Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Give me a primary that is bound to the vote of the people. Anything else falls short.
I have asked this over and over to you and michiganmoon who keeps complaining about delegate allocation disproportionate to the popular vote win, but you guys always dodge the question - if you are so passionate about popular vote, would you then support a national popular vote? That surely is even better, right? Let everyone in the country vote at once and whoever comes up with the most votes win.
If you do support a national popular vote, then do you think Romney (or any Republican) will ever win?
If you don't support a national popular vote, why?
I have asked this over and over to you and michiganmoon who keeps complaining about delegate allocation disproportionate to the popular vote win, but you guys always dodge the question - if you are so passionate about popular vote, would you then support a national popular vote? That surely is even better, right? Let everyone in the country vote at once and whoever comes up with the most votes win.
If you do support a national popular vote, then do you think Romney (or any Republican) will ever win?
If you don't support a national popular vote, why?
All I want is delegate allocation that is bound to the vote of the people. I don't want to elect a nominee based on the popular vote in all the primaries.
I'm fine with the electoral college, I like that it gives smaller states some more say where they'd otherwise be ignored in a national popular vote.
All I want is delegate allocation that is bound to the vote of the people.
How do you propose they do this?
People who vote in the caucus need not necessarily stay on and run as delegates. Assume there are 10 delegates in total and Romney receives 40% of the vote, Santorum 20% and Paul 20%. Per your idea, Romney should automatically receive 4 delegates, Santorum 2 and Paul 2. But what if after the caucus, the delegate selection process has 1 Romney supporter, 3 Santorum supporters and 6 Paul supporters present? Despite taking the pains to participate in the grueling caucus and delegation process, the Santorum and Paul supporters should be forced to go as delegates for Romney? How is it fair to Santorum and Paul or to the supporters? I'll tell you why - it isn't fair, and no one would stand for it. There would be an instant hue and cry, which is why the caucus delegates are never (or at least usually) not bound to the popular vote. If they could do that and get away with it, you can be sure that the party would do this, because they want Romney to be the nominee.
People who vote in the caucus need not necessarily stay on and run as delegates. Assume there are 10 delegates in total and Romney receives 40% of the vote, Santorum 20% and Paul 20%. Per your idea, Romney should automatically receive 4 delegates, Santorum 2 and Paul 2. But what if after the caucus, the delegate selection process has 1 Romney supporter, 3 Santorum supporters and 6 Paul supporters present? Despite taking the pains to participate in the grueling caucus and delegation process, the Santorum and Paul supporters should be forced to go as delegates for Romney? How is it fair to Santorum and Paul or to the supporters? I'll tell you why - it isn't fair, and no one would stand for it. There would be an instant hue and cry, which is why the caucus delegates are never (or at least usually) not bound to the popular vote. If they could do that and get away with it, you can be sure that the party would do this, because they want Romney to be the nominee.
Scrap the entire process then and just turn it into something similar to the electoral college and put an end to the grueling delegation process.
I'd love for caucuses to be scrapped completely, if the 2012 GOP primary has made anything clear it is that there is nothing more undemocratic than a caucus.
Last edited by FargoBison; 04-02-2012 at 01:52 PM..
Well to be fair, the Romney strategy is also based on getting the majority of the voters to cast votes for him on primary day.
Isn't that a strange idea, that whoever gets the most votes should win. However, if that person also uses the strategy of getting the most delegates it's somehow 'cheating'. But it's not cheating if any other candidate does it. Are we clear on these rules...lol? It's all so very funny at times, isn't it?
NO! Either you are too stupid to realize the difference, or you are purposefully spreading misinformation by equating the strategies of Romney and Paul. I suspect the latter, although I wouldn't disregard the possibility of the former.
Have you ever noticed that it's always the Paul people on the floor fighting the blatant disregard of the RRO and party rules by the GOP leadership convening the conventions and caucuses? And for what reason do you think the party breaks its own rules and disregards motions from the floor? In most cases, to help Romney, and in some occasions, to help Santorum (case in point, St. Charles County, MO). NEVER for Paul. Paul people on the floor are fighting the Establishment, "unity slates", backroom deals and the like. Santorum and Gingrich supporters too are getting screwed by Romney, BTW, because most of the "unity slates" presented to them are in reality, all Romney delegates. Santorum and Gingrich supporters are voting for Romney delegates without realizing it.
While you can always argue that someone getting delegates disproportionate to the popular vote they received is unfair, I don't take that view. If Romney could get delegates in a state where he was discomfited in the popular vote, I don't care, as long he plays by the rules when getting delegates. Problem is, he cheats to get the delegates.
Ultimately, the whole thing might skew in favor of Romney at the state levels in most states because of GOP corruption, but where Paul people take control of the GOP leadership, the corruption will stop after 2012. Most of you don't take a long view of this like I do, because your aim starts and ends with Romney getting elected. Paul people think long term, so it's an ongoing battle.
We will win in the end because we play by the rules. You will lose in the end because you cheat.
No. It's the same thing. Those delegates in ND worked hard to get there too because they're dedicated to the campaign. Just like Paul's delegates. Just because you think someone is establishment doesn't diminish the effort they have out in to get nominated. Same thing when Paul is over-represented - his people put in the most effort so they could pack the delegate slate. In ND, Romney's people did that. Paul's people played by the rules of the respective state committees in which they have an over-representation of delegates. So did Romney's people. Can you please explain the difference you're seeing? I don't see how this is cheating.
I do take a long-term view. I see Mitt Romney as a man that will lead us to a stronger America. I'm concerned about my future, and I want someone who is more concerned with getting down to work to fix our country than to score partisan points and toss around rhetoric. We need adults in Washington, ones who know what they're doing. It's the only hope for America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
