PDA

View Full Version : "Winner take all" killed us. We need to kill that GOP policy.




Starks
02-05-2008, 10:10 PM
It's detrimental to the will of the nation.

JordanQ72
02-05-2008, 10:22 PM
You're a Romney supporter?

Molly1
02-05-2008, 10:25 PM
yeah. Next project: take over all the local GOP in every state.

Starks
02-05-2008, 10:28 PM
You're a Romney supporter?

Where did that come from?

otero1
02-05-2008, 10:31 PM
You're a Romney supporter?That makes no sense.

JordanQ72
02-05-2008, 10:33 PM
Where did that come from?

Explain your complaint about winner take all then. How exactly has it effected Ron Paul's delegate count in any way? Romney is the one that has been completely screwed out of delegates in 8 states now I believe.

Kludge
02-05-2008, 10:33 PM
I'm guessing he was talking about the MSM's "two-person race". Romney should have an incredibly higher amount of delegates then he gets due to this winner take all policy. He loses more then Ron, but Ron has really been hurt in terms of delegate numbers due to this as well...

Redcard
02-05-2008, 10:34 PM
I don't think winner take all made a difference for us.

Kludge
02-05-2008, 10:35 PM
I don't think winner take all made a difference for us.

We took 2nd in Montana but won't gain any delegates from it.

4RP08inKCMO
02-05-2008, 10:36 PM
Explain your complaint about winner take all then. How exactly has it effected Ron Paul's delegate count in any way? Romney is the one that has been completely screwed out of delegates in 8 states now I believe.

We came in second in Montana, which is winner take all.

Exponent
02-05-2008, 10:39 PM
I've posted this before, but I think the plurality voting first-past-the-post system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) is what has really screwed us over, as it makes the "he can't win" mentality oh so tempting. I recognize that other voting systems have their inherent flaws as well, but some flaws are more severe than others. I'd really like to see what would happen if instant-runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) became more prevalent. Once people understand how it works, and thus vote accordingly, it completely nullifies the "can't win" notion.

JordanQ72
02-05-2008, 10:40 PM
We came in second in Montana, which is winner take all.

Okay, that's 6 delegates. I'm still sure Mitt is a bit more miffed over 250 or so he's been blocked from receiving.

Redcard
02-05-2008, 10:41 PM
Got news for ya. Montana is picked by "credentialed" republicans.. leadership positions. You weren't going to get anything there anyway.

Dustancostine
02-05-2008, 10:45 PM
Got news for ya. Montana is picked by "credentialed" republicans.. leadership positions. You weren't going to get anything there anyway.

Well we did get 2nd.

asifp
02-05-2008, 10:53 PM
Romney got hurt but it , but come on we just need a consistent system. How hard is that ?

Thought I must say Romney must be throwing a few beer bottles at his TV tonight, he prolly would be right in the hunt if republicans worked on the democratic syste.

Like it or not, McCain has it locked up winning all the big states , I dont know what Ron Paul is going to do now , but I think he should create a 3rd party as we need his message to be heard

Redcard
02-05-2008, 11:00 PM
Romney got hurt but it , but come on we just need a consistent system. How hard is that ?

Thought I must say Romney must be throwing a few beer bottles at his TV tonight, he prolly would be right in the hunt if republicans worked on the democratic syste.

Like it or not, McCain has it locked up winning all the big states , I dont know what Ron Paul is going to do now , but I think he should create a 3rd party as we need his message to be heard

So states have a right to self-govern, except when it doesn't benefit us, then it all needs to be controlled by the federal?

asifp
02-05-2008, 11:10 PM
So states have a right to self-govern, except when it doesn't benefit us, then it all needs to be controlled by the federal?

No what I am saying people in the state have a right to be heard. Look what happened in West Virginia , the most popular republican guy in their state is not even getting any representation. Now how is that democratic ?

Redcard
02-05-2008, 11:13 PM
No what I am saying people in the state have a right to be heard. Look what happened in West Virginia , the most popular republican guy in their state is not even getting any representation. Now how is that democratic ?

We're NOT in a democracy.

We're in a REPUBLIC.

asifp
02-05-2008, 11:16 PM
We're NOT in a democracy.

We're in a REPUBLIC.


A republic with democratic values. I mean comeon all I am saying is why cant we just have a fair system which everyone can understand.

I mean look at the mess in LA and W.VA

Paul4Prez
02-05-2008, 11:16 PM
Winner take all was really our only chance to win. Since Ron Paul's anti-war views are shared by only 30% of Republicans, his upside was probably around 30% (if the media treated him fairly, and if voters viewed him as a viable candidate.)

That could have been enough to win in some states, and we would have all been cheering the winner take all policy then....

Kludge
02-05-2008, 11:16 PM
So states have a right to self-govern, except when it doesn't benefit us, then it all needs to be controlled by the federal?

Since this can be fought on the state level.... what's your point?

Redcard
02-05-2008, 11:18 PM
A republic with democratic values. I mean comeon all I am saying is why cant we just have a fair system which everyone can understand.

I mean look at the mess in LA and W.VA

Because you're in the Freaking REPUBLICAN PARTY.

The party that has spent its history redrawing district lines to marginalize the democrats. Why are you surprised that this is going on?

Goldwater Conservative
02-05-2008, 11:24 PM
The national party could solve this simply by doubling the delegates of any state that switched to a proportional allocation similar to the Dems. I can guarantee you they'd all follow suit.

That said, the less democratic caucus system has worked to our advantage, and we could have done the same with winner-take-all. Doesn't make it fair or logical, though.

Paul4Prez
02-05-2008, 11:33 PM
Guys, if we really want to take over the Republican Party, winner-take-all is our friend.

Think about it. Before we control 51% of the party, we are going to control 35% of it. In a 3-way race that's winner-take-all, 35% gets all the delegates. In a 3-way race that's proportional, 35% gets 35% of the delegates. In a 3-way race with successive rounds of voting, the other 65% gang up against us.

Kludge
02-05-2008, 11:36 PM
Guys, if we really want to take over the Republican Party, winner-take-all is our friend.

Nothing that hinder's the peoples' ability to govern is my friend. The electoral college needs to be thrown out too.

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-05-2008, 11:53 PM
It's detrimental to the will of the nation.

Ya my NJ governor knew McCain would win, what's he do? Pass a law making it okay for winner take all.

Redcard
02-05-2008, 11:55 PM
Ya my NJ governor knew McCain would win, what's he do? Pass a law making it okay for winner take all.


I suspect that was for RUdy G.. not for McCain.

alexpasch
02-06-2008, 12:00 AM
I've posted this before, but I think the plurality voting first-past-the-post system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) is what has really screwed us over, as it makes the "he can't win" mentality oh so tempting. I recognize that other voting systems have their inherent flaws as well, but some flaws are more severe than others. I'd really like to see what would happen if instant-runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) became more prevalent. Once people understand how it works, and thus vote accordingly, it completely nullifies the "can't win" notion.

Read Dahl's "On Democracy". It explains the effects of this system very well. This explains not only why we always end up with 2 candidates duking it out for the nomination, but why two parties are the norm.

I wish we had more candidates and more parties, like in Europe. Screw this first-past-the-post bullshit.

Gabecpa
02-06-2008, 12:05 AM
I think the Primaries hurt more than the winner take all states. Look at the difference between primary and caucus states.

Primaries people show up only knowing what they saw on FNC. At caucuses people are allowed to give a speech for their candidate and inform other voters of their candidates views. I think that 10%+ swing in every state shows the difference between possible Paul supporters and MSM authorized Ron Paul voters.

Goldwater Conservative
02-06-2008, 12:15 AM
I wish we had more candidates and more parties, like in Europe. Screw this first-past-the-post bullshit.

Unfortunately, many European countries entrench parties (and make them more rigid) by using proportional representation. We should be looking to systems that get rid of the "he can't win" mentality AND weaken parties.

free.alive
02-06-2008, 12:28 AM
They key is not to tinker with the rules. It's to take over the party, precinct by precinct.

The next two years (1 really) we should be identifying each precinct with no PCO or precinct captain or chairman and finding someone who supported ROn Paul, or like him, or agrees with his positions, or agrees once they're more educated. We need to get them signed up as PCO's, or have them get elected PCO.

At that point we can elect the district leaders, the county chairs, the state chairs, the national chairs. We can decide what the platform will be. We can decide who the candidates will be.

In each state focus on one county at a time - but have all the RP supporters from everywhere joining in the effort.

Four years from now (when the party is anti-war anyway, because the wars are now Democrat wars) today's GOP machine won't be able to recognize itself.

If we stay active, focused and create a new voting bloc, that is.

CorkyAgain
02-06-2008, 12:37 PM
We're NOT in a democracy.

We're in a REPUBLIC.

No, we're in a plutocracy, with the illusion of being in a republic.

Haven't you ever been invited to join a committee, which then proceeded to overrule all your suggestions and drive toward a pre-ordained conclusion?

How about those meetings where a 'facilitator' uses Delphi Technique to guide participants to whatever conclusion the meeting organizers desire, but in a way that makes it seem as if that conclusion emerged as the consensus of the group?

Afterwards, if you object to the outcome, you'll be told that you had your chance to provide your input and that the process was fair. And now it's time for you to get with the program and be a good team player. Sound familiar?

I've seen this crap pulled in companies where I've worked and also in many civic meetings. I'll bet you have too, although you might have been a bit baffled about what was going on and how it was that they always managed to get their way.

The election process is just the same thing on a larger scale. Hint: the MSM are the 'facilitators'. Soon Republicans are going to be told that the votes have been counted and that it's time to come together behind the nominee. Then, after November we're going to be told that, having considered all the candidates, the nation has decided on McCain or Hillary and that now we all need to get together behind "our" President.

THIS is what "winner take all" really means.

Dr Paul, with his message of liberty, is challenging this system. The R3VOLUTION is about restoring the Republic. You don't need to "restore" something you already have. You "restore" things which have been lost or which have fallen into disuse.

Redcard
02-06-2008, 12:46 PM
No, we're in a plutocracy, with the illusion of being in a republic.

Haven't you ever been invited to join a committee, which then proceeded to overrule all your suggestions and drive toward a pre-ordained conclusion?

How about those meetings where a 'facilitator' uses Delphi Technique to guide participants to whatever conclusion the meeting organizers desire, but in a way that makes it seem as if that conclusion emerged as the consensus of the group?

Afterwards, if you object to the outcome, you'll be told that you had your chance to provide your input and that the process was fair. And now it's time for you to get with the program and be a good team player. Sound familiar?

I've seen this crap pulled in companies where I've worked and also in many civic meetings. I'll bet you have too, although you might have been a bit baffled about what was going on and how it was that they always managed to get their way.

The election process is just the same thing on a larger scale. Hint: the MSM are the 'facilitators'. Soon Republicans are going to be told that the votes have been counted and that it's time to come together behind the nominee. Then, after November we're going to be told that, having considered all the candidates, the nation has decided on McCain or Hillary and that now we all need to get together behind "our" President.

THIS is what "winner take all" really means.

Dr Paul, with his message of liberty, is challenging this system. The R3VOLUTION is about restoring the Republic. You don't need to "restore" something you already have. You "restore" things which have been lost or which have fallen into disuse.

Sounds like you don't know how to operate in a committee. When I'm in a committee, or group, or whatever, I _LEAD_ IT. I know Robert's Rules of Order backwards, forwards, and sideways. I don't get sidetracked. I get stuff on agendas, and get them debated, discussed, and voted on. I always walk in knowing where I've won.

Sounds like you suck. Sounds like you give up before you even walk in. Sounds like you accept defeat, and then get precisely what you want. Defeat.

Anna Karenina
02-06-2008, 12:54 PM
They key is not to tinker with the rules. It's to take over the party, precinct by precinct.

Couldn't agree more with you.

We need to start planning this and getting strategic at our local levels.

CorkyAgain
02-06-2008, 01:05 PM
Sounds like you don't know how to operate in a committee. When I'm in a committee, or group, or whatever, I _LEAD_ IT. I know Robert's Rules of Order backwards, forwards, and sideways. I don't get sidetracked. I get stuff on agendas, and get them debated, discussed, and voted on. I always walk in knowing where I've won.

Sounds like you suck. Sounds like you give up before you even walk in. Sounds like you accept defeat, and then get precisely what you want. Defeat.

I was talking about committees where you're outnumbered from the get-go and were invited only as a way to co-opt you. Where you don't get the chance to wield the gavel. I think that's the situation we're in wrt this election.

Not all committees use Roberts Rules of Order. Many of them use arcane, labyrinthine rules devised by the incumbents as a way to protect and preserve their incumbency. Sometimes, to get their way, they make up new rules on the fly, the way they did in Louisiana. Sometimes they flat out ignore the rules if it suits them. It's all a matter of what they can get away with, of what their power allows them to do.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I agree with and support the idea of getting our people into party positions, so we will have control of the gavel and we can lead the committees rather than be co-opted by them.

But I think many of us are underestimating the magnitude of the task, and are laboring under a false understanding of how the current system works.

Redcard
02-06-2008, 01:34 PM
Not all committees use Roberts Rules of Order. Many of them use arcane, labyrinthine rules devised by the incumbents as a way to protect and preserve their incumbency. Sometimes, to get their way, they make up new rules on the fly, the way they did in Louisiana. Sometimes they flat out ignore the rules if it suits them. It's all a matter of what they can get away with, of what their power allows them to do.

Yes, and those are the meetings we're in right now. I get it. The problem we have is that we're arrogant about how to handle those meetings. As for making up new rules on the fly, they didn't make up ANY new rules. They made up a METHOD. A tactic. A gambit. And even then, what they did wasn't anything NEW. It's the same thing WE did in WV to supposedly get delegates.

The problem we have is that we don't play the game like they do. You're saying they wrote the rules.. and they did. The republican party is a giant Nomic, and sometimes unraveling that takes a degree in game theory.

I advise every Ron Paul supporter to go out sometime, and play a game of Diplomacy. You'll learn more than you ever want to about how to take power in adverse situations, twist the rules in your favor, and to get.. if not exactly what you want.. a very suitable and palatable compromise.

ANd yes, I've been in meetings where I don't have the gavel. I've been in meetings where I went against the "flow" and was co-opted. But, guess what? Those too can be won.

In our case, we needed TV ad time bought. That way, when we got beat by a sneaky move, we could call them out on a national stage. Instead, we did what no other successful candidate for President has done since before 1960. We sent out mailers.

In the end, we tried to game the system for delegates, and we found out that we weren't nearly as clever as we thought we were. And we ALSO found out that the opponent is not as stupid as we'd like to think they are. We're against clever people here, many of them professionals. Our guy is using the staff that he lost a senate run with to try to get a presidency, and their staffs are professionals with history in high profile campaigning.

We're the grassroots, and we're powerful, but, we're non-integral. If the campaign HQ cannot operate well, nothing we do will work, and no amount of work will change that.

CorkyAgain
02-06-2008, 02:28 PM
In our case, we needed TV ad time bought. That way, when we got beat by a sneaky move, we could call them out on a national stage. Instead, we did what no other successful candidate for President has done since before 1960. We sent out mailers.


I agree. The national campaign HQ has been inept, and probably cost us any chance we had for a breakthrough. Not a single TV ad hammering home the point that Dr Paul is the only antiwar candidate in the race, for either party? WTF? Why did they undersell the one thing that was attracting people to him?

Then there's the fact that no one seems to have been coaching Dr Paul on how to present himself and his message... Instead, they seem to have let him go out and "wing it". He won the debates when it comes to his knowledge of the facts and his logic, but he lost them rhetorically when -- except for a few brilliant moments -- he seemed incapable of confining his thoughts to a few clearly expressed points.




In the end, we tried to game the system for delegates, and we found out that we weren't nearly as clever as we thought we were. And we ALSO found out that the opponent is not as stupid as we'd like to think they are. We're against clever people here, many of them professionals. Our guy is using the staff that he lost a senate run with to try to get a presidency, and their staffs are professionals with history in high profile campaigning.

We're the grassroots, and we're powerful, but, we're non-integral. If the campaign HQ cannot operate well, nothing we do will work, and no amount of work will change that.

Agreed. I think they're evil, manipulative bastards doing the bidding of some rich and powerful people behind the scenes. But I never said they were stupid.

I know a lot of people are going to fight this election to the bitter end, but I think it's over. Nick Bradley has a post on the LRC blog today, pointing out that the McCain-Huckabee tandem now has an insurmountable delegate lead and will probably go into the convention with enough delegates to force the conclusion. I agree with his analysis.

Oh well, at least we got to have our say. :(

Redcard, you're right about me personally. I don't have the temperament or stomach for the kind of committee work that's going to be needed to take back the party. I had more than my fill of meetings before I retired a few years ago. (I was a manager in a large software company.)

For those of you who are willing and able to do the party work, I wish you well. As long as you don't let the job possess and corrupt you, you'll have my support. But I would urge you not to underestimate the risk of that corruption. The devil has many ways of turning our best intentions against us. Think long and hard about how the Democrat party, for example, has reached its present state.