It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
...stealing...I mean winning delegates...
But, Ron Paul can't even make it to the General if he doesn't start winning some Primary states
He is asking his delegates to vote against the will of the people in their precinct...he is stealing those delegates.
Ron Paul delegates that are voting against their precincts popular vote are betraying their neighbors and telling them that THEY know better, that they are going to ignore their community vote and do whatever THEY want to do.
He needs to win PRIMARY states to be a serious contender.
Romney: 203 Santorum: 92 Gingrich: 33 Paul: 25 Huntsman: 2
Myself and the other delegates didn't backdoor anything, they voted us in knowing we were Paul supporters.
No he is not. Please show me where he has stated such and maybe I will believe you. What he is doing is asking his supporters to participate in the delegate selection process. All of the candidates are asking for their supporters to do the same. The delegate process is free and open to the public. Nobody is stealing anything and you know it. No sugar coating is necessary. Facts are facts.
Nobody is voting against anybodies wishes. Are you trying to suggest that the people voting at the straw poll are too stupid to know that the delegate selection process is separate? It is not a secret. The delegates are elected freely in a open to the public vote and nobody is being disingenuous about who they support.
That is not exactly true. He needs to win caucus states AND place well in primary states. The primary states are either winner take all OR they give delegates proportionately. He will need to eventually win a primary state and build off that win but in many states a close 2nd place finish will give him the same amount or nearly the same amount of delegates as the winner.
that means he is encouraging his supporters to become delegates and vote against their precincts results at the county/state conventions.
Paul is a shrewd old man...he will lie, cheat, and steal just as much as anyone else. At least own up to it...instead of trying to pretend he is a saint that has done nothing wrong.
What I am suggesting is that most people trust that the delegate that is elected to go represent them isn't a douchebag that will vote for HIS OWN preference rather than REPRESENT his precinct.
Just because a state is "proportional" doesn't mean everyone gets their percentage of delegates based on their vote percentage.
OK, and I am saying you are incorrect. Do you really think that these people don't know that the results of the straw poll are non binding? Of course they know. That is how their state and their party does it. It is not a secret. These delegates are not voting their preference over there precincts preference, it is there precinct that is voting them in as delegates. How do you not understand that?
You keep talking about Primaries and Caucasus. Do you realize that the only difference between the two is that at a Caucus people are encouraged to speak and discuss candidates before voting, it is a townhall style and a longer affair At a primary people are encouraged to simply vote and keep their opinions to themselves mostly beforehand.
Every state has their own process and from what I can gather that seems to be your beef with it. You think it should all be popular vote. Guess what, those States don't. Saying Ron Paul is stealing delegates because you don't agree with the process a state goes by is simply sensationalism.
A Caucuse has two parts...the preference poll and the delegate selection. In a primary that is combined into one vote. So the winner of the preference poll has their delegate elected to the convention.
I'm not fine with a candidate winning a precinct and the delegate elected to REPRESENT that precincts decides to overrule that vote based on their own ideology.
I have noticed that the media has been hyping that this cycle. This is nothing new and what you call as Ron Paul gaming the system is simply what every single candidate has attempted to do with every single non binding delegate selection process. If a delegate is unbound, they go after them. This is not a new strategy, it is not dark and twisted, it is not gaming the system, it is simply what the process is.
This is incorrect.
I am not either, good for me, that is not what is occurring. The delegates give their preference and a speech, they are elected as a delegate based on that. It is simply a direct election of delegates.
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
I'm in Minnesota.
And Paul handily won my county with 60% of the vote. By delegates though he gets 88%.
Like I said before, we didn't set these rules, but we are using them to our advatage in the same way the establishment has been using them for decades.
Show me evidence of any other candidate using this strategy...current or past.
You are not understanding my point. In the Caucus system, Ron Paul can play this game of getting a delegate without winning the precinct in unbound states. In a Primary system, Ron Paul can't place his delegate on the ballot under Romney's name...bound or unbound...the delegate that is "elected" in the primary vote will always be a supporter or part of the Romney campaign. There is no seperate vote to select delegates.
this is where Ron Paul encourages his supporters to stay for this vote and vote in a Ron Paul supporter that will go onto the county convention and vote for another Ron Paul delegate regardless of the preference poll results. What has traditionally happened, is that since this is a cohesive party...the delegate honors the results of the preference poll...because they are all ONE PARTY.
There is even a thread on ATS of a delegate who says they are doing exactly what I described above.
Ok, but I don't have to go back very far. Take Texas in 2008. Clinton won the popular vote 51% to 47% but Obama ended up with 56% of the delegates to Clintons 44%. Texas used a system of primaries and caucuses. Two-thirds of the state's 193 delegates were at stake at the primary, while the remaining third were decided by the caucuses. With the support of the unbound delegates, Obama was able to win more delegates than Clinton despite loosing the popular vote. Nobody had a problem with it because there is no problem with it.
What I am saying is that even in some of the states where they have the bound delegates they also have unbound delegates.
This is all just your assumptions or the assumption or lies of somebody you have read or listened to. How many republican caucuses have you been to exactly? I assure you coming from a registered republican it is not the case. I also can assure you that every single candidate is asking their supporters to stick around and become delegates as well.
I wrote in that thread and told them how confused they were on the process a few minutes into the discussion, how it actually works and that they were elected a delegate in the proper way and because of there showing of support.