Doug Wead says that Romney's lawyers are rigging the election and explains how.

[Anarchist420]

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/...rig-election-in-nd-santorum-ron-paul-cut-out/

I'm pissed at the GOP for doing this if this is true, which I have every reason to believe it is. Romney is NOT popular, Dr. Paul is. Due to that, Romney will cheat.

I have a question for those of you who keep saying there is probably no fraud... why do you think Doug Wead is lying?

I was asking in part because I'm sick of being ridiculed by people saying "Dr. Paul doesn't have a chance, he's too unpopular", "he'll NEVER be President", and all that BS along those lines. The burden of proof is on you, so don't give me BS like "internet polls are not scientific".

 

[Capt Caveman]

Internet polls are not scientific. You're proof of it. Being popular on the internet by a few zealous Paulbots doesn't win elections.

Ron Paul is a joke.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

This is a real problem and has nothing to do with internet polls.

I think A420 is distracting from real issues with phony problems: now if someone starts a thread on it we point back to this boondoggle of a thread instead of talking about the real issue.

Keep in mind, Rick Santorum won North Dakota with 39.7% of the vote. Ron Paul was second with 28.1% and Mitt Romney was third with 23.7%. Yet under “Romney Rules” he gets approximately 60% of the delegates from North Dakota to the RNC.

 

[FoBoT]

misleading title, they may be messing with the Republican Party nominating process, but that is way way different than "rigging the election" which implies the general election in November

The party is ultimately responsible for the nominating process, so it is really an internal matter. if you don't like it, you need to become a party official and change the process from the inside

 

[silverpig]

You assume that the republicans who go out to vote in the primaries know what the internet is.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/...rig-election-in-nd-santorum-ron-paul-cut-out/

I'm pissed at the GOP for doing this if this is true, which I have every reason to believe it is. Romney is NOT popular, Dr. Paul is. Due to that, Romney will cheat.

I have a question for those of you who keep saying there is probably no fraud... why do you think Doug Wead is lying?

I was asking in part because I'm sick of being ridiculed by people saying "Dr. Paul doesn't have a chance, he's too unpopular", "he'll NEVER be President", and all that BS along those lines. The burden of proof is on you, so don't give me BS like "internet polls are not scientific".

Dr. Paul doesn't have a chance. He'll NEVER be President.

The "burden of proof" is surely on the people challenging the legitimacy of the primary process. Mr. Wead's article doesn't even raise such a challenge, much less prove that any fraud has occurred. Mr. Wead, like you, is apparently frustrated with Mr. Romney's tactics, but there is nothing even colorably illegal or improper about what he is doing. If anyone should be upset about these tactics, it is Mr. Santorum and his supporters, since he is at least a candidate who could conceivably have been successful. It's somewhat ironic that Doug Wead of all people is the one expressing this frustration, since at this point he is best known for engaging in conduct which, while not illegal, was certainly ethically problematic (i.e., taping the Bush family over a prolonged period without their knowledge).

Ron Paul's run for President is not now, and never was, a serious effort to be elected, since that is a virtual impossibility for him. It is a way of getting his ideas and issues discussed publicly, and in that respect this campaign has been a great success (except to the extent that it has revealed just how goofy some of his supporters truly are, since they, unlike Dr. Paul, believe he is electable).

 

[jackschmittusa]

Lately, the Republicans have been all about finding ways to manipulate voting in their battle against the Democrats (gerrymandering, voter ID, apportionment of Electoral College delegates in states, etc). It's become so commonplace for them that I don't find it astounding that they use it against each other.

It is hard to believe that there are still people out there that think that RP could ever get elected. His ideas are too radical for most of his own party to ever accept, let alone everybody else.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Anarchist, even though I support Ron Paul, you have to know that Ron Paul's people have stated they do they same thing to try and get caucus voters in non binding caucuses to be nominated, to then later vote for Ron Paul.

Obviously they are all bending the rules around and around to try and get an advantage. And even though I believe there is fraud, this isn't evidence of it, anymore than what Ron Paul's people are doing trying to overrun the caucuses.

 

[JEDIYoda]

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/...rig-election-in-nd-santorum-ron-paul-cut-out/

I'm pissed at the GOP for doing this if this is true, which I have every reason to believe it is. Romney is NOT popular, Dr. Paul is. Due to that, Romney will cheat.

I have a question for those of you who keep saying there is probably no fraud... why do you think Doug Wead is lying?

I was asking in part because I'm sick of being ridiculed by people saying "Dr. Paul doesn't have a chance, he's too unpopular", "he'll NEVER be President", and all that BS along those lines. The burden of proof is on you, so don't give me BS like "internet polls are not scientific".

you have serious comprehension issues.
Perhaps the languages of Earth are too complex for you....
Do you miss your home planet much??

 

[CallMeJoe]

I am outraged!

Only Dr. Paul should be allowed to scam the caucus system to get more delegates than he proportionally earns!

 

[WHAMPOM]

Why are you so surprised that those who preach "Danger voter fraud!"do it somuch?

 

[Craig234]

Watch Ron Paul's representative Doug Wead explain how they're going after delegates desite not getting the popular vote.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...70D36335C971F9AC218B70D36335C971F9AC2&first=0

Start at 4:00 for Maddow's summary, and 6:15 for the Wead interview.

 

[Craig234]

Watch this segment for another interview with Doug Wead, this time discussing Romney gaming the system.

An assertion is made that in Maine, the county that was Ron Paul's strongest 4 years ago wasn't counted at all because the person who was supposed to report its votes didn't - and that the person is a Romney supporter. It claims three counties of 16 did not get counted.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&first=0&qpvt=ron+paul+caucuses+rachel+maddow

 

[FoBoT]

cry about it all you want, the American people love the two party system, it is easy to understand, like NFL and UFC
they want a winner and a loser, they get "US" vs. "THEM"

the people that run the two parties have a lot of leeway in how they nominate their candidates

 

[Fern]

So, in Idaho Romney won 61% of the popular vote and this guy is complaining that Romney 'gamed the system' to steal the delegates from Paul?

Shouldn't Romney get all the delegates? (Even in most pro-rata states a candidate getting +50% gets 100% of the delegates.)

If Romney got 61% of the Idaho popular vote yet Paul got all the delegates wouldn't others have a good argument that it was Paul who gamed the system to defeat the will of the people and get the delegates?

Fern

 

[piasabird]

Maybe no one wants to vote for Paul? Maybe the Paul supporters are trying to stack these caucuses in order to steal votes from the General Public! I think Caucuses are archaic, and they do not represent democracy!

 

[Fern]

Maybe no one wants to vote for Paul? Maybe the Paul supporters are trying to stack these caucuses in order to steal votes from the General Public! I think Caucuses are archaic, and they do not represent democracy!

They strike me as particularly stupid and unnecessary when you have a primary election for the general public. Why not just use those results? Why do both and incur the (apparent) unnecessary expense of the election?

Fern

 

[FoBoT]

i think i mentioned this a couple times already, the govt doesn't really have any role in how the parties nominate their candidates. each Republican state committee and Democratic state committee decide on the 'rules' for the nomination process each year under the umbrella of the national committees

individual state committees choose whether to use a caucus to select delegates or a primary vote to select delegates. sometimes under unusual circumstances (as happened this year in Missouri) the state will hold a primary vote but the state committee will elect to not use it (so it becomes non-binding) and use a caucus instead. even when a caucus is held, under the rules of the state committee, it can either be binding or non-binding (again this year in Missouri the caucus was non-binding). if the delegates are not bound under the rules to vote at the national convention for a certain nominee, they can do whatever they want, regardless of any primary votes or caucus results

again, this a great system to keep the sheeple in line as maybe 1% of the citizens has any idea how it works

 

[brandonb]

A420, why do you bother? When have elections ever been fair/honest in the history of the world? Why would it be today?

 

[Anarchist420]

A420, why do you bother? When have elections ever been fair/honest in the history of the world? Why would it be today?

Good point It would be today because we have someone running who is popular and actually unique.

Anyway, I still think there is a shitload of fraud going on. Here's a small number of questions I have:

Why was Dr. Paul projected to win the IA caucus as well as lead by a large margin in early entrance polls, then the final results said he didn't?
How did Santorum win by 34 votes? What are the odds of someone winning by 34 votes?
Why did Dr. Paul get only around half of the votes in NV vs. 2008?
Why was Dr. Paul projected to win ME, but then at the last minute Romney won?
How could what Craig posted not have some truth to it?
Why does Dr. Paul get the most individual donors but "officially" gets the least percentage of the vote?
There are a ton of other questions as well. According to the votes tallied by the GOP establishment, he's done a lot worse than he did in 2004. Why would that be?
Why was the map lopsided in VA in terms of counties Dr. Paul won?
Why do they have Diebold voting machines and paper ballots in some states? The precinct I went to had both. I used a paper ballot but I had a choice.
Why is there almost no enthusiasm for Romney, yet people come out to vote for him in mass numbers? Why does he have such few individual donors, yet people come out to vote for him in mass numbers?
Further, if Dr. Paul doesn't have a chance, then why do polls say he would get at least 18% of the vote if he were to run as an independent?

 

[Anarchist420]

...was certainly ethically problematic (i.e., taping the Bush family over a prolonged period without their knowledge).

The Bush family doesn't have much room to complain about themselves not having privacy.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The Bush family doesn't have much room to complain about themselves not having privacy.

I think they have the right to be free from being surreptitiously recorded by someone they allowed into their lives. I find it very hard to understand how anyone could see this behavior as anything but creepy.

 

[Craig234]

Anyone watch the clip or clips I linked? They're pretty important for this story.

This is a big mess of an issue, where the rules make the elections not work the way people think they do where the elections decide who gets the delegates.

Both Paul and Romney are guilty (look at Puerto Rico for Romney) of gaming the system - just as the rules encourage them to.

 

[Anarchist420]

Both Paul and Romney are guilty (look at Puerto Rico for Romney) of gaming the system - just as the rules encourage them to.

Dr. Paul isn't guilty of jack dempsey shit.

I think they have the right to be free from being surreptitiously recorded by someone they allowed into their lives. I find it very hard to understand how anyone could see this behavior as anything but creepy.

I don't.

 

[woodie1]

I am outraged!

Only Dr. Paul should be allowed to scam the caucus system to get more delegates than he proportionally earns!

That's the way I feel too. Who is this Paul fellow anyway?