Posted by Rojas @ 7:30 pm on February 15th 2012

Ron Paul and the Maine Caucus

Okay…as we’ve noted here during the previous election cycle, there’s a certain class of dingbat who will assert vote fraud whenever he/she doesn’t get the result he/she wants, and there’s a disconcerting clustering of said dingbats among Paulites. This led to some frankly embarrassing claims about electoral shenanigans in 2008, to the point at which we’ve more or less stopped paying attention to them.

There have, however, been some very disconcerting reports surfacing about the behavior of the state Republican party in Maine during their caucuses last weekend…those being the caucuses that prevented Mitt Romney from blowing his fourth state in a row. Note that I am not referring to the “controversy” over the failure to let Washington County vote, but to much broader and more substantive claims. This report by a Cincinnati TV station provides a summary.

Just because kooks make unwarranted claims about voter fraud doesn’t mean that it never happens. At minimum the Maine GOP ought to be embarrassed about the lack of transparency and professionalism in their vote-counting process. It seems unlikely that we will ever have any idea who won there.


  1. I’d like to comment, not on the allegations of voter fraud, but on the quality of writing in the linked article.

    “Maine, is not a major state during national primaries.”
    “It is enough to make you question, was the caucus fixed?”
    “The only problem, the governor was declared the winner with only 84 percent of precincts counted.”
    “Turns out, the area only got a light dusting.”
    “The big problem here, Mr. Webster says even when those caucuses are held this Saturday, the votes won’t count”

    Good God. There are sixteen sentences in the article. Of those sixteen, there are at least five (quoted above) with serious problem.

    Comment by Talarohk — 2/16/2012 @ 12:57 am

  2. Yeah…it’s a write-up by the net person for a local TV station, so we’re not dealing with the highest standards there. I think you’ll find the news report itself posted in the link to be both more professional and persuasive.

    I will confess that upon first encountering the link, the somewhat shoddy writing had me retracing web pages to make sure it wasn’t a constructed fake news page by random Paulites. It checks out, though, as a legit news report by a network TV affiliate in a major city.

    I find the report itself to be a reasonably high-quality piece of investigative journalism, given the obvious difficulties involved, and I think the claims investigated merit further attention, perhaps by sources with a larger readership.

    Comment by Rojas — 2/16/2012 @ 1:09 am

  3. The great comma glut of ’12. I have that problem myself.

    Comment by Jack — 2/16/2012 @ 10:50 am

  4. Okay, watched the report. If that evidence is fairly presented, it’s pretty damning. I hope they make a big stink about it.

    Comment by Talarohk — 2/16/2012 @ 11:39 am

  5. One of the reasons I’ve never fallen into the trap of a lot of horserace junkies, in which they secretly salivate, seemingly every cycle, about the possibility of a brokered convention, is I don’t think people understand just how malleable the party primary process is. These results are not votes, in the beans-in-a-jar sense – they are delegates, and delegates are not technically bound to any candidate. And, finally, primary voters are not, strictly speaking, participating in an election, subject to the same laws as a general election. Better to understand primary results as, in essence, straw polls. At the end of the day, it is really up to the party superstructure, not the voters.

    Comment by Brad — 2/18/2012 @ 4:25 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.