(February 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm)Minimalist Wrote: No, "honest" is the word. Too bad your little tin god is just as big a crook as all the other fuckheads, huh?
No, it's not the word. There is nothing dishonest about what he's done, since he's been open about it (hence the interview), and nothing about it breaks any law...in fact it's how a caucus is set up to work. Individual votes simply do not count in a caucus; all the individual votes do is show who the favourite candidates are in order of popularity. It is the delegates' votes that actually count, and there are no rules about who a delegate can be, or which way they can cast their vote.
Like I said before, this is a quirk of the system, and one that Ron Paul realised he could use to his advantage.
(February 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: So you have no problem with a politician taking a vote for someone else and making it a vote for himself?
He isn't doing that. The individual votes count for nothing in a caucus. It is the votes from the delegates that count, and the method for choosing delegates is entirely separate.
(February 11, 2012 at 12:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Correction, you can win by gaming the system. There's a word for gaming a system, and it is not synonymous with honest, or fair. Finding a weakness in an imperfect process and exploiting it to circumvent the spirit of the process shouldn't figure into how our representative government is chosen, should it? Let's say a candidate you vehemently opposed was engaging in this, what would you have to say about that?
I'd say the system was flawed, which I've done so here. It doesn't matter if candidates I hate are doing it, if it's a legitimate part of the system, I have no grounds to complain about their action, other than to point out that the system is flawed.
