# Ron Paul's delegates switcheroo **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 12, 2012, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592 "2012-02-12T06:02:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/1 "2012-02-12T06:02:06Z")
So Ron Paul is claiming that even though he isn’t winning the general vote, he’s managing to finagle his supporters into more delegate spots. Is there any chance that this strategy will end up being effective? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/2 "2012-02-12T06:26:11Z")
No idea. But in Iowa for example, the caucus first takes a poll of who they want to be President, then they elect delegates. There is the real possibility that people leave after task #1, as task #2 can be interminable. Not only that, but caucus delegates elect Party delegates who in turn elect the real delegates to the national convention, IIRC. So media reports are highly misleading. > **[Update: How Iowa Really Works](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/update-how-iowa-really-works/)** > > A reader writes in to explain how the Iowa caucuses really work: What’s going on in Iowa is that four or five election cycles ago, Republicans decided that the best way to deal with the precinct caucuses for maximum media impact was to simply hold a... ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/3 "2012-02-12T07:38:06Z")
Maybe. But if the folks back home think they voted for Santorum and some lawyer tells them they voted for Paul, the shit will hit the fan. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/4 "2012-02-12T07:41:34Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > So Ron Paul is claiming that even though he isn’t winning the general vote, he’s managing to finagle his supporters into more delegate spots. Is there any chance that this strategy will end up being effective? Most of the primaries from this point forward are “winner take all”, so it might be true with states that already voted, I don’t think its really a winning strategy. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/5 "2012-02-12T20:14:08Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Most of the primaries from this point forward are “winner take all”, so it might be true with states that already voted, I don’t think its really a winning strategy. Most of the primaries from here on out are [proportional](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012). By my quick count there are 5 “winner take all” states left. The rest are either proportional or “winner take all” by congressional district. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/6 "2012-02-12T20:19:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Maybe. But if the folks back home think they voted for Santorum and some lawyer tells them they voted for Paul, the shit will hit the fan. I would say that it will be the santorum that hits he fan. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/7 "2012-02-12T20:36:41Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I don’t think its really a winning strategy. I don’t think it is intended to be. I think he is just trying to get a large enough block of delegates to influence the platform at the convention. Get a plank to shitcan the Fed, and other Paul issues that might get support from other delegates. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/8 "2012-02-12T20:59:04Z")
The question is less a matter of delegates as it is the required commitment of said delegates. The rules vary from place to place. IIRC, just about all if not all delegates are required to vote for their guy on the first ballot, but if he does not win, things get complicated. This shit hasn’t really been relevant quite some time, so nobody paid much attention to these rules. But you can bet your sweet patoot that someone is paying attention _now_, even as we speak. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/9 "2012-02-12T21:41:46Z")
I’m not sure where to put this, but since it’s about Ron Paul and delegates - here’s another data point. [http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/210153-ron-paul-not-conceding-maine](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/210153-ron-paul-not-conceding-maine) Romney beat Paul in the Maine Caucus, 39% to 36% - but there was some problems. Several voting districts, including one whole county postponed their caucuses at the last minute because of snow. Paul is alleging it was collusion by the GOP to shut him out of caucuses where he was hoping to win. The postponed caucuses will meet sometime this week but their totals won’t affect who gets to call himself the winner. It turned out they just got a couple inches of snow. Here’s Paul’s campaign manager, John Tate, on the subject: > [@](#): > > Paul’s campaign has accused the local GOP of postponing the caucuses to prevent the results from being reported on Saturday, arguing that “just the votes of Washington County would have been enough to put us over the top.” > > The campaign is also dismissing the notion that weather was a reasonable excuse for the caucuses to be put off. > > “This is Maine we’re talking about," Tate said. “The Girl Scouts had an event today in Washington County that wasn’t cancelled!” The article concludes that when all the caucusing is finished, Paul thinks he’ll have Maine’s delegates come the convention. ETA: Also, in comparing numbers of Romney and Paul’s percentages, keep in mind that less than 6000 votes were cast overall. It wouldn’t take much to put Paul over Romney. ([cite - about halfway down the page](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/11/maine-caucus-results-2012_n_1270519.html)) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/10 "2012-02-13T04:33:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Maybe. But if the folks back home think they voted for Santorum and some lawyer tells them they voted for Paul, the shit will hit the fan. Yes. I am looking forward to that. Of course if Romney develops a crushing lead among the winner-take-all states of Wisconsin, New Jersey, California and not coincidentally Utah, then all this is moot. ---
**Author:** ![Cyberhwk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7993a0/32.png) [@Cyberhwk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyberhwk)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/11 "2012-02-13T06:30:37Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Yes. I am looking forward to that. Of course if Romney develops a crushing lead among the winner-take-all states of Wisconsin, New Jersey, California and not coincidentally Utah, then all this is moot. Seems bizarre they would let California have such a huge influence over their candidate choice considering they haven’t won it in 24 years. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/12 "2012-02-13T17:55:22Z")
> [@Cyberhwk](#): > > Seems bizarre they would let California have such a huge influence over their candidate choice considering they haven’t won it in 24 years. I don’t think that they “let” anyone do anything. California, like each other state, makes its own determination about whether the primary will be winner-take-all or proportional. Or possibly the state Republican Party does this. It doesn’t matter. The point is that the national party can’t do a damn thing about it. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-pauls-delegates-switcheroo/612592/13 "2012-02-13T22:06:03Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > No idea. But in Iowa for example, the caucus first takes a poll of who they want to be President, then they elect delegates. There is the real possibility that people leave after task #1, as task #2 can be interminable. > > Not only that, but caucus delegates elect Party delegates who in turn elect the real delegates to the national convention, IIRC. I think in Iowa, caucus delegates go to a county convention, where they elect delegates to a congressional district election, where they (a) elect the district’s three national convention delegates and (b) elect separate delegates to the state convention, where the remainder of the delegates are selected. > [@Cyberhwk](#): > > Seems bizarre they would let California have such a huge influence over their candidate choice considering they haven’t won it in 24 years. California doesn’t exactly have a “huge” influence, especially as it is what I like to call a “solid blue” state - it gets the minimum number of delegates (10, plus 3 per congressional district, plus 3 “superdelegates”), whereas other states can get extra delegates if it voted Republican in 2008 (I think 4 1/2 plus 60% of its electoral votes, rounded up) or had any Republican Senators since November 2006 or Governors, a majority of its House members, or controlled at least one house of the state’s legislature since November 2010. Also note that California isn’t quite “winner take all”; the statewide winner gets just 10 delegates, and each congressional district’s winner gets 3. I have a feeling the winner in the main district in Alameda county (Berkeley / Oakland) is going to be different than the winner in the main district in Orange county.