• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul supported by 16 Massachusetts delegates, says campaign

One could certainly make the argument that those without the support of at least some of the elites are probably not electable, but that makes all the cries about democracy a tad misplaced.

The two-party system doesn't necessarily make the cries about democracy misplaced. The first-past-the-post election approach breeds a two-party system, but it still remains a democracy... of sorts. Taking away the popular vote entirely, though, would utterly negate all democratic aspects of our government.

That being said, the cries about democracy are misplaced because the people were never truly intended to be the people voting for the president. The whole point of the electoral college was because the elites at the time didn't really trust the ignorant rubes to make those decisions. Federalist No 68 is pretty clear on that.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

If I were you, I'd hit up that document when faced with the democracy critique rather than the argument that the Ron Paul vote is being suppressed.
 
Sure, Paul grabbing the actual national delegates in Massachusetts, where Romney was governor and where he won the primary race, is clearly not indicative of anything. :roll:

Assuming Ron Paul gets these delegates to vote for him at the convention, what else does Ron Paul have to do to get enough delegates to win the nomination?

Can you predict what upcoming primaries will be won by Ron Paul?
 
The two-party system doesn't necessarily make the cries about democracy misplaced. The first-past-the-post election approach breeds a two-party system, but it still remains a democracy... of sorts. Taking away the popular vote entirely, though, would utterly negate all democratic aspects of our government.

That being said, the cries about democracy are misplaced because the people were never truly intended to be the people voting for the president. The whole point of the electoral college was because the elites at the time didn't really trust the ignorant rubes to make those decisions. Federalist No 68 is pretty clear on that.



The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

If I were you, I'd hit up that document when faced with the democracy critique rather than the argument that the Ron Paul vote is being suppressed.

You did a great job at crushing that strawman. I rather explicitly said in that quote, as anyone with a high school reading level could determine, that needing support of "the elites" makes the cries about democracy misplaced. Nowhere did I even sort of say that the two-party system was the issue. The free and fair nature of an election, and thus its democratic nature, is determined by more than how many people are allowed to vote and whether they are given a multiple choice ballot.
 
Sure, Paul grabbing the actual national delegates in Massachusetts, where Romney was governor and where he won the primary race, is clearly not indicative of anything. :roll:

It is irrelevant. Paul lost. He got stomped.
 
Paul has enough delegates garnered through the normal caucus process to give his claim as a major candidate credibility, technically his popular vote total at this point is a quarter of Romney's and just about 40% of Santorum's.

That's debatable.

The latest delegate figures were as follows:

Romney: 847 64.0%
Santorum: 259 19.6%
Gingrich: 137 10.3%
Paul: 80 6.0%
Huntsman: 1 0.1%

Delegate Tracker - Associated Press

In terms of the popular vote, the latest tallies are as follows:

Romney: 5,228,676 42.4%
Santorum: 3,376,818 27.4%
Gingrich: 2,403,826 19.5%
Paul: 1,335,822 10.8%

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Republican Vote Count

Note: Jon Huntsman's votes aren't shown, but incorporating the figures from Iowa and New Hampshire don't materially change the results.

In the end, Ron Paul failed to garner even 15% of the votes and 10% of the delegates to date.
 
You did a great job at crushing that strawman. I rather explicitly said in that quote, as anyone with a high school reading level could determine, that needing support of "the elites" makes the cries about democracy misplaced. Nowhere did I even sort of say that the two-party system was the issue.

Let's just ignore your persecution complex and inability to recognize that you were the person who started talking about the bi-partisan opposition of Ron Paul (thus making it about the two-party system). We'll also ignore the fact that responded to a post talking about the two parties and "the very nature of our political system. And We'll even ignore your confessed equivocation with the word "elites" within the context of that exchange.

We are ignoring it because, somehow, you seem to have missed my main point. By citing Federalist No 68, I was actually providing support for your position regarding Paul snatching away delegates from Romney and pointing out the real reason the cries about democracy are misplaced. Our current political system, as poorly representative as it is, is still more democratically representative than it was originally designed to be.

The free and fair nature of an election, and thus its democratic nature, is determined by more than how many people are allowed to vote and whether they are given a multiple choice ballot.

I would say that there is an additional factor: The percentage of voices that are actually heard. That's why winner take all systems, like ours, are less representative than proportional voting systems. They maximize the number of wasted votes.
 
The one thing that cannot be argued is that Ron Paul will have a major part in the RNC this year. He will have a platform to speak, and he will have support there. The caucus states are only now beginning the process of electing delegates. Ron Paul supporters are showing up and voting the delegates. The beauty contests that the media was reporting on mean nothing in terms of delegates. Ron Paul took the majority in Iowa, and Minnesota. He most likely will do the same in Maine, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, and Alaska. Should Santorum and Gingrich release their delegates then a lot of those will side with Ron Paul because his supporters were elected to be their delegates.

The delegate counts you see by the Associated Press are complete guesses other then the binding primary states. Ron Paul has a very miniscule chance of actually winning the GOP nomination, but he is well on track to having a major speaking role at the RNC which may propel his run as an Independent. I would say he will run on the Libertarian ticket, but I think they will have Governor Johnson elected when they hold their convention.
 
The one thing that cannot be argued is that Ron Paul will have a major part in the RNC this year. He will have a platform to speak, and he will have support there. The caucus states are only now beginning the process of electing delegates. Ron Paul supporters are showing up and voting the delegates. The beauty contests that the media was reporting on mean nothing in terms of delegates. Ron Paul took the majority in Iowa, and Minnesota. He most likely will do the same in Maine, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, and Alaska. Should Santorum and Gingrich release their delegates then a lot of those will side with Ron Paul because his supporters were elected to be their delegates.

The delegate counts you see by the Associated Press are complete guesses other then the binding primary states. Ron Paul has a very miniscule chance of actually winning the GOP nomination, but he is well on track to having a major speaking role at the RNC which may propel his run as an Independent. I would say he will run on the Libertarian ticket, but I think they will have Governor Johnson elected when they hold their convention.

I agree with most of what you stated. Ron Paul will have a role at the GOP Convention, as he properly should. The Party should invite and welcome participation from all of its candidates. The delegate numbers are best estimates. However, it remains to be seen where the Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman delegates wind up when they are released. I don't believe it's a foregone conclusion that the majority of them would gravitate to Ron Paul. Finally, I take Ron Paul at his word that he won't run as an Independent. Hence, he will use the GOP Convention as a platform to articulate some of his major thoughts, but that will mark the end of his 2012 Presidential run. He could change his mind, but I doubt it.
 
I agree with most of what you stated. Ron Paul will have a role at the GOP Convention, as he properly should. The Party should invite and welcome participation from all of its candidates. The delegate numbers are best estimates. However, it remains to be seen where the Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman delegates wind up when they are released. I don't believe it's a foregone conclusion that the majority of them would gravitate to Ron Paul. Finally, I take Ron Paul at his word that he won't run as an Independent. Hence, he will use the GOP Convention as a platform to articulate some of his major thoughts, but that will mark the end of his 2012 Presidential run. He could change his mind, but I doubt it.

You have to decipher what Ron Paul said about running as an Independent. He said he has no plans to do it, but he never speaks in absolutes. He doesn't want to run as an Independent because they don't get as much coverage as the big two parties, but he is getting black balled by the media anyway. He has never 100% denied running on a third party ticket.
 
That's debatable.

The latest delegate figures were as follows:

Romney: 847 64.0%
Santorum: 259 19.6%
Gingrich: 137 10.3%
Paul: 80 6.0%
Huntsman: 1 0.1%

Delegate Tracker - Associated Press

In terms of the popular vote, the latest tallies are as follows:

Romney: 5,228,676 42.4%
Santorum: 3,376,818 27.4%
Gingrich: 2,403,826 19.5%
Paul: 1,335,822 10.8%

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Republican Vote Count

Note: Jon Huntsman's votes aren't shown, but incorporating the figures from Iowa and New Hampshire don't materially change the results.

In the end, Ron Paul failed to garner even 15% of the votes and 10% of the delegates to date.

I was referring to him getting a majority of delegates in five states and thus allowing him to be nominated at the national convention.

Let's just ignore your persecution complex

WTF? "Persecution complex"? I said you were attacking a strawman and then explained how it was a strawman. No "persecution complex" there.

and inability to recognize that you were the person who started talking about the bi-partisan opposition of Ron Paul (thus making it about the two-party system). We'll also ignore the fact that responded to a post talking about the two parties and "the very nature of our political system.

You just won't let up on that strawman. No, I was not "making it about the two-party system" by saying both parties are attempting to suppress him. It was not the two-party system that was at issue in my post, but the united front they present against Paul. Naturally, I presume you understand that I am not talking about every person in those parties, but the people in charge of the party specifically. Average Americans, Democrat and Republican, are a lot less hostile towards Paul. It is not "Democrats and Republicans vs. Paul" but "Political elites vs. Paul" that I am talking about.

And We'll even ignore your confessed equivocation with the word "elites" within the context of that exchange.

Are you taking pointers from CC now? It was not "equivocation" by any measure and I sure as hell didn't "confess" to it. On the other hand, when I say "the argument that those without the support of at least some of the elites are probably not electable" makes the cries about democracy misplaced and you respond that the "two-party system" doesn't make the cries about democracy misplaced, you are pretty obviously using a strawman argument as those two quotes are not interchangeable.

We are ignoring it because, somehow, you seem to have missed my main point. By citing Federalist No 68, I was actually providing support for your position regarding Paul snatching away delegates from Romney and pointing out the real reason the cries about democracy are misplaced. Our current political system, as poorly representative as it is, is still more democratically representative than it was originally designed to be.

That is some piss-poor spin on your part. No, you were not supporting my position in any sense. You were attacking it from a different angle by going after strawmen.

I would say that there is an additional factor: The percentage of voices that are actually heard. That's why winner take all systems, like ours, are less representative than proportional voting systems. They maximize the number of wasted votes.

There is more than one additional factor and that one was not even what I was thinking about. Making the vote proportional does not inherently make the system more democratic. Groups that evaluate the democratic nature of a system typically look at the role of the media. It is because ultimately the media can determine elections just by how they report on them. Journalistic integrity is thus a legitimate basis for determining the democratic nature of an election.
 
WTF? "Persecution complex"? I said you were attacking a strawman and then explained how it was a strawman. No "persecution complex" there.



You just won't let up on that strawman. No, I was not "making it about the two-party system" by saying both parties are attempting to suppress him. It was not the two-party system that was at issue in my post, but the united front they present against Paul. Naturally, I presume you understand that I am not talking about every person in those parties, but the people in charge of the party specifically. Average Americans, Democrat and Republican, are a lot less hostile towards Paul. It is not "Democrats and Republicans vs. Paul" but "Political elites vs. Paul" that I am talking about.



Are you taking pointers from CC now? It was not "equivocation" by any measure and I sure as hell didn't "confess" to it. On the other hand, when I say "the argument that those without the support of at least some of the elites are probably not electable" makes the cries about democracy misplaced and you respond that the "two-party system" doesn't make the cries about democracy misplaced, you are pretty obviously using a strawman argument as those two quotes are not interchangeable.

Whatever you want to believe. If it makes you feel happy to think of it as a strawman, have at it.


That is some piss-poor spin on your part. No, you were not supporting my position in any sense. You were attacking it from a different angle by going after strawmen.

Spin? Why would I need to spin anything?

The presidential election is not meant to be decided democratically, nor was it ever meant to be decided that way. I thought that it would be clear that I was not attacking Paul getting his delegates in the manner he did based on that point. Seriously, look at my quote from Federalist 68. Look at the words I wrote:

That being said, the cries about democracy are misplaced because the people were never truly intended to be the people voting for the president. The whole point of the electoral college was because the elites at the time didn't really trust the ignorant rubes to make those decisions. Federalist No 68 is pretty clear on that.

I added the bold, but the words are the same. I'm supporting your assessment that the cries about democracy are misplaced. I'm supporting Paul's right to snatch away delegates form Romney if he can. If he can do it, more power to him. I'd be interested in seeing what actually would happen if he got the Republican nod somehow.


There is more than one additional factor and that one was not even what I was thinking about. Making the vote proportional does not inherently make the system more democratic.

Well, in order to truly make things more democratic, we'd have to get rid of the republic altogether and become a direct democracy. I was focusing more on the "free and fair nature" definition you provided for "democratic nature". A proportional system would certainly be fairer than our current system, thus by the standard you had created, it would inherently make the system more democratic.

Unless, of course, you have changed the meaning of "democratic nature" away from "free and fair" since that post.

Groups that evaluate the democratic nature of a system typically look at the role of the media. It is because ultimately the media can determine elections just by how they report on them. Journalistic integrity is thus a legitimate basis for determining the democratic nature of an election.

The media is not what determines how free and fair a democracy is. It only affects public opinion (which in turn affects the results of an election in a democracy, but the only result that matters in the design of the system is that the people dictate what the results are).

But if the majority of a nation is ill-informed, they will vote democratically in an ill-informed manner, even if their political system is a direct democracy.

That's the problem with democracy: It's ultimately determined by the majority of the people and the majority of the people are easily led idiots. Madison et al realized this, and attempted to mitigate it by having the "elite" be the ones who decide who becomes the president, rather than allowing the ignorant masses to decide democratically.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that our media ****. I just place the burden of responsibility on the people who actually buy the load of ****. The consumers of the media are the ones who create the demand for the **** that the media is "selling" and that demand that keeps the **** flowing. If they weren't idiots, then the media wouldn't be designed to appeal to idiots.
 
Finally, I take Ron Paul at his word that he won't run as an Independent. Hence, he will use the GOP Convention as a platform to articulate some of his major thoughts, but that will mark the end of his 2012 Presidential run. He could change his mind, but I doubt it.

running under the Libertarian, or Constitution Party ticket would mean he is not running as in Independent.
 
Logically speaking, doesn't the fact that he is opposed by both parties indicate that he isn't electable due to the nature very of our system?

You mean he is opposed by the handlers of both parties and their lap dogs the media.because of that alone we should support him.
 
You mean he is opposed by the handlers of both parties and their lap dogs the media.

No, I mean both parties. If anyone ever pays you for translating another person's point, give it back.

because of that alone we should support him.

What strange logic. Both parties would oppose Ayman al-Zawahiri too, so if we use the above logic, we should support Ayman al-Zawahiri, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom