The Ron Paul Delegate count is growing.

This election has forced a lot of people up off of their asses and into action, myself included.

I went to my local town Republican caucus convention and was elected as a county delegate. Then yesterday at the county convention I was elected to go to the state convention as a delegate.

We were allowed 8 delegates and 16 alternates, 7 of us are strong Ron Paul supporters and one who is Santorum. And our top 4 alternates are Paul supporters. There were no back room deals, all voting was out in the open and every nominee for delegate stated who they were supporting before the votes were taken.


This is how we are going to win the nomination for Paul, and eventually the Presidency.


The electoral college was put in place to keep the cities from making decisions for rural areas. If we went by only popular vote the campaign would be NY and California, nobody else would matter. Our founding fathers recognized that the needs of a person in one part of the country would be different from the needs of another 1,000 miles away. And on 3 occasions the person who won the popular vote lost the election. It really is the best system to govern a country as large and diverse as America.

And this is why Paul wins over Obama.

Sure, but not as much as Romney's delegate count is growing.

Super Tuesday will be the end of the Paul campaign.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Sure, but not as much as Romney's delegate count is growing.

Super Tuesday will be the end of the Paul campaign.

Go ahead and believe the corporate media macine.

They have made the assumption that if Romney won the popular vote he automatically gets that percentage of delegates. As I explained above it doesn't work that way. The electoral college will decide this race, not popular vote.

Paul came in 2nd in MN in the caucus, but come state convention I have a funny feeling Paul will have the delegates on the floor, which is all he needs.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


This is an interesting moral dilemma similar to another that I have recently faced. Let me begin by saying that I would love to see Ron Paul as the Republican candidate. Of the current lot of yahoos, he is by far the most interesting and I tend to agree with him on more issues than any other right wing politician.

That said, I have an intense personal loathing for the entire concept of the Electoral College. You may say that it was put in place to stop the cities from deciding the election, but that is patently incorrect. The Electoral College does not negate population density as Electors are assigned to each state based roughly on population. What the Electoral College is there to do is override the voice of the People in the event that the People do something deemed incredibly stupid by the electors. It is also a tool of disenfranchisement as many states are configured to give "assign" all their electors to the winner of the state's general election. This means that if say, 46% of the people in Pennsylvania vote for Obama and 52% vote for Romney, Romney would be assigned 100% of PA's electors. Granted, depending on the state and the way they authorize/appoint their electors, electors may or may not have the legal right to cast their College vote for a candidate other than their assigned candidate.

Does anything about that sound like it would enhance a democracy? All it does is put a huge layer of bureaucracy, cronyism and potential corruption between voters and the actual process of electing our so-called leaders. What you are describing on behalf of Ron Paul is disenfranchisement on a massive level, telling people that their votes are stupid and that you know better. (Admittedly, a vote for any Repub other than Paul is stupid but this is America where people are free to be as abysmally stupid as our anti-intellectual controllers make them.)

Of course, one could enter into a mobius strip debate about the election fraud possibly taking place to deprive Ron Paul of votes and the potential for the delegate strategy as a tool for negating those dirty tricks, but I'm not about to get stuck in that mire.

Also, I have to say I have some doubts your story, because I would hate to think that someone in your position of relative power would not know the difference between a political party's delegate system used for the selection of their candidate and the government's electoral college system used to appoint the president. Delegates at the state and national conventions have nothing to do with the electoral college. Granted, people who take the time and effort to become delegates often pursue and attain positions as electors, but they are two separate systems.

If you are unaware of this distinction, I suggest you look into it further as it is rather important to the action you are hoping to take to assure Ron Paul's election.

reply to post by DaTroof


Eh.. I think the media will have to retract a few dozen delegates they have falsely awarded to Romney and reassign them to Paul. I don't have any delusions that this will put Paul over or near Romney, but I think it will bring him to second and tighten the race.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


I didn't word it properly, my mistake. I tend to convolute my points when I'm trying to post quickly.

Paul can win the nomination with the delegates, but it is the electoral college which will gaurantee the eventual win over Obama since he does well in the heartland.


There is a movement out there called the national popular vote movement, another genius idea from Al Gore.

This movement wants to form a compact of states who give electoral votes to the popular vote winner, regardless of how each state voted.

As it stands now, our electoral college system slightly favors the small states, so swing states are not ignored. If this changes and we go straight popular vote the middle of the country might as well not even vote.

In the unlikely scenerio Paul was able to steal the Republican nomination through slight of hand and not by votes how is that a good thing? Its not like in a few cases where such things have been very close between two canidates. He has pretty much been dead last the entire time. He polls at the back of the pack and the votes follow that. The people have spoken and they do not want him. Why should a small a group try and force him on the party? He would get smashed in the general election because he would need people to vote for him without using tricks.

Originally posted by MrSpad
In the unlikely scenerio Paul was able to steal the Republican nomination through slight of hand and not by votes how is that a good thing? Its not like in a few cases where such things have been very close between two canidates. He has pretty much been dead last the entire time. He polls at the back of the pack and the votes follow that. The people have spoken and they do not want him. Why should a small a group try and force him on the party? He would get smashed in the general election because he would need people to vote for him without using tricks.

He's in second place even by the medias delegate count.

How do you figure he is last?

Tell me what tricks are being used?

We are playing the game the way it was set up.






Edit, Sorry I put thread in wrong place, still new at navigating ATS.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I appreciate your realism. Star for you.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by MrSpad
In the unlikely scenerio Paul was able to steal the Republican nomination through slight of hand and not by votes how is that a good thing? Its not like in a few cases where such things have been very close between two canidates. He has pretty much been dead last the entire time. He polls at the back of the pack and the votes follow that. The people have spoken and they do not want him. Why should a small a group try and force him on the party? He would get smashed in the general election because he would need people to vote for him without using tricks.

He's in second place even by the medias delegate count.

How do you figure he is last?

Tell me what tricks are being used?

We are playing the game the way it was set up.

edit on 4-3-2012 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)

Edit, Sorry I put thread in wrong place, still new at navigating ATS.

edit on 4-3-2012 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)

When the vote is counted he is last, When the polls are taken he is last. The trick you think should be played is having delegates ignore the way people voted and put Paul in when nobody voted for him. You are indeed playing a game. What you are suppose to be doing is having an election. If you stick the Republicans with a canidate they did not want then Obama is going win in a crushing fashion. That is if the Republican Party even survived such a thing.

reply to post by MrSpad


Where are the Romney supports when it comes time to sign up to be a delegate? How can you fault Paul supporters for volunteering and being nominated to be delegates? Someone has to do it, but it is not the Paul supporter's fault that they are the ones willing to put out the time and effort it takes to be a delegate.

Like the OP i was nominated as a delegate for my precinct, except i am an alternate delegate. Romney WON my state, with Paul in second. Of the 2 delegates and 2 alternates in my precinct, there only one Romney supporter! (2 Paul, 1 Romney, 1 Newt)

I am not going to use my tiny precinct to make assumptions about every other precinct, but if other went like mine did, Paul will be sitting pretty at the national convention. Romney will have no one to blame but himself, and his campaign.

DC

reply to post by MrSpad

If I understand things correctly from the various postings and stories across the internet, the following scenarios seems to be taking place:

As is likley, the PTB do not want support for Ron Paul to grow, so their MSM report the results they want to see which appear to include many fraudulant and manipulated counts. However, the selection of the delegates is done (if I am not mistaken) by those present at the meetings. As it seems that the majority of people present are Ron Paul supporters, then it makes sense that he gets most delegates. This in reality probably represents what the true feelings of those who voted regardless of how their votes were counted (or not).

In a nutshell, votes can easily be manipulated but you need true supports selected to back your puppet.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


A very nice intelligent post. Rather surprising on threads like this. I starred you.

Originally posted by hardbob
reply to post by MrSpad

 

If I understand things correctly from the various postings and stories across the internet, the following scenarios seems to be taking place:

As is likley, the PTB do not want support for Ron Paul to grow, so their MSM report the results they want to see which appear to include many fraudulant and manipulated counts. However, the selection of the delegates is done (if I am not mistaken) by those present at the meetings. As it seems that the majority of people present are Ron Paul supporters, then it makes sense that he gets most delegates. This in reality probably represents what the true feelings of those who voted regardless of how their votes were counted (or not).

In a nutshell, votes can easily be manipulated but you need true supports selected to back your puppet.

Which is exactly why we got involved. None of us liked the candidates the media chose for us, so we picked our own. Do I agree with everything he says? No, but I rarely agree with anybody on everything. He makes more sense than any other candidate, and he doesn't need a teleprompter, he knows this stuff chapter and verse.

That's why the ambush tactic always fails with Ron Paul, he doesn't need to ask a handler.

I'm not sure where this "trick" nonsense came from because all we are doing is following the rules. Each of us spoke for 1 minute and clearly stated who we were voting for. I was wearing a Ron Paul sweatshirt even, so there was no trickery involved. This is the real election, the one in the media is just for show.

the best system would be a 1 vote per state, winner take all, 26 state majority takes the presidency.

it would force every candidate to really work hard and convince the populations of each state to vote for them, instead of the system now, where presidential candidates don't even bother visiting some states.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


i hope and pray ron paul can pull this off

he is the leader of this revolution or movement

anon has no leader, OWS has no leader

but the calls for freedom and justice made by ron paul are achoed in the movements of today

weather he wins or not however a revolution will occur

one way or the other, with ron paul as leader or as a leaderless mass

its been a looooooong, long time coming
but i Knnooooooww

change is gonna come

Ron Paul is not a Presidential canidate he is a movement...hopefully whose time has come.

Peace

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
Ron Paul is not a Presidential canidate he is a movement...hopefully whose time has come.

Peace

an idea whose time has come can never be stopped

reply to post by MrSpad

...He has pretty much been dead last the entire time...

...When the vote is counted he is last, When the polls are taken he is last...

Iowa - 3rd out of the original media covered 8 results

New Hampshire - 2nd results

Minnesota - 2nd results

Maine - 2nd results

Washington - 2nd results

Four 2nd place finishes hardly makes him dead last. The process is just starting. A large amount of republicans are still very undecided. 42 more primaries/caucuses will occur between now and when the voting ends on June 26. schedule

...He polls at the back of the pack and the votes follow that...

Ron Paul takes lead in latest Iowa poll

Poll puts Ron Paul at number 2 in New Hampshire

The people have spoken and they do not want him.

Ron Paul Beats Obama in Poll

The Rasmussen Reports poll, which included Republicans, Democrats and Independents, suggests that Mr. Paul appeals to a wide range of voters... this poll is an indication that the former Air Force surgeon may be a Republican front-runner.

Many more examples exist. 8 verifiable links to refute your position should be enough. Do you think it could be possible that your thoughts on this subject do not align with reality as much as you think?