45 votes

Why a Ron Paul-style presidential campaign may be the last of its kind

Republican officials have voted to change the way the party will nominate its presidential candidates in future elections in an effort to ensure that delegates to the national convention are bound by the outcome of states’ primaries and caucuses.

It’s more than a technicality. The change — which was passed by the Republican National Convention Committee but still needs to be approved at the convention — would make it nearly impossible in the future for rebellious Republican presidential candidates like Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) to rack up substantial delegate support in states, when they do not win the states’ nominating contests.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


Repassing the 1776 Declaration of Independence (Article 18's "The Benefit of Trial By Jury Shall Not Be Denied"---OUR FIRST CONSTITUTION, STIL-DUE under the last articles of the 1777 Articles of COnfederation and 1787 U.S. Constitution)...is THE ONLY WAY to correct the problems, instead of worsen them....now with scientific certainty, since the discovery of Unification Science. As all grand juries functioning properly would produce "Unity" or the hypothetical "NO CRIME AND DEBT LEVEL", doing anything else-first, will always produce some crime and debt, preventably...no matter what it is or how "great an idea" it sounds like, it will produce crime and debt, preventably, and those engsged in such activities will be criminal-enemy-participants in such crimes......for those who haven't heard these Calculus++ or Relativity+ proofs, missed the science lesson....so, now, you can know who your enemies are and who are the ones qualified to hold the office, before you vote......www.Repass1776Declaration.Blogspot.com.......and www.JoinUSRecovery.Blogspot.com.....are where the Unification Science Upgrades THE DEFICIT CAN'T BE ELIMINATED WITHOUT CAN BE FOUND.....RCCFM: Awlays(C): Dr. Eric Who's Who In America Physician (Ph.D. & Public Health) USRecovery@Gmail.com....Don't Be Fooled America...and the First Applicant/Candidate To Get There (Advocating Such) Will Be The Legal Winner....Any Lab or Jury...

Unification Science Upgrades (to Unification Science, "U.S. Grade"): Eliminate the Deficit and Platinumize Your Dollar (And Private Business Stocks), Today.....www.JoinUSRecovery.Blogspot.com...Everything Else Just Triples Crime and Debt Rates....

The Declaration of

The Declaration of Independence has never been repealed, and God, the Judge of everything in Heaven and Earth, which it was passed to and so said in the last paragraphs; hasn't changed or forgotten. We should pray to Him like the Declaration of Independence encourages.

God, they are trying to take away our unalienable rights which you gave us. Lord, you gave us this country, and our founders pledged their sacred honor to these principles and beseeched you for your help as the Supreme Judge. Lord, the wicked is like a green bay tree spreading and exalting himself like in Psalm 37. Lord, come destroy the wicked so he is passed away and can not be found, and let the meek inherit the earth and with your blessing. Amen.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

RNC Rules Still Do Not Apply Over States Binding Delegates

And never will. Court will most likely decide

I hate to say it but...

Trying to use the rigged political system to give us freedom is futile and inefficient.

Sure, we shouldn't give up now, but looking ahead to the future I'm pretty convinced that the only way forward will be through education and peaceful civil disobedience. Simple, non-violent non-compliance.

Bottom line: Let those busy-body nut jobs write all the laws they want... At the end of the day they're just pieces of paper signed by regular people and we can easily ignore them.

I predict that as the economy keeps slumping, the dollar weakens and people realize that the political system is rigged, millions of people will just ignore their "laws". Basically, the government will not be able to keep its promises so people will just live their lives in freedom by just ignoring a bankrupted government. Pure and simple.

This is exactly why we need

This is exactly why we need to vote for Gary Johnson. You might not agree with him on everything, but he's not a POS like Obomney. You have a choice between two evils and an alright guy. Who are you going to pick?


Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

If Ron doesn't get the

If Ron doesn't get the nomination this week, I'm definitely going to vote for GJ in November.

I'm all for using politics as a soapbox for getting the message of liberty to the populace, however I'm beginning to think that it isn't the best solution to restoring our freedoms.

looking forward, hoping that our freedoms will be restored through politics isn't that realistic because as long as the institution of government exists, that institution will be corrupted... It's an inevitable fact.

Ok, so say Ron or Gary wins in 2012... Then what happens in 2016, 2020, 2024 etc? See my point?

If we want to live in a real free society, it's going to have to come organically by the marketplace and not by the ballot box... Education, and simple non-conpliance/peaceful civil disobedience is the only way to achieve a real free society imo.

I think we'll reach that point sometime in the future. It's just a gut feeling I have.

This tentative Gary Johnson backup plan

does not impress me. I speak from my own country post our 2011 election.

Australia did something of the same with its two-party system (like your two-party system, minus a Ron-Paul-like figure). Unimpressed by the system, a large chunk of voters opted to do a protest vote for the third party (they call themselves Greens and are radical socialists).

Note that it was a *protest vote*, and not a strong, *this-is-my-choice* vote. It could also be considered a *back-up vote* owing to how few options we had in our election. See, our vote is compulsory, meaning that everyone votes regardless of their own capacity to make decisions: otherwise, the voter turnout would have been the poorest in decades. The result was a "hung parliament", where neither side had a clear majority and where the third party was made king-maker.

The result is a government that is a barely-functional, anemic circus mess that drains more and more taxes, makes no constructive decision, is losing sight of its principles every day and whose PM is a liar and a hell to listen to. Total collapse would be preferable to this slow torture.

If you have a good plan to avoid a mess like ours with the Republican and Democrat Party, and the third Libertarian Party, then I'm all ears. But I strongly suggest that you reconsider the meaning of your vote. Is it a protest vote, a back-up-plan vote, or a this-is-my-choice vote?

I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.

Granger, where you at?

Granger, where you at?

I was at my committee meeting

Was a long meeting, but a good meeting. I really enjoy my meetings.

We have a liberty candidate running for congress, Dan Roberts, who I will be helping, focusing my attention on him, rather than the pug they have endorsed for senate, Emken. No one talked about Romney, though the chair brought a little baggy with a few Romney stickers.. most didn't take one.. once Vice Chair said, "If it said Romney Ryan I might be interested, but I don't want a Romney sticker". I took two Romney stickers. Of course neither will replace my Ron Paul rEVOLution sticker (it does not say for president, so I'm not campaigning, just making a political statement).

We discussed our Nov strategy, tabling, fundraising, headquarters, meet and greet, candidate training.

We went through the last CA GOP convention (Aug 10th) propsitions and voted on ten of them, which we rejected the state on two/ possibly three, as we could not come to a consensus and the chair declined to vote.. so that left it open.

I do not agree with this article, as I see how the other Ron Paul Republican (who was appointed a seat yesterday) and I, have great influence on our committee. We are both armed, informed, willing to debate and it's like a one-two punch..awesome.

This committee seat, I believe for both of us, both former Libertarians.. matter of fact, at one point, one of the guests brought up that the other RP GOP brother is registered a Libertarian. All it showed us is that we are being vetted (as they are searching for dirt on us) We don't have any.. and at the end of the meeting, the same person admitted that the committee was far more enjoyable, interesting and even more exciting as it had been in decades, and even went to for as to knock some of the neocons who were mission in action. We are winning.

I believe we are going to see many more Ron Paul like campaigns because the hundreds of people who followed Ron Paul into the GOP are strong voices, not afraid of controversy or needing to be liked.. we like ourselves and we really like each other.. we are independent yet united by Ron Paul's message, so we don't lean on each other but stand tall holding his message up, and since they don't have a message, just GOP platform.. I think we have a great future in the GOP. I think Ron Paul was RIGHT ON, I think Rand Paul is awesome.. has helped to swing the tea party more our way than neocons compromises


mission accomplished... ;) She is gearing up for phase two: Trying to convince everybody that they, like her, should vote for the Rominee....

"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

That is not true

I have not and will not ask anyone to vote for Romney. I will ask folks back Ron Paul GOP by voting GOP, but I really don't care how people that are not on committees, or holding offices vote. They need to know, they are not sending anyone a message. We ferankly don't give a damn.. folks like GJ are set up to marginialize them.. it works. GJ will return to the GOP once he's done being a trash can for the LP.

Democracies don't work

They want popular vote to rule all while our founding fathers spoke strongly against democracies. It's mob rule. We are a republic.

You don't know what a

You don't know what a democracy is... or a republic is for that matter. That's too bad but then that's the way the elitists like it. All you're doing is regurgitating their propaganda. Please get a clue.

Aristocrats (including the FF) hate real democracy so they've been vilifying it for 2,000 years. There has been NO democracy since the time of Aristotle and what makes democracy democratic is NOT the direct vote but rather it is sortition.

So if you like being ruled by oligarchs, keep defending the so-called "republic"...

Thanks for the word: Sortition

I've had the idea of using random selection in various ways (to combat problems such as voter apathy because there's too many voters so your vote doesn't hardly count so why bother really learning which candidate is best, and such as the tendency for those who lust for power and are most likely to abuse it being the ones who seek it and thereby end up in positions of power). But I didn't know there was a word for such random selection.

"You don't know what a democracy is"

To be fair I think you would have to say "You don't know what a democracy was". (The meaning of words changes over time, and unfortunately it's futile to fight it.)

It's funny though -- look at the wikipedia entry for democracy: "Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally -- either directly or through elected representatives -- in the proposal, development, and creation of laws." It's immediately obvious that that definition is self-contradictory unless you either accept an Animal Farm definition of "equal" such that "all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives but politicians have a more equal say", or you accept that only politicians are "eligible citizens". With random selection, while you may not be exactly equal, you are (if you are an "eligible citizen") at least probabilistically equal.

Anyways, I'm now "stalking you" (reading your old posts). (Found another word: ochlocracy) I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, but your posts 1) say some stuff I haven't read before and 2) aren't idiotic -- which is sadly a rare combination so when I find it I like to throw it against my brain and see what sticks. (It's too bad so many people on this site just vote down without a thought anything that doesn't coincide with their flavor of dogma.)

This was a predictable

This was a predictable reaction to a stealth delegate strategy. Having a public stealth delegate strategy was a big mistake in hindsight, and it should have been obvious without the advantage of hindsight (it was to some people, but not to everyone). If stealth was the plan, then it should have remained stealth in execution. You don't tell the opponent about a sneak attack unless there is nothing they can do to stop it. In this case, the numbers just weren't even close to making it work. Yet, the sneak attack was still announced to the world. Now, you can't use the same sneak attack next time. Shouldn't have wasted this weapon.

It's no use hiding the sneak

It's no use hiding the sneak attack. Cause they would have noticed it anyways. That was the initial reason that they didn't bother to hide it.

so then they shouldn't have done it

If they didn't think it could be hidden, or if they weren't reasonably confident of its success, it shouldn't have been implemented. Everyone should have known back at the end of April that it had no chance of working. The campaign certainly knew. There was no reason to proceed with it beyond that point. If it had been called off, the rules very likely wouldn't have been changed - yet you would have still known about the loopholes and could have used them in 2016 or 2020 when the race was closer. Now the loopholes are closing.

Are you pleased with the 'loopholes"

closing? By the way you discuss this, I feel like your almost happy that our processes are being halted and we are to trust electronic voting machines to determine our leaders. Whether or not the strategy worked or didn't work is irrelevant. What we have going on is an establishment taking over the people's opportunity to select leaders...people that are knowledgeable about what is going on. I get the feeling from some of the posts that you are in favor for sheep like voting systems and the perfect storm for a tyrannical government to rig elections. Come on Shazad...regardless of your romney support you have to see the negative direction our country is heading with or without romney at the helm. We are being screwed out of our country.

yes and no

If I could play God and make the rule changes myself, I wouldn't have done it exactly this way, but in general yes, I am very glad they're closing up these loopholes.

It amazes me that you're describing this stealth delegate / break binding strategy as being the will of the people expressed (and now stifled). It's nothing of the sort and I think if you could step back a moment you'll see why most people think that sounds so silly. It's the exact opposite of what you claim. When people vote for a candidate to get their vote at a convention, and bind a delegate to vote for someone, then THAT is the will of the people. If an individual who is elected by the will of the people to vote for person A then decides that he/she doesn't care and is going to vote for person B, then that individual is the one violating the will of the people. You guys talked way too much about how "the voters have no clue so we're going to step in and overrule them", and now the people you were saying were dumb have stepped in and fought back. Congrats for angering people that you wouldn't have otherwise angered if you hadn't tried a strategy of "screw the binding rules, I'm going to do whatever I want". It was just a horrible strategic decision to get delegate spots bound to other candidates then say publicly that you weren't going to abide by that binding. I know many of your delegates are honorable people who were going to follow the rules. But the rhetoric online ruined things for them as well. The people who led the "break binding" charge, including those in this national delegate lawsuit, only have themselves to blame.

I know it's hard to explain something like this to someone who thinks the voting machines are rigged and that Ron Paul actually got more popular votes than Mitt Romney. Once you can snap back out of that fantasy, then maybe you'll understand what I'm saying. The will of the people was expressed, and you lost. Don't tell people that you know more than them and that you're going to overrule their votes. They tend not to take that well.

Answer this question for me ... Imagine that Ron Paul had won a state with 80% of the popular vote and all the delegates were bound to him. Then imagine a state convention where Sarah Palin organizes her minions, with assistance from Fox News, and they overwhelm you and win all the delegate seats. At first, you're disappointed but tell them congratulations because you know they're bound to vote for Ron Paul anyway. But then Sean Hannity starts talking on his show about how since they were much better organized, more passionate, AND much smarter than you, they should just vote for Sarah Palin since that's what their group wanted them to do. Can you honestly say that you would think the "will of the people" was for them to vote for Palin? Can you with a straight face say that you wouldn't be leading the charge for binding rules to be enforced, and to ensure that they did what the voters had asked - namely, vote for Ron Paul? Can you really argue that you wouldn't be mad if they tried to pretend that there was no such thing as binding? I know that I can unequivocally state that I think it's wrong for a delegate to break binding rules, whether they are breaking the rules for or against a candidate I support. You seem to be in favor of breaking binding rules when it helps your candidate. Are you in favor of breaking binding rules when it hurts your guy?

The process

is in place so the government cannot cheat. That is the bottom line. So you can honestly say that the voting system should be in place that allows dead people, non citizens, etc be allowed? do you seriously think that electronic voting machines are not capable of being rigged? There are numerous examples....you shouldn't keep your head in the sand on this and believe that the almighty GOP or government in general is out to protect our rights. It is not a fantasy...

I guess I don't even know why I asked.. I should have known what your answer was going to be with a side dish of calling me some type of consipiracy nut. Disheartening to say the least..

when your premise is...

When your premise is that Romney didn't ACTUALLY get almost 5 times as many votes as Ron Paul but that the government rigged the whole election, faked the polls, faked it all, I can see how you'd come to such conclusions. Keep telling yourself that the election results were faked. Tell other people too, and see if anyone actually takes you seriously outside the group of individuals who thinks everything in life is a conspiracy against them. It truly is a fantasy world. Just because something like rigging a voting machine is physically possible and you have a YouTube video to prove it, it doesn't mean it's actually happening in this election and they (who is THEY, exactly?) are doing it to cheat Ron Paul. The evidence people have tried to produce on that point is a complete joke.

I'd still love for you to answer the questions in my final paragraph. I don't think someone can be intellectually honest and say that they would be rooting for binding rules to be broken if it was their candidate to whom delegates were originally bound.


I won't go into voting anomalies and issues as they have been all over this site and others which I am sure you have seen and commented on. Whether or not your willing to open your mind to the idea that it may be occurring is not my problem. Your unwavering trust in American elections is admirable to say the least.

As far as binding rules, you are using it as an argument against ron paul supporters. However, in numerous situations, romney people have done the same thing in states where he did not win the popular vote. What about those? Just because he is the anointed one he should be able to take over conventions as well? Personally, I am not for binding rules as it should never be an all or nothing vote. It irritates me and basically silences the minority...So, to answer your question...No, I don't find people voting their conscience a problem. A binding process means I have absolutely no voice in what happens and I am dragged along with the rest of the big government morons. Electing delegates should be a process that people pay attention to. If they are not going to do the basic work to understand who they are voting for, then they shouldn't be voting at all.

It appears that you don't

It appears that you don't know the difference between winning a convention where delegates were unbound and winning a convention when delegates are already bound to someone else (and saying that you're going to ignore the binding). The former is legitimate (and both Romney and Paul have done that). The latter is not. That's what you guys have been trying (and what Ron Paul has tried to tell you not to do but you've kept promoting it anyway). That's what ticked everyone off. And that was your big mistake.

A binding process absolutely means that you have a voice - all voters have a voice, and the binding is to the individuals they vote for. They're not just picking names out of a hat and arbitrarily binding delegates. They're being bound to the candidates chosen by the people. When you go in and tell people that you know more than them and you are going to overrule them, that tends to not go over well.

You still didn't answer my question. I get the sense that you're not going to. If Ron Paul won bound delegates and Sarah Palin organized to try to take away their binding, you know full well you'd think it was an affront to democracy.


And about as useful an undertaking as urinating into the wind - you will only get insults back and no one will address the argument.

What states are you referring to?

From what I have seen from delegates that were "bound" by state rules that may have been liberty delegates expressed that they would vote romney on the first ballot...and, by rule, they were allowed to vote their conscience if it was to be a brokered convention. I don't know why you keep saying that somehow I personally was involved with any kind of debauchery with breaking state rules as I wasn't.

If the case in regards to Palin getting delegates to vote against their boundness to Paul...of course I wouldn't think that is fair. That is not what has occurred here. There are states where delegates were not bound or being bound was in question that were elected, by the rules...and are now being tossed aside. If you are referring to Massachusetts delegates...they all said they would vote for Romney on the first ballot. Why do you think everyone is lying? Because you read it somewhere on the Dailypaul that they weren't?


There are Ron Paul supporters who are bound Romney delegates in at least Arizona, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Virginia. There are a few other states as well. Now, I am very aware that many or most of these individuals are planning to follow the rules. I know, as you have said, that the Massachusetts delegates are all going to follow the rules. But the fact remains that people in the online Ron Paul community are talking nonstop about how they're trying to get delegates to break the binding rules. They talk about having delegates vote their conscience instead of according to the binding. They sued the RNC to try to get them to state that all delegates were unbound. They're trying to convert bound delegates as we speak.

If people accept the existence of binding and follow the spirit of those rules, they don't try to make bound delegates break those rules. If you say that you are not part of this subgroup in the movement, then great. I was referring to "you" in the general sense and I apologize if I have accused you of something that you personally do not advocate. There are many people, though, that are advocating this very thing, and it is wrong. I could find a dozen threads about it in a matter of minutes. It is the very reason there's backlash going on right now. The Palin analogy I gave is exactly what is happening. The people who are involved in this are encouraging Ron Paul supporters and other delegates to do something they would consider massive cheating if they were in the opposite situation. If you reject these current efforts by some supporters, then the analogy would not apply to you personally.

Romney has nearly 1400 bound delegates. So the only possible way he will not win on the first ballot is if delegates ignore the binding rules. Any efforts at this point to force a brokered convention are either explicitly or implicitly encouraging delegates to break binding rules.

That's why they tried to play dead

They were probably trying to balance needing new blood to up their numbers with this risk. So they made the call and then tried to play dead. Probably a mistake, but consider that many in the movement don't think that we have another 4-8 year window to change things.

who played dead?

who played dead?

You were here...

everyone was upset about the defeatist campaign statements. No one could understand why Ron Paul would suddenly stop campaigning and tell everyone that it was basically over and that we were just working for platform influence. I know that you will argue that it was because he truly didn't have the numbers, but that wasn't the reason. Qualifying to be nominated from the floor was a big deal, they weren't going to get more recruits, and there was always the possibility of building coalitions behind the scenes.

I see what you're saying

But I just wouldn't deem it "playing" dead. People wanted to think that's what was going on and that it was a secret strategy to go along with the grassroots' "secret" strategy. But he was just admitting he couldn't win. You are right that I will argue that it was because he didn't have the numbers, because that's exactly what it was. Whether he qualified to be nominated from the floor or not, there was zero question as to who would win the vote. He knew that.