A lot of these opinions annoy me, but this one is the worst. Let's go:
First: Idiots voting is a terrible way to decide anything. In a final-choice election to fill a Federal or state office, especially with two and only two candidates running, I suppose it's at least as good as divine appointment or something else. But to NOMINATE one of many, with the BASIS that this is the strongest one, and the GOAL of winning that later, idiots voting contest? Absurd.
Second: Therefore, in a perfect world, I would do away with primaries. They are a novelty, historically, and they have not served us well. Since I can't do that, I would: ELIMINATE (or not allow the results of) "open" primaries. They can do nothing but harm. RESTRICT voting in a GOP primary to REAL (as opposed to enrolled) Republicans. A real Republican is someone who is active in campaigns, who signs or otherwise acknowledges the platform, or who has donated to the party in the last two election cycles. At a MINIMUM, require party registration for the last four years, consecutively.
Third: Require 2/3 of elected delegates, and 2/3 of appointed delegates (Governors, Senators, and Representatives, State or Federal) to concur in a nominee. The role of the "House of Elected Officials" is to bring the experience of winners into the process.
Your assertion that Romney (who I love, and for whom I am very sad about the bum rap he is about to get) "won" anything decisively is absurd. More than 3/5 of voters in contested primaries, all across the fruited plain, wanted someone else. THIS IS A BAD SIGN FOR THE FALL. Even if Romney had WON, rather than LOST, 60-75% of primary voters, IF THE ANTI-ROMNEY VOTERS COULD NOT BE RECONCILED, THEN HE WAS A POOR CHOICE. It appears that this is exactly what happened.
In summary, the GOP nomination process needs less "democracy", not more (I don't give two sh*ts what the Democrats do), and it MUSTMUSTMUST make it impossible for a plurality (another word for minority) to choose the nominee.
Of course you couldn't make your point without hurling insults, but OK.
First: Idiots voting is a terrible way to decide anything. In a final-choice election to fill a Federal or state office, especially with two and only two candidates running, I suppose it's at least as good as divine appointment or something else. But to NOMINATE one of many, with the BASIS that this is the strongest one, and the GOAL of winning that later, idiots voting contest? Absurd.
Was it the "idiots" fault that Bachmann, who was winning, gaffed herself out of the race? Or that Cain, who was winning later, either couldn't control himself if the accusations were true or caved under false and easily refuted accusations otherwise? Or that Newt had a woman problem? Or that Freepers so readily attacked each other's Conservative choices that when it was finally over, Romney was the only one left?
And how do you propose to Constitutionally prevent "idiots" from voting?
Second: Therefore, in a perfect world, I would do away with primaries. They are a novelty, historically, and they have not served us well. Since I can't do that, I would: ELIMINATE (or not allow the results of) "open" primaries. They can do nothing but harm. RESTRICT voting in a GOP primary to REAL (as opposed to enrolled) Republicans. A real Republican is someone who is active in campaigns, who signs or otherwise acknowledges the platform, or who has donated to the party in the last two election cycles. At a MINIMUM, require party registration for the last four years, consecutively.
I actually agree with some of that.
Third: Require 2/3 of elected delegates, and 2/3 of appointed delegates (Governors, Senators, and Representatives, State or Federal) to concur in a nominee. The role of the "House of Elected Officials" is to bring the experience of winners into the process.
That might be a good idea, but remember that those making the appointment will have been elected by the same "idiots" you lamented above.
Your assertion that Romney (who I love, and for whom I am very sad about the bum rap he is about to get) "won" anything decisively is absurd. More than 3/5 of voters in contested primaries, all across the fruited plain, wanted someone else.
Talk about polishing a turd. "Someone else" got 3/5 according to your figures. Divide that up among how many candidates, and they were all beaten decisively.
Also remember that when it finally came down to Romney and Newt, Romney still won handily.
THIS IS A BAD SIGN FOR THE FALL. Even if Romney had WON, rather than LOST, 60-75% of primary voters, IF THE ANTI-ROMNEY VOTERS COULD NOT BE RECONCILED, THEN HE WAS A POOR CHOICE. It appears that this is exactly what happened.
And what is you solution? "In summary, the GOP nomination process needs less "democracy", not more (I don't give two sh*ts what the Democrats do), and it MUSTMUSTMUST make it impossible for a plurality (another word for minority) to choose the nominee."? How do they go about doing that? I like you idea of getting "2/3 of appointed delegates to concur in a nominee", but how would that have resulted in a nominee other than Romney?
Romney won the primary. He wasn't my choice, but when it was over, he was who we had to go with.
Another idiotic tool is how delegates are allocated by state. They put about 3/4th of the emphasis on population and 1/4th of the emphasis on the actual ability of the state to deliver electoral votes to the GOP candidate in the fall.
That formula needs to be reversed. There is no way California, who hasn't voted for the GOP presidential candidate since 1988 and probably never will do so again in my lifetime, should get more delegates that Texas who has delivered ever election since 1980.
There are roughly 4.5 times as many convention delegates as electoral votes. Each state should start out with their base number of electoral votes for delegates. Triple weight should be given to their actual ability and past history in delivering electoral votes. Then bonus delegates for things like U.S. senators, congressmen, governors and houses of the state legislature which they control.