172 votes

Did Only 25% of the Campaign's Identified Supporters Show Up? Something's Very Wrong

Something very wrong happened in Nevada. Here's a quote I read a few days ago that had me ready for a huge victory in Nevada.


"We have more IDs than Romney had votes in '08," said Paul's state chairman, Carl Bunce, meaning identified supporters who have committed to attend Saturday's caucuses across the state. He wouldn't give a precise number, but Romney's 2008 vote total in his big Nevada win was 22,649."

That made perfect sense to me because this time around, Ron Paul's numbers in the first 4 states have been 2 to 5 times more than they were in 2008.

This same article supported this with another piece of information.

"The town clerk, she said, has reported being stunned by the number of former Democrats and independents the Paulites have gotten to register as Republicans in order to caucus for Paul. The volunteers have netted 800 new registrations, according to Bunce."

But the final results reported show that Ron Paul only got 39 more votes this time around vs. 2008, 415 in 2008 and 454 in 2012.

Something just doesn't add up here.

Nye County gives us a great opportunity to figure it out. It's small enough to be able to be able to get a complete accounting of the votes.

If Nye County is so passionately for Ron Paul and if maybe 1000 people actually voted for him, it should be possible to get sworn affidavits from at least half saying that they voted for Ron Paul.

It also should be possible for a few people from each precinct in Nye County to be able to say what they saw as the real time vote count at each caucus.

Nye County is the perfect scenario to either prove vote fraud or to identify the huge problem of getting supporters out to actually vote. It's a scale that is very manageable.

Related: Let's take a look at Ron Paul's support in primaries/caucuses so far from 2008 to 2012...

Does this look fishy to anyone else?

Ron Paul Discusses Vote Fraud, 2008

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That was an initial statement..

They have since decided to investigate.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I understand how you feel

It is human nature to want the truth, since we have been treated so wrongly, and that is part of Dr. Paul's message of liberty and justice and equal rights for all, but we all know we have been mistreated but some of the others are right that it won't change anything, if they cheated here, which I believe they did, they will just cheat and lie again. I have made the statement to my family, that we are sort of at the mercy of these people and the numbers (votes) are what they want us to have. If you feel like you need to pursue this then I see nothing wrong in doing so, and as you will be representing Dr. Pauland all of us I am sure you will be kind and do it the with the right spirit.

I am taking Nevada as a wake up call

I'm not discounting that fraud may have or did take place in Nevada. It's almost to be expected. One solution is for us to get more involved in the process...to become the vote counters and the ones in power at a local level. Then we won't need to have these discussions.

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." - George Washington

OK, this sounds like reasonably good...

OK, this sounds like reasonably good circumstantial evidence for fraud. And as you pointed out, this seems like it should help even if the problem turns out to be difficulty in "get out the vote" (GOTV).

Frankly, GOTV has never been one of Ron Paul's challenges. I would think that it would be a much greater problem for someone like Gingrich who has had trouble getting volunteers or big crowds ANYWHERE.

But thank you for presenting a good target for investigation. Clark County is too big and complicated and we know that there are a high percentage of Nye County residents who would help us out.

The Virtual Conspiracy

Actually it has been this

Actually it has been this year. My state campaign has been stressing GOTV endlessly due to this, it's almost to the point where it's getting annoying for people like me, ha!

50% maybe...

But only 25% showed?! And then there's a report about the hours being misrepresented.

And then consider Florida...

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

I guess it's easier to just

I guess it's easier to just click the vote down button, than it is to engage in civil discourse, and lay out some reasoning for why you believe it's effective to divert resources to revealing vote fraud with absolutely evidence. oh well, I tried to at least provide a different perspective. I thought people here were more open minded and receptive to advice.

I totally agree with the original poster...

about the fact that nothing will come from wasting resources into a fruitless investigation. Please note, I believe the investigation to be fruitless NOT because some sort of rigging IS PROBABLY taking place, but because there will be no way to prove it.

However, there is a difference between investigating what has happened, and taking preventative measures to deter fraud in future states, which is entirely necessary and appropriate use of campaign cash.

I hope I have shed some light on the issue, I hate to see bickering. Also please note that being voted up or down is not personal or even accusatory, just a vote of assent or dissent. Keep it friendly folks!


you were voted down

because you said "In fact there is NO evidence of vote fraud."

If you would have just said it's not a good idea to divert resources to this issue that is different.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix

no one has provided any

no one has provided any evidence. i'd be glad to acknowledge it and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there was, but I have seem NO evidence. voting a comment down is not providing evidence. I must say, i'm extremely disappointed by the behavior here.


Even the Ron Paul supporters

Even the Ron Paul supporters will concede they have no concrete proof of actual election fraud regarding the tabulation of the Nevada Caucus ballots. What they do have is a very legitimate complaint and very real circumstantial evidence. And it's not so crazy considering the Iowa GOP just reversed their caucus winner. As Republican Party officials repeatedly remind us, primaries and caucuses are “private party events”. They are not general elections. They are party functions and the party makes, and changes, the rules whenever they want for whatever reason they want. If you don’t like it, don’t be a Republican.

i'm getting voted down for

i'm getting voted down for posting part of the article that was provided to me as evidence?! this place is insane.

read the entire article plus the minutes please

Read the entire article plus the minutes please

i did. that's where i got

i did. that's where i got the quote that people voted down. it came from your "evidence."

Heh, just give it up Sally.

Heh, just give it up Sally. Lots of people here like the drama of the idea that potential election fraud is the cause of why we lost Nevada rather than the mundane idea that we just got outvoted due to not getting enough voters (and worse and much more true) and getting the voters we did have to actually go vote. Could there have been some election fraud? Possibly, but I leave that in the hands of the people truly in the know and who can actually do something about it, the campaign, to sort that out. Which they are, by the way. Meanwhile the can-do-nothing-about-it-but-think-they-can folks here are going to spend countless hours of manpower getting little done in the way of capturing future votes by dwelling on something that they can not affect instead of what they can.

You just have to shrug it off and do more yourself, Sally. Taking short laughing breaks by watching comments like these get down voted relentlessly by people "working on the voting fraud" from their computers does help though. You can tell how effective they are by the fact that they constantly confuse "voting fraud" with "election fraud". But hey don't spoil the fun by telling them, that'll be part of our fun by seeing how long it'll take them to figure it out!

Most of the focus should be on relentless campaigning

Most of the focus should be on relentless campaigning and continuing to get the message out and not be too sidetracked. Yes there’s vote fraud and it should be passionately discussed and evidence should continue to be gathered but if too much focus is on fighting vote fraud it may play into the hands of the opposition. They’ll be plenty of time and additional evidence to focus more on vote fraud after the campaign has run its course. This battle for freedom will continue long after the 2012 election.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix

you may not like what i say,

you may not like what i say, but watch and see. I'm trying to be realistic and prevent people from wasting precious resources on a bootless errand. NOTHING will come of this except for diverted resources, annoyed supporters, and making the campaign appear desperate and conspiratorial.

Please educate yourself on voter fraud.

FOX: Diebold Electronic Vote Fraud Confirmed


Then join the fight to Restore The Republic.

Thank you


I don't like what your saying Sallysensation. If the fraud is easily evidenced why not make a big stink. It's not the campaigns money..How else will it ever stop?

I'm sorry you don't like what

I'm sorry you don't like what I'm saying. fraud is not "easily evidenced." I have seen absolutely no evidence for this case. just people who felt there should have been more votes based on trends. that is NOT evidence. and resources are resources regardless of whether they come from the campaign or not.

Not if

fraud can be proven. That would throw the entire processes into question = very good.

"The world is a dynamic mess of jiggling things, if you look at it right." - Richard Feynman

arrows impossibility theorem

arrows impossibility theorem already proved that voting is ALWAYS unfair. and there is likely fraud in every election to some degree. it's not going to be "proved" in this case, and even if it can be, not enough people will care. I can say this with great certainty.


"voting is ALWAYS unfair"

Apparently you do not completely understand arrows impossibility algorithm. Voting becomes mathematically fair at 2 candidates. Let's see Ron Paul make it to that position.

apparently you don't

apparently you don't understand how elections work. it's extremely unlikely that only 2 people that want to run for a particular position. So arrows impossibility theorem applies very well.


Your statements does not break my logic. My argument is that in the case that that there ARE TWO candidates, there is a mathematically fair election. With one example of a fair election, disproves your "Always" statement.

yes, but it can only come

yes, but it can only come down to 2 candidates/options after the other have been eliminated through an unfair process.

Not Relevant

If there are two candidates, then you look at it through that specific frame of reference. And my logic holds, again.

so, if you kidnap someone and

so, if you kidnap someone and tie them up in your basement, all is made just, because you feed the person well?

you are not being logical, because you are ignoring the fact that there are seldom instances where elections are between 2 people. the paring down process can never be "fair." take the presidential elections for instance. even if it came down to only 2 candidates in the general election -- which I'm not sure has ever occurred -- those two candidates must have been chosen through an unfair process.

More Logic

"so, if you kidnap someone and tie them up in your basement, all is made just, because you feed the person well?"

I do not understand your analogy, assuming it even is one; or how it relates at all to anything.
As far as being logical I believe that my argument is a logic based one. In the study of discrete logic in order to prove something is "always" true, you must show that every possible case is true. In order to disprove an "always" true paradigm, you just have to find one case which breaks the "always" truth and "always" no longer applies. My other assumption is that you are not taking a sarcastic view on the meaning of "always" because subsequent statements go to support your initial claim. I believe the specific case that I provided satisfies a possible case in which your "always" paradigm is broken and therefore not valid. If you change your statement from "always [true]" to "seldom[ly false]" you are breaking your own logic and agreeing with me.