Response to statements about stealing delegates
Submitted by LWinMN on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 15:28There is a push right now in several media sources that the Ron Paul campaign and his supporters are using underhanded tactics to get delegates elected. The essence of the argument is that Ron Paul did not receive the support of the "popular" vote and therefor should not gain delegate support far in excess of his straw poll representation.
Basically their argument is: He didn't get the popular vote, he should not get the delegates.
When I see/hear these arguments, I like to point out the actual data concerning these "popular" votes.
A report here:
http://images.politico.com/global/2012/03/primary_release.html
And some data here:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/03/08/440531/gop-prim...
Through Super Tuesday at least, only 13.5% of the potential Republican voters voted for a presidential candidate.
13.5%
This is what they call the "popular" vote.
If they do not believe it is OK for a small group to assert it's agenda over a larger group, this data invalidates their argument.
- Login to post comments
ADD This to Your Toolbox
The "ELECTORAL COLLEGE" which ULTIMATELY determines the
WINNER does NOT use the POPULAR VOTE in the ELECTION.
Another safeguard put into the mechanism by our forever
forward-planning Founding Fathers.
These guys were AWESOME!!!
"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!
I always respond
tat it's exactly the same strategy Reagan deployed in 1976
I wonder if they would respond
to statements about STEALING ELECTIONS!!!
I knew they would come up with crap like that. And I honestly believe when Dr Paul becomes the ultimate nominee, the Obama camp will use the same "argument' to discredit the good doc - that he didnt win the popular votes so therefore he isnt even the representaion of the voters.
We all better start coming up with our counter arguments on every crap that that could be slung at us.
Let It Not Be Said That We Did Nothing
They'll have to take RP off of ignore
and admit he's still in the race. They have conundrum on their hands.
those numbers are out of the entire voting age population
The 13.5% number is the percentage of all people that are of voting age, not of Republicans. The data shows, for example, that 8% of Massachusetts voted in the primary. That's not much of a shocker, because only 11% of the registered voters in the state are registered Republicans.
There are about 465,000 registered Republicans in MA. About 360,000 voted in the primaries. Under 2,000 chose the delegates. So, 77% voted, while 0.4% chose the delegates.
People don't come to these events because they're usually completely unadvertised, because they're at inconvenient times, and because generally they trust that the people picked will honor the party rules and state laws, and cast their ballot at the convention for the candidate to whom they are bound. If you have to work that day, if you are serving our country overseas, if you are out of town, if you are sick, if you don't have transportation to drive 45 minutes to a random caucus location, etc., etc., you are completely shut out of the process. Even a tiny portion of Ron Paul's voters (2-3%) show up at these meetings. A lot of people just don't know about it or have other things to do. Ultimately, the percentage of primary voters who show up to these meetings is miniscule when compared with the percentage of registered voters who show up to vote.
Remind them
This is why we have a Re-public. Not trusting the government with deciding, and not entirely trusting the mob( beauty contest).
this has nothing to do...
with the discussion about whether we are a republic or a democracy. Other states directly elect the delegates or have winner take all allotment based on a popular vote, and that doesn't mean that we live in a pure democracy. The caucus system is a remnant of an archaic way of voting that was practical back in the mid 1800s but which disenfranchises many, many voters today. It doesn't stand as a symbol to prove we are a "republic" and really has nothing at all to do with whether we are a republic or not. It's how voting is designed to work in certain parts of a club called the Republican Party, and isn't the basis of our government. Most elections within our "republic" really are based entirely on a popular vote.
Please Give Mr Romney This Message
..Since he has you buffaloed into believing this lie, and I quote:
"Most elections within our "republic" really are based entirely on a popular vote...."
The fallacy of your statement is exposed with two words...
Are you ready?......
...."ELECTORAL COLLEGE"....
Say Hi to Mittens for me.
"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!
no, that actually proves my point
Because within each state, what type of vote determines by and large who the electors vote for? Is is a series of small caucus meetings? Or is it a massive popular vote where any registered voter within the state can participate?
Please...
This is our system. Only now do I understand the genius of it and I don't find it at all archaic. We are a republic for good reason. It is obvious that those willing to go the distance and participate within this system of electing delegations are more responsible and thoroughly informed on the issues as well as the candidates, whereas the average voter seems quite shallow and easily swayed by whomever media scores as having the most clever sound bite of the moment. Perhaps the media should have spent more time informing the public on the election process rather than manipulating it. Only within a system such as this, as our forefathers well understood, could freedom ever have a chance of surviving the tyranny of the majority. Perhaps we now have an opportunity to rediscover their wisdom.
that entirely missed the point
This is not about being a republic. This isn't a system that the founders intended as being the only way to choose who represented each political party in a general election. The nation didn't start with political parties in the first place. Many of the founders opposed their existence. George Washington is a key example of this. There's absolutely nothing in our founding documents about the ultimate and vital importance of congressional district caucuses versus primaries in choosing state delegations to a national party convention. It's just a completely separate issue.
So, you're another Mitt Troll.
Have a good read, friend. He covers my point quite well and who knows, you may see things in a new light. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawaken...
that also doesn't address the point
I'm not more convinced just because those points by a Ron Paul fan were written in a blog post instead of on a message board.
Regarding disenfranchisement, what about people in the military? What about people who have jobs that require them to work at some point during the 5 hours that it takes them to sit through a caucus meeting?
California, New Jersey, and many other states reward delegates purely based on the popular vote. Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other states directly elect delegates on the ballot. Does that mean that somehow we (or they) don't live in a "republic"?
This is a process of political parties choosing nominees. It is not a republic/democracy question. It wasn't set up by the founders. "Republic" doesn't mean "lots of little meeting to choose representatives". That exact same thing can exist in a pure democracy.
They wanted Gore
Republicans making this argument thought Gore should've won instead of Bush? I'd like to get them to say that.
That's the
stake in the heart of this argument - well it at least gets them off balance! Nice...
Your morals =/= my laws.