Posted on 01/27/2020 11:50:55 AM PST by Kaslin
The whole system needs to be tossed out. It’s ludicrous this Iowa-NH thing.
Implicit in Hesh’s ‘critique’ is Iowa’s in-person caucus system, which eliminates NYT/Soros/Socialist aims of destroying caucus for primaries, and also destroying the ‘in-person’ nature of voting.
“ I’m devising a system I’d like to see used for the GOP nomination, national caucuses with a state by state point system based on how many Republican votes the state cast in the last election (mimicking the electoral college), runoff if no one gets a majority.
I predict without change eventually every state will try to move to Super Tuesday and create a defacto national primary.
If you insist on staggering the primaries they has to be a better way to do it.”
Well thought out. Sensible. Refined.
The problem with a National Primary Day, even if each state allocated delegates individually, would be that the candidate with the highest name-ID would tend to win and candidates wouldn’t be able to build support organically. We can complain all we want about IA and NH, but the fact that they go first and second with nothing else on those days, and they are relatively small states, permit candidates to make their case directly to the voters.
Of course, there is nothing magical about IA and NH that couldn’t be replicated elsewhere if two other states went first and second a week apart. (Well, it couldn’t be replicated in CA or probably TX because of their size.) So I would not be opposed to having the first two (heck, the first four) states rotate, with a week off between 1, 2, 3 and 4.
While I like your idea of basing the number of GOP delegates on the number of GOP presidential voters per state—the current system kinda sorta tries to do something similar—I think that the states that go first (rotating) should be the ones that are the most competitive in presidential elections. There are two reasons for this. First, both parties should vote on the same day, not only because primaries cost the state time and money, but also because it reduces the number of people who invade another party’s primary. And second, we want to nominate a presidential candidate that can win the electoral college, so I am more interested in how popular he is in FL, OH, WI, etc. than in how much he can run up the score in more heavily GOP states such as WY or TN. By having battleground/swing states going first, it would work for both parties.
BTW, looking at the past two presidential elections, if I had to choose the key states that should go early in the process based on their competitiveness, both IA and NH would be in the top 15, along with FL, OH, WI, MN, MI, PA, NC, AZ, NV, GA, ME, CO and VA. IA swung from Obama to Trump, and NH was within the margin of fraud.
Agricultural products are traded in a global market. Imported Argentinian beef, Canadian grain and Ukrainian corn is just as good as the subsidized US grown product. Get over it. Farmers are not that important but politicians kowtow to them.
So, on balance, it is a good system.
There is already a delegate allocation formula to favor states which support the party's nominee consistently.
I think that ship has pretty much sailed. Trump had 100% name ID. Most likely rat nominees are Biden, Sanders, and at this point Bloomberg. In the digital age I don't know how much camping out in IHOPs in NH means anymore. Trump only did big rallys. If Bloomberg's strategy works it will blow the whole thing up.
But let's assume that's true, and that it's to our benefit to have such an 'organic' nominee rather than someone with high name ID prior to running.
I'm still not sure that outweighs people in the later voting states getting no real say on the nominee. Texas had no say in 2012 cause Romney put it away already (with less than 50% of the vote).
In any case the disorder of the current system bothers me, scattered dates, different rules in different states. Some states winner take all even with a tiny plurality. Pennsylvania with it's beauty contest and directly elected delegates some of which were unpledged. The rats actually do it better having it all be proportional.
Anyways my thought was, rather than a primary, to do a caucus run by the party, charge a buck or something to participate, that should help pay for it and also reduce democrat interference.
If a candidate cleared 50% (or 40% with a lead of at least 10%) they would get all the points from that state, if not it would split between the top few candidates.
This would end the relevance of convention delegates in choosing the nominee.
Directly basing it on the GOP vote would also encourage those state GOP's to turn out their vote. I know the current formula as you said "sorta" does something like that, I prefer doing things to sorta doing them. ;-D
Going off the last election, Texas would have the most points for 2020 (roughly 7.4% of the GOP vote was from Texas so if we had 1000 total points it would get 74), then Florida and then Cali, PA, OH, NY. Due to the tiny number of GOP votes DC would vote with Maryland. I excluded territories since they don't vote in the general but Puerto Rico could be worked in.
Top two in points go to a runoff, unless someone gets a majority in the first round.
Some kind of national qualification process for who makes the ballot, I'm not sure if Weld or Walsh would clear it ;-).
Anyway, just an idea.
You make some good points about wanting a nominee that plays well in competitive states.
Said by someone who knows the v alue of a Victory garden.
Yes Republicans don’t care if we import every durable good and run $850/yr trade deficits but God forbid we treat agriculture the same way. HYPOCRITES....
Ping for later
State’s rights. no national primary ever.
Populist events are the only way to get conservative populist candidates. No conservative movement will ever dominate the country without an active grassroots.
I like the model that Maine Republicans used: caucuses held daily over a few week period. Delegates elected at same. All are officially uncommitted. You have to survey the 3000 delegates to find out who is winning.
Could work to break the 2-state monopoly.
Michigan did something similar in ‘88.
Continued ...
Michigan 1988
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/03/us/gop-taking-first-step-toward-88-in-michigan.html
https://apnews.com/5f3f9bce2dacacb4fc6be5ffd9f42a6a
There was also Lousiana 1996.
And on Dem side: Maine and Wis straw poll conventions
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-02-07-mn-33299-story.html
Louisiana caucuses 1996
Cranston beats Mondale, 1983 Wisconsin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1983/06/13/fair-weather-voters-abandoned-mondale-in-wisconsins-straw-poll/83c5be65-a402-4145-8585-0c8cf6110c02/
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.