Michigan Primary: Romney 16 delegates, Santorum 14 delegates (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 02:22:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Michigan Primary: Romney 16 delegates, Santorum 14 delegates (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Michigan Primary: Romney 16 delegates, Santorum 14 delegates  (Read 743 times)
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


« on: March 05, 2012, 11:32:36 AM »

Romney awarded at-large delegates while Santorum whines..........

But the truth is..........

Last night the Credentials Committee met via teleconference and voted to apply the rules as passed unanimously on February 4th which results in the 2 at large delegates be awarded to the statewide winner, Mitt Romney. There were no changes in rules or procedures, the Credential Committee only ratified the existing rules as previously passed after some made erroneous claims to the media that the at-large delegates would be split.


George Orwell would have been proud of this statement. It combines the best of double speak, double think and historical revision all in one. The rules clearly stated that the recognized statewide delegates would be based on the number full-slate statewide delegates won that was "winner take all*" the asterisk being that if the top two candidates having the same number of full-slate delegates the split would be 1-1.

Thus

7-7 = 1-1
8-6 = 2-0
9-5 = 2-0
...
14-0 = 2-0



6-6-2 = 1-1
6-5-3 = 2-0


5-5-4 = 1-1
5-3-3-3 = 2-0


4-4-4-2 =  ?

Well, they didn't think about that one!

If the rules were "winner take all," there would not have been an asterisk. History is being revised. Even two members of the MRNC acknowledged that fact, one being the Romney-supporting former Attorney General of the state. It is sickening and pathetic that folks here are making excuses for the act of a banana republic.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2012, 11:35:04 AM »

If Gore had called for a statewide recount, he still would have lost, but it's better then cheating.

Probably, but if all eligible voters had been able to vote and have their votes counted as intended, then Gore very likely would have won.

(Not that there even needs to be massive fraud for that to be true when the margin is only 500 votes...)

It may very well have been the case that more Gore voters fouled their ballots than Bush supporters. They have noone to blame but themselves.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2012, 11:38:56 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why Gore called for Recounts in counties which favored him?

If Gore had called for a statewide recount, he still would have lost, but it's better then cheating.

Sore - Loserman signs still have meaning!

Wait, Gore didn't call for recounts in "counties which favored him," he called for recounts in counties that favored him, and, the recount process was controlled by Democrats. He did not call for recount in counties that favored him, but, Republicans would have controlled the recount process.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 13 queries.