1500 People who showed up to caucus TURNED AWAY

[Carson]

Does Google already have the results out anyway?

Old thread;

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?360072-Google-election-already-has-the-election-results-posted-for-tomorrow

 

[sailingaway]

Not without a change in the rules, which would have needed to be done via a voice or roll call vote.

Rules are here: http://youra.net/images/gop/2012caucusmanual.pdf - It is helpful that we read them and understand them before we make any claims or accusations.

You don't think that mass of people not allowed in the room would have voted to allow it?

 

[tbone717]

You don't think that mass of people not allowed in the room would have voted to allow it?

Not my call to make. I try and deal with facts as much as possible. Not being on the ground there, the only info I have is from the article and I think one person in the thread that claimed they were there.

 

[tbone717]

Just as a side note. The caucus is more of a private affair than a state election. Reading the WA states election laws, caucuses aren't covered. Not at least from what I gathered, though I may have missed something.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/election_laws.aspx

 

[sailingaway]

hopefully, yes. but it looks like washington could have issues the way iowa and maine did. lets hope the officials are basically honest.

I think most people tend to be. It is the insiders who broke their own rules to unilaterally appoint PCOs who determine delegates whom I seriously question.

 

[sailingaway]

Just as a side note. The caucus is more of a private affair than a state election. Reading the WA states election laws, caucuses aren't covered. Not at least from what I gathered, though I may have missed something.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/election_laws.aspx

I'm aware of that. But the reason that is considered acceptable is you supposedly can change the party by participation. Public acceptability of the two party system seems like something worth challenging, if that isn't the case.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Their rules are irrelevant. The people have the right to vote, assuming that they're legal to vote, and properly registered. Their laziness, and negligence, is not a great enough excuse to deprive Washington Citizens the right to vote. It's your constitutional right, to participate in a fair election. That's why we have laws intended to criminalize voter/election fraud. This forum alone, people have already voiced several alternative ways to handle this overflow crowd. Simply because they didn't want it to take time, or delay the tabulation, is a faulty argument.

State Bureau of Elections, and then the Town & County Clerks, get ahold of them.

 

[tbone717]

I'm aware of that. But the reason that is considered acceptable is you supposedly can change the party by participation. Public acceptability of the two party system seems like something worth challenging, if that isn't the case.

Well the changing party by participation is the GOP rules not the state. As I understand it, people can change part at the location and then vote in the caucus. This is an effort to increase the party registration more than anything.

 

[tbone717]

Their rules are irrelevant. The people have the right to vote, assuming that they're legal to vote, and properly registered. Their laziness, and negligence, is not a great enough excuse to deprive Washington Citizens the right to vote. It's your constitutional right, to participate in a fair election. That's why we have laws intended to criminalize voter/election fraud. This forum alone, people have already voiced several alternative ways to handle this overflow crowd. Simply because they didn't want it to take time, or delay the tabulation, is a faulty argument.

State Bureau of Elections, and then the Town & County Clerks, get ahold of them.

My point it that the caucuses aren't governed by state election laws. It is a party matter, not a state matter. Feel free to read the state laws and see if you can find anything different. I was not able to. The old primary system was governed at the state level, but not the caucuses in 08 nor in 12.

 

[sailingaway]

Well the changing party by participation is the GOP rules not the state. As I understand it, people can change part at the location and then vote in the caucus. This is an effort to increase the party registration more than anything.

What I'm saying is their monopoly barriers to entry like ballot access and debate access could be determined unacceptable and go away if ordinary people understand how little they can impact parties to do anything the inner circle don't want, and that the inner circle find it perfectly acceptable to change the rules as they go. this isn't just us, look at Santorum in Iowa first, then in Michigan. And we didn't look at RON there only because we werent' threatening first.

 

[Ranger29860]

Their rules are irrelevant. The people have the right to vote, assuming that they're legal to vote, and properly registered. Their laziness, and negligence, is not a great enough excuse to deprive Washington Citizens the right to vote. It's your constitutional right, to participate in a fair election. That's why we have laws intended to criminalize voter/election fraud. This forum alone, people have already voiced several alternative ways to handle this overflow crowd. Simply because they didn't want it to take time, or delay the tabulation, is a faulty argument.

State Bureau of Elections, and then the Town & County Clerks, get ahold of them.

First off their is no implicit right to vote for president. Second the Republican party is a private organization and their activities and rules govern what they do... the states can't touch them. They have jsut as much power over them as they do a country club.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

My point it that the caucuses aren't governed by state election laws. It is a party matter, not a state matter.

The party also handles official election results of a state. If they don't want to be subjected to election laws, then don't be a party.

 

[SCOTUSman]

The party also handles official election results of a state. If they don't want to be subjected to election laws, then don't be a party.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a caucus and a primary. If caucus were bound by state election laws, you could have CAUCUSES anyways. Why? Because under state laws, POLLING places must be OPEN for XXX amount of hours that are specified.

 

[Ranger29860]

The party also handles official election results of a state. If they don't want to be subjected to election laws, then don't be a party.

OR dont allow them to have anything to do with state election counting or federal counting. It still stands that this caucus is as official in a legal sense as that of electing a president of a club

 

[tbone717]

What I'm saying is their monopoly barriers to entry like ballot access and debate access could be determined unacceptable and go away if ordinary people understand how little they can impact parties to do anything the inner circle don't want.

I suppose so, third parties do have a lot easier time working at the state level, but the LP and CP have really failed in their attempt to gain status as a legitimate alternative. You need to take that up with them. I have had my day trying to work with them, I have no plans to do so again - it's like talking to a wall.

 

[SCOTUSman]

First off their is no implicit right to vote for president. Second the Republican party is a private organization and their activities and rules govern what they do... the states can't touch them. They have jsut as much power over them as they do a country club.

Yep, exactly. People just don't get it.

 

[tbone717]

You clearly don't understand the difference between a caucus and a primary. If caucus were bound by state election laws, you could have CAUCUSES anyways. Why? Because under state laws, POLLING places must be OPEN for XXX amount of hours that are specified.

Right, as stated caucuses are, for lack of a better term, a private event. It is essentially on the same level legally as the local VFW voting for their officers.

 

[SCOTUSman]

If the state really wanted, they could pass a law that wouldn't allow the people to vote for President. They could say the state legislature gets to vote for the President or simply pick their electoral college members and let them vote for whoever.

The Constitution originally gave the people the right to vote for their representatives, after it was amended, it gave the people the right to vote for senator (previously from it was the state legislatures), but not then nor now does the Constitution rest the right to vote for President with the people. They are elected by the electoral college from the slate of electors from each state. The state has full authority to determine the process in which their electors are selected.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

You clearly don't understand the difference between a caucus and a primary. If caucus were bound by state election laws, you could have CAUCUSES anyways. Why? Because under state laws, POLLING places must be OPEN for XXX amount of hours that are specified.

I truly do not give a rats ass about what loophole they devised, to avoid accountability.

 

[TheGrinch]

Yep, exactly. People just don't get it.

No, we get it, but as you've already agreed, it certainly doesn't make that right...

And "no implicit right to vote for president"? For registered voters? Are you kidding me? Just because they do things to not have to recognize that right by technically not breaking the law, does not mean that registered voters don't have the right to vote.

Thus, I'm not sure what your argument is, when you agree that it's not right and they should have done something about... So no, we can't sue or prosecute them, but that doesn't mean people should take 1,500 voters getting turned away lightly... Whether legal, planned or unplanned, disenfranchising voters is never okay.