Posted on 07/19/2013 7:25:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You can get agreement from almost all points on the political spectrum that the worst aspect of our political system is the presidential nomination process. It is perhaps no coincidence that it is the one part of the system not treated in the Constitution.
That’s because the Founding Fathers abhorred political parties and hoped that presidents would be selected by something like an elite consensus. But we have political parties, the oldest and third-oldest in the world, and they are not going away.
Surely a better system is possible. The current system of primaries, caucuses, and national conventions is the result of reforms initiated by Democrats in the late 1960s and constantly fiddled with, mostly, but not entirely, by Democrats, ever since.
The resulting system is replete with oddities. Nothing in the Constitution says that Iowa and New Hampshire vote first, but they do. Any politician thinking of ever running for president wouldn’t dare suggest otherwise.
Then suddenly a raft of states vote all at once. All of this means that candidates have to spend two years campaigning and raising prodigious amounts of money. No other democracy chooses its chief executive in a manner anything like our system.
That rules out many potentially serious candidates who currently hold important government jobs or who lack an appetite for permanent campaigning.
This is all the more infuriating because “today’s mess,” as Jeffrey H. Anderson and Jay Cost write in the summer issue of National Affairs, “is the product of accident and afterthought.”
And one that is particularly troublesome for Republicans, which bothers Anderson, director of the conservative 2017 Project, and Cost, a writer for The Weekly Standard.
It doesn’t “reflect the interests and values of the nationwide Republican electorate,” they say, but gives too much influence to elite donors, the media, the early-voting states, professional campaign consultants, and independent voters.
Tinkering around the edges, as party commissions, conventions, and state legislatures have been doing for 40 years, won’t help. Instead, Anderson and Cost say the answer is to “revitalize the local and state party organizations.”
I agree with pretty much their entire diagnosis. The current system ill serves both parties, but especially the Republicans.
But I’m not sure it’s possible to pump new life into what they admit are now moribund organizations. They agree that local parties are “no longer a locus of political power or influence” and blame the Democratic reforms starting in the 1960s.
I would argue that local and state parties were already on life support, which is why they were so easily brushed aside.
Still, their proposal is interesting and merits scrutiny. It is based on the conventions that, pursuant to the Constitution, ratified that document.
In the week of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, some 3,000 delegates selected by local parties and 300 designated Republican officeholders would meet in a national nominating convention and would nominate five finalist candidates. These candidates would debate six times (no mainstream media moderators, please).
There would be a series of regional direct-ballot elections, with the winner required to get 50 percent of the votes and to win by a 10 percent margin. Otherwise, there would be a runoff between the top two finishers.
The nominee would be determined by the end of April and could choose a VP candidate for formal acceptance in a summertime “made-for-TV convention.” There are more details, but you get the idea.
There are some practical problems here. The Republican National Committee can change its nominating rules, but in many states the nominating process is controlled by state law, and Republicans don’t control every legislature.
The courts have generally let parties set their own rules, but someone must pay for the nominating conventions and the regional elections.
“The new system would reinvigorate local and state party organizations,” Anderson and Cost argue. It would certainly give conscientious Republicans an incentive to participate in local parties, which currently attract only political junkies.
But another possibility is that it will just give presidential candidates an incentive to pack local parties, starting long before the week of Lincoln’s birthday. Ron Paul enthusiasts have already been doing this.
That might require scads of money, which means the influence of elite fundraisers would not be reduced.
Anderson and Cost make strong arguments that it would be “more efficient, more cost-effective, more deliberative, more consensus-based, more republican, and more conducive to victory” than the current system. Let’s think about it.
— Michael Barone, senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor, and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
“Both parties”
As if the ‘Rats and RINOs aren’t just two wings of same The Party of Government.
Screw the parties, it serves the American people poorly.
I would make five suggestions:
1. Allow two primary dates (one for mid-March and one for mid-April) for the states. This enormous power held by Iowa is silly for the whole voting process.
2. Limit the primary candidates to three total debates, all in February. This idea of fifteen-odd debates is stupid and doesn’t really change much of anything except giving the media time to pin down one guy for a stupid comment.
3. Arrange for the party convention to occur over a three-day weekend. The idea of making this fascinating and interesting for five days? It just doesn’t happen any more.
4. Forbid any political commentary on the evening of any primary vote. Other than reporting the results....just leave at that, and don’t get into a blame or dumping session.
5. If you ran in the Republican or Democratic primary, and lost....don’t allow the idiot to suddenly get the third-party idea and run later. Either you are a true third-party guy and announce this months ahead of time, or you are some bogus pretender candidate to harm the Republican or Democratic contender.
I thought the media were in charge of nominations???
Go Sarah!!!
We will never get a decent candidate as long as New Hampshire has the first primary.
In my opinion, only about 25% of the delegates should be allocated based on population or electoral votes.
The remaining 75% should be based on, mainly, past history of delivering electoral votes in November with some consideration to giving extra delegates for U.S. Senators, members of the House, makeup of state legislatures and governors and, possibly, the closeness of past elections.
States which have voted lopsidedly for the RAT party in past elections but have also been close, would get extra electoral votes if they managed to enact a congressional district voting system as is done in Maine and Nebraska.
IOW, if the GOP would become as obsessed with allocating delegates to states based on their actual ability to deliver electoral votes in November as the Democrats are in allocating delegate slots to favored minorities and sexual deviants, then we would see more competitive and meaningful national elections.
The Real Republican States, and you know which ones they are. Should Band together and vote the Day after the first Pointless (and liberal) states. Than way New Hamp and Iowa don’t have to change there vote date, but still be quite meaningless.
3 debates in May. National Primary in June. Election in November.
Ballots go out to all military on July 1.
All absentee ballots go out July 1.
This gives everyone time to weed out fraud and to make sure Ll ballts get counted.
For the military, election should be easy if they want to do it online. Use the CAC card as identification.
Texas should be the first GOP primary, we are the only big state that goes Republican, and we’ve had no say in the GOP nominee. No way Romney would be the nominee if Texas had a say in it.
No nominations more than 60 days before the election.
Great suggestions. I’d add that early voting be confined to a couple of days in all elections.
I want to change to Independent but there are big problems with not having a say in the primaries. Primarily (get it?) anyway, primarily that the Dems are a solid voting bloc and the GOP is splintered enough without picking an even worse candidate (if possible).
The civil service unions basically run the government. They can make politicians look good or bad. They can leak or they can cover up, depending on the situation. They are the true third rail.
The big dollars, the political consultants, the political parties have kinked the system so that only a select few insiders decide who can win.
The voters are divided into two equal groups, the self sufficient and the dependent. The self sufficient want good government, and the dependent want generous government. The dependent voters are presently in control.
I strongly favor the electoral college. What I dislike is how some smaller states jump waaaaayyyy out early and the media then takes these small samples to knock out most of the contenders before they have a chance to build an audience.
I’d prefer that no primaries or caucuses be held until April and that there be forums that allow all candidates a chance to make their case to the public. 5-10 minute speeches for each one which much touch upon economic and foreign policy issues but are otherwise free to be about whatever the candidate chooses.
Given Obama’s progress in destroying our country, the RATS are probably very happy with the way things are.
Both parties serve themselves and not one thing else.
Whichever state had the highest R turnout as a % of registered in the last primary gets to hold their primary first, the second second, and so forth.
I suggested that as well.
I believe a third party will happen when the Texas GOP withdraws from the National GOP, I suspect other states would soon follow and join the new party.
Precisely! The parties have structured it just like they want it. It is for the benefit of the party elites, not the citizens or the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.