Romney isn't winning.

The media presents the candidate receiving the highest PLURALITY in a state as "winning." But particularly if the highest vote-getter receives less than 50% it is also easy to claim that "no one won."
Republican primaries are NOT what they used to be: "winner takes all." Rather, now they are proportional - and also relative to party rules. Thus, if Romney receives 30% of the vote, it means that 70% of the delegates are NOT ROMNEY delegates. It is odd to claim that 70% of delegates went to other candidates as "winning." The party also does not count all voters and states as equal. For example, the party declared that Florida primary voters are only 50% Americans, so cut the population-to-delegates ratio in half as a punishment for Florida refusing to comply with Republican Party demands on when to hold their primary.
If the other candidates remain in the race and can continue to hold Romney to less than 50% in most of the states, Romney will not have the delegates necessary to directly win the Republican nomination. He'd have to cut-a-deal with at least one of the other candidates to make 50%. With Republicans jumping around between the Not-Romney candidates, even that might not be enough to make 50%.
The most that can accurately be claimed is that Romney has more delegates than any other individual candidate. But he isn't actually "winning" the primaries. In the past with winner-takes-all that was accurate. Not anymore.

OK. And . . . ?

For one, it means the media claiming the other candidates might as well give up if Romney receives a plurality in S. Carolina is so much nonsense. The other candidates don't have to be top vote getter to remain viable. All they have to do is collectively hold Romney to less than 50%. Romney could receive a plurality in all 50 states and still "lose" the nomination.

After the first vote fails to produce a majority at the convention, the other candidates could broker a not-Romney coalition - such as a Gingrich-Santorum ticket, promising Ron Paul the spot of Secretary of State or even a ticket with Ron Paul directly on it. Because delegates are assigned proportionally - rather than winner-takes-all - Ron Paul has HUGE negotiating power if Romney remains held to only plurality "wins." It would be "the losers," not Romney, that would hold a majority of delegates. This is a substantive change over the past where whoever had the most votes in a state received all the delegates.

In the past, proportional allocation of delegates often produced "brokered" conventions in which the battle for who is nominee could last for days.

The media wants Romney to win.He has baggage that could guarantee Obama's second term and if that doesn't work Romney is a liberal, which means the liberal media gets a liberal president no matter who wins.The "I'm such a dumbass I think a liberal republican will somehow be better than a liberal democrat"voters and the "I want anyone but Obama" voters an the die hard republican party first voters make up a majority of Romney voters,but they most certainly do not make up all the voters. Most conservative know a liberal rat is still a liberal regardless of what letter is next to his name.

It is my understanding that the GOP proportional delegate rule is ONLY for primaries in January, February (and possibly March although I get conflicting info about that month) . Once those are over, they then revert to the usual winner take all system. Florida - which is after South Carolina - has already informed the national committee that it will ignore the rule on proportional delegates and it looks like its now up to the party to either enforce their rule or back down. I expect them to back down.Your theory also ignores the reality of money and support which leaves candidates who do not do well in these early primaries.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-Alloc.phtml

The myth of proportional representation in the GOP primaries - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

New Rules Could Complicate Race For GOP Delegates | Fox News

jamesrage said:

The media wants Romney to win.He has baggage that could guarantee Obama's second term and if that doesn't work Romney is a liberal, which means the liberal media gets a liberal president no matter who wins.The "I'm such a dumbass I think a liberal republican will somehow be better than a liberal democrat"voters and the "I want anyone but Obama" voters an the die hard republican party first voters make up a majority of Romney voters,but they most certainly do not make up all the voters. Most conservative know a liberal rat is still a liberal regardless of what letter is next to his name.

Click to expand...

Romney's not a liberal. He's not a conservative either. He's a "let me test the political winds and then I'll be whatever you want me to be" candidate. Here's an image that should represent his campaign:

Once again another thread where Joko doesn't have his facts straight.

First, all Republican primaries this year are not proportional. Indeed, the next two big ones occuring...South Carolina and Florida...are both winner take all states. Arizona coming up in mid February, another winner take all. Puerto Rico's in March is also winner take all. Then, in April and beyond, you have seven more winner take all states including California and its 172 delegates.

But that's not all. See, you're also wrong in suggesting all the proportional states follow the same rules. They don't. For example New Hampshire requires that a candidate meet a 10% threshold to recieve any of the delegates...a threshold Newt and Santorum didn't meet. Similarly, Michigan has a 15% threshold and Georgia requires a candidate to get 20% to gain a proportion of the votes. All in all, 16 of the states doing proportional distribution of delegates have a threshold that ranges between 10% or 25%. Due to that, just because Romney may get 30% of the vote doesn't mean he only gets 30% of the total delegate numbers.

And it goes even further. There's a number of states that are "If...else" scenarios where "If a candidate gets 50% or more of the vote they take all delegates, else its proportoinal". Five states have a 50% threshold for winner take all (including Virginia where there's significantly less candidates on the ballot) and one has a 66% threshold.

Link to makeup of all primaries

Now, onto point two Joko's wrong about. No where was it deemed in any way that any primary voters were "50% Americans". What did occur was that multiple state GOPs decided to willfully, knowingly, and flippantly violate the rules set down by the national committee. As such, those states were penalized as was the right of the national committee based on the rules that govern them. Every individuals vote in a primary still counts 100% the same as it did in previous years. Every delegate's vote will count 100% the same amount as it did in previous year. That amount being 1:1. The difference is that some states will be sending fewer delegates due to the violation of rules and the sanctions placed on them for this. In no way or form was this deeming people less American than others.

Now, onto the third flaw in his argument. Joko presumes that the reason people suggest that Romney is the likely nominee after these early primaries and if he wins SC and/or Florida is simply because of the delegate count that he'll have gained. This is of course a naive view point based on someone seeking an answer that fits his scenario and not actually seeking all possible and realistic answers. Off the top of my head I can think of two quick reasons why people are suggestion Romney will win and other candidates should drop out.

First, that due to Romney's success in the early states and the inability of another viable candidate to win or do well in all four of those states, it would set up a scenario where significantly turning the tide during Super Tuesday and beyond would be difficult. The lack of wins would blunt the potential for momentum of candidates who don't have a ton of momentum to begin with and who have less traction and name power in the later states comparitive to Romney. As such, Romney's success in the early 4 states, again if he does well and especially if he wins SC and FL, will be giving him significant momentum and attention that may make the already uphill battle for other candidates become one that is neigh impossible.

Second, that due to the splintering of the "Conservative" vote, people may be pushing for the other "Conservative" candidates that isn't their chosen guy to drop out. This is in hopes of the "Conservative" vote then rallying behind a singular "NotRomney" candidate and ushering that person into the nomination rather than Romney.

Both are reasons seperate to the notion that people are saying others should drop out because Romney's win in the early states matters so much due to delegates. While its true that it could be said tha Romney is not "winning" the primary at this point, he most assuredly is "leading" in it at this point. A brokered convention IS a possability, but that will largely come down to what the field looks like post SC and Florida and how Romeny performs there, and his performance at the other primaries leading up to and after Super Tuesday. By the end of Super Tuesday we should have a slightly better grasp of whether or not a brokered convention is likely, possible, or improbable. But at this point things are heavily in Romney's favor to end up with the win in this thing.

Now, I agree...compared to previous years there is far more incentive for various candidates to stay in longer than there was in the past. There's winner take all's towards the end that could be beneficial, and proportional in many races allows you to survive longer finishing in 2nd and 3rd and even 4th then you would previously. However, that doesn't necessarily change the Romney front runner status nor negates the lead he has and could build upon.

Of Florida, it takes little thinking to realize reducing delegate numbers proportional to population reduces the the voters of that state to only fractional citizens' democratic rights. Your comments that states legislatures "knowingly, willfully and deliberately" violated the rules of the gods of the National GOP doesn't change that there is not voter equality among the states. I am surprised that has not been constitutionally challenged, but then there is little time to go to court and little funds for candidates to do so.

The FACT that many primaries now are proportional changes the definition of "winner."

Since you assert that my thread was for some agenda or hopes I want of the election and your message beginning in the context of your keeping and making some collective total forum participation review attack against me, please explain what you think my hope of this thread is?

I can tell you my general perspective and it has nothing to do with any particular candidate nor is partisan. Rather it is the simple view that in primaries the nominee should be the candidate a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats who vote want. Since you are keeping some mental record of my messages, you are fully aware that I previously have posted my opinion that Presidential primaries should be the same as nearly all other elections where there is no majority among multiple candidates - that process being the top two vote getters then are in run-off elections.

The result is then more "the will of the voters" rather than the anti-democracy-result anomolies of the one with the highest plurality wins - since that can be the least wanted candidate of all. More often than not, in run-off elections the one of the two with the higher vote count initially loses the run-off. This is how most incumbents are defeated in other elections. The challengers individually do not have enough "anti" votes to remove the incumbent. But when the top challenger to the incumbent is then put head to head against he incumbent, the incumbent usually - not always - will lose.

The primaries would FAR more reflect the wishes of the voters - rather than the wishes of the GOP HQ - if the top 2 vote getters then faced off in a run-off - thus it would be a Romney v. Santorum runoff in Iowa and a Romney-Paul runoff in New Hampshire. This also would allow debates to narrow in each state to 2 candidates, meaning they each have more than 75 seconds to explain their policies, histories and goals.

Now, what do YOU claim you know my secret goal of this thread to be?

Hmm...very interesting. Thank You!

joko104 said:

The media presents the candidate receiving the highest PLURALITY in a state as "winning." But particularly if the highest vote-getter receives less than 50% it is also easy to claim that "no one won."
Republican primaries are NOT what they used to be: "winner takes all." Rather, now they are proportional - and also relative to party rules. Thus, if Romney receives 30% of the vote, it means that 70% of the delegates are NOT ROMNEY delegates. It is odd to claim that 70% of delegates went to other candidates as "winning." The party also does not count all voters and states as equal. For example, the party declared that Florida primary voters are only 50% Americans, so cut the population-to-delegates ratio in half as a punishment for Florida refusing to comply with Republican Party demands on when to hold their primary.
If the other candidates remain in the race and can continue to hold Romney to less than 50% in most of the states, Romney will not have the delegates necessary to directly win the Republican nomination. He'd have to cut-a-deal with at least one of the other candidates to make 50%. With Republicans jumping around between the Not-Romney candidates, even that might not be enough to make 50%.
The most that can accurately be claimed is that Romney has more delegates than any other individual candidate. But he isn't actually "winning" the primaries. In the past with winner-takes-all that was accurate. Not anymore.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

The primaries would FAR more reflect the wishes of the voters - rather than the wishes of the GOP HQ - if the top 2 vote getters then faced off in a run-off - thus it would be a Romney v. Santorum runoff in Iowa and a Romney-Paul runoff in New Hampshire. This also would allow debates to narrow in each state to 2 candidates, meaning they each have more than 75 seconds to explain their policies, histories and goals.

Now, what do YOU claim you know my secret goal of this thread to be?

Click to expand...

It appears that you want to double the cost of the primaries for both the candidates and the states, as well as make the primary process last right up until election day. Two primaries in every state ??? You've got to be kidding. As a former resident of Iowa, I can assure that the people of Iowa don't want the massive disruptions to be doubled in length.

joko104 said:

The media presents the candidate receiving the highest PLURALITY in a state as "winning." But particularly if the highest vote-getter receives less than 50% it is also easy to claim that "no one won."

Click to expand...

AS long as I have been following politics(since the 70's), the candidate with the highest vote total has been referred to as the winner in primaries. In fact, while you may not want ot refer to Romney as the winner, in each state he came in number 1, which for all intensts and purposes makes him the winner.

Republican primaries are NOT what they used to be: "winner takes all." Rather, now they are proportional - and also relative to party rules. Thus, if Romney receives 30% of the vote, it means that 70% of the delegates are NOT ROMNEY delegates. It is odd to claim that 70% of delegates went to other candidates as "winning."

Click to expand...

This is factually incorrect as Zyphlin points out.

The party also does not count all voters and states as equal. For example, the party declared that Florida primary voters are only 50% Americans, so cut the population-to-delegates ratio in half as a punishment for Florida refusing to comply with Republican Party demands on when to hold their primary.

Click to expand...

You say demands, most people simply refer to them as rules. States that do not follow the rules suffer consequences.

If the other candidates remain in the race and can continue to hold Romney to less than 50% in most of the states, Romney will not have the delegates necessary to directly win the Republican nomination. He'd have to cut-a-deal with at least one of the other candidates to make 50%. With Republicans jumping around between the Not-Romney candidates, even that might not be enough to make 50%.

Click to expand...

That is an incredibly long shot scenario. As candidates drop out, it becomes easier to get > 50 %. In those states that do not do proportional delegates, 50 % is not needed. Further, you are not figuring at large delegates nor states that do not require delegates to vote for a particular candidate.

The most that can accurately be claimed is that Romney has more delegates than any other individual candidate. But he isn't actually "winning" the primaries. In the past with winner-takes-all that was accurate. Not anymore.

Click to expand...

He has won each state so far, stands a good chance to win SC and Florida. He is doing in fact better than pretty much any other candidate ever winning both Iowa and NH. While that does not mean he has won, I would certainly describe it as being the candidate who is winning so far. Further, as he gains wins, he gains momentum and increased donations, both of which will help him win more. InTrade has him at 83.5 % chance of winning the nomination. He is the most popular republican candidate by a significant margin. By any measure, he is so far winning the race for the nomination.

Gill said:

It appears that you want to double the cost of the primaries for both the candidates and the states, as well as make the primary process last right up until election day. Two primaries in every state ??? You've got to be kidding. As a former resident of Iowa, I can assure that the people of Iowa don't want the massive disruptions to be doubled in length.

Click to expand...

Yes, I also understand that Iowa wants to ban all soldiers from participating, all truck drivers or anyone else who travels for a living, all people in hospitals, and all people who work night shifts. I understand that instead of open democracy to all, Iowa wants their Republican primary to really be the Evangelical Christianity primary - and so it was.

So people understand, the Iowa caucus allows only those people who show up at a specific time on a specific evening and can stay for 2 hours to vote. The BAN all absentee voting INCLUDING active military. Accordingly to the Republican Party of Iowa, people who join the military are to be stripped of their right to vote and do exactly that.

"An Iowa caucus can last up around two hours, preventing people who must work, who are sick, or must take care of their children from casting their vote. Absentee voting is also barred, so active-duty Iowan soldiers lose the opportunity to participate, as do locally-registered college students who leave the state during winter holidays."

Iowa caucuses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The effective result is the Republican candidates all tripped all over themselves in a contest of who can be more radical rightwing Republican, which of them can express contempt of gays more and which one is the most extreme anti-abortion - beyond the overall denial of the most fundamental right to vote to massive numbers of people such as those in the military.

ANY state's political party that excludes people in the military from voting is a state political party that sucks.

jamesrage said:

The media wants Romney to win.He has baggage that could guarantee Obama's second term and if that doesn't work Romney is a liberal, which means the liberal media gets a liberal president no matter who wins.The "I'm such a dumbass I think a liberal republican will somehow be better than a liberal democrat"voters and the "I want anyone but Obama" voters an the die hard republican party first voters make up a majority of Romney voters,but they most certainly do not make up all the voters. Most conservative know a liberal rat is still a liberal regardless of what letter is next to his name.

Click to expand...

Frankly, they all have baggage. Some more than Romney. Frankly, Huntsman has perhaps the less babggage, but isn't getting votes.

Redress said:

AS long as I have been following politics(since the 70's), the candidate with the highest vote total has been referred to as the winner in primaries. In fact, while you may not want ot refer to Romney as the winner, in each state he came in number 1, which for all intensts and purposes makes him the winner.



This is factually incorrect as Zyphlin points out.



You say demands, most people simply refer to them as rules. States that do not follow the rules suffer consequences.



That is an incredibly long shot scenario. As candidates drop out, it becomes easier to get > 50 %. In those states that do not do proportional delegates, 50 % is not needed. Further, you are not figuring at large delegates nor states that do not require delegates to vote for a particular candidate.



He has won each state so far, stands a good chance to win SC and Florida. He is doing in fact better than pretty much any other candidate ever winning both Iowa and NH. While that does not mean he has won, I would certainly describe it as being the candidate who is winning so far. Further, as he gains wins, he gains momentum and increased donations, both of which will help him win more. InTrade has him at 83.5 % chance of winning the nomination. He is the most popular republican candidate by a significant margin. By any measure, he is so far winning the race for the nomination.

Click to expand...

You tagged me well enough on my generalities for sure. I was more addressing a principle - and that principle is that I believe the right of a national political party's headquarters (or state party HQ) can not use the primaries for their own goals, whims and in house fighting. Rather, the election rules should be restricted to the following limitations:
1. Every person eligible to vote must be given a reasonable opportunity to do so. This definitely was not the case in Iowa.
2. Each person's vote must carry equal strength to everyone else's vote. This is definitely is not so in the instance of Florida, where the National GOP reduced the number of delegates per population in Florida compared to most other states.
3. The election process should be of a design to reasonably result in it highly likely the winner is the candidate most voters prefer - meaning a majority rather than a plurality. That is NOT some odd concept given that is exactly what happens in nearly all other federal, state, county and local elections - top 2 candidates face each other in a run-off so it takes a majority (50% +1) to win.

You appear to give preference to the elite of GOP Party national leadership to distort and define "democracy" however they wish for their own goals. I lean toward what are core principles of democracy. However, you are correct that I did not explore the minutae details of all states' primaries and in some regards therefore my generalities were inaccurate.

The "negative emotion" of my message - if any - was a year ago I was certain I would be voting for ANY Republican - except Ron Paul. But when the Republican candidates went to such radical extents tripping over their own histories and records to kiss-ass the Iowa evangelicals on the topics of gays and abortion, that shifted to I can't vote for any of them.

I see that as specifically as a result of replacing "everyone eligible gets a chance to vote" with some other bizarre system. There was exactly NO reason to prohibit absentee ballots to people who could show a legitimate cause to not be able to attend - such as ACTIVE MILITARY!, a parent of small children, people hospitalized, and people required to be away for employment reasons. By instead having a system known - if not designed - to facilitate politically active evangelical churches to bring their members from a night service to voting in church buses - while excluding typical and ordinary working people and military - the entire Republican primary's first months were corrupted to the radical far right, not just the caucus vote itself - as that is the dance they all were doing for the media on national television.

"Economic" and "military" conservative and moderates, plus average working folks, were severely disproportionately excluded in Iowa.

Actually, distorting the first primary and therefore first months of national media coverage severely and unfairly harmed Romney. I believe that is why some popular Republican officials - such as Christy - didn't run. They didn't want to get stuck having to go radical religious rightwing in Iowa forever after tagged that way and so crippled in a hard campaign against an incumbent Democrat.

Instead, now even when Romney wins the primary the swing to the far religious rightwing has a crippling effect for the general election both in "flipflop" terms and those who don't hate gays or want women who have abortions executed (deliberate overstatement to make my point). In addition, but not have a clear winner in a majority sense (50% +1) via runoffs, the result is not necessarily the favorite candidate winning - regardless of whether that is past practice or not.

joko104 said:

Yes, I also understand that Iowa wants to ban all soldiers from participating, all truck drivers or anyone else who travels for a living, all people in hospitals, and all people who work night shifts. I understand that instead of open democracy to all, Iowa wants their Republican primary to really be the Evangelical Christianity primary - and so it was.

So people understand, the Iowa caucus allows only those people who show up at a specific time on a specific evening and can stay for 2 hours to vote. The BAN all absentee voting INCLUDING active military. Accordingly to the Republican Party of Iowa, people who join the military are to be stripped of their right to vote and do exactly that.

"An Iowa caucus can last up around two hours, preventing people who must work, who are sick, or must take care of their children from casting their vote. Absentee voting is also barred, so active-duty Iowan soldiers lose the opportunity to participate, as do locally-registered college students who leave the state during winter holidays."

Iowa caucuses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The effective result is the Republican candidates all tripped all over themselves in a contest of who can be more radical rightwing Republican, which of them can express contempt of gays more and which one is the most extreme anti-abortion - beyond the overall denial of the most fundamental right to vote to massive numbers of people such as those in the military.

ANY state's political party that excludes people in the military from voting is a state political party that sucks.

Click to expand...

You obviously don't have a clue how the caucus system works. It is NOT a primary, so yes it does require a few hours of time. The military is not banned from participating and it's absurd to say so. If they can spend a few hours at the caucus, they are welcome.

Yes, the Republicans "tripped" all over themselves to win the caucus, just like the Democrats tripped all over themselves in 2008 and 2004 and every other presidential election in Iowa.

Gill said:

You obviously don't have a clue how the caucus system works. It is NOT a primary, so yes it does require a few hours of time. The military is not banned from participating and it's absurd to say so. If they can spend a few hours at the caucus, they are welcome.

Yes, the Republicans "tripped" all over themselves to win the caucus, just like the Democrats tripped all over themselves in 2008 and 2004 and every other presidential election in Iowa.

Click to expand...

No, the military is not banned, but if they are active duty and deployed outside of Iowa they obviously can't participate.

Luna Tick said:

Romney's not a liberal.

Click to expand...

His history as governor of Massachusetts says otherwise.

Luna Tick said:

He's not a conservative either. He's a "let me test the political winds and then I'll be whatever you want me to be" candidate. Here's an image that should represent his campaign:

Click to expand...

He is a "I'll pretend to be a conservative" because I know that openly liberal republicans have a snowballs chance in hell of becoming president.If he was not running for president and still governor of Massachusetts he would still be doing things.Heck if he had no interest in running for president he would probably be supporting Obama or the biggest RINO in the republican primaries.

AdamT said:

No, the military is not banned, but if they are active duty and deployed outside of Iowa they obviously can't participate.

Click to expand...

I think that's what I said. Private citizens also can't participate if they are working out of state that night.

That's the nature of a caucus.

Gill said:

You obviously don't have a clue how the caucus system works. It is NOT a primary, so yes it does require a few hours of time. The military is not banned from participating and it's absurd to say so. If they can spend a few hours at the caucus, they are welcome.

Yes, the Republicans "tripped" all over themselves to win the caucus, just like the Democrats tripped all over themselves in 2008 and 2004 and every other presidential election in Iowa.

Click to expand...

Since going AWOL is a court martial offense - ie illegal, IN FACT active military ARE excluded. Arguing the absurd is just that - absurd. The military does not fly back Iowa service members for their primary caucus elections. There is NO legitimate reason to exclude absentee voting to those who cannot attend for good cause.

Since the "caucus" selects the delegates, it is in fact the Iowa Republican primary voting process that by design favors certain categories of people and deliberately excludes others, including active military personnel.

joko104 said:

The media presents the candidate receiving the highest PLURALITY in a state as "winning." But particularly if the highest vote-getter receives less than 50% it is also easy to claim that "no one won."
Republican primaries are NOT what they used to be: "winner takes all." Rather, now they are proportional - and also relative to party rules. Thus, if Romney receives 30% of the vote, it means that 70% of the delegates are NOT ROMNEY delegates. It is odd to claim that 70% of delegates went to other candidates as "winning." The party also does not count all voters and states as equal. For example, the party declared that Florida primary voters are only 50% Americans, so cut the population-to-delegates ratio in half as a punishment for Florida refusing to comply with Republican Party demands on when to hold their primary.
If the other candidates remain in the race and can continue to hold Romney to less than 50% in most of the states, Romney will not have the delegates necessary to directly win the Republican nomination. He'd have to cut-a-deal with at least one of the other candidates to make 50%. With Republicans jumping around between the Not-Romney candidates, even that might not be enough to make 50%.
The most that can accurately be claimed is that Romney has more delegates than any other individual candidate. But he isn't actually "winning" the primaries. In the past with winner-takes-all that was accurate. Not anymore.

Click to expand...

It doesn't much matter. Winning all vs. some of a primary gets you nothing. Winning the nomination is all that matters.

jamesrage said:

His history as governor of Massachusetts says otherwise.



He is a "I'll pretend to be a conservative" because I know that openly liberal republicans have a snowballs chance in hell of becoming president.If he was not running for president and still governor of Massachusetts he would still be doing things.Heck if he had no interest in running for president he would probably be supporting Obama or the biggest RINO in the republican primaries.

Click to expand...

Romney's not a liberal. If anything, he was a moderate. Now he is an anything-that-wins. But then so are the others. All of those left in the race have radically contradicted there past votes and statements. Ron Paul and Santorum the top of those lists - in my opinion - but specific candidacies isn't really the topic.

joko104 said:

Since going AWOL is a court martial offense - ie illegal, IN FACT active military ARE excluded. Arguing the absurd is just that - absurd. The military does not fly back Iowa service members for their primary caucus elections. There is NO legitimate reason to exclude absentee voting to those who cannot attend for good cause.

Since the "caucus" selects the delegates, it is in fact the Iowa Republican primary voting process that by design favors certain categories of people and deliberately excludes others, including active military personnel.

Click to expand...

Absurd is the least I can say about your knowledge of the caucus system. Yes, as I've already said, military members outside the state are not able to participate, just as any private citizen working out of the state is not able to. This is NOT a primary where everyone goes into a precinct and spends 5 minutes voting. The caucus system takes a lot of effort and considerable time. It was not meant to be a primary and the citizens of Iowa don't want it to be. Only the most informed and active citizens participate.

The citizens in the Iowa caucus actually know who the candidates and their position on policies, unlike 75% of those who vote in other state's primaries and in the general elections.

misterman said:

It doesn't much matter. Winning all vs. some of a primary gets you nothing. Winning the nomination is all that matters.

Click to expand...

.

No, what matters is who wins the general election. While some claim this Republican primary process this time is "developing the candidates skills," in my opinion it is extremely destructive to Republican chances in November in almost too many ways to list. To start by forcing all candidates to swing to the most radically religious rightwing by months of media in which candidates have to dance for the highly restrictive "caucus" system of Iowa evangelicals, to having a system that doesn't establish clear majority winners in each state thus dragging it all out, combined with the "debates," which allowed otherwise loser candidates with no organization or money to seemingly have equal footing - all are generating huge negatives for Republicans, for the candidates, and the real potential of a 3rd party candidate (s) making November victory for Republicans impossible.

Or maybe I can only speak for myself. For myself, when the Republican candidates - all - declared themselves at the most extreme ends of anti-abortion and anti-gays - they lost my vote in November. I could overlook "social conservative" stances for the greater picture and because it meant they wouldn't be a radical social agenda pushed if elected. But I cannot overlook the extremes of radical evangelical rightwing social stances. Romney, Gingrich, Perry... they were NOT rabidly anti-abortion or anti-gay - only Iowa. Until then I could have voted for any of those as the lesser of evils compared to Obama. I didn't think anyone could be more scary that Ron Paul - until Santorum came along.

People don't just "vote their pocket book." They also vote for what is best for their family and friends. Rabid "pro-life" and rabid anti-gay is not best for my family and friends.

Gill said:

Absurd is the least I can say about your knowledge of the caucus system. Yes, as I've already said, military members outside the state are not able to participate, just as any private citizen working out of the state is not able to. This is NOT a primary where everyone goes into a precinct and spends 5 minutes voting. The caucus system takes a lot of effort and considerable time. It was not meant to be a primary and the citizens of Iowa don't want it to be. Only the most informed and active citizens participate.

The citizens in the Iowa caucus actually know who the candidates and their position on policies, unlike 75% of those who vote in other state's primaries and in the general elections.

Click to expand...

"Knowing the candidates" has NOTHING to do with it being a caucus system. It is because Iowa is a lower population state and goes first. If New Hampshire went first, everyone in New Hampshire would know the candidates. My own opinion is that ideally all states would vote at the same time, then run-offs between the top 2 in each state where 1 didn't receive at least 50%+1. Few states LESS represent the spectrum of the United States than Iowa. Its a bad "tradition" by every measure. Both political parties should rule at the national level that any state that does not allow active military to vote will have no delegates allowed at the national convention. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree.

joko104 said:

"Knowing the candidates" has NOTHING to do with it being a caucus system. It is because Iowa is a lower population state and goes first. If New Hampshire went first, everyone in New Hampshire would know the candidates. My own opinion is that ideally all states would vote at the same time, then run-offs between the top 2 in each state where 1 didn't receive at least 50%+1. Few states LESS represent the spectrum of the United States than Iowa. Its a bad "tradition" by every measure. Both political parties should rule at the national level that any state that does not allow active military to vote will have no delegates allowed at the national convention. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree.

Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming my initial impression of your level of knowledge. Come back when you've learned a little about the process.