Primary Math

Many people seem confused about the process for selecting a presidential candidate to go on the ballot in November. Every four years, as long as anyone alive today can remember, either one or both of the parties that currently control our government has gone through the process. So how do they select a candidate?

To start, when the political parties meet, they not only decide their platforms, but how the selection of candidates will be handled. Political parties are not a part of government, therefore the rules of who can be nominated are not decided by elected representation to government, other than the basic qualifications for the office. A lot of power is vested in state party leadership. The process they decide upon will vary from state to state, but will include either a primary, a caucus or both.

Primaries typically allow voters to select delegates which have pledged support for a candidate by selecting their name from a ballot. Caucuses are similar, but are typically an open forum where voters are sometimes required to make their selection publicly. In both, delegates are selected, sometimes as part of the first vote, sometimes as part of a second selection process.

Each state is allotted a number of delegates by the national party. This number is three times the number of representatives to Congress from that state, plus some 'bonus' delegates, typically having to do with rewarding a state for electing Republicans. For example, Alabama has 50 GOP delegates, based on 7 Representatives to the House of Representatives (21), 10 at-large, 3 party, and 16 bonus delegates. 47 of these will be selected on the ballot and 3 go to prescribed elected Republicans, who typically vote with the majority of the state.

Some states award all delegates to the candidate with the largest number of votes. Others award them in different ways. Alabama, for example, awards delegates by district. The candidate with the most votes in the district over 20% is awarded 2 delegates for the district. If the winning candidate has over 50%, the candidate is awarded all 3 delegates. If the winning candidate does not have 50% of the vote, and the second place candidate has over 20%, the 2nd place candidate is awarded 1 delegate. If not, the remaining delegate goes to the winning candidate.

The candidates will receive a proportion of the 26 at-large and bonus delegates using statewide totals if no candidate receives more than 50% of the statewide vote. If a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote statewide, that candidate is awarded all of the at-large and bonus delegates.

Alabama State Party 2012 Presidential Primary Rules

There are a total of 2286 delegates to the GOP convention. 1144 delegates (50%+1) are required to win. If at any point during the race, three candidates obtain 572 delegates, it will become a near impossibility to win the 1144 delegates. The same results if 2 two candidates get 572 delegates and the remaining two split 572 delegates between them.

When a delegate is elected, they are bound to vote for the candidate at the national convention. If no candidate has 1144 delegates, the delegates are released to vote for other candidates after the first vote. Superdelegates would most likely cast their vote with their state on the first ballot but coalesce around the candidate with the highest delegate total for the second. For example: If the candidate with the most delegates has received at least 1012 regular delegates, the 132 superdelegates would most likely vote for candidate A on the second ballot to give the candidate 1144 delegates, which is enough to win.

If the first place candidate has less than 1012 regular delegates, however, deals would then be made to capture the delegates of other candidates on the next ballot. It is also possible that the superdelegates might not coalesce on the second ballot. Either way, if a third ballot is reached, regular delegates will begin brokering.

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/i/delegate.strength.overview.pdf

There are two basic components to calculating the delegate strength score -- how close the frontrunner is to winning a majority of the delegates, and the gap between the frontrunner's delegates and his or her closest rival. That gap is measured in terms of how many "outstanding delegates" remain. Finally, a factor is applied that essentially creates a range of scores from zero to 100, which makes the score a little easier to comprehend. For the math junkies, the calculation is:

Delegate Strength = (((C1-C2)/O) * (C1/L) * 333)

where...
C1 = Number of delegates the leading candidate has won
C2 = Number of delegates the candidate with the second-highest number of delegates has won
O = Number of delegates that have not been chosen
L = Number of delegates needed to win the nomination

To give an example of how this works, Gingrich currently has a delegate strength of .03, based on the races so far in South Carolina, New Hampshire and estimates of the Iowa delegate apportionment. Remember: A delegate strength of 100 or more is required to win. Gingrich, with the current delegate lead, doesn't even have a tenth of a percent in delegate strength. If Mitt Romney wins Florida, he will have a whopping .34 delegate strength, which is still 99.66% shy of enough delegate strength to win, barely one third of a percent.

If you do the math, this race is still wide open.

Iowa Caucuses Inconclusive/Rigged

Well, it is official: Iowa was not won by Mitt Romney. Who really won? We will never know. The results from 8 precincts will never be certified due to the fact that THEY ARE MISSING. Isn't that curious?

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/19/register-exclusive-2012-gop-caucus-count-unresolved/

From the article: "GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts, although not all the changes affected the two leaders. " I wonder which of the other candidates these 'inaccuracies' affected? Depending on the size of the precinct, there could be several thousand votes missing. Maybe three thousand or so?

"The biggest shift happened in Fayette County. In two cases there, Rick Santorum gained more votes than the entire gap in the statewide certified total." That seems odd, right? In one county, votes for Santorum magically appeared that were more than the gap in the statewide totals. If only 50 votes were added to Santorum's count per county, that'd be over 4000 made-up votes for him. And he wasn't the only one to get magical votes. Romney got about the same number per county.

Unbelievable.

No to SOPA/PIPA

The recent pate of governmental snooping and intrusion reminds me of a situation that arose about a decade ago. I was asked to give my opinion about a 'manager of the future' program which allowed screen-sharing of any PC on our network without the knowledge of the users. I asked if there were productivity issues which prompted this decision. When told there weren't, I asked if this software and its implementation would be a productivity drain.

It seems that someone passed a co-worker's cubicle and saw a news website on the screen while the PC was not in use. The perception, of course, was that there was misuse, therefore some form of loss. The reality was, although resources were not being utilized for an intended purpose, those resources being misused did not result in a net loss of productivity.

We didn't get the software.

The same is true for the new SOPA/PIPA bills which are threatening to be passed into law. Someone raises an alarm, yet no one is analyzing whether there truly is a loss. Websites will be shut down that do not violate any law to protect a victim that may not have taken a loss, at all. The perception of loss overrides the logical analysis that should be taken before something like this passes.

Everything deserves a cost-benefit analysis. You set values to everything included in the analysis. In the case of over-reaching government, you must first ask if there truly is a violation of life, liberty or property before assigning resources to counter this violation. If the cost in collateral rights exists to at least an equal level, you do not have an efficient process by which to protect said life, liberty or property.

With SOPA/PIPA, the mere accusation of loss, without any trial, is enough to cause loss with the shutdown of a website. Violations of intellectual property, or IP, are highly subjective, as are the damages sustained from the violation. At the mere accusation that IP is being violated, however, a business could be completely destroyed. This is not an efficient process AT ALL.

As the 'manager of the future' would have put all the employees on edge, leaving PCs unused while other more resource consuming and less efficient processes replaced them, SOPA will have a chilling effect on those who use the internet. In an age where free speech and communication relies heavily on this technology, such a law would be a huge step down towards the ant-hill of tyranny. This is not something a free society should embrace.

Attacks from "Conservatives"

It seems that the dirty tricks are getting pretty vile. There are several groups who have organized to pretend to be Ron Paul supporters in an attempt to discredit Paul.

Here is an example from a group called "Stop Ron Paul" from their Facebook page, where they pretend to be Paul supporters and make phone calls:

"I am pretty sure that lady I was telling how much I like firemen and wanted Ron Paul to do a fireman calendar might not be voting for Paul. The guy who said he was for Newt that I called a neo con will tell some friends."

"Always try to get three numbers and call, well now around midnight in SC. There is a household not voting for Paul."

"Need to call some folks I wrote down four numbers for late night calls for Ron. Do I go lizard people or David Duke next???"

"Oh man, I just pissed this guy off. He is definitely not voting for Paul. The conversation went like this Hey, this is Nathan Bedford Forrest calling on the behalf on Ron Paul-Do you know what time is?-It is never too late for liberty-I will not vote for Ron Paul-Your filthy neocon zionist."

"As soon as they say they are supporting any candidate other than Paul; I instantly start yelling and cursing at them and accusing them of hating liberty and telling them that their families should be ashamed to be related to such an ingnorant moronic goat humper."(sic)

Where I come from, that's called wire fraud, and is a crime. They don't seem to mind implicating themselves, though.

At a Paul rally early in the election cycle, a man wearing tin-foil on his head claimed to be a Paul supporter, yet was later found, dressed normally, at another politician's rally.

Another group got some publicity over the weekend for trying to organize a rally where they dressed as Klan members pretending to be Paul supporters. When people protested, they claimed a Paul supporter made threats against them, again attempting to cast aspersions on Paul supporters, when it was THEIR GROUP that was using the disgusting racial tactics.

There have been others, and they seem to be getting worse and worse. That they've come to breaking the law in order to slander the supporters of a candidate means they just have no understanding of what made our country great.

These groups are wicked. It is unbelievable how they can be outright liars, yet can claim to be religious conservatives. I have chosen to not indicate which candidates these people support in order to not do the same thing they're doing. Needless to say, though, they don't support Ron Paul.

The REAL Conservative is RON PAUL

Everyone is searching for the true conservative. The majority of the party doesn't want Romneycare, nor do they support policians who take money from lobbyists or big-government programs. They want real, conservative values.

To the person who's been paying attention, Ron Paul is the only real alternative. However, many pundits and other Johnny-come-latelies have been questioning Paul's overwhelming conservative credentials. Let us take a look at these attacks, and compare them to the words of someone most people consider the standard-bearer of the GOP.

At the debates, or in TV interviews, they ask Ron Paul about third parties, speaking as if he committed a sin when he doesn't utterly rule out a third party. But Paul is supported by the words of a previous GOP leader... A fairly famous one, at that. When asked, "Governor if the Republicans were to nominate a candidate that was unacceptable to you in 1976, could you support a Libertarian third party candidate?" Ronald Reagan replied, "I have to wait and see what you’re doing and what you are standing for." Not exactly the absolutist, 11th commandment answer the neo-cons want.

When Paul points out that there is no real left and right, anymore, but a fight between liberty and tyranny, he has the words of Reagan to back him, "You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: up- man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

When Dr. Paul stands alone at the debates, attacking the neo-cons for their so-called 'Patriot Act' and Department of Homeland Security, he may be all alone on that stage, but he is in good company. "These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine." Ronald Reagan said that when he was fighting Mitt Romney's father and the Rockefeller wing of the establisment GOP in the early 60s.

Reagan also said, "I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves." This is exactly the point Ron Paul is trying to make that gets taken completely out of context. Reagan went on to say, "That’s one of our sacred rights–to be stupid." For example, wearing a seatbelt is smart, and Paul has never said you shouldn't wear one. Failing to do so shouldn't warrant a police stop and violation of your 4th Amendment right to privacy, though, and that's the important point that both Reagan and Paul were trying to make. What you do with yourself is your business, and no one elses. If you take that away, you lose the whole point of liberty.

I also take issue with those who say Ron Paul's position on foreign policy sets him 'at odds' with Republican ideals. It is no different than when another Ron, Ronald Reagan, chastised those who wanted to continue sending troops to Vietnam in the 1960s, saying, "I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely." In his memoirs, he expressed great regret over sending troops to Lebanon. "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today." "The sending of the marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as President."

Both Reagan and Paul advocated the traditional Republican ideal of peace through strength. Make your military and economic might so formidable that enemies fear you too much to even attempt an attack. This could have been shown after the 9-11 attacks with Paul's plan to get the terrorists. He would have done what took a decade within the first few months of the attack using the traditional republican methods of dealing with rogue characters. Instead, we borrowed a page from the neo-liberals and neo-cons by going into nation-building mode.

When Ron Paul, unlike so many of his GOP rivals, attacks raising the debt limit and supports a return to some sort of gold standard, he is again supported by Reagan. Reagan complained about raising the debt limit, saying, "We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury--we don't own an ounce." "I believe the only way to acheive price stability is to return America to some form of gold standard." He further promised to attempt to return the country to a gold standard. In this charge, he failed. The neo-con establisment fought him every step of the way. Only two congressmen helped him in his attempt to get America back on gold, and, wouldn't you know it, one of them was Ron Paul.

Don't get me wrong, though. Under pressure from the neo-con wing, Reagan's 11th commandment to never speak ill of someone in your party basically gave up the ship to the neo-cons. The only ones to benefit from the 11th commandment were the dirty, dishonest politicians who quoted it as if it were a free-pass to be as repugnant as they could be. By the 90s, politicians like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were passing for conservatives. Not speaking ill of these nanny-statists allowed the party to become overrun with them.

I believe it is time to clean house, "grow up", and get back to our conservative soul. Again, the words of Reagan, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." That heart and soul is only represented by Ron Paul.

SOURCES:

Reagan's Goldwater Endorsement Speech, 1964. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY

Reagan Campaign Video, 1975.

Reagan interview in REASON magazine. http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/

An American Life: The Autobiography by: Ronald Reagan


ABOVE: Ronald Reagan listens intently to Ronald Paul as he no doubt speaks about the Shining City of America and the Gold Standard.

Spinning like a 45 on a 78 Turntable

If you have been paying any attention at all to the Ron Paul campaign, you will have no doubt that the media is marginalizing him. He has consistently been first, second or third in most scientific polls, yet his face and name are often omitted from the results. Candidates with lower numbers are touted ad nauseum as 'rising', yet when Paul had the same momentum which carried him into the top tier, he was given little press, and that was almost all negative.

His face has been blacked out on televised poll reports, with no name and his percentage numbers displayed below the cameo, while other candidates, even those with lower numbers, have their name and full color face displayed. More often, he is omitted from results, altogether, with lower and higher polling candidates displayed. Almost every time he is mentioned at the top of a poll, some negative caveat is given as an adjective to describe him.

Here are a few examples that I found by simply typing "Ron Paul blacked out" into a search engine:






And that is just a few, easy to find examples. Most are way worse.

Talk radio, where a lot of people get their 'news', contains some of the worst spin. There is almost no accountability for radio talk shows. They can, and do, say almost anything with no fact-checking or attachment to reality. A lot of dirty work in smearing Paul is done at this level. Listening to talk radio is getting to be like listening to Tokyo Rose.

Poorly researched, debunked reports are repeatedly reported as fact about him, with no retractions or apologies. ALL of the news networks smear Paul. They can't even make up their mind what they want to smear him about. On CBS, he was called 'too far to the right to be electable' by Bob Schaffer. On the Fox News Debate, they accused him of being to the 'left of Obama'. They always follow that up with the 'unelectable' smear.

Technically, anyone is electable who meets the requirements laid out in the Constitution. But, if you want to get down to those issues most people claim to care about, Ron Paul is pretty much the only one that IS electable. They won't report on that, though.

If you ever had any doubt that the media is spinning against Ron Paul, you need only look at the way they're trying to spin the recent sales boost that singer Kelly Clarkson received after tweeting that she loves the Republican from Texas. When a few 'fans' complained, Ron Paul supporters jumped on Amazon and bought all the albums they could afford. The spin doctors are claiming that her double digit ranking jump (triple digit percentage jump in sales, which had most industry people dropping their jaws), isn't from Ron Paul supporters buying her album, but from Christmas sales or people just wanting to 'fill up their new MP3 players.' What?

There is no doubt that Kelly Clarkson is a talented singer and is popular in her own right; She won American Idol and has a lot of fans. But no other artist had that massive a bump for 'Christmas sales'. It was a meteoric rise in sales. There is NO DOUBT that the Ron Paul bump jumped her ranking dramatically. To even imply that the Ron Paul people buying up her album had nothing to do with it is ridiculous and is blatant, unrepentant spin.

The old media is spinning in a dizzying, death spiral.

Why I Choose Ron Paul

I know that I have repeatedly indicated my support for Ron Paul over the last few years. I've given my reasons for this support, and I've given my reasons why I wouldn't support other candidates. Let me reiterate a few of these reasons for the sake of clarity.

To start, the main reason I support Ron Paul is his consistent conservative message. For 40 years, he's said the same things. You can pull up video from the early '80s and hear the same, conservative values you'd hear from him today.
In the realm of government, I like that he supports the traditional conservative principles of smaller, fiscally-sound, less-intrusive government and the traditional conservative value of sound money. To me, he pushes civilization forward by rejecting collectivism and embracing individualism. He supports the traditionally conservative idea that each person should take responsibility for his or her self.

In his personal life, he represents the strength of the family unit: being faithful to your family and to your savior. I have always been impressed by the way he doesn't act prideful about his salvation, but humbly speaks of Christ in a reverent and respectful manner. This humility is probably one of the things I admire and respect most about the man.

Too many politicians flash their religious credentials, paying lip service while not living the example. They talk about the truth, yet speak in circles and take backroom deals. You won't find Paul doing that. What he says is what he does. Ron Paul leads by example.

He understands that you can't use force to make people do good things. Those good things must come from the realization that personal responsibility requires generosity, and generosity can't be forced. He shows this in the fact that, while he didn't accept government assistance for his patients as a doctor, he would give lower rates and sometimes free healthcare to those who couldn't afford it. He wants people to be taken care of if they happen to fall into unfortunate circumstances, but he doesn't want to use the force of government to do so.

Another big thing for me is that he doesn't compromise away his principles. The rights of man are unalienable. This means you can't sell them, trade them, loan them, or have them taken away... ever. If you compromise any right, you give up the principle that all rights are based upon.

He is willing to work with anyone on anything that doesn't violate his core principles. That is hard to find ANYWHERE, much less in Washington D.C. This is where the true progress can be made in government.

Paul wants me to know what is going on in government. He's pushed for sunlight laws and keeps his constituency up to date on what is going on in Congress. He has never towed the line for anyone if it means violating rights. He doesn't want the cloak of secrecy blinding the people and obscuring their rights.

There are a few less tangible reasons I like Ron Paul. One of them is that he reminds me of a pastor I had back in the late 80s and early 90s. He always pointed out that freedom was more important than picking the winner. I didn't understand it at the time, but, with the benefit of age, I can now say what he taught makes sense.

Another is that he never seems fake. Everything he says seems genuine. It's not something that can be put on a meter and judged, but his delivery and body language seem to be that of someone who hasn't rehearsed what he's saying. It is coming from his deeply-held beliefs.

Every one of Paul's positions seem to come from a core rooted in the Christian beliefs upon which this nation was founded. This core is reflected in the natural, God-given rights of man. You don't steal; this is property rights. You don't kill; this is the right to life. You respect freewill; this is liberty. You can find these rights from the 10 Commandments to the Declaration of Independence.

God ordained this as a nation to be governed by "We the People". It's basic concept is that all people are created with rights given to us by God which can't be taken away by ANYONE. It is plain to see that Ron Paul respects and reveres this notion. Some 'conservatives', who want to rule or be ruled by a President who acts with the power of a king, are destroying the very principles they are supposed to be trying to conserve.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in any party that adheres to the traditional, conservative principles that make our nation free. He's the only one that even comes CLOSE. That is why, in my humble opinion, he is the only choice for President.

That's 5 Delegates!

Ron Paul's finish in tonight's Iowa Caucus will probably earn him five delegates. Romney and Santorum could wind up with only five each, as well, in spite of having a few more percentage points.

It amuses me, but doesn't really surprise me, that the media darlings Santorum and Romney got a few more votes. Especially with the last week of pumping by the old hag media. The funniest part is that every conservative Republican preaches against Obamacare, yet Romney designed it, and Santorum helped get Obamacare supporters elected. The only candidate who has a history to prove opposition to socialized medicine is Ron Paul.

Santorum lost his 2006 bid for re-election after being named one of the 3 most corrupt US Senators, so he didn't get the chance to vote for Obamacare. It is pretty well known, though, that he endorsed Arlen Specter, who would go on to support Obamacare, and that Santorum was known as a lobbyist's best friend... pushing whatever cause from the highest bidder.

Just what makes someone a GOP candidate, nowadays? Paying lip service to conservative values while bearing a strong resemblance to Al Gore or Bill Clinton? Seems to be the way we're going.

I digress.

If we were going to lose delegates to someone, Romney and Santorum are two you don't really mind having them. Neither of them has a snowball's chance in Haiti. If Santorum is supposed to be the Huckabee of 2012, he did a bad job of knocking off Romney... and Romney just isn't a Republican. Period. Neither of them are electable.

Now I guess we wait and see who the media will push for a boost going into New Hampshire.