Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 12:45:04 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Ron Paul is the Bitcoin candidate: not Barack Obama, not standard candidates.  (Read 1300 times)
Jon
Donator
Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


No Gods; No Masters; Only You


View Profile
February 29, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
 #1

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-is-putting-on-a-great-show-right-now-in-front-of-bernanke-2012-2?utm_source=twbutton&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=clusterstock

He is the only candidate, the only near-mainstream candidate, standing up for the repeal of legal tender laws and making competing currencies like Bitcoin legal for trade in contract and beyond.

If you want Bitcoin adopted, vote for candidates that will make it happen. That means voting for people like Ron Paul.

The Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right.
1481417104
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481417104

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481417104
Reply with quote  #2

1481417104
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
February 29, 2012, 09:34:14 PM
 #2

yup, i hope all you American bitcoiners will go vote Ron Paul
 Smiley

stevegee58
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 783



View Profile
February 29, 2012, 09:35:36 PM
 #3

He won't win the Republican nomination and I'm not sure he'll run as an independent.

But I fully intend to write his old ass in on election day if I have to.

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet


View Profile
February 29, 2012, 09:49:13 PM
 #4

Every four years, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, millions of U.S. citizens go to local voting booths to elect, among other officials, the next president and vice president of their country. Their votes will be recorded and counted, and winners will be declared.

But the results of the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand because the Electoral College has not cast its vote.

For some of you, this might be a bit shocking. You could be thinking, "Whoa, seriously?" But for many of you, you're probably immediately thinking of the 2000 U.S. presidential election -- Gore won the popular vote (more Americans voted for him), but Bush actually won the presidency, because he was awarded the majority of the votes in the Electoral College.

How is it that a candidate could win more votes overall and yet not be elected? What would happen if there were a tie in the Electoral College? Who then would elect the president?

You will find out about the past elections that weren't decided on Election Day but weeks later, when the Electoral College met, and some that weren't decided until months later. You'll also learn about the strange election of the first son of a former president to win the presidency.­

The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.

If you're wondering how someone becomes an elector, it turns out it's not the exact same process across the board. It can actually differ from state to state. In general, though, the two most common ways are:

  • The elector is nominated by his or her state party committee (perhaps to reward many years of service to the party).
  • The elector "campaigns" for a spot and the decision is made during a vote held at the state's party convention.

There's the how, but what about the "what" -- as in, "What are the required qualifications of an elector?" There really aren't any. According to the National Archives and Records (NARA) Web site, "the U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors." While the constitution doesn't dictate what an elector should know or be able to do, it does suggest who or what an elector cannot be:

  • He or she cannot be a Representative or Senator
  • He or she cannot be a high-ranking U.S. official in a position of "trust or profit"
  • He or she cannot be someone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S.

Now, what about the "who?" Who is it that gets nominated or voted in and assigned to the post?

Usually, electors are people who are highly politically active in their party (be it Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican ...) or connected somehow to the political arena, such as: activists, party leaders, elected officials of the state and even people who have ties (political and/or personal) to the Presidential candidates, themselves.


So, we've covered the how, what and who -- but that's not all! There's still faithless electors, winner-takes-all and the district system to consider...

The final electors for each state are voted on by the state's residents on voting day. In many states, the electors' names are printed on the ballots -- where those names "sit" depends on the state. For example, the electors could be listed directly under the presidential candidates' names (Democrats with the Democratic nominee, Libertarians with the Libertarian nominee, Republicans with the Republican nominee and so on) or simply grouped by party somewhere else on the ballot. And, of course, the names might not even be listed at all. Essentially, it is the electors who get voted "in" who end up casting the "real" vote. Hold on, it seems like the last two sentences don't go together, "How can someone be voted "in" if they're not even on a ballot?" Consider this information from the Department of the Secretary of State for North Carolina:

Quote
Under North Carolina General Statute § 163-209, the names of candidates for electors of President and Vice-President nominated by any political party recognized in this State under North Carolina General Statute § 163-96 or by any unaffiliated candidate for President of the United States who has qualified to have his name printed on the general election ballot under North Carolina General Statute § 163-122 must be filed with the Secretary of State. A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors of the party or unaffiliated candidate by which those candidates for elector were nominated and whose names have been filed with the Secretary of State.

The key is this part, "A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors..." This is the case for 48 states -- it's known as the "winner-take-all system." The other system, known as the "district system," is observed in both Maine and Nebraska. In these states, two electors' votes are made based on the candidate who received the most votes statewide. The remaining electoral votes go by congressional districts, awarding the vote to the candidate who received the most votes in each district.
Now, in regard to "winner-take-all" states, keep in mind what we said in the last section: Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal. Although if you do vote against your party, you'll most likely be simultaneously forfeiting your post as elector and you may even incur a hefty fine.

It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so, more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the popular vote or their party. These electors are called "faithless electors."
In response to these faithless electors' actions, several states have created laws to enforce an elector's pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example, the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless electors.

It's important to note, that although these states have created these laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.

Distribution of 2008 Electoral Votes
Alabama9
Alaska3
Arizona10
Arkansas6
California   55
Colorado   9
Connecticut   7
Delaware   3
D.C.   3
Florida   27
Georgia   15
Hawaii   4
Idaho   4
Illinois   21
Indiana   11
Iowa   7
Kansas   6
Kentucky   8
Louisiana   9
Maine   4
Maryland   10
Massachusetts   12
Michigan   17
Minnesota   10
Mississippi   6
Missouri   11
Montana   3
Nebraska   5
Nevada   5
New Hampshire   4
New Jersey   15
New Mexico   5
New York   31
North Carolina   15
North Dakota   3
Ohio   20
Oklahoma   7
Oregon   7
Pennsylvania   21
Rhode Island   4
South Carolina   8
South Dakota   3
Tennessee   11
Texas   34
Utah   5
Vermont   3
Virginia   13
Washington   11
West Virginia   5
Wisconsin   10
Wyoming   3

Under the electoral college system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population. These figures will most likely change after the 2010 Census.

In most presidential elections, a candidate who wins the popular vote will also receive the majority of the electoral votes, but this is not always the case. There have been four presidents who have won an election with fewer popular votes than their opponent but more electoral votes.

Here are the four elections when the candidate who led the popular vote did not win the office:

  • 1824: John Quincy Adams, the son of former President John Adams, received more than 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.
  • 1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had been just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado's three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.
  • 1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, some say the Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by preventing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country he lost by more than 300,000 votes.
  • In 2000, Al Gore received 50,992,335 votes nationwide and George W. Bush received 50,455,156 votes. After Bush was awarded the state of Florida, he had a total of 271 electoral votes, which beat Gore's 266 electoral votes.

Today, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 votes to win the election. In cases where no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the House of Representatives by virtue of the 12th Amendment. The House then selects the president by majority vote with each state delegation receiving one vote to cast for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

Here are the two elections that were decided by the House of Representatives:

  • 1801: Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, both Democrat-Republicans, received the same number of electoral votes, despite the fact that Burr was running as a vice presidential candidate, not for the presidency. Following 36 successive votes in the House, Jefferson was finally elected president.
  • 1825: As mentioned above, Andrew Jackson received a majority of the popular vote over John Quincy Adams, but neither man received a 131-vote majority of electoral votes needed at the time to claim the presidency. Adams won the House vote on the first ballot.


Proponents of the Electoral College say that the system served its purpose in the elections we talked about, despite the fact that the candidate who won the popular vote didn't always win the election. The Electoral College is a block, or weighed, voting system that is designed to give more power to the states with more votes, but allows for small states to swing an election, as happened in 1876. Under this system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population. So, while winning the popular vote may not ensure a candidate's victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win the votes in that state. The goal of any candidate is to put together the right combination of states that will give him or her 270 electoral votes.

In 2000, as the election approached, some observers thought that Bush, interestingly also the son of a former president, could win the popular vote, but that his opponent, Gore, could win the Electoral College vote because Gore was leading in certain big states, such as California, New York and Pennsylvania. In the end, Gore secured the popular vote, but Bush won by securing the majority of votes in the Electoral College.

TL;DR? Voting doesn't work. Ron Paul doesn't have a friend in the senate. He can't win even if every single American voted for him because what he advocates would put everyone controlling the country out of their powerful jobs.

I can't believe I'm the one having to take this side against someone like Atlas.

stevegee58
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 783



View Profile
February 29, 2012, 09:59:28 PM
 #5

I acknolwledge that my voting for Ron Paul is a Quixotic gesture.
I simply cannot bring myself to vote for any other candidate and must vote my conscience, no matter what.

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you


View Profile
February 29, 2012, 10:23:09 PM
 #6

He won't win the Republican nomination and I'm not sure he'll run as an independent.

But I fully intend to write his old ass in on election day if I have to.
Ron would not run as an independent even though he's said he'll be vacating all political offices he holds after this election. Running independently would damage his son's reputation with the GOP (though, he wasn't stopped from endorsing third-party candidates last cycle), who's looking like he'll be a political heavy-weight (to the extent of being a household name) in the future. Romney and Ron have been extremely friendly throughout this cycle. While Romney's been in competition with Santorum, Ron attacks Santorum exclusively and quite viciously. It's been talked about in supporters' circles as well as in MSM -- Ron was robbed if Rand isn't offered VP spot under Romney. OTOH, if he is offered VP spot, a lot of folks'll have some tough decisions to make about how principled they feel their vote needs to be.

Don't mix your coins someone said isn't legal
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
February 29, 2012, 11:26:57 PM
 #7

I'll likely be voting for him (first time not voting Democratic), but I believe Bitcoin makes governments irrelevant from a finance point of view. Plus Bitcoin is not just American, and doesn't really care what laws are passed where.

Jon
Donator
Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


No Gods; No Masters; Only You


View Profile
February 29, 2012, 11:50:09 PM
 #8

can we have a US forum to discuss stuff like this?
its kinda annoying having your local politics all over the forum again and again.

The US dollar is the world reserve currency. That's not local.

The Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right.
Jon
Donator
Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


No Gods; No Masters; Only You


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 12:00:25 AM
 #9

those elections are local.
The president can appoint whoever they want to the fed. That can affect the world. That can affect currency policy everywhere.

The Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 12:01:40 AM
 #10

those elections are local.

But if you want to screw with our elections, I think you can still donate to candidate's organisations for the ones one would never vote for  Grin

stevegee58
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 783



View Profile
March 01, 2012, 12:03:03 AM
 #11

can we have a US forum to discuss stuff like this?
its kinda annoying having your local politics all over the forum again and again.


Don't worry we'll all get over it in about 8 months.

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 12:05:45 AM
 #12

This is merely a signaling thread meant to make geeks feel good for supporting a candidate that protect/help bitcoin, but nothing was really accomplished.

Nothing to see here, move along.

viboracecata
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
March 01, 2012, 05:52:47 AM
 #13

Let's vote for Ron Paul.

mappum
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 79


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 06:00:08 AM
 #14

I'm voting for him Saturday in the Washington caucus, along with some friends that I brainwashed. He has a really good chance in my middle-of-nowhere precinct.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!