When was the last time

The delegates voted for someone other than the person that won the majority of the vote in the primaries? Please Ron Paul voters, can you answer me that simple question? Why makes you think that the delegates are going to ignore the voters and vote for Ron Paul?

The delegates unbound rule must be for something. But if delegates could just vote for whoever they wanted to, while ignoring the people then the elections would just be a big waste of time don't you think?

I am a Strong Ron Paul supporter and do whatever I can through FaceBook and whatever other site I can to share the strong positive Vids of Ron Paul in hopes to open the eyes of the people.. I urge all to watch this video, Ron Paul supporter or not!

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by muse7
The delegates voted for someone other than the person that won the majority of the vote in the primaries?

I believe that would be the 1948 GOP primary where a brokered convention saw Thomas Dewey gain the nomination above Harold Stassen whom had nearly double the popular vote. That was 64 years ago and atleast Dewey won states by popular vote. Those were different times back then, different circumstances. We all know (including Paul supporters, however they want to deny) that Ron Paul lost after Florida. It's still possible for Ron Paul to still win the nomination at this point, but that's like saying it's still possible for Romney to drop out the race, and that ain't ganna happen now is it?

Romney won fair and square, he was the more popular candidate. Paul evidently doesn't connect enough with mainstream GOP voters, or even outside voters for that matter. At this point Romney was the best the GOP could come up with, he has the ability to court independents and Northern States more so than Paul. There are a number of reasons why Romney is the nominee and why Paul has lost so badly in three different presidential races.

Rand Paul will continue to carry his fathers torche. The best Paul supporters can hope for is that Ronnie will be on the Romney ticket (or rather, Rand), this would be the more realistic outcome for them.

Originally posted by muse7

The delegates unbound rule must be for something. But if delegates could just vote for whoever they wanted to, while ignoring the people then the elections would just be a big waste of time don't you think?

edit on 6/5/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

This is called a republic, and it's the way the government operates as well. You vote people into office but you don't have control over what they do while they're there. Just like you vote for the delegates but you don't control what they do at the convention.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


Romney won fair and square, he was the more popular candidate.

Voter fraud, rule breaking, and media bias aren't my idea of "fair and square".

Originally posted by bl4ke360
This is called a republic, and it's the way the government operates as well. You vote people into office but you don't have control over what they do while they're there. Just like you vote for the delegates but you don't control what they do at the convention.

This is true, although delegates typically have their constituents at mind in every election. I'm not sure how you could justify all these delegates choosing a candidate that cost less than 25% of the votes the other candidate recieved. I mean really, are you expecting all these delegates to ignore the will of 6 million voters for Ron Paul? Seriously? And you'd be satisfied with yourself over the fact that Ron Paul won this way, hypothetically speaking, if it were to go that way??

Originally posted by bl4ke360
Voter fraud, rule breaking, and media bias aren't my idea of "fair and square".

So those 6 million additional voters Romney got ontop of Paul's voters, all those millions are fake? Were those 6 million dead people who voted for Romney? 6 million illegals? How deep does this conspiracy go??

I know SG and I have gone at each other regarding politics but in this case, is absolutely correct in terns of the Republican (not the party, the system) way of governance.

While representatives are not beholden in a binding manner to "do the will of the People" (because honestly, they most likely only had 40% of 20% of the actually voting population of their given area); constituent's concerns are prevalent. In some representatives more than others mind you.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I mean really, are you expecting all these delegates to ignore the will of 6 million voters for Ron Paul? Seriously? And you'd be satisfied with yourself over the fact that Ron Paul won this way, hypothetically speaking, if it were to go that way??

And if Ron Paul supporters wanted to make a truly larger impact they would have engaged in their respective States' politics long before the primaries ever came about. People nowadays only thing about the "national" elections and forget that we have none. They are all State elections and the States are what decide the presidency; like it or love it, it is what it is.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I mean really, are you expecting all these delegates to ignore the will of 6 million voters for Ron Paul? Seriously? And you'd be satisfied with yourself over the fact that Ron Paul won this way, hypothetically speaking, if it were to go that way??

And if Ron Paul supporters wanted to make a truly larger impact they would have engaged in their respective States' politics long before the primaries ever came about. People nowadays only thing about the "national" elections and forget that we have none. They are all State elections and the States are what decide the presidency; like it or love it, it is what it is.

You mean the "Electoral College" for each state. but yes