83 votes

Huge Problem for Romney. - RNC can't substitute Each State's Electors

As I said months ago, the GOP really doesn't even need to nominate it's candidate, it can assign one of it wants to.

What the GOP can't do is screw with each state's electors.

There are only 3 federally elected positions, US Senate, US House and National Electors.

Ron Paul has amassed dozens of these by congressional convention and state wide conventions.

They all must be elected in some matter and are ruled by state and federal law, not state parties or national party organizations.

Al Gore lost to Bush by less than 5 Electoral votes.

While some states require electors to vote for that party's nominee (only a few), the SupremeCourt has never ruled on an electors free will to vote for whoever they want, and nobody has ever went to court when they refused.

I would guess that Ron Paul's electors WILL vote for Ron Paul or abstain when the electoral college meets.

So in 2 years and again in 4, take over those congressional district and state wide conventions, elect national committee men and women, elect delegates and electors.

Get enough National Committee Liberty members and throw the bums out and their revised last minute rules- should be easy half the people should be too old or dead to show up.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

It begins Iowa Ron Paul Elector resigns- Yahoo News

Says she won't vote for Romney.

Top of yahoo news

Big mistake resigning. He/she

Big mistake resigning. He/she should have just stayed in it and voted their conscience.

Blessings )o(

Ron Paul won't have any electors pledged to him if he

doesn't win any state. (or one of Maine or Nebraska's Congressional Districts)

And since he isn't on the ballot anywhere - he can't win anything.

The only way he could get an electoral vote, is if an elector who is pledged to vote for Romney or Obama, gets chosen by their state, and they cast their vote instead for Ron Paul.

The only way this is likely to happen, is if in those few states that choose electors by primary or convention, some Ron Paul supporters managed to get selected.

In the vast majority of states however, the party's central committee has absolute power over who the electors are, and you can bet your bottom dollar, in those cases, none of them will be voting for anyone other than Obama or Romney.

UPDATE - I see we already had this conversation below. Sorry, I didn't check the date on the thread.

Obviously you have no clue

It all takes 1elector to swing an election.

There are dozens of Paul supporters who have been elected as electors.

If they refuse to vote for Romney, he's done

There may be people who are Ron Paul supporters

who managed to become electors.

But that is not the same thing as them being "Ron Paul Electors."

It takes more than one if the vote isn't within one.

It's called math. Try it sometime.

If the vote is 280 for Romney and 258 for Obama, it will take 12 of Romney's alleged electors voting for Obama instead to switch the result to Obama. 12 is more than 1.

And it takes at least 12 in that case, because 11 would only throw the election to the House, where Romney would win.

This also means that if faithless electors don't vote for Romney, and he would otherwise win, in order to see to it he doesn't, they have to vote for Obama, because voting for Paul sends the election to the House - where as stated, Romney wins.

So, learn some math.

You won't sound so clueless yourself next time.

This OP is categorically false.

While it might be in some states that Electors are chosen in a primary process, in most states, the political parties, if not the candidates themselves, pick who will be the Electors pledged to them.

The voters then pick which set of Electors to choose to cast their State's votes.

To say the parties have no control over who are the candidates for Elector is patently FALSE.

Huge fire consumes Rome! Christians feed to the Lions! - 64 AD

The Burning of Rome, 64 AD

Roman Emperor Nero playing his fiddle?

During the night of July 18, 64 AD, fire broke out in the merchant area of the city of Rome. Fanned by summer winds, the flames quickly spread through the dry, wooden structures of the Imperial City. Soon the fire took on a life of its own consuming all in its path for six days and seven nights. When the conflagration finally ran its course it left seventy percent of the city in smoldering ruins.

Rumors soon arose accusing the Emperor Nero of ordering the torching of the city and standing on the summit of the Palatine playing his lyre as flames devoured the world around him. These rumors have never been confirmed. In fact, Nero rushed to Rome from his palace in Antium (Anzio) and ran about the city all that first night without his guards directing efforts to quell the blaze. But the rumors persisted and the Emperor looked for a scapegoat. He found it in the Christians, at that time a rather obscure religious sect with a small following in the city. To appease the masses, Nero literally had his victims fed to the lions during giant spectacles held in the city's remaining amphitheater.

From the ashes of the fire rose a more spectacular Rome. A city made of marble and stone with wide streets, pedestrian arcades and ample supplies of water to quell any future blaze. The debris from the fire was used to fill the malaria-ridden marshes that had plagued the city for generations.

The Horror of Fire

The historian Tacitus was born in the year 56 or 57 probably in Rome. He was in Rome during the great fire. During his lifetime he wrote a number of histories chronicling the reigns of the early emperors. The following eye witness account comes from his final work The Annals written around the year 116.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

As the new Emporer fiddles in his castle keep, his empire burns.

Roman Emperor Nero came to his Roman City Center not to save it, but to burn it? Et tu? The Roman Civic Center was burned to the ground. Ramshackle shops, taverns & all blight was reduced to ash... Gone with the Wind.

    Frankly scared Romans, I don't give a damn!" - Roman Imperial Fiddler

Roman ashes were cleared immediately. Evidence gone. New Roman statehouses were erected on the ashes of the crime scene of prior officialdom. Marble Roman Empire statehouses you may see today are remembrances that empires erected on ash, will not stand. Monuments to villainous leaders will not stand the test of time.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

In The Swing of the Diebold Machine?

So, what have we got now? Romney's money v. Obama's money ..... and whichever of them is able to swing the most diebold machines.

So far, no one has ANY Electors

Electors are to be chosen in a manner determined by each state's legislature. Because democracy is America's national religion, every legislature has decreed that the winner of the popular vote, in that state, will receive that state's full complement of Electors (excluding Maine and Nebraska who assign individual Electors based on popular votes within Congressional districts.)

Since Governor Johnson ALREADY has ballot status in all (or very nearly all) 51 Electoral jurisdictions, he can readily direct his Electors to vote for Dr Paul and himself in December, assuming he actually wins any states. Not likely considering the number of pouting paulista purists who intend a futile write-in campaign.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

Pauting Paulista

I am not. I simply don't like Gary Johnson. They guy is not the sharpest tool in the shed and he does not take a principled approach to his policies. He's just a super nice guy.
Nice guys won't fix the problem.
He simply doesn't "get it".

Could this work?

Secret Way to have Ron Paul win 2012 Election


Keep on praying GBA

Keep on praying everyone!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~





"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

This is not true in all states.

Yes, in some the process to select electors is done by primaries or caucuses/conventions.

But in others, the State party leadership simply pick whomever they want.

So what you are attempting to suggest is a mega long shot at best and would likely end the Electoral College.

Please - don't do it.

Going to a "popular vote" will be the end of Liberty for sure.

Liberty will be continued. See the 3rd meaning Webster's, 2012.

Liberty noun. lib·er·ty noun \ˈli-bər-tē\

Definition of LIBERTY

: an action going beyond normal limits: as
a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity
b : risk, chance (look foolish liberties with his health)
c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice
d : a distortion of fact

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Give me Liberty or give me the Death of Liberty?

Why Mr. Twain, That liberty has now become a dirty word was certainly exmplified in the events at yesterday's events at the RNC.

How is it that such a fine word has two meanings which are diametrically opposed?

How shall we take that fine word back to mean what it should mean?

lib•er•ty noun \ˈli-bər-tē\
1 : the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice


Give me Liberty or give me the Death of Liberty?


1828 Webster: Natural liberty, consists in the power of...

Daniel Webster was a religious man. He also believed a word ought to be defined by the common use of it.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary ~ The People's guide to the Constitution ~ Meaning & original intend.

Read America’s founding documents easily in just a few hours

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

In discussing the Declaration of Independence and Constitution... “Maybe we’re missing something. Maybe we’re not really getting the original intent of our Founding Fathers.” ...

The current publishers of Webster's dictionary state... : “The English language has changed again and again and in many instances has become corrupt.”

One of the definitions of “Constitution” in this 1828 dictionary is “A system of fundamental principles for the government of rational and social beings.” I had never seen the concept of “rational and social beings” in any definition I had seen in modern dictionaries.

... the definition of “liberty.” ... it basically meant freedom from something and also a basic right that belongs to people. But look at two of the definitions from Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

“2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

“3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.”

... Noah Webster did put these, and thousands more concepts, into clearly crafted definitions that convey exact and vividly full meanings.

Good to know what was meant when a document was written to get the full flavor & intent of it.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

1828 is on of my bookmarked links!

If our children are not taught to spell and apply math, how in the world will they understand the true meaning of words as used in our founding documents?

No child left behind?

Or is it the truth of the matter that Liberty has been left behind?

I already said that in a small few states

the electors have to vote for the nominee.

Of course we will do it, the RNC should not have took away Maine's delegates, nor gave any to LA. establishment.

Its not a long shot, Paul does not have enough electors, but he does have enough to stop Romney

It has nothing to do with binding of Electors.

It has to do with how they are chosen.

In many cases, they are chosen by party officials. Thus since none of us are at that level except in a handful of states, (and what are the procedures there?) we don't stand a snowball's chance with this strategy.

The only thing it will do is bring about calls for ending the Electoral College and moving to a popular vote.

What are you talking about

nobody is suggesting Paul could win via the elector system? It's about making Romney lose - so easy via the elector system in a close race.

It's not as easy as you think

Faithless electors (who would most certainly lead to an amendment getting rid of the electoral college - but that's not my point here) who decide to vote for Ron Paul regardless of the outcome don't hurt Romney. If no one gets 270 electoral votes, the vote goes to the House, and each state gets 1 vote based on a majority vote of its representatives. Based on how the House seats are distributed, the Republican wins that vote with ease. In other words, Romney has already got the tiebreaker won. You could hurt Obama though if he won Maine but was barely over 270.

That's even worse.

Especially if it's close.

It will DEFINITELY end the EC. No doubt in my mind.

"would likely end the Electoral College."

...that's my concern as well.

We'd only get one shot at using the electoral college to overturn the results of popular elections, because the backlash would be nuts. 24/7 news cycles fueling national outrage leading to a constitutional amendment eliminating the electoral college. It would be worth doing if we could put a liberty candidate in the White House, but it's definitely not worth it just to spite Mittens.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

No, not at all

2/3rds of the States and 2/3rds of the House would have to vote for a Constitutional Amendment, it will never happen.

If someone tries the kind of stunt suggested - you bet

your backside it will - and fast.

It will make your head spin.

Even if it could be pulled off successfully and get a liberty candidate in the White House, it will still bring down a hell storm for an amendment that will most likely succeed anyway.

Compound that with a joint session of Congress making open objections on the floor as the votes are read on Jan 6th.

All hell will break loose.

"it will never happen"

...well, it's happened 27 times already.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

C'mon the logistics won't allow it

too many fly over states that would lose power.

They will ever vote to change the electoral system, would have happened in Bush v Gore.