ADVERTISEMENT

Missouri Republicans held a caucus on Saturday to divvy up delegates headed for the Republican National Convention in August. If you’ll recall, Missouri held a non-binding primary back on February 7 which was won by Rick Santorum. Under the caucus rules, the results of delegate apportionment won’t be known until the Missouri GOP state convention in June.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report from The Ticket:

Rick Santorum’s campaign is looking to gain additional momentum against Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, but that won’t come in Missouri—at least not this weekend.

Yes, Missouri is set to begin holding its Republican caucuses on Saturday, but the full results won’t be announced until June.

Under the state’s somewhat arcane process, Republicans caucusgoers in the state will begin electing county delegates on Saturday. Those delegates will then proceed to a congressional district caucus set for April 21, where, according to rules laid out by the Missouri Republican Party, roughly half of the state’s 52 presidential delegates will be selected. The other half will be determined at the state Republican convention scheduled for June 2.

Santorum easily won the state’s Republican primary on Feb. 7, defeating Romney 52 percent to 23 percent. Ron Paul placed third with 12 percent, while Newt Gingrich did not qualify for the ballot. But those results were non-binding. Since then, Santorum and his rivals have been competing hard to win support at the caucuses, in spite of the fact that no clear winner will emerge until the national primary campaign is nearly over.

Still, there’s a chance the preliminary results in April could have some effect on the race—especially if it continues to be a debate about delegate math, a narrative Romney’s campaign has been pushing hard in recent days.

With 52 delegate at stake in Missouri, this will be a looming question over the next couple months depending on how tight the race continues to be.

27 COMMENTS

  1. Sounds like those people who set up the process were the same welfare to work people that set up the IRS code.

  2. The caucuses are only a few people in comparison to the nearly 250,000 people that voted in the primary. In order to properly reflect Missouri communities, the delegates should be given to the candidates based on the primary. I understand the primary was non-binding but each caucus had the right to make it binding AND since no straw count was permitted at the caucus, there is no other way to determine how to allocate the delegates. For the first ballot, our township voted to give all of our delegates to the winner of the state which was Santorum; however, other townships may have decided to proportionately assign delegates. What St. Charles was doing was totally against the rules. People had to declare who they were representing when they signed in so the delegates could be assigned proportionately based on who attended the caucus? No wonder it turned into a fiasco.

    • I don’t really like the primary voting process. I really like the non-binding caucus because it attracts true patriots who care and sacrifice for their beliefs. A one day primary vote attracts passive, uneducated participants who run at the thought of sacrifice. A popular vote is pure democracy (tyranny of the majority – very dangerous). I prefer a Republic where each person’s influence is proportional to the extent they give of themselves.

    • I’m from Missouri (Ray county, though I now live abroad), and this isn’t how any of my friends saw it. Lots of people didn’t vote in the primary because they knew it was non-binding. I think you should go on Youtube and watch the videos of what happened in St. Charles. It wasn’t the (perfectly legal and appropriate) effort to select delegates through the caucus process that made it a fiasco, it was the temporary chairman’s decisions to (a) ban recordings of the caucus and (b) refuse to let the caucus-goers elect any chairman except the man he picked.

      I don’t care what you think of caucuses vs. primaries; if you DO have a caucus, then everyone should agree that the people at the caucus get to choose the chairman and decide how they will allocate delegates. You’re free to make the case that they should follow the primary vote, but what happened in St. Charles wasn’t making any case, it was blatant contempt for the right of caucusers to decide the results of the caucus.

    • Nope, I was VERY happy Santorum received all of our delegates. He is the one I support 100%. I make calls for him and have donated twice to his campaign and have been able to convince undecided voters that Santorum is the candidate we need.

      • Lins, I’d rather have a candidate with values. I measure values by what somebody does, not what they say.

        • MikeP, Totally agree; that’s why I am backing Santorum. Romney reminds me of Obama in 2008. Lots of talk but actions speak louder than words. Secondly, Romney can’t stand on his record which is why he has to run so many negative ads and constantly calling people on the phone slamming Santorum. If he had what people wanted, he would’nt be forced to use the slanderous and lying ads that he does. Shoot, Romney has even been caught in stating something to the media that he’s in favor of but turns around and slams Santorum for the same thing. What a sham. Terrible campaign. He’s so negative he, unfortunately, is turning a lot of people off from the GOP involvement. So, guess that’s another way he can win. Drive down participation in the process so he has a better chance of pulling more delegates.

          • I have personal values, but my prime directive value (and that of the constitution) is that I should not force my values on those who do not consent. Santorum has many, many values, but he wants to dictate behavior of non-consenting people and force them to live his values. Don’t not accept that the possession of values is a good thing unless that person knows how to respect opposing values.

          • The primaries are a waste of time. No Republican candidate can get 50% of the Republican vote and has no chance of beating Obama. Not to mention so many who voted for Obama and lied stating they did not will do the same in Nov…

  3. Re the St. Charles County Caucus debacle:
    The caucus system works but requires responsible participation and some homework to learn the legal procedures…. The easy job is to be the cynic after the fact…..I have been to a few of these caucus’ and have never seen one handled so incompetently….…….The disruption was organized (oxymoron) by disruptive people to either allow only one block of delegates (Paul) or no delegates….The latter is the result…..(The Central Committee should have been prepared for the Community Organizers…..We’ve seen them in action before; only then they were wearing their Service Employee International Union t-shirts. I had a mild debate with a “Romney” badge and another with a “Paul” badge…..The Romney debate was friendly and common-grounded but the Paul guy was contentious, more like an “Occupier” mentality……..The “Proposed Rules” passed out before the caucus by the Paul badges, were exact copies of the ones I heard of in southern Missouri and other caucuses…….The proposed rules would have established a “winner-take- all” baseline which would have required a fixed slate of 274 names……No nominations for smaller slates or individual nominations would have been allowed…….One rule inserted by the Pauler proposal was the one that contradicted the baseline rule about no recording devices……The confrontation was then initiated by at least two Paulers over whether they could keep their tri-pods and camera set-ups contrary to posted rules…(Like it or not, those were the posted rules and we either obey them or get them changed before the fact by participation in Republican Central Committee business…) Unfortunately, the temporary chairman took the bait and became part of the problem with his own measure of belligerence……At that point it was effectively over……The Chair’s attempt to proceed with the caucus business was disrupted by the Paul Community Organizers types (By the way, not all the folks wearing Paul buttons participated in the anarchy….Some were as disgusted as we were)….They truly behaved embarrassingly like “occupiers”…..After Law Enforcement ordered the building cleared, the Paul badges were overjoyed, gleefully high-fiving and throwing thumbs-up to each other……In the short term, this absolutely calls for a consolidation of Santorum/Gingrich sympathies…….We have probably lost our St. Charles Country voice at the district and State levels but we can still volunteer for duty at the National Convention in Tampa…

    • You have a lot to say about the Paul supporters, but can you explain what is the reason for the “baseline rule” against recording a public process that is part of how we select the next president? Why on earth shouldn’t it be recorded? And why aren’t the people who attend the caucus entitled to make that decision for themselves? Does posting a rule render it wise or even valid? You show a lot of respect for rules set in advance by party leaders–but the entire point of a lot of us Paul supporters is that the party leadership has different interests than the voters who come to the caucus. In the final analysis, these questions–who should be chairman, whether it should be videotaped, who will be the delegates–are to be decided by the people at the caucus, not by some self-appointed VIPs. Really, the chutzpa to ban recording of a public event on public property that will help elect our next president, and to enforce that ban against the clear will of a vast majority of caucusers, is by far the most nakedly embarrassing thing about this whole fiasco.

      Speaking of embarrassing behaviors, here’s another one: disregarding the rules of order to impose a chairman, a slate of officials, and a list of delegates against the will of the majority of people who came to the caucus, as was attempted in St. Charles and, in fact, carried out in some other counties. You note that Paul supporters were circulating a proposed set of rules. Tell me: did they try to make everyone follow their rules without a vote? Because that’s what the Santorum people did. They ought to be monumentally ashamed of themselves for depriving fellow-citizens of their rights.

      Disruptive behavior is far from the most embarrassing thing here, you see. Some things should be disrupted, and this was one of them.

      The pivotal question is this: who wanted a fair vote, and who didn’t? In every fiasco from Maine to Missouri, it’s the Paul people who want caucusers to vote, and the establishment pols who want central committees to decide everything behind closed doors. Which is more American? Which is more embarrassing?

  4. Why is this dumb caucus procedure even used anymore? Plus Missouri gets to vote TWICE?? This is unfair. Caucuses everywhere should be replaced with a primary so everyone can go to vote and have their vote counted fairly and only ONCE.

    • First off, I do agree with you about the primaries versus caucuses thing. It seems to be against the ideals of the United States that only the people considered a bit more elite within the political party of the state have the opportunity to vote; it (to me) is similar to having the state legislatures elect senators. Secondly, although Missouri did vote twice, there were not any delegates assigned for the primary. Because of this, it was basically a very expensive opinion poll. It shouldn’t have happened, and was a waste of time, but was not unfair to other people.

      • I don’t really like the primary voting process. I really like the non-binding caucus because it attracts true patriots who care and sacrifice for their beliefs. A one day primary vote attracts passive, uneducated participants who run at the thought of sacrifice. A popular vote is pure democracy (tyranny of the majority – very dangerous). I prefer a Republic (which is what the US is) where each person’s influence is proportional to the extent they give of themselves.

        • There is no “education” requirement to vote. And just because YOU think they are uneducated doesn’t mean they are. Secondly. If it was a pure democracy there wouldn’t be any election. People would just convene together with no representatives to vote directly on policy.

          • Ask yourself what percentage of the US population actually seeks out unbiased knowledge about all the candidates. And how many double and triple check that info? Most are given info as they are passively browsing the TV or newspaper. They are not acting for themselves but being acted upon. They are essentially slaves of the opinions of others with no motivation or thought to confirm the validity of what they have been given. They may even have much knowledge on issues (rare) but they have no original thoughts when asked to give their own personal opinion on any question. That is what I mean by uneducated, or better yet, I should call them unmotivated or small/narrow thinking people. And sadly polls do show that this is true.

  5. The U.S. is a federal republic. Missouri is a republic, too. Neither is a democracy. For this reason among others, Missouri’s caucus system is an excellent one. More states should emulate Missouri.

    Some of you will wonder what I am talking about. You have heard it called out before: “She’s not a democracy. She’s a republic!” It may seem a distinction without a difference, to you.

    But there is a great difference between American democracy and a American republic, as explained in the Federalist Papers, particularly No. 10.

    In a democracy, the focus is on the will of the people, for good or for evil. In a republic, the focus is on public order and the general welfare. In a republic, the vain, all-consuming “will of the people” gives way to the milder, humbler, far less pretentious “consent of the governed.”

    No, I think that a republic is what we want. Undemocratic Missouri is on the right track.

    • We don’t need a Republic to vote for a Republic. A direct vote from the people to their representatives is sufficient. We don’t need representatives voting for representatives–too redundant. A democracy is where there are NO representatives PERIOD. The people directly vote for policy.

      “Also, In a democracy, the focus is on the will of the people, for good or for evil. In a republic, the focus is on public order and the general welfare. In a republic, the vain, all-consuming “will of the people” gives way to the milder, humbler, far less pretentious “consent of the governed.”” — What your saying is that representatives can ignore the people and make policy on what THEY THINK is public order and general welfare. With that type of thinking we might as well go back to having a King.

      • Logic might suggest that the reason “The Founders” deemed it necessary for representatives to exist in the form of politicians is because there was no way for the public to effectively communicate its needs and interest at the time the constitution was drafted. There was barely transportation in that era. Perhaps for the wealthy but certainly not for the vast majority.

        Obviously this is no longer the case, we are more than capable of directly issuing our will as a people via the internet or any other from of communication. Gov’t and the people need this overhaul to more accurately reflect democracy.

        • Huh? It was just as simple then to have a vote in every town / meeting house as it would be today ! That is not a sound argument for replacing a republic with a democracy. Every week after the sermon, or a little before the bar opens would be a good time to read the proposals, discuss, vote, then accept proposals for a later vote. This would take a lot more time on a personal level and exclude anyone short on leisure time. The republican form is not outdated – rather, it has survived the earlier flawed and unfair forms.

  6. I was at a caucus in South St. Louis County. It lasted 4 hours and was noisy and contested. The Santorum faction is the leading faction, Romney is second, Paul was a distant third, and Newt.. he had 3 supporters out of about 100 people.

    Paul supporters are ZEALOUS but few in numbers. The debate over the slates was telling; the Unity Slate made of Santorum/Romney supporters had everyone present,14 of fourteen Delegates.
    The Aternates had only 11 present of 14; They arrived AFTER the 10AM closing time for registration.

    The Paul Delegates and Alternate: they had only 6 delegates of 14 present at the meeting; and 3 of the Alternates present. When asked about their whereabouts,… they were at other Caucuses.

    ALso they fought bitterly with the Roberts Rules of ORder.

  7. Another Media Perfidy perpetrated against Ron Paul:

    The 2012 Ron Paul on Jay Leno video that went viral a few days ago, is now SHUT DOWN…for obvious reasons!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga4cu7LAMl8

    Big Brother is watching over your well-being….

    Yet this video is still here — ‘Illegal Everything’ by Fox News (no funny business CLAIMING “Copyrights Grounds” as NBC did in BLOCKING the Ron Paul on Jay Leno Show 2012 video)!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ

    Some are more equal than others….

Comments are closed.