Texas  Congressman Dr. Ron Paul failed to win any state caucuses or primaries,  garnering no more than 10% of the party vote on average. Yet Paul's  supporters did manage to take over state party committees in a small  number of states. Paul failed to have anywhere close enough the number  of delegates to get the Republican presidential nomination at the  Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida the last week of  August.

But  Paul's supporters refuse to give up putting their candidate in the  White House come January. A number of Paul supporters were elected or  appointed to be electors, those delegates who will cast their state's  votes in the Electoral College in December to select who will be  President of the United States. Some of these electors are stating that  they will buck tradition which calls on the electors to cast their  ballots for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state.  Instead, some of these electors are stating that should Republican  nominee Mitt Romney win their state, they will not cast a vote for him,  but rather will cast a vote for Paul.

In  much the same way where Paul's supporters took over state party  committees even though Paul was clearly rejected by voters, Paul's  supporters/electors will now attempt to do the same in the Electoral  College. One of Paul's electors in Iowa has now resigned rather than  face being required to vote for Romney than be allowed to vote for Paul  if Romney manages an upseat and takes Iowa from President Barack Obama.

You do have to hand it to Paul's supporters. They are tenacious and loyal to the bitter end.

But  are Paul's supporters/electors doing a disservice to the people in  their state if the majority of voters have said they want Romney for  president and not Obama?

Do  Paul's supporters care, does it matter, if by throwing away their vote  for a candidate who has no chance in becoming president they are in  essence giving the election and the White House to the candidate of the  opposition, Obama?

Would  it not better serve these members of the Liberty Movement to follow the  dictates of their state's voters which will place them in a better  light for the 2016 or 2020 presidential campaigns?

I  fail to see this apparent "Charge of the Light Brigade" mentality  having any worth or produce any gain in the long-term political canvass.

Do  Paul supporters not see how this will undermine their standing in  future political races if they ignore the will of the voters?

Granted  a couple have said they will only cast a vote for Paul if it will not  affect the outcome of the election, but some are vowing no matter what  the result their vote will be for Paul.

Why?

Can someone explain the rationale, the logic of such a vote?

From  the Cornfield, I do believe that while electors are allowed to vote  their consciences, in most states, electors must also be cognizant of  the will of the people. In this case, whether the state is won by Obama  or by Romney, I do believe that all electors should cast a ballot  reflective of the popular vote in that state.

I  do believe even if a state should actually be won by Libertarian Gary  Johnson or Constitutionalist Virgil Goode or any of the other 3rd party  candidates, that those state's electors should reflect that state's  popular vote.

http://denverpost.com/politics/ci_21532272/3-electoral-college-members-may-pass-gop-ticket

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-elector-wont-vote-romney-resigns-074113894--election.html