It isn't reasonable because the way the caucus works is people sign in and do their 'presidential preference' and then many just leave because they have no interest the whole resolution discussions and stuff. Only those who stay actually vote for delegates. On caucus day there are at least two SEPARATE votes. One is just the presidential preference (straw vote) the other is delegate selection. So raw vote is no indication of delegate selection. Just go back and read the Ron Paul press release I posted, even in Precincts where Paul came in 2nd or 3rd, they managed to select ALL Ron Paul delegates there. So anyone who appoints delegate 'proportionally' to the caucus states is exemplifying their utter ignorance of how the process works. Superdelegates have a lot more power in the Democratic process, not the Republican. In the republican side about 3 superdelegates per state so about 150. On the democratic side its a very different story.
I would say, the problem is it is actually the people who do select the delegates too. So its more like 'those who participate' hold the power. But that is true in a democracy regardless. Those who vote are the ones voicing their opinion. So those who want to participate in the process should also vote for the delegates. if they don't, or they vote but choose a person who supports a candidate they don't, its their fault? Totally democratic Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The source of what I'm saying is me. I was a Delegate to WA State Convention last election so I know at least how the process works. Otherwise I can totally understand that this whole process is too confusing for the average person and the average person probably thinks if you 'win the state' thats all there is to it. I think the caucus system was invented so the establishment could always pick their candidate Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
... no delegates, just count all the votes and nominate the winner. How complicated, not to mention democratic is that?
True but we don't even elect Presidents by popular.vote. Its a complicated cycle that is for sure. Complex democracy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The idea that so many idiots cast votes for Santorum should tell you something. Americans on the right are downright unhappy with secularism....
So much for the people Fair enough. I was more intending to point toward the fact that people don't matter to Ron Paul or his campaign. It's kind of like when conservatives were all in a tizzy about the idea of "deem and pass". They tried to call it the "Slaughter Rule", after a Democratic member of Congress, when it could easily have been called the "Hastert Rule", after the former Republican Speaker of the House, or the "Drier Rule", after the former Rules Chairman who even stood for the procedure in court. The conservative complaint in the healthcare debate was that D&P would avoid a vote that they thought Pelosi would lose. The parliamentary procedural option was there for her, but even Democratic supporters found the idea of D&P distasteful. In the end, Pelosi won on a majority vote in the House. What the Paul campaign is doing is using procedure in place of votes. The end result is that Ron Paul is hoping to win the nomination even if he never wins a state. The campaign is proud to disdain people's votes as straw polls and beauty contests. So much for the Ron Paul Revolution, eh? I mean, in the end, he's just another politician. If the rules allow him to win the nomination without winning a vote, that's the Republican Party's problem. But the fact that they're trying to screw voters means Paul and his supporters ought to drop the whole "libertarian" ruse and just admit that they're Republicans.
And that's not how all the caucuses work either. By the way the Popular vote so far out of 2,784,245 votes cast Romney 1,119,307 (38.9%) Gingrich 838,366 (27.5%) Santorm 430,827(18.7%) Paul 305,864 (11.0%) Paul has NO CHANCE of getting the Republican Nomination at barely 10% of the vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
So tomorrow shows another problem with the states having different systems. Up for grabs are Arizona' 29 delegates (winner takes all) and Michigan's 29, proportional. Now obviously, when the candidates are close in the race, it makes more sense to spend ALL your money in Arizona and don't even bother with Michigan, because you only get a proportional win, instead of all the Arizona delegates. So in a 3 way race it pays 3 times more spending your money in AZ than in Mich...
Lol. No he has to get votes other he doesn't get delegates either. Caucus rewards organization that's not procedural. its impossible to get the nomination without a single win to begin with. Secondly he's getting enthusiasm which is not procedural. so if you're saying if you have enthusiastic VOTERS that it shouldn't count just because others lacked it. And for you to use the word libertarian here is evident you don't understand anything about libertarians. Liberty is for each individual not to some group so that group of voters that voted in the straw vote is irrelevant because they also have the liberty to continue on the process. Liberty doesn't mean or represent democracy. It represent an individuals passion to pursue their OWN goals.
I never claimed universality anyways. what was santorum's chances prior to IOWA? The people just follow the 'leaders' and polls. Who is to say that if RON PAUL wins a couple the people might switch like they have done countless times already. This is actually why I don't like Americans. They point fingers at politicians when they themselves lack principles.
Nope. If you haven't already drunk the Ron Paul Koolaid by now, you aren't likely to switch. He plays well only to his own chorus.
Paul ahead 43-41 against Obama in Rasmussen, there is chance if people get tired of the other candidates which has been often this year. Its not going to be easy, but to say zero chance isn't accurate either but I understand your opinion.
So was Hillary 4 years ago at this time... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Polls this far away are worthless, not to mention offtopic...
Rasmussen is skewed towards the right. They are the only poll that puts Obama behind Ron Paul. The average is Obama +7 over Paul. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
If the race was a horse race, with delegates count: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...nimation_of_the_2012_republican_campaign.html
Still offtopic, but funny: "Paul said he was amassing delegates despite coming in on the bottom half in both primaries tonight...."