Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
acidhead

RON PAUL Winning the Battle For Delegates!

482 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Real Delegate Score: Romney 93, Paul 82

Submitted by valleyforge on Tue, 02/21/2012 - 08:26

http://www.dailypaul.com/214504/the-real-delegate-score-romney-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.

*****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.org/wiki/Republican_National_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.org/wiki/Delegate#Politics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

It isnt. We dont live in a democracy. We are just told we do. There is nothing but corruption from top to bottom. The only reason the public vote wasnt ignored in the recent past, is cause the media dictated who would win through brain washing. Its cause of things like this is why I say we need a guy like RP more then ever. This is how the system is set up. Its is legal, and according to them ethical. Again, the player isnt the problem. Hate the game.

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

Its fraud when 1/3rd of the counties are intentionaly left out. Yes, that is absolutly fraud by the strictest definition.

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

They seem to be pretty accruate in any election Ron Paul ISNT in.

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???

Not all delegates are bound to vote a certain way. It depends on the state. Again, hate the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The United States of America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The United States of America.

Are you Bama13 from History dot com?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like only New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida and South Carolina have set their delegates in "Stone". Hard assigned.

New Hampshire

7 Romney

3 Paul

2 Huntsman

Nevada

14 Romney

6 Gingrich

5 Paul

3 Santorum

South Carolina

23 Gingrich

2 Romney

Florida

50 Romney

So using these numbers Romney has 73, Gingrich has 29, Ron Paul has 8, Santorum has 3, and Huntsman has 2.

If you count the "soft" assigned delegates... Iowa, Maine, Colorado and Minnisota...

Iowa

6 Romney

6 Santorum

6 Paul

4 Gingrich

Maine

8 Romney

7 Paul

4 Santorum

2 Gingrich

Colorado

13 Santorum

12 Romney

4 Gingrich

4 Paul

Minnesota

17 Santorum

10 Paul

6 Romney

4 Gingrich

That gives totals of 105 for Romney, 43 for Gingrich, 43 for Santorum, 35 for Paul and 2 for Huntsman. Those are what the states are reporting.

Missouri does not have any numbers published for soft or hard numbers yet. But Santorum won 55% of the votes there and Paul 12%, so I think they should push Santorum easily up into 2nd place.

But, basically if Ron Paul was to take the lead, he'd need to win 100% in Arizona, Michigan and Washington. Which does not appear to be likely. Even if the 15 delegates of the 4 states with delegates unassigned all went to Paul, they would barely squeek him into second place.

We'll have to see what happens over the next couple days and after Super Tuesday.

If any of these numbers are wrong, please feel free to link to each State's Republican party site with the real numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, old Dr. Paul is really cleaning up tonight.

I'm ready to call this b****. On to November!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you Bama13 from History dot com?

Yes. Whats up Musashi. Still fighting the good fight I see. I was glad to see you on here because I always liked reading your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Whats up Musashi. Still fighting the good fight I see. I was glad to see you on here because I always liked reading your posts.

Ah, welcome brother! Staying out of trouble as I hope you are too. It's good to see you swam to another shore after the shipwreck. And ditto on your compliment! If I remember correctly, it was you who posed the question before the end: what does it mean to be a conservative? I thought that was so ironic coming from you because I always viewed you as one of the most, if not the most, conservative members over there. Not that you still shouldn't ask the question for discussion's sake I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, welcome brother! Staying out of trouble as I hope you are too. It's good to see you swam to another shore after the shipwreck. And ditto on your compliment! If I remember correctly, it was you who posed the question before the end: what does it mean to be a conservative? I thought that was so ironic coming from you because I always viewed you as one of the most, if not the most, conservative members over there. Not that you still shouldn't ask the question for discussion's sake I suppose.

Thats what I thought too, but several posters over there said I couldn't be a real conservative because I believe that drugs and abortion should be legal and that these were State issues anyway, not Federal ones. I found it entertaining that they thought conservatives where the same thing as Republicans. It was just my way of getting in a few parting shots at the so-called conservatives over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, basically if Ron Paul was to take the lead, he'd need to win 100% in Arizona, Michigan and Washington. Which does not appear to be likely. Even if the 15 delegates of the 4 states with delegates unassigned all went to Paul, they would barely squeek him into second place.

.. etc.

I'm glad someone understands it enough to put it in some kind of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

Arizona - (Unpledged = 0)

29 delegates - Romney - locked in

(Ron Paul = 8% of popular vote)

Michegan - (Unpledged = 0)

15 delegates - Romney - locked in

15 delegates - Santorum - locked in.

(Ron Paul = 11% of popular vote)

Totals: (With soft and hard committed delegates)

Romney = 149

Santorum = 58

Gingrich = 43

Paul = 35

Huntsman = 2

Unpledged = 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.