Comment: Ron Paul Should Not Sue

(See in situ)


Ron Paul Should Not Sue

The one entity that should never sue to intervene in voting processes, especially of a private organization, no matter how illegally they may behave, is the official campaign.

1. We didn't donate to have money go to lawsuits instead of to getting out the vote. I imagine there would have been howls of protest if campaign offices were shut down so the battle could rage in court.

2. Sore Loser: there's no way that the campaign and the candidates would have been portrayed as anything but a sore loser, ironically trying to use government force to change the vote. That would have damaged all the upcoming vote processes, some of which might have been lost instead of won, because of it.

3. The public, and the grassroots, and all delegates are the injured parties. They have to take the lead on this, as these lawyers are doing. The campaign should stay out of it. Individuals in the campaign can cooperate with information and evidence, but the whole thing should be arm's-length from the official campaign.

I feel for people who try this approach, and if RICO violations can be proven, they're on solid ground. The public will be behind anyone who can prove the process was criminally subverted.

If they don't prove something like that, it will backfire. Binding delegates is something the delegates voted to do. The reason so many states have hybrid delegate binding systems is because sometimes people have a majority for a candidate, and they vote to bind, and the next year they don't have quite enough and they manage to unbind them, or unbind some, and those delegates don't vote the way the convention wanted, so the next year they vote binding back in again, but the candidate options this time are different. It's all stupid politics, with everyone trying to force the advantage.

I would love it if the GOP did what we do in the LP: The candidates come to the state conventions (composed of all the delegates who wanted to come, for the most part) and meet with us, and debate each other. We hold a straw vote, but it isn't binding. We elect delegates to national (composed, for the most part, of everyone who wants to go), and they meet the candidates again, and the candidates debate. Then there's a vote for the nominee.

I realize that as we grow, there will be more competition for delegate slots at all levels, and we'll have to screen delegates for common sense and principles, but I like it that they don't have to have made up their minds as to who to support.

And the public at large is completely left out of the party's internal nominating process, as they should be.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/