From DP: The Ron Paul Factor (vote tallies) [Archive]

sailingaway

11-07-2012, 01:45 PM

2012 Election Results – The Ron Paul Factor

Click for results document with clear tables: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6c_F0cRLqE-WVd2WkpUV0pVQ00

I simply make the case that our Ron Paul Primary voters, if they held true and did not vote for Romney and the fake GOP in the General Election, we would have been the deciding factor in 4 key states: New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.

The final General Election numbers which were released on CNN.com compared the the Primary Election numbers released on CNN.com. RP voters would have taken 64 Electoral College votes from Obama and given them to Romney.

The GOPs active campaign to lie, cheat, steal and purposefully disenfranchise liberty voters ultimately cost them the election.

My goal was to draw a distinction, not make 'multiplier' affect assumptions based on where votes might have went. I simply don't know these metrics and guess what.... neither does anyone else.

Here are the straight numbers:

Row 1: States that Obama Won in the General Election
Row 2: Ron Paul Primary Votes Results
Row 3: Obama vs. Romney General Election Results
Row 4: The Ron Paul Factor
Row 5: State Electoral College Votes

Iowa | 26,036 | 88,629 D+ | No | 6
New Hampshire | 56,848 | 33,746 D+ | YES | 4
Florida | 117,100 | 46,039 D+ | YES | 29
Nevada | 6,175 | 66,379 D+ | No | 6
Colorado | 7,713 | 69,517 D+ | No | 9
Minnesota | 13,023 | 225,213 D+ | No | 10
Maine | 1,996 | 90,969 D+ | No | 4
Michigan | 115,956 | 346,376 D+ | No | 16
Washington | 12,594 | 239,950 D+ | No | 12
Massachusetts | 35,219 | 698,021 D+ | No | 11
Ohio | 113,256 | 100,763 D+ | YES | 18
Vermont | 15,391 | 101,335 D+ | No | 3
Virginia | 107,451 | 106,726 D+ | YES | 13
Illinois | 85,747 | 825,506 D+ | No | 20
DC | 621 | 204,995 D+ | No | 3
Maryland | 23,609 | 586,258 D+ | No | 10
Wisconsin | 87,858 | 201,702 D+ | No | 10
Connecticut | 8,032 | 229,145 D+ | No | 7
Delaware | 3,017 | 77,071 D+ | No | 3
New York | 27,699 | 1,640,969 D+| No | 29
Pennsylvania | 106,148 | 283,694 D+ | No | 20
Rhode Island | 3,473 | 116,169 D+ | No | 4
Oregon | 36,810 | 132,554 D+ | No | 7
California | 199,246 | 1,403,172 D+| No| 55
New Jersey | 24,017 | 559,398 D+ | No | 14
New Mexico | 9,363 | 78,596 D+ | No | 5
Hawaii | 1,712 | 183,596 D+ | No | 4

The Ron Paul Factor Electoral Votes: New Hampshire (4), Florida (29), Ohio (18), Virginia (13) = 64

Obama Total Electoral Votes: 303 (Minus 64 = 239)
Romney Total Electoral Votes: 206 (Plus 64 = 270)

THE LIBERTY VOTE WOULD HAVE WON THE PRESIDENCY FOR ROMNEY!

http://www.dailypaul.com/262076/the-ron-paul-factor-definitive-results-omg-its-true

Veteran Citizen

11-07-2012, 02:07 PM

sailingaway

11-07-2012, 02:10 PM

No one thinks Obama is good. We're just analyzing data so we have it at our fingertips in trying to move people towards liberty.

jmdrake

11-07-2012, 02:19 PM

And this will be reported on the DailyPaul (bless their wonderful interface), Ron Paul Forums, RevolutionBox and.......?

sailingaway

11-07-2012, 02:20 PM

And this will be reported on the DailyPaul (bless their wonderful interface), Ron Paul Forums, RevolutionBox and.......?

we always knew that if the data favors us we have to get it out ourselves.

jmdrake

11-07-2012, 02:35 PM

we always knew that if the data favors us we have to get it out ourselves.

Wrong. We always knew that if we relied on not voting or "writing in Ron Paul" we'd have to get it out ourselves. If we relied on voting 3rd party (Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, whoever) the media would do the job for us. Johnson and Goode's numbers have been reported. In 2000 the media was all over the fact that Ralph Nader cost Gore Florida. The media talked about how Ross Perot cost Bush the election when he was running against Clinton. So the media would talk our numbers if they were handed to them on a silver platter. Since you and others decided not to take the easy route for getting the numbers out, what's your plan for doing so?

parocks

11-07-2012, 02:38 PM

Wrong. We always knew that if we relied on not voting or "writing in Ron Paul" we'd have to get it out ourselves. If we relied on voting 3rd party (Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, whoever) the media would do the job for us. Johnson and Goode's numbers have been reported. In 2000 the media was all over the fact that Ralph Nader cost Gore Florida. The media talked about how Ross Perot cost Bush the election when he was running against Clinton. So the media would talk our numbers if they were handed to them on a silver platter. Since you and others decided not to take the easy route for getting the numbers out, what's your plan for doing so?

can we find any write in ron paul numbers anywhere?

jmdrake

11-07-2012, 02:41 PM

can we find any write in ron paul numbers anywhere?

It doesn't seem like it. Not even in the states where write-in votes supposedly "count". But hey, I'll take the Ron Paul primary tally as a proxy. That's great. Now we have to find a way to talk about this to more than ourselves.

MelissaCato

11-07-2012, 03:22 PM

That's great. Now we have to find a way to talk about this to more than ourselves.

LOL Ya, because at this point all the Obama supporters think Romney lost because he put his dog on the roof of the car. LOL

sailingaway

11-07-2012, 03:44 PM

Wrong. We always knew that if we relied on not voting or "writing in Ron Paul" we'd have to get it out ourselves. If we relied on voting 3rd party (Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, whoever) the media would do the job for us. Johnson and Goode's numbers have been reported. In 2000 the media was all over the fact that Ralph Nader cost Gore Florida. The media talked about how Ross Perot cost Bush the election when he was running against Clinton. So the media would talk our numbers if they were handed to them on a silver platter. Since you and others decided not to take the easy route for getting the numbers out, what's your plan for doing so?

seriously? Because I have only seen GJ mentioned here or at DP not in any of the articles I've read so far today.

sailingaway

11-07-2012, 03:45 PM

can we find any write in ron paul numbers anywhere?

write in votes aren't counted for a while, some states have how much for write ins as a total group but the break outs won't be out for a while.

Thor

11-07-2012, 04:02 PM

http://i.imgur.com/YQqdr.gif

phill4paul

11-07-2012, 04:35 PM

ronpaulfollower999

11-07-2012, 05:14 PM

Now, lets think back a while, back to Ross Perot and Clinton. How much homage did Bill pay to The Perot supporters.

None.

Obama is bad for liberty. This is not a good thing. No one group screwed up in isolation, but it's all fucked up now. See ya at the FEMA camps.

Political pundits attribute Clinton's wins in 92 and 96 to Perot. Same for Bush with Nader (in Florida) in 2000.

The main goal is proving to the GOP that they NEED us. Its basically our candidate in 2016, or your SOL. Just like in 2008, and yesterday.

ronpaulfollower999

11-07-2012, 05:16 PM

Realize that Florida hasn't been called yet, so it is only 35 you take away from Obama.

Edward

11-07-2012, 05:16 PM

I simply make the case that our Ron Paul Primary voters, if they held true and did not vote for Romney and the fake GOP in the General Election, we would have been the deciding factor in 4 key states: New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.

Big assumption there. I'm not sure why so many who are NOBP think that most of those who voted for Paul in the primaries were also NOBP.

ronpaulfollower999

11-07-2012, 05:18 PM

And the RP primary votes don't even account for the countless people I run into every time I wear a RP shirt that say, "Ron Paul? Too bad he didn't get the nomination. I would've voted for him."

jmdrake

11-07-2012, 05:35 PM

seriously? Because I have only seen GJ mentioned here or at DP not in any of the articles I've read so far today.

Then you haven't looked very hard.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=gary+johnson&oq=gary+johnson&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j0i3j0l8j43i400.2847.4491.0.5166.12.3.0.0. 0.0.316.782.2-2j1.3.0...0.0...1ac.1.WlFZLv35vFM

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8874959
http://tucsoncitizen.com/hispanic-politico/2012/11/07/libertarian-gary-johnsons-1-more-than-likely-hurt-the-1-pulling-for-romney-hows-that-for-irony/

I also take it that you must not have watched the election returns? Because Johnson, Goode and Steins numbers were on the screen along with Romney's and Obama's. The problem is that they weren't really large enough to have clearly affected the outcome. (They might have, but it's not nearly as clear as it was for Ross Perot or Ralph Nader). I'm wondering if you're being obtuse? The point that you seem to be avoiding is that if Ron Paul's "write in or stay at home votes" were really big enough to swing the election, and if those votes had actually gone to some recognizable 3rd party candidate, that would be plastered all over the news! As it stands, we're just "guestimating" about the Ron Paul "undervote". And we have no clear plan to make sure the word gets out.

sailingaway

11-07-2012, 05:54 PM

Then you haven't looked very hard.
.

I didn't look specifically for gJ at all, which is the point. we are talking about what the ordinary voter would see. When I looked at just the google headlines, and watched fox last night until it was clear Obama was winning and they were just trying not to be sick, I never once saw GJ mentioned. when I initially looked at Ron's stuff in news articles I didn't either. It wasn't until I went to the non google news blogs and searched for Ron that I saw anything about gary. Now if I had searched Gary I'm sure I'd have found stuff, but that is searching. Once you get to people who will search for it, they will find what we gather. However, I dont think that many will have written in Ron in ways that will be counted. It is something some of us who were not going to vote for Gj in any event wanted to do. You seem to have a projection of entitlement I just don't get, if people simply don't want to encourage the LP to run candidates they don't personally like. the LP wouldn't have gotten more attention if those who wrote in Ron voted for GJ, in my opinion, but even if it had, you havn't convinced me that does anything I would particularly want. I think most who supported Ron and aren't plugged in would have not voted, would have written him in on their own, or voted for a fall back, of which gary was one available. But GJ didn't excite people to support him and some absolutely didn't want to support him. I don't get being pissed at someone for voting for the person they actually want.

acptulsa

11-07-2012, 06:00 PM

And the RP primary votes don't even account for the countless people I run into every time I wear a RP shirt that say, "Ron Paul? Too bad he didn't get the nomination. I would've voted for him."

Yes, Ron Paul would have thumped Obama. No, that doesn't mean we could have handed it to Romney.

I think it's important for us to remember this fact, as it isn't us but Constitutional, principled conservatism that will save the GOP. We need to stop being arrogant and take a clear eyed look at where our true strength lies. Otherwise, we're in danger of becoming as coopted as the bulk of the GOP is. And we can't save this nation from there.

squarepusher

11-07-2012, 06:04 PM

Ron Paul would have had a higher independent vote

jmdrake

11-07-2012, 06:09 PM

I didn't look specifically for gJ at all, which is the point.

Right. And assuming that there were enough "Ron Paul" votes out there to swing the election to Obama, if those votes had gone to Gary Johnson and/or some other 3rd party candidate it would be front page news. And that is the point. You put your eggs in a basket that wouldn't be counted and now your excuse is "Well the other basket didn't get notice either because there weren't a lot of eggs in it."

But GJ didn't excite people to support him and some absolutely didn't want to support him. I don't get being pissed at someone for voting for the person they actually want.

I'm not "pissed" at people for not voting for Gary Johnson. I didn't vote for Gary Johnson. Nor am I "pissed" at those who stayed home or wrote in Ron Paul. What I'm saying, and you are dodging, is that you pushed a strategy that I and others told you early on wouldn't have the desired results of actually letting anyone other than us know that we made a difference in the election. Fine. You can choose whatever strategy you want. The problem is, some people were misled into thinking their "write in Ron Paul" actually meant something. This from another thread.

Candidate Party % Popular Vote Popular Vote Electoral Vote
Winner B. Obama (i) Dem 62.7% 3,860,144 29
M. Romney GOP 35.9% 2,210,485 0
G. Johnson Lib 0.7% 42,100 0
J. Stein Grn 0.6% 35,342 0
V. Goode CST 0.1% 6,321 0
P. Lindsay PSL 0.0% 2,107 0

what the fuck I don't see any write in counts for Ron Paul how do they factor that in??? that is for New York which is where I live....... so basically my vote didn't count at all?

^See? He thought he'd get a mention on election night. He didn't.

Now here's your bigger problem. (And yes it's a problem). Having pushed a strategy with a result that on the day after the election the liberty movement gets no real mention as to affecting the election, how do you propose to change that? What active steps are you proposing to take to "get the word out" about the Ron Paul undervote? You've basically ignored my question on that. Crossposting from DP to RPF doesn't cut it. Did you not think that part through? Are you going to call into talk radio? Write letters to the editor? Take out ads in the NY Times saying "This is the effect Ron Paul voters had on the election? Or is this something just for us to sit around and feel smug about? Like I said (and I will keep saying until you acknowledge the truth of this) if the Ron Paul voters had voted for a recognizable (as in "on the ballot") third party candidate, and if there were actually enough of us to swing the election, that would be front page news. The media wouldn't be covering it up. They couldn't cover it up. We complain about "media blackouts". Well this time we created our own media blackout. In 2008 Ron Paul suggested that we vote for whatever 3rd party candidate we choose to avoid this same problem. And even then there were those who insisted on writing in Ron Paul. If that makes you feel good, fine. But what's your plan for capitalizing on your "success"?

Qdog

11-07-2012, 06:15 PM

^^^^^^This^^^^^ +rep X1000

sailingaway

11-07-2012, 06:24 PM

I disagree. I think it would be just like now.

Neither of us can prove it, but my vote was still my vote and I voted for the candidate I want, which is how I always want to vote.

jmdrake

11-07-2012, 06:30 PM

I disagree. I think it would be just like now.

Neither of us can prove it, but my vote was still my vote and I voted for the candidate I want, which is how I always want to vote.

I can prove my position by looking at what happened in the past when 3rd party candidates actually cost one party or the other the election. I can also prove my point by looking at this election cycle where months, weeks and days before the election there were MSM articles pointing to the fact that the GOP was concerned that Goode and/or Johnson might cost Romney the election. If it turned out that they did cost Romney the election, that would have been front page news no doubt about it. That said, you voted for the candidate you wanted. You're happy with the results. You have yet to articulate a strategy for broadcasting those results.

tangent4ronpaul

11-07-2012, 06:30 PM

Johnson got 1%, the only results for Goode I saw were 3.something - pretty good, but it was his home state. I think I heard of results other than that at 1%. I never saw result numbers for Steins.

Lets punt and say at least 3% for GJ/Goode/Steins. I saw a lot of O/R results and the numbers never added up to 100% so the gap is "voted for someone else". One comes to mind that had a 7% spread. So lets say 3-7% and that's a lot of extra third party votes, write ins for RP or votes for Micky Mouse (Though I bet a lot wrote in Big Bird this year...)

Then there were a bunch of ppl that stayed home or held their noses and voted for Obomney. How many would be interesting to know. How much does it cost to do a respectable poll? Something the papers would publish? Or seed the papers with stories via friendly reporters wondering which way the election would have gone if they had the option of voting for RP? 3-way race, RP/O, RP/R... Maybe a polling company would pick it up if the story took off.

Does anyone have a link for the second third party debates? I missed it.

Dr Paul was encouraging us to form coalitions. Thinking of all the major third parties out there, we all have things in common. We could focus on those and agree to disagree on the things we don't agree on. Imagine something like a RP/Nader (He'd probably wnat CPSC) or Kucinch (He'd want the Dept of Peace) or Grayson?(Pentagon papers/congress/frmr prez candidate). The Green party has hit critical mass where they automatically get on ballots, but it's a holding pattern. They allways run candidates but don't campaign. Just accept TV spots, when invited and try and stay in the news. I imagine the Greens would want the EPA, DLM and the forest service at a minimum. (but put them on a leash!) lol! Run it under the LP, so they hit critical mass and get on the ballot every year. Etc.

Yes, purists! - I hear you scream. The point here is to establish a larger third party that seems viable to the public and can, when needed vote as a block. This would go a long way. If we are going to actually "win", it's going to take decades and be accomplished a step at a time.

I have to kind of wonder if Dr. Paul might have done better if he switched to the Dem party...

thoughts?

-t

AdamL

11-07-2012, 07:00 PM

I have to kind of wonder if Dr. Paul might have done better if he switched to the Dem party...

How would Ron Paul have done better in a party that vehemently opposes nearly everything he stands for? He wouldn't even manage to get 1% of the vote in a Democratic primary...

sailingaway

11-07-2012, 07:09 PM

I can prove my position by looking at what happened in the past when 3rd party candidates actually cost one party or the other the election. I can also prove my point by looking at this election cycle where months, weeks and days before the election there were MSM articles pointing to the fact that the GOP was concerned that Goode and/or Johnson might cost Romney the election. If it turned out that they did cost Romney the election, that would have been front page news no doubt about it. That said, you voted for the candidate you wanted. You're happy with the results. You have yet to articulate a strategy for broadcasting those results.

Broadcasting them was always a bigger deal to you than me. I said if the numbers were large we could. that was YOUR reason why I should vote.

tangent4ronpaul

11-07-2012, 07:14 PM

How would Ron Paul have done better in a party that vehemently opposes nearly everything he stands for? He wouldn't even manage to get 1% of the vote in a Democratic primary...

A lot of Dems/Progressives like Dr. Paul. End the wars, Fed gvmt off our backs, legalize pot, etc. He's been on the cover of "High Times" and The Rolling Stone". What the hell do you think Dr. Paul stands for?

-t

eleganz

11-07-2012, 07:14 PM

this is not convincing enough, somehow tying in the fact that we controlled the nevada and iowa state gop apparatus and forced those two states to suffer major losses would be convincing with the above.

i don't think the virginia argument would be good enough since it was only ron on the ballot

erowe1

11-07-2012, 07:22 PM

Big assumption there. I'm not sure why so many who are NOBP think that most of those who voted for Paul in the primaries were also NOBP.

You're completely right to question that assumption.

erowe1

11-07-2012, 07:24 PM

Now here's your bigger problem. (And yes it's a problem). Having pushed a strategy with a result that on the day after the election the liberty movement gets no real mention as to affecting the election, how do you propose to change that?

I propose that we not worry about getting mentioned as to affecting general elections and instead worry about making an impact in the primaries.

coaster

11-07-2012, 07:25 PM

While it doesn't change the point, I just want to point something out here.

The 303 - 206 electoral score is short of the total (538) by 29 because most sources are still considering Florida too-close-to-call. So we're taking 29 points away from Obama and Giving it to Romney even though he doesn't have them in the first place. With Florida, it should be 332 - 206; trade 64 and we have O 268 - R 270.

AdamL

11-07-2012, 07:34 PM

A lot of Dems/Progressives like Dr. Paul. End the wars, Fed gvmt off our backs, legalize pot, etc. He's been on the cover of "High Times" and The Rolling Stone". What the hell do you think Dr. Paul stands for?

The lefties that liked Ron Paul in the primaries were just useful idiots for the most part. If he had won the Republican nomination, just imagine the kinds of talking points we would have heard from the left during the general election:

- Ron Paul would repeal the Civil Rights Act and bring back segregation!
- Ron Paul would have let Hitler kill all the Jews and take over the world!
- Ron Paul would have allowed the southern states to have slavery!
- Ron Paul would let hospitals turn people away to die in the streets!
- Ron Paul would legalize hard drugs like heroin and let our children have them!
- Ron Paul would close down all of our schools!
- Ron Paul would get rid of all airport security and let the terrorist hijack our airplanes!
- etc.

Almost all of them would have realized that they love Big Brother and gone running back to Obama...

angelatc

11-07-2012, 07:36 PM

Send it to Ben Swann if you want other people to see it.

jmdrake

11-07-2012, 07:36 PM

Broadcasting them was always a bigger deal to you than me. I said if the numbers were large we could. that was YOUR reason why I should vote.

Let's see. So you really didn't care about the numbers then. What was the point of the whole "we can count the undervote" thing you were pushing then? If it's just about "I want to write in Ron Paul" fine. But to try to claim, as you did prior to the election, that you could get the same effect based on the "undervote" is...well not fully forthcoming in my opinion.

angelatc

11-07-2012, 07:38 PM

The lefties that liked Ron Paul in the primaries were just useful idiots for the most part. If he had won the Republican nomination, just imagine the kinds of talking points we would have heard from the left during the general election:

- Ron Paul would repeal the Civil Rights Act and bring back segregation!
- Ron Paul would have let Hitler kill all the Jews and take over the world!
- Ron Paul would have allowed the southern states to have slavery!
- Ron Paul would let hospitals turn people away to die in the streets!
- Ron Paul would legalize hard drugs like heroin and let our children have them!
- Ron Paul would close down all of our schools!
- Ron Paul would get rid of all airport security and let the terrorist hijack our airplanes!
- etc.

Almost all of them would have realized that they love Big Brother and gone running back to Obama...

Is that Michael Cole? I had a crush on him as a young girl, but haven't thought about him since I discovered rock and roll...and stuff that goes along with them.

You're exactly right. They sell out everything for a monthly check.

CPUd

11-07-2012, 07:38 PM

We also have to get the number of total ballots cast. Those may take a few weeks, and will have to be pulled from multiple sources. There were a lot of reports of "high turnout" supposed to be voting for Mitt that didn't deliver, although, those may be wishful thinking trying to figure out how Mitt didn't win. There could be write ins (or left blank) that were not officially tallied, where the ballots had votes in other races. Right now, the only numbers that are out are the people who did vote for President.

jmdrake

11-07-2012, 07:39 PM

I propose that we not worry about getting mentioned as to affecting general elections and instead worry about making an impact in the primaries.

And if that's your position, fine. But some people were led to believe that they could "write in Ron Paul" and somehow their vote would be counted in a meaningful way. I'm sad to learn that the main person pushing that idea didn't really care.

jmdrake

11-07-2012, 07:40 PM

sailingaway

11-07-2012, 07:41 PM

Let's see. So you really didn't care about the numbers then. What was the point of the whole "we can count the undervote" thing you were pushing then? If it's just about "I want to write in Ron Paul" fine. But to try to claim, as you did prior to the election, that you could get the same effect based on the "undervote" is...well not fully forthcoming in my opinion.

that was because people were being told no one would see anything which was false and manipulative imho. If you go back to my posts I repeatedly said 'if it is a large number we can broadcast it'. I personally was voting for Ron Paul regardless of 'counting' and I believe I made that clear, as well.

the spin was from the other side, some even saying their entire ballot would be thrown away, not just that there would be no count at all.

CPUd

11-07-2012, 07:49 PM

That's the idea SA was pushing. For what reason....I know longer no. I guess it's all about feeling smug at RPF and DP. :rolleyes:

If something is there, and the Mitt voters are serious about trying to dig up evidence of fraud at the polls, it will turn up when they start trying to drag it out into the open.

I'd be surprised if this number is > 1,000,000 nationwide. Anyway, it's a matter of public record, and the only time I ever saw anyone (including myself) posting about it, it was in response to people proclaiming if they did a write in, their ballot would be thrown away. It didn't matter to me what that person ended up doing, but when people came in here claiming that, I know wherever they got that information was either mistaken or lying.

AdamL

11-07-2012, 07:52 PM

Is that Michael Cole? I had a crush on him as a young girl, but haven't thought about him since I discovered rock and roll...and stuff that goes along with them.

My avatar? No, it's not Michael Cole - it's George Hilton.

erowe1

11-07-2012, 07:56 PM

That's the idea SA was pushing. For what reason....I know longer no. I guess it's all about feeling smug at RPF and DP. :rolleyes:

It all goes back to that mentality that we all had to pretend Ron Paul was still running long after he had conceded. Anyone else was an opposing candidate and would continue to be until inauguration day.

And it's still not over really. It's all about the electoral college!

sailingaway

11-07-2012, 07:58 PM

It all goes back to that mentality that we all had to pretend Ron Paul was still running long after he had conceded. Anyone else was an opposing candidate and would continue to be until inauguration day.

And it's still not over really. It's all about the electoral college!

No it didn't it was about not watching one group manipulate people who wanted to vote their conscience by giving them false information.

and for someone who was only banned for a week for ridiculing people, you sure do whine about it a lot.

fr33

11-07-2012, 09:11 PM

that was because people were being told no one would see anything which was false and manipulative imho.No it wasn't. It was honest and truthful. Nobody but us will look at the few states that give us write in stats in a month or two. When such stats become available, nobody but us will care.

sailingaway

11-07-2012, 09:29 PM

No it wasn't. It was honest and truthful. Nobody but us will look at the few states that give us write in stats in a month or two. When such stats become available, nobody but us will care.

that wasn't all that was said. some were saying they literally didn't have to count them in any fashion. I specified that we'd have to dig them up from web pages ourselves. If people cared, they should take that into account. but a bunch, like myself, weren't doing it for the number, if it was 'none of the above' in any fashion, that would be what we wanted. for those who did care, we didn't pretend it was different than it was.

ClydeCoulter

11-07-2012, 10:11 PM

And the RP primary votes don't even account for the countless people I run into every time I wear a RP shirt that say, "Ron Paul? Too bad he didn't get the nomination. I would've voted for him."

Yes, I think this is a big one. I have, since yesterday, heard people say they didn't vote for president but would have voted for Paul. These are people that didn't even vote in the primary, and I didn't know they would have voted for Paul until they told me today.

J_White

11-07-2012, 10:56 PM

The lefties that liked Ron Paul in the primaries were just useful idiots for the most part. If he had won the Republican nomination, just imagine the kinds of talking points we would have heard from the left during the general election:

- Ron Paul would repeal the Civil Rights Act and bring back segregation!
- Ron Paul would have let Hitler kill all the Jews and take over the world!
- Ron Paul would have allowed the southern states to have slavery!
- Ron Paul would let hospitals turn people away to die in the streets!
- Ron Paul would legalize hard drugs like heroin and let our children have them!
- Ron Paul would close down all of our schools!
- Ron Paul would get rid of all airport security and let the terrorist hijack our airplanes!
- etc.

Almost all of them would have realized that they love Big Brother and gone running back to Obama...

^ this would have been the reality if Dr. Paul got the nomination. it wont have been easy at all.

J_White

11-07-2012, 11:00 PM

Send it to Ben Swann if you want other people to see it.

now thats a good suggestion.
if he can make a segment, after double checking these facts, about what the GOP did wrong, then maybe, maybe some people might get this.
on the other hand, this might start another blame-attack on us from the media !!

Carehn

11-07-2012, 11:05 PM

can we find any write in ron paul numbers anywhere?

In my county my political connections hooked my up with many people who counted the votes. I was told Ron Paul write in out numbered all other 3rd party and write in candidates combined. I Voted GJ but was glad to hear this. If only it was a number people would report on. Sadly most places cant because they just toss write ins.

Matt Collins

11-08-2012, 07:48 AM

I sent this to some key media people, let's see if anyone bites. It would be important to start this narrative.

MelissaCato

11-08-2012, 08:18 AM

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/533530_544411232252371_1317998705_n.jpg

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 08:38 AM

In my county my political connections hooked my up with many people who counted the votes. I was told Ron Paul write in out numbered all other 3rd party and write in candidates combined. I Voted GJ but was glad to hear this. If only it was a number people would report on. Sadly most places cant because they just toss write ins.

If they toss write ins it is illegal everywhere I checked, just as illegal as not counting a third party vote. they may still do it, but they have no right to do it. What we need to do is follow up in our counties. In CA I followed up in L.A in 2008 until they reported a number. Might it have been underreported? who knows? but we don't know if other election numbers were underreported either. But last I saw San Bernardino had NOT broken out his numbers in 2008 and people there need to make sure they do this time. On the other hand SB DID report the number of 'other' meaning all write in votes.

However, they have until Dec 7 to certify the vote and that is when the numbers will be reported state wide. as a practical matter we need to get our input in locally to count BEFORE then, to make sure the numbers are reported properly. but the law says they have to do it.

MelissaCato

11-08-2012, 08:49 AM

What we need to do is follow up in our counties.

However, they have until Dec 7 to certify the vote and that is when the numbers will be reported state wide. as a practical matter we need to get our input in locally to count BEFORE then, to make sure the numbers are reported properly. but the law says they have to do it.

Ya this ^^ I took snap shots of my polling location results tape after they posted it to the door for 12 hours. I have an appointment on the 17th @ the Election Office room 202, again (lol) to record result numbers - I'll also get snaps shot then too - like last time. I'll have Lebanon County Pennsylvania's total Ron Paul write-ins on the 17th. :D

Why they make me wait that long is beyond me, I should have just walked in there and requested on the spot. But from past visits I know they want me to make appointments. :rolleyes:

Carehn

11-08-2012, 08:54 AM

If they toss write ins it is illegal everywhere I checked, just as illegal as not counting a third party vote. they may still do it, but they have no right to do it. What we need to do is follow up in our counties. In CA I followed up in L.A in 2008 until they reported a number. Might it have been underreported? who knows? but we don't know if other election numbers were underreported either. But last I saw San Bernardino had NOT broken out his numbers in 2008 and people there need to make sure they do this time. On the other hand SB DID report the number of 'other' meaning all write in votes.

However, they have until Dec 7 to certify the vote and that is when the numbers will be reported state wide. as a practical matter we need to get our input in locally to count BEFORE then, to make sure the numbers are reported properly. but the law says they have to do it.

I don't know if they toss them... so if you say its illegal then they don't. What i meant to say is the write ins will not appear in the papers or on TV. And I know they don't bother counting them in many places. Any way my homeboy that counted votes and came into my store yesterday said Ron Paul had something like 800 votes!!! But that was his guess based on the stack, not that they counted them.

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 09:00 AM

Ya this ^^ I took snap shots of my polling location results tape after they posted it to the door for 12 hours. I have an appointment on the 17th @ the Election Office room 202, again (lol) to record result numbers - I'll also get snaps shot then too - like last time. I'll have Lebanon County Pennsylvania's total Ron Paul write-ins on the 17th. :D

Why they make me wait that long is beyond me, I should have just walked in there and requested on the spot. But from past visits I know they want me to make appointments. :rolleyes:

I am going to contact the CA meetups I contacted to tell them Ron was a write in option in CA and ask that they bug their counties. It would be great if others who contacted meetups did the same!

I'll also offer to go in and count in my county, which might make them stay careful about their numbers. I don't actually think they will take me up on it, but they will know people care enough to follow up and might double check their numbers.

cajuncocoa

11-08-2012, 09:19 AM

Send that info to deadpelican.com (or I will when I get back to my laptop). It's a news gathering site with mostly Louisiana stuff, but they've been favorable to us. I think the webmaster is a Ron Paul supporter.

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 09:20 AM

cajuncocoa

11-08-2012, 09:26 AM

I just sent the link to that Google doc.

FYI, if anyone else wants to contact them the correct URL is www.thedeadpelican.com

Captain Shays

11-08-2012, 09:29 AM

Wrong. We always knew that if we relied on not voting or "writing in Ron Paul" we'd have to get it out ourselves. If we relied on voting 3rd party (Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, whoever) the media would do the job for us. Johnson and Goode's numbers have been reported. In 2000 the media was all over the fact that Ralph Nader cost Gore Florida. The media talked about how Ross Perot cost Bush the election when he was running against Clinton. So the media would talk our numbers if they were handed to them on a silver platter. Since you and others decided not to take the easy route for getting the numbers out, what's your plan for doing so?
That was my concern the entire time I was posting in the NO ONE BUT PAUL thread. It's why I decided to vote for Gary Johnson in the end. I WANTED MY VOTE TO COUNT. I WANTED the establishment to KNOW who voted for Paul and why Romney didn't win. A vote for Gary Johnson is and forever will be understood as a vote for Ron Paul. Period. End of story.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 10:48 AM

that was because people were being told no one would see anything which was false and manipulative imho. If you go back to my posts I repeatedly said 'if it is a large number we can broadcast it'. I personally was voting for Ron Paul regardless of 'counting' and I believe I made that clear, as well.

Wait a minute. You just got through saying you weren't concerned about broadcasting it. Now you're admitting you said "We can broadcast it". Which position is it?

the spin was from the other side, some even saying their entire ballot would be thrown away, not just that there would be no count at all.

Maybe some. But the majority of what you are falsely calling "spin" was fact. That fact is that the "write in for Ron Paul" would not be counted. Sure, you can "make up a number" and then broadcast it yourself. But you don't actually have any plan to do that. That's fine but you should have said that all along. You and others have criticized the campaign for pushing and/or allowing the "delegate strategy" when it seems they weren't really expecting or trying to actually accomplish anything from that except taking over local party machinery. And you know what? It's a fair criticism. By the same token, it's fair for me to point out that your whole "you votes will still be counted because of the undervote" was really a ruse. You just wanted to vote for Ron Paul. Well nobody was stopping you. But when people were pushing Gary Johnson, they were attacked, their threads were moved, and in some cases they were banned. The job of moderator should be to make sure things are civil. It should not be to push a particular agenda. You shouldn't have moved the RevPAC "imagine" ad to hot topics either. That had nothing to do with keeping things civil and everything to do with you trying to control the flow of information. And sure, this is Josh's "property" and he can manage it or mismanage it however he wants. And if I get banned for speaking the truth, so be it. But Gary Johnson shouldn't have been kept as an "opposing candidate" long after Ron had dropped out of the race. And people shouldn't be restricted from advancing different tactics for liberty as long as it's clear we're all going in the same direction. I hope we as a movement will mature before 2016. That's all I have to say.

cajuncocoa

11-08-2012, 10:49 AM

Um, this is Ron Paul's forums....not Gary Johnson's. Just sayin'.

Captain Shays

11-08-2012, 10:56 AM

Um, this is Ron Paul's forums....not Gary Johnson's. Just sayin'.
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Ron Paul. Just saying

erowe1

11-08-2012, 11:03 AM

A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Ron Paul. Just saying

Not for me.

For me, not voting at all is a vote for Ron Paul. So Ron Paul got over 110 million votes.

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 11:03 AM

Wait a minute. You just got through saying you weren't concerned about broadcasting it. Now you're admitting you said "We can broadcast it". Which position is it?

Maybe some. But the majority of what you are falsely calling "spin" was fact. That fact is that the "write in for Ron Paul" would not be counted. Sure, you can "make up a number" and then broadcast it yourself. But you don't actually have any plan to do that. That's fine but you should have said that all along. You and others have criticized the campaign for pushing and/or allowing the "delegate strategy" when it seems they weren't really expecting or trying to actually accomplish anything from that except taking over local party machinery. And you know what? It's a fair criticism. By the same token, it's fair for me to point out that your whole "you votes will still be counted because of the undervote" was really a ruse. You just wanted to vote for Ron Paul. Well nobody was stopping you. But when people were pushing Gary Johnson, they were attacked, their threads were moved, and in some cases they were banned. The job of moderator should be to make sure things are civil. It should not be to push a particular agenda. You shouldn't have moved the RevPAC "imagine" ad to hot topics either. That had nothing to do with keeping things civil and everything to do with you trying to control the flow of information. And sure, this is Josh's "property" and he can manage it or mismanage it however he wants. And if I get banned for speaking the truth, so be it. But Gary Johnson shouldn't have been kept as an "opposing candidate" long after Ron had dropped out of the race. And people shouldn't be restricted from advancing different tactics for liberty as long as it's clear we're all going in the same direction. I hope we as a movement will mature before 2016. That's all I have to say.

Oh, please. I was countering false statements that the entire ballot would be thrown away and that write ins weren't counted at ALL when in fact in every jurisdiction I checked they are at least lumped together as undervote. I AT THE TIME said we would probably have to go to secretary of state web pages and spread them ourselves, so I was only giving accurate information. Check out the threads. People on the other side were pretending there would be no way to know they threw a protest vote. I even said those who thought voting for GJ was better than having their vote lumped in with 'other' should do it, in those states. It is just that many DIDN'T think that was better.

I do not think this is going to be a huge number. I know a lot of Ron Paul supporters who thought GJ for the LP was a better vote than 'other' where they were lumped in, and that was and is fine with me. Others won't even show up, or will vote Romney or Obama for whatever reason. People have a right to know the consequence -- the truthful consequence -- of their vote and have a right to vote their conscience.

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 11:06 AM

A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Ron Paul. Just saying

In some people's mind that is true. In some people's mind that isn't remotely true. People should vote as they feel best.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 11:10 AM

Oh, please. I was countering false statements that the entire ballot would be thrown away and that write ins weren't counted at ALL when in fact in every jurisdiction I checked they are at least lumped together as undervote.

Not true. Multiple times when I and others pointed out that your Ron Paul vote wouldn't be counted, you countered with your "Well we can count the undervote" argument. Further you wouldn't even need to use the "undervote" argument to counter the claim that other votes on the ballot would not be counted.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 11:11 AM

In some people's mind that is true. In some people's mind that isn't remotely true. People should vote as they feel best.

Right. And this forum shouldn't be used as a gatekeeper to herd people into voting one way or another when we're talking about multiple options to advance the same liberty agenda.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 11:13 AM

Not for me.

For me, not voting at all is a vote for Ron Paul. So Ron Paul got over 110 million votes.

Yeah. The people who couldn't vote because they were felons were all voting for Ron Paul. So where the people who really wanted to vote for Rick Santorum. All of the people who voted for McCain in 2008 and who didn't vote for Romney in 2012 were really voting for Ron Paul. And these 110 million Ron Paul voters didn't care enough about him to vote for him in the primary. /sarcasm

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 11:15 AM

cajuncocoa

11-08-2012, 11:16 AM

A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Ron Paul. Just sayingNot for me. Not at all.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 11:22 AM

that was a separate instance. It is a fact WE can count the undervote. I also said multiple times it is a number we would likely have to pull together ourselves and spread. The discussion occurred many times, but what I said was not false, the bit about the entire ballot being thrown away was.

The point is what I said was truthful, and I tried to be very clear about where it would be all lumped together, to the best of my information. I stand by what I wrote, overall.

And overall you were a gatekeeper. Overall your gatekeeping led people to the false belief that their Ron Paul vote would somehow get noticed. I've posted the proof of that in this thread already. Overall you acted like you had a plan to actually make sure the write in votes got noticed. The truth is, you didn't. Now we are where we are. What's your plan?

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 11:28 AM

And overall you were a gatekeeper. Overall your gatekeeping led people to the false belief that their Ron Paul vote would somehow get noticed. I've posted the proof of that in this thread already. Overall you acted like you had a plan to actually make sure the write in votes got noticed. The truth is, you didn't. Now we are where we are. What's your plan?

I disagree. I always said being counted wasn't important to me, but that IF THE NUMBER WAS LARGE we could circulate it. I'm not hearing people who DID vote for Ron because of my posts say this. The GJ people were pushing counting, it wasn't a big argument to me. I was just chiming in when I thought they pushed it to the point of inaccuracy in implying no one would tally their protest vote at all. I frankly saw counting as a straw man because I don't see third party stuff spread around much either, and because having my vote counted INACCURATELY is worse in my personal opinion, than having it counted vaguely, by lumping it with other protest votes.

Having said that, I have said everyone should follow up with their counties to push this, and elsewhere I have mentioned I am going to contact the meetups I contacted before the election to say Ron was a write in candidate, to ask them to follow up with their counties as well. I don't expect the number to be large, but I do want to know what it is. AND IF IT IS LARGE we can circulate it, just as I said before the election.

You are pissed more didn't vote for GJ because that is how you wanted others to vote. But clearly, I didn't influence your vote. I don't think you are fairly stating the situation.

cajuncocoa

11-08-2012, 11:31 AM

erowe1

11-08-2012, 11:32 AM

Why does everyone on this site think that just because something is said by a moderator it's anything other than that moderator's own opinion? I would have thought people who sign up for a Ron Paul forum would be those who think for themselves. :rolleyes:

Because some moderators ban people for saying things that disagree with their opinions.

I once got banned for agreeing with Ron Paul instead of SA.

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 11:35 AM

Because some moderators ban people for saying things that disagree with their opinions.

I once got banned for agreeing with Ron Paul instead of SA.

No, I banned you for one week for ridiculing people who didn't agree with YOUR opinions, at a time when a slew of people were coming in and doing that, to emphasize my repeated statements that wasn't acceptable in this forum.

cajuncocoa

11-08-2012, 11:36 AM

Because some moderators ban people for saying things that disagree with their opinions.

I once got banned for agreeing with Ron Paul instead of SA.LOL....are you sure there wasn't more to it than just a disagreement? I've disagreed with SA on some things and I'm still here.

erowe1

11-08-2012, 11:38 AM

No, I banned you for one week for ridiculing people who didn't agree with YOUR opinions, at a time when a slew of people were coming in and doing that, to emphasize my repeated statements that wasn't acceptable in this forum.

Prior to that incident I hadn't been aware that you had the right to make up willy-nilly what was and wasn't acceptable here. Now I know. And I've acted like I agreed with everything you've said since.

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 11:42 AM

Prior to that incident I hadn't been aware that you had the right to make up willy-nilly what was and wasn't acceptable here. Now I know. And I've acted like I agreed with everything you've said since.

No, you've mocked, which is not acting like you agree. Mocking is an attack, I just don't defend myself as stringently as others. I didn't ban you because you called me a moron, by the way, though you did. I didn't even see that until later. I banned you because attacks are against TOS and a concerted effort to mock and riducule others to undermine momentum when people were still fighting for those six states Ron ultimately did in fact get at RNC to file to put his name in nomination undermined the mission statement of the subforum to support Ron's 2012 run.

Personally, I think the blatant cheating at RNC opened a lot of eyes and at least made people, even non RP people, think and I definitely think it was worth it. Regardless, the mission statement and TOS are what they are, and I am glad you are clear on the fact that mods are usually ones to determine when they are violated.

again, you can appeal any mod action by joint pm to Josh and Bryan, but in your case I recall Josh defending the ban in a thread here, so I consider that pretty much closed.

Apparently, it still keeps you awake nights, however, and that I do regret. It was not my intent to scar you so.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 11:43 AM

I disagree. I always said being counted wasn't important to me, but that IF THE NUMBER WAS LARGE we could circulate it.

No you didn't.

You are pissed more didn't vote for GJ because that is how you wanted others to vote. But clearly, I didn't influence your vote. I don't think you are fairly stating the situation.

I voted for Virgil Goode. So it's stupid for you to claim I'm pissed because more didn't vote for GJ. I'm ticked that you moved threads that didn't need to be moved, misled folks that thought there write in for Ron Paul would be recognized, and now you don't have a plan to actually get that vote recognized.

CPUd

11-08-2012, 11:44 AM

Not true. Multiple times when I and others pointed out that your Ron Paul vote wouldn't be counted, you countered with your "Well we can count the undervote" argument. Further you wouldn't even need to use the "undervote" argument to counter the claim that other votes on the ballot would not be counted.

These are 2 separate things; both can be counted. Counting the actual Ron Paul write-ins in every state will take longer and involve more work than counting the undervote. The undervote numbers will be available as the states certify their counts. In a Presidential election year, it is typical for many ballots to have votes for the President, but not in the local races; but the Presidential undervote, where people voted in the local races, but not for President (and states who do not tally unofficial write-ins will go into this category)- this is on the average 2-3%.

There were most definitely people coming into these forums taking the statement that some states don't count write ins and stretching it to say the ballot will simply be thrown away. This was being done word for word, as if someone had given them a script to use. It's not cool to do that in Ron Paul Grassroots forum, because people like me were coming here to get away from all that. They were doing it because of all the subforums, this one had the most viewers at the time.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 11:45 AM

Why does everyone on this site think that just because something is said by a moderator it's anything other than that moderator's own opinion? I would have thought people who sign up for a Ron Paul forum would be those who think for themselves. :rolleyes:

Moving threads, locking threads, banning people, giving infractions are all acts that go beyond just a moderator giving his/her own opinion. Case in point the RevPAC "imagine" ad. A moderator could say "I don't think this is a good ad" without repeatedly moving it to hot topics.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 11:47 AM

You're missing the point. I never said the entire ballot would be thrown away. I said the Ron Paul vote would not be counted. And it won't be. We can "guestimate it" and such, but that's it. SailingAway's consistent response is "We can count the undervote". Fine. But she knew the reason people wanted to see a third party vote (and it didn't have to be Gary Johnson) was to make sure people besides us knew what happened. And now, after the election, she's like "Well I don't care if the number gets out anyway". Sorry, but that's dishonest.

These are 2 separate things; both can be counted. Counting the actual Ron Paul write-ins in every state will take longer and involve more work than counting the undervote. The undervote numbers will be available as the states certify their counts. In a Presidential election year, it is typical for many ballots to have votes for the President, but not in the local races; but the Presidential undervote, where people voted in the local races, but not for President (and states who do not tally unofficial write-ins will go into this category)- this
is on the average 2-3%.

There were most definitely people coming into these forums taking the statement that some states don't count write ins and stretching it to say the ballot will simply be thrown away. This was being done word for word, as if someone had given them a script to use. It's not cool to do that in Ron Paul Grassroots forum, because people like me were coming here to get away from all that.

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 11:47 AM

No you didn't.

I voted for Virgil Goode. So it's stupid for you to claim I'm pissed because more didn't vote for GJ. I'm ticked that you moved threads that didn't need to be moved, misled folks that thought there write in for Ron Paul would be recognized, and now you don't have a plan to actually get that vote recognized.

I never undertook to have such a plan, I never expected the numbers to be large enough to warrant it, although I intend to follow up in my state because I think everyone should in their own state.

My posts are what they are, and your saying they are different doesn't make it so. They speak for themselves.

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 11:48 AM

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 11:49 AM

I never undertook to have such a plan, I never expected the numbers to be large enough to warrant it, although I intend to follow up in my state because I think everyone should in their own state.

Then you should have said that. You didn't.

My posts are what they are, and your saying they are different doesn't make it so. They speak for themselves.

Indeed your posts do speak for themselves. Quite sadly I'm afraid.

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 11:50 AM

Then you should have said that. You didn't.

Indeed your posts do speak for themselves. Quite sadly I'm afraid.

I stand by what I actually said.

Captain Shays

11-08-2012, 11:50 AM

In some people's mind that is true. In some people's mind that isn't remotely true. People should vote as they feel best.

You're right. In the minds of the establishment it is but the non vote or the write in vote doesn't count for squat. Nobody knows except those who voted by writing in Ron Paul and told all their friends and reported it in Ron Paul forums. As for the establishment however a vote for Johnson is nothing other than a vote for Ron Paul. When the radio talk show hosts mention it, it's very well understood that ALL the votes for Johnson would have gone to Ron Paul.

Sure we should all vote according to our conscience. No doubt. I think we all agree on that. But if you wrote in Ron Paul, though you may feel great about it, and I would too, it only counts for feeling good and enjoying bragging rights, sleeping well at night, telling your kids and grand kids that you stood on principle and all the other good things associated with it.

What it doesn't count for however is an actual vote count that anyone else will ever give you credit for. Not the pundits. Not the establishment. Not the parties. A write in for Ron Paul has turned out to be counted along with all the votes for Donald Duck and the non votes among those who don't give a shit, are too stupid to vote, or whatever reason they didn't vote.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 11:54 AM

No YOU never said the whole ballot would be thrown away, but OTHERS of the 'counters' did. I was describing more than what YOU said.

And I'm describing what you said when you responded to me. So the fact that you had other inaccuracies to respond to is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

and I was honest. Read the actual posts.

I have. You weren't.

SOME cared more about counting than others. I wanted them to have accurate information, and I did not give inaccurate information.

You left out the "Well nobody will know about this undercount besides us" point. Sometimes the information one leaves out is as important as the information they put in. My point, my repeated point, is that if people write in Ron Paul, nobody besides us will know about it. You rebutted that point with your "undervote" argument. And now you're all "Well it doesn't matter because I didn't care about the info getting out anyway?" Sorry, but that doesn't wash.

EBounding

11-08-2012, 11:56 AM

Individuals within the the GOP KNOW that the RP factor played a role. I probably won't be on FarceBook for much longer now that the election is over but believe me when I say that they are coming to understand what we have told them all along. THEY cannot win without us.

This right here. The local parties are well aware of what is going on. Before the election they called us "rogue toddlers". They wanted our help, they want "the young people", but they want us to fall in line.

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 11:56 AM

You're right. In the minds of the establishment it is but the non vote or the write in vote doesn't count for squat. Nobody knows except those who voted by writing in Ron Paul and told all their friends and reported it in Ron Paul forums. As for the establishment however a vote for Johnson is nothing other than a vote for Ron Paul. When the radio talk show hosts mention it, it's very well understood that ALL the votes for Johnson would have gone to Ron Paul.

Sure we should all vote according to our conscience. No doubt. I think we all agree on that. But if you wrote in Ron Paul, though you may feel great about it, and I would too, it only counts for feeling good and enjoying bragging rights, sleeping well at night, telling your kids and grand kids that you stood on principle and all the other good things associated with it.

What it doesn't count for however is an actual vote count that anyone else will ever give you credit for. Not the pundits. Not the establishment. Not the parties. A write in for Ron Paul has turned out to be counted along with all the votes for Donald Duck and the non votes among those who don't give a shit, are too stupid to vote, or whatever reason they didn't vote.

If it is big enough it will be worth spreading. They may or may not give us credit but unless you are searching for third party numbers, I am not seeing a bunch of discussion there either. I personally consider the counting thing not persuasive given all the factors, however I understand some DO consider it persuasive and should vote that way. Just please accept that some don't think that is worth voting for 'the wrong person' in their view.

And given particularly how little pundits acknowledge anything they don't want to acknowledge, for many of us writing in Ron Paul and being able to say we did is more meaningful.

cajuncocoa

11-08-2012, 11:57 AM

Moving threads, locking threads, banning people, giving infractions are all acts that go beyond just a moderator giving his/her own opinion. Case in point the RevPAC "imagine" ad. A moderator could say "I don't think this is a good ad" without repeatedly moving it to hot topics.But moving topics to a more appropriate forum is a mod's job. And if it's been moved more than once, I think anyone can draw the conclusion that said mod is sending the message that it's not a good idea for public eyes.

Todd

11-08-2012, 11:58 AM

Big assumption there. I'm not sure why so many who are NOBP think that most of those who voted for Paul in the primaries were also NOBP.

It was only Romney and Paul on the primary ballot in VA. If people remember, many votes were protest votes by Newts people and others

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 11:58 AM

And I'm describing what you said when you responded to me. So the fact that you had other inaccuracies to respond to is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

I have. You weren't.

You left out the "Well nobody will know about this undercount besides us" point. Sometimes the information one leaves out is as important as the information they put in. My point, my repeated point, is that if people write in Ron Paul, nobody besides us will know about it. You rebutted that point with your "undervote" argument. And now you're all "Well it doesn't matter because I didn't care about the info getting out anyway?" Sorry, but that doesn't wash.

But YOU were talking about MY posts and what you said they were in response to. I was clearing that up.

I really don't care if you keep saying 'it doesn't wash', my posts are what they were and anyone can review them in situ.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 12:01 PM

You're right. In the minds of the establishment it is but the non vote or the write in vote doesn't count for squat. Nobody knows except those who voted by writing in Ron Paul and told all their friends and reported it in Ron Paul forums. As for the establishment however a vote for Johnson is nothing other than a vote for Ron Paul. When the radio talk show hosts mention it, it's very well understood that ALL the votes for Johnson would have gone to Ron Paul.

Sure we should all vote according to our conscience. No doubt. I think we all agree on that. But if you wrote in Ron Paul, though you may feel great about it, and I would too, it only counts for feeling good and enjoying bragging rights, sleeping well at night, telling your kids and grand kids that you stood on principle and all the other good things associated with it.

What it doesn't count for however is an actual vote count that anyone else will ever give you credit for. Not the pundits. Not the establishment. Not the parties. A write in for Ron Paul has turned out to be counted along with all the votes for Donald Duck and the non votes among those who don't give a shit, are too stupid to vote, or whatever reason they didn't vote.

+rep

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GL8QXYUKatA/T3ORe07boBI/AAAAAAAAA3g/WbX4xEzYmig/s320/the-rock-clapping.gif

For those who wrote in Ron Paul, more power to ya. Just next time don't try to give the illusion that anybody but us will know about it...unless you have a plan to make sure others know about it.

sailingaway

11-08-2012, 12:02 PM

You haven't posted one of my posts where I did, so I assume you couldn't find any.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 12:03 PM

But YOU were talking about MY posts and what you said they were in response to. I was clearing that up.

Clear as mud. In response to my saying that the Ron Paul votes wouldn't be counted you pushed your "undervote" scheme knowing full well you had no plan to actually make sure anyone knew about the undervotes. You didn't disclose that fact prior to this thread.

jmdrake

11-08-2012, 12:04 PM

You haven't posted one of my posts where I did, so I assume you couldn't find any.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Well, even the ones that won't tally the undervote, but I'm not sure all the ones that necessarily will count for Ron. In Florida in 2008 some counties counted, but they didn't have to.

For certain I know CA, and ME and IA and PA and NH.... I know there are others but I don't remember off the top of my head.

cajuncocoa

11-08-2012, 12:08 PM

For those who wrote in Ron Paul, more power to ya. Just next time don't try to give the illusion that anybody but us will know about it...unless you have a plan to make sure others know about it.I couldn't write in Ron Paul. But if I could have, it would have done it because he was the best choice for president I've had in my 50+ years of life. I don't care if anyone would/could/should know about it or not.

Gary Johnson did not represent me.

Captain Shays

11-08-2012, 12:16 PM

This right here. The local parties are well aware of what is going on. Before the election they called us "rogue toddlers". They wanted our help, they want "the young people", but they want us to fall in line.
The trouble with that is, though it may be true is that now, they can play those who wrote Ron Paul in as those who didn't vote in the public eye. If we all voted third party the numbers would be readily available for all to see. We could present those numbers to people to PROVE a level of dissent. Now, it's completely limited to the actual numbers of those who did vote for third parties. EVERYONE now KNOWs EXACTLY how many people voted for Gary Johnson Virgil Goode and Kill Stein. NO ONE knows how many people wrote in Ron Paul and they may never know. Only those who did write in Ron Paul and their friends know.