Caveman_Nick Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Election fixing? The story looks something like this: 1) In the first round of voting, Romney won the vote Romney 41% Huckabee 33% McCain 16% 2) A revote is required because there was no candidate with 50% of the vote. 3) Huckabee won with 52% to Romney's 47% McCain dropped to 1% Now there is speculation that there was a back room deal struck that all of the McCain support would go to Huckabee. Is this concern by the Romney campaign justified? It doesn't sound like anything that could be called illegal was done here, but then again it doesn't sound like this is exactly in the spirit of the caucus format. Or is this unjustified concern? Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Dare I say...collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Isn't this the principle of Instant Runoff Voting? Though the numbers surely look suspicious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 that is how caucuses work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Isn't this the principle of Instant Runoff Voting? Though the numbers surely look suspicious. That certainly looks like what happened. Still suspicious though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 that is how caucuses work ding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 1) In the first round of voting, Romney won the vote Romney 41% Huckabee 33% McCain 16% These only add up to 90. Apart from Ron Paul, who else was on the ballot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) ding. True, but according to the link there is some speculation. Edit: All of the speculation appears to be coming from the Romney camp though. Edited February 5, 2008 by twiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 seems pretty straightforward. everybody said their first choice. after registering their first preference, mccain's supporters, knowing they couldn't win that state, threw almost all of their support behind the candidate they would rather see take home the delegates, the candidate that presents less of a threat to mccain's nomination. seems like a perfectly logical execution of the caucus system to me why would mccain's supporters be somehow obliged to support romney in the second round? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Ummm . . . Did you say something. I was too busy staring at Twiley's avatar to really notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 westvirginia is a Libertarian, and this is a Republician caucus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 True, but according to the link there is some speculation. Edit: All of the speculation appears to be coming from the Romney camp though. Of course. I don't know if they have a point to make or not, I was just curious as to what Huddlers made of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 seems pretty straightforward. everybody said their first choice. after registering their first preference, mccain's supporters, knowing they couldn't win that state, threw almost all of their support behind the candidate they would rather see take home the delegates, the candidate that presents less of a threat to mccain's nomination. seems like a perfectly logical execution of the caucus system to me why would mccain's supporters be somehow obliged to support romney in the second round? Of course they would not be obligated to do anything. It's certainly an interesting turn of events that after the first round, when one would theoretically expect the support for the candidates that were left to all increase, McCain's dropped to almost nothing. Again, there is speculation of possible foul play, but I am not sure that there is any basis for that speculation. It's why I brought it up here. It seems to me that what happened was perfectly legal, and as you say "how caucuses work", but my specific knowledge of that topic is limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Adding to the issue is the Republican winner-takes-all system. The Dems use a proportional system. One of their high-ups said this morning they do that to keep a two horse race going longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 Adding to the issue is the Republican winner-takes-all system. The Dems use a proportional system. One of their high-ups said this morning they do that to keep a two horse race going longer. I had a bit of internal debate over this the other night. On the one hand, a proportional system is more directly representative of the popular vote. On the other hand, the Republican system more directly reflects who won each state and gives weight to that state's voter value nationally. I am not against the way the Republicans do it...but I am not 100% sold on it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) I had a bit of internal debate over this the other night. On the one hand, a proportional system is more directly representative of the popular vote. On the other hand, the Republican system more directly reflects who won each state and gives weight to that state's voter value nationally. I am not against the way the Republicans do it...but I am not 100% sold on it either. i can see doing it one way or the other, but it's a bit of a problem when some states do it one way and some states do it the other. for instance, today, on the republican side, i believe california does the proportional thing. new york does winner take all. all that does is make the new york primary FAR more valuable a prize than the california primary, even though california has more people. kinda dumb. Edited February 5, 2008 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Volunteer state more like Volunteer to fix the voting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 i can see doing it one way or the other, but it's a bit of a problem when some states do it one way and some states do it the other. for instance, today, on the republican side, i believe california does the proportional thing. new york does winner take all. all that does is make the new york primary FAR more valuable a prize than the california primary, even though california has more people. kinda dumb. I thought the Republicans did all states as winner takes all but evidently not: Because Democrats distribute delegates in proportion to their vote statewide and in individual congressional districts, candidates can come away with large numbers of delegates even in states they lose. Aides for both campaigns predicted that the contest would continue for weeks or months to come. In contrast, many of the 21 Republican contests are winner-take-all when awarding delegates, meaning a strong day by McCain could give him a commanding lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I thought the Republicans did all states as winner takes all but evidently not: california is the most notable exception: The California Republican primary, 2008 will be held on February 5 and has a total of 173 delegates at stake: three per congressional district and fourteen "bonus" delegates. The winner in each of the 53 congressional districts will be awarded all of that district's delegates. The winner of the state will be awarded 11 of the bonus delegates, while the remaining 3 unpledged delegates are state party leaders.[1][2] Voting in the California Republican Primary is restricted to registered Republican voters. so it's like 53 little winner-take-alls, with 11 bonus for the statewide winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.