Not Locked In.

So either there is corruption going on, or these delegates are not locked in.

[preacherman76]

DieChecker, on 27 February 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

You're not sure what the point is????

Isn't that the whole reason we broke off from England... lack of representation? If this happened in city, local, or state elections, it would be called voting fraud. It smacks of Disenfranchisement, where the votes of specific groups of people don't count.

In what democracy is it OK for someone with a minority of popular votes to get the majority of electoral votes?

How is "Liberty" pushed forward by disrespecting the voting choices of the public? That sounds like the facism before communism, rather then democracy. Taking charge for the publics "Own Good".

Personaly I think the public vote is all that should matter. There shouldnt even be delegates at all. This is how the system was set up though. If your not going to play to win, why play at all?

But to be honest with you die, its hard to take you seriously on matters of voter fraud. On one hand you speak out on this situation, cause its to RP's advantage. Then on the other hand ignore and even ridicule folks who point out how Ron Paul has gotten screwed over by actual voter fraud. 5 counties in Maine were excluded from the poll, directly cause they would have gave Ron Paul the state.

[preacherman76]

DieChecker, on 27 February 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

What is being suggested is that Paul has somehow rigged it so that dispite the public vote, his guys will be delegates and vote for him.

He hasnt "rigged" anything. This is a clear case of mistakingly hating on the player, instead of the game. There is no corruption. Cause in truth, the public vote just doesnt mean anything.

Its "sour apples" to point out that Iowa counted thier votes in a secret location, where they could and did, litteraly what ever they wanted to dispite the actual votes. Somehow he comes in third, even though the the very night before the polls showed he'd win the state by a large %. But its "corruption", cause his delegates stuck around long enough to get voted in? Its not like this process is some big secret, that the other delegates didnt know how this works.

[Volatile32]

I would like to point out that these caucuses and straw polls can be as "advanced" as a punch ballot or even more "advanced" as a group of people standing in a corner saying yes or no to a certain candidate? In the video clip, his adviser, Doug Wead says that "there is nothing deceptive" and apparently it is accordance to the rules of the RNC. According to him, at this point in the video he claims the rules were changed for Romney. If they can be changed for him, why not Paul?

"We don't have the money, but we've got the organization"

Edited by Lei Ren, 27 February 2012 - 04:04 PM.

[Oen Anderson]

There are always more stupid people than there are smart people and it is the majority that elects politicians.

[DieChecker]

preacherman76, on 27 February 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

Personaly I think the public vote is all that should matter. There shouldnt even be delegates at all. This is how the system was set up though. If your not going to play to win, why play at all?

But to be honest with you die, its hard to take you seriously on matters of voter fraud. On one hand you speak out on this situation, cause its to RP's advantage. Then on the other hand ignore and even ridicule folks who point out how Ron Paul has gotten screwed over by actual voter fraud. 5 counties in Maine were excluded from the poll, directly cause they would have gave Ron Paul the state.

Hey, I don't remember hallalouyah'ing about RP being done wrong by Maine voter fraud. If I did, I am sorry. I'm against all voter fraud. I think that obviously RP had issues with Maine, and Maine recognized this and has done recounts.

So, are you saying that if other candidates are using dirty tricks, say ballot box fraud, that it is then perfectly fine for RP to do the same? What kind of lesson is that to the youth vote? If someone robs you, or punches you, it then is fine to rob someone else or hit someone else, since you're just doing what was done to you.

Quote

The composition of the individual state and territory delegations is determined by the bylaws of their respective state and territory parties. Since 1972, almost all have appointed delegates by primary election results, although some, notably Iowa, use caucuses, and others combine the primary with caucuses or with delegates elected at a state convention.

http://en.wikipedia....onal_Convention

Like I said, delegates are entirely within their ability to vote as they please, but this risks their political career being ended if they vote against those they are representing. Most delegates will not have the bowlingballs to vote against their state party instructions.

http://en.wikipedia....legate#Politics

[DieChecker]

DieChecker, on 27 February 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

In what democracy is it OK for someone with a minority of popular votes to get the majority of electoral votes?

How is "Liberty" pushed forward by disrespecting the voting choices of the public?

preacherman76, on 27 February 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

He hasnt "rigged" anything. This is a clear case of mistakingly hating on the player, instead of the game. There is no corruption. Cause in truth, the public vote just doesnt mean anything.

Answer the above question Preacherman. How is Liberty advanced by taking away representation? How is it democracy if the masses are ignored due in favor of the remote minority candidate?

Quote

Its "sour apples" to point out that Iowa counted thier votes in a secret location, where they could and did, litteraly what ever they wanted to dispite the actual votes. Somehow he comes in third, even though the the very night before the polls showed he'd win the state by a large %. But its "corruption", cause his delegates stuck around long enough to get voted in? Its not like this process is some big secret, that the other delegates didnt know how this works.

It is Sour Apples if RP is winning a state, but if Romney wins a state like Maine, it is Fraud?

How accurate are evening before straw polls? Not very, is the answer.

I'm not a RP hater, I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination. I just do not agree with what is being said about how he is supposedly "Locked in" on delegates. When who the delegates (most of them anyway) vote for is TOLD to them, not at their own descression, by their State Party leaders. I think saying that he has such and such delegates is deceptive, as they are not locked in yet. I suppose we'll just have to see what happens at the convention. I suppose if those RP delegates don't vote RP that will be Fraud also???

I do hope RP gets a part in the next Administration, as he has shown he is willing to hack out spending to try to balance the budget, and not just toss a handful of billions at a tens of Trillions problem like Obama is trying to do.