22 votes

Why This Delegate System was Designed This Way: It WORKS!

When I talk to a supporter of Romney, Santorum, Obama--anyone besides Paul--when I ask them to stick to issues and tell me why it is they are supporting so-and-so, well, it's usually pretty disappointing and it makes me realize why this system is in place!

The general voting public has no idea what the issues are, or the history, or the moral dilemmas, or the brinkmanship that is taking place in politics. But we do. The Delegates who will ultimately decide our nominee, DO. Even Romney or Santorum Delegates! The Delegates are more interested and THEY know the issues--and are more clear on what the ramifications are--of who we end up putting into office!

THEY spend the time, THEY do the research. THEY spend long hours reading and following every move! And THIS is why this system is in place. Our clever (and probably somewhat elitist) forefathers didn't want to give up all the power to an uncaring and uninformed mob! (That would be a Democracy!)

So, when I hear we're "stealing," or "commandeering" or "taking over" the election, I say,

"YUP! Sure are! So what!?

"YOU? A lousy, what? 20-25% of the people? ...are gonna tell the rest of us who to vote for!?"

And I repeat,

"Yup, darn right! That's the way the system was designed!"

Remember a few things here: Every year we are told who we will vote for. Every year it is the same people who decide for us. The elite, through means such as the CFR or Bilderberg Group and the press who they own! This is now finally discussed in the mainstream press after years of denying they existed at all!

Make no mistake: These people are not the 1%ers! They are infinitesimally smaller than that, yet THEY are the ones! They, who meet with all of our presidential hopefuls and banking elite behind closed doors (wholly illegal by the way) to decide who will be put in front of the American public, to vote upon, as if we had a choice. THEY tell us that one man is unelectable and another is not. THEY, through the press, show only what they want and hide away away the real truth. They who give millions to both Obama and Romney to make certain they are the ones we have a choice between. (Controlled opposition.)

So which will it be? Who do you think should decide who will be on the ballot? The unseen international ruling elite? The press? The GOP? Or the Delegates who were put in place to do exactly that? The one's who spent unpaid and untold hours, weeks, and months researching the candidates and going through this process to insure that the best man for the job is put forward? The answer should be obvious.

And, I am quick to remind them that this is the "Ron Paul Revolution", after all! It's not just a metaphor! The revolution doesn't have to be violent, but, by our sheer numbers and force of will, we WILL take our government back from these banker owned and controlled politicians!

And finally, I remind them that the first American Revolution was not supported by the masses. That a much smaller percentage of Americans were responsible for our independence in 1776, much smaller than we have today, striving for ours, through the Ron Paul R3VOLution!

Comment viewing options

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

Title now edited to be accurate

I edited this piece to remove "Forefathers" from the title. That term is usually understood to be the "Founding Fathers" of the United States of America who were political leaders and statesmen that participated in the American Revolution and/or signers of our Declaration of Independence.

These people obviously did NOT create the delegate system as we know it today. In fact it has been less than 100 years (since the 1930s) that this system has been used in ANY iteration and the rules and processes have been changing and evolving ever since -- at least to some degree in nearly every election cycle.

It was an inaccuracy on my part and I am happy to have had that pointed out to me in the comments. I should have fixed it sooner but I was glued to the live streams of the conventions all day and never checked back here!

I DO however stand by all else that was written. Including the fact that the meetings of the Bilderberg Group are illegal for our statesmen to attend.

In 1799 the Logan Act was passed into law. It essentially makes it illegal for federal officials to attend secret meetings with private citizens to develop public policies.

Since the attendees are easy to list by eye-witness recognition and since information smuggled out of their meetings lead to 100% perfect predictions of future policies to be enacted by the US Government, I would reason that this is clear proof that this law is being broken.


And those you call forefathers again are spinning in their graves to be demeaned by your tying them to parties and delegates.

THIS delegate process has absolutely NOTHING to do with the US Constitution just as it has nothing whatsoever to do with Republic vs. Democratic systems of government.

THIS delegate selection process IS NOT for the informed, far from it, as characterized by you being 180 degrees wrong here.

THIS delegate process is for dupes, more exactly, for those who lead dupes into thinking they have the chance of a snowball in hell. THIS delegate process is for those who think GOP nomination procedures are on the up and up. The GOP isn't on the up and up (as it's friend, the Democratic Party isn't on the up and up).

Believing or in any way suggesting that it is good, that either party is good, or led by noble people, is wrongheaded and completely anti-liberty.

Parties aren't good...they are tolerated, like we tolerate hateful speech so as to protect speech, we also tolerate the kind of dirtbags who characterize those involved in running party functions.

Oh sure, sometimes the controllers of the system can be overturned; and I'm all for our side overturning them.

But don't enoble a corrupt process; and that's what you are doing when you tie the crooked and self-serving GOP to the founders of this nation.

Political parties are not in the constitution, never have been.

Therefore, party fests like this state convention isn't in the constitution...NOR is any single aspect of the selection of nominees.

Being involved in this process is one thing, and I applaud those who take the time and trouble to be so involved.

However, one needs to know what one is talking about to make any headway with voters.

And THAT is what any campaign is about, not some self-applauding elitist nincompoops...and by that I mean anyone on the Ron Paul side who thinks the caucus/primary system of the GOP is in any way noble or sanctioned by those who believe in truth vs. lies.

I think you missed the point

I think you missed the point Octojofo is making. My take on it is that if our leaders are elected by the popular vote, rather than by elected delegates, we would be powerless against the majority. The only way we are experiencing success in this campaign is because of the delegate system in place. Honestly, I didn't understand the genius of it until witnessing our recent wins, seeing that it is possible for the passionate and well-informed minority to seize power from an ignorant and apathetic majority. Of course, the reality of the current situation is a lot more intricate, but I think this may be the spirit of what was being said. There will always be room for improving our systems as we grow and evolve. Nothing is ever perfect.

No, you miss the point

The delegate process of the GOP is entirely of, by and for the GOP.

Your mistake, and the mistake of the original poster and the mistake of i_am_free is to confuse the constitution with the internal practices of the GOP.

These delegates are in no way similar to electoral college delegates.

THAT is in the constitution and THAT is IN NO WAY connected with these delegates.

THESE DELEGATES are chosen according to GOP rules, GOP fraud and GOP connivance and just plain luck and hard work in those rare times it works out good for our side.

It has NOTHING to do with the constitution.

Also, there is NO "delegate strategy". That term has become popular with some as it's a way the Paul campaign has come to explain the concept to those unaware of how the system works.

ALL campaigns vying for the GOP nomination go for delegates. That "strategy" is the ONLY strategy.

Again, it has nothing to do with the constitution, and in the case of the Paul campaign simply represents what they feel is their best chance to avoid tampering, interference and plain outright cheating, which is commonplace within the GOP---indeed, fraudulent is the best way to define the GOP and the Democratic Party.

If I had my way, I'd rename each party as one (they are one) and that word would be "fraudulent" or some variation of that word.

You are correct when you say that "nothing is ever perfect". A common mistake is to suggest that the electoral system in the US is "perfect" or "best ever devised" or some such lying nonsense.

IF that were the case we wouldn't be in the shape we are in.

ANY system relying on some to rule others is imperfect.

What George Washington Thought About Political Parties

George Washington's farewell address which was an open letter to the public in 1796 (see: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html) was insightful and demonstrated his keen understanding of the underpinnings of a constitutional form of government.

He was very concerned about the effects of "Spirit of Party" (see page 16) and knew that man in his easily whipped up emotional state would bring about despotism and corruption under the banner of "party loyalty".

I vote for the candidate who represents my interests and the betterment of the nation as a whole. I care not for the self-serving interests of the party leadership and their pettiness.


Can I just say...

[well, as the AUTHOR, ;) ]

that the title/headline of that piece was totally rushed, was NOT the original, NOR indicative of the original intention of the entire piece, and hell, maybe not entirely accurate (but thanks to all that had my cudgels! ;))

Please let me explain:

I was reading a few various forums at about 5:30am... this one post-er kept making remarks and then being chastised and attacked for not being a Paul supporter. People started suggesting he should be kicked out. At first I concurred... but then... I awoke...

I started writing...

It wasn't all THAT long, at least at first... basically it said that contrary points of view should be accepted, and even DESIRED--as a CHALLENGE for us, to defend our point of view. That commonly we did not get the chance because, all too often, Romney (and most other) supporters had no position to support, as they were just some kind of automatons regurgitating what they were taught earlier that week on the news.

Well, after checking and rechecking (because I am anal that way) I finally posted this thing at around 8am.

Wouldn't you know? It was refused by the filter at the DP because I mentioned a DP member by username! My bad. I shouldn't have, but there you have it! What was I to do?

I didn't want to trash hours of work, so I reconstructed the key points and re-posted it. This is what we read. Then I titled it, quickly and was happy with it. Ok, so maybe the GOP rules were just MODELED after the electoral college... I really don't know- or didn't.

But what I STILL really appreciate is the contrary point of view - the argument - SOUNDLY based - it has TAUGHT me - I have grown by it and LEARNED by it.

Or WILL! I plan on digging into this MUCH MORE!

But, THIS is what I meant to convey in the original piece! And that I am a more informed person because of it? THAT proves my point too! I DO deserve to have more say! Ha! Well... and so do YOU, my detractor! You seem to know your stuff. So here is what I suggest:

RUN as a Delegate!

Or not. You CAN just sit on the sidelines and kibitz!

I DID (run as a delegate!) I did everything I COULD. And I am not DONE! And that DOES give me privilege! The PRIVILEGE to be at what will prove to be a historic RNC, well at least, in MY lifetime!

*I* WILL be there. I hope to see and speak with you and ALL my detractors, there.


Where did he say anything

About the framers designing the delegate process? He just said "forefathers", which could be anyone, really.

in the title and in the text

It's NOT designed..by anyone.

Find it in the constitution, that's what I'm saying.

It's not there.

And, the title and text of the post IS wrong.

Delegates are party and neither is in the constitution, neither is necessary for republican government.

Not designed by anyone?

What?! It didn't just magically appear out of nowhere.

It's the best thing we have RIGHT NOW, and someone a long time ago came up with the idea. That's all he's saying.

you need to read the constitution

There is NOTHING there about parties. There is nothing there about party delegates.

Each party designs procedures for the party, and that's in NO way a public function or a part of our law.

The constitution and those who designed it are one thing.

Tying them to those who created, have run, do run and who will run any political party is demeaning to those founders who might have been decent people.

Decent people don't find haven in parties.

Grubbing around within them is sometimes necessary, and I applaud those who seek to do it to advance liberty by advancing the Paul campaign.

But let's not consider it something it's not...it's neither required for this system nor is it noble.

Parties aren't noble.

That's not the way I read the post..

It seems your contention is with the word "forefathers". I'm not sure which meaning the OP intended, but I read it with the general definition in mind, not specifically The Founding Fathers of the United States.

fore·fa·ther noun \-ˌfä-thər\
1: ancestor
2: a person of an earlier period and common heritage

that isn't my only objection

The word forefathers is only one objection.

The title outright implies that the constitution declared this delegate strategy.

The original post is about the much ballyhooed "forefathers"...and that term often is misused, as it is in the item above.

There is much more in the original post which is objectionable to any fair minded, reasonable person.

The plain IGNORANCE of saying that it's "wholly illegal by the way" for some to meet behind closed doors.


In whose world?

What on earth could persuade someone to propound such anti-liberty nonsense in an alleged defense of Ron Paul and the views of Ron Paul?

Ron Paul meets behind closed doors every day, plots behind closed doors EVERY Day.

I do too.

THAT is the American way. AND, it's explicitly PROTECTED by the constitution, by the Bill of Rights, which represent limits upon government intrusion into privacy.

Free people meet behind closed doors and are free to do so.

There is NOTHING in the constitution prohibiting anyone from doing the same, even those running for public office.

How does one think Ron Paul meets and decides with others? In public?

When you see that let me know.

There's the gibberish, completely uninformed gibberish about CFR and Bilderberg...

Just pure trash.

And there simply is NO other way to comprehend the post.

It's plain what was and is asserted just as it is plain it's wrong, it's uninformed and it's plainly way, way out past the left field fence and foul.

Well said Octojofo!

One of the best descriptions of the system that I've ever read. Much like juries don't always realize what their job really is, the same goes for delegates who are elected to vote in these conventions.

"What I want most from the government is to be left alone." GWT



I felt compelled to share it on Facebook :)


very nice!........

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams