Delegate Shifting StrategySubmitted by Duane Vick on Sat, 09/08/2012 - 02:17
*NOTE: I posted this in Activism but it didn't get much response. I actually expect this to get some heated discussion. However, since strategy is so important to our success, it is never too early to plan strategies now. How we vote in 2012 will have an impact on 2016. If Ron actually runs in 2016 as Doug Wead has implied, I think we would have to show him that we have increased delegate numbers in those states that the delegate strategy worked in and decreased delegates in states that went hard against him. It's basically making the battlefield look a little more favorable for when the time comes that they make the decision.
I believe that if we want Ron to run in 2016 or other liberty candidates to run on the GOP ticket in 2016, we will have to get going on some groundwork now. There's going to be a shocker in this strategy so please read through this and maybe even re-read through this because there are some tough pills to be swallowed with this strategy.
First, I need to point out a specific RNC rule:
(5) From each state having cast its electoral votes, or a majority thereof, for the Republican nominee for President of the United States in the last preceding election: four and one-half (4 1/2) delegates at large plus a number of the delegates at large equal to sixty percent (60%) of the number of electoral votes of that state; provided, however, that if Puerto Rico shall become a state prior to the next national convention, it shall be presumed that it would have cast its electoral votes, or a majority thereof, for the Republican nominee in the last preceding election. (In the computation of the number of delegates at large, any sum of the four and one-half (4 1/2) plus the sixty percent (60%) representing a fraction shall be increased to the next whole number.)
Now think about this for a minute. The delegate strategy was key to the success we had this year. We need more delegates in the states that are delegate strongholds for Ron Paul and less delegates in those states where they decimated Paul delegates. If states like NV and IA get the majority of their electors in the electoral college to vote Romney, those states will get increases in delegates. It appears that IA and NV would gain an additional 9 delegates each if those states chooses Romney. I don't know which states were our worst performing for getting Paul delegates, but those are the states that need to be getting electoral college votes for Obama.
I'm sure many of you are already aware of what this strategy is implying. Yes, I'm throwing up in my mouth a little, too. However, remember the end game here. This strategy means some of us would need to vote for Romney, and others of us would need to vote Obama. We can play these two off each other to advance the possibility of affecting future races in our favor. I think if we work this strategy, it won't change the results of the election, just the red-blue makeup and subsequently, which states will get more delegates.
The downside to this strategy is that there would be fewer third party and write-in votes to send the message to the GOP that we are not just a fringe. However, I see that strategy as a spiteful one that is based on hatred and not strategy. It would cost the GOP this election but not give us any advantage going into the next election. In fact, the only proposed benefit to spitefully voting third party is that the GOP might wake up. I don't think they will. I don't think they are going to turn over a new leaf and welcome us. More than likely, they'll place fault with us. While I don't seek to please them, I am willing to smile at them while I metaphorically sneak up on them with a hidden sword. I want to flank them with a delegate shifting strategy that works nicely with us having two election cycles (2014 & 2016) to build up our delegates where we need them based on 2012 results.
Regardless of which way you feel about this strategy, please be detailed about why you feel it is best or worst instead of just one-liners on why it is good/bad without real explanation.