Romney Camp Removing Rules Committee Members

I just got off the phone with a concerned Florida activist, Laura Noble, who informed me that both of Florida's Rules Committee members, Peter Feaman and Kathleen King, have been removed from the Rules committee and replaced with Romney-appointed delegates.

Clearly anticipating a grassroots backlash against the "compromise" on Rule 15 and the changes on Rule 12 has caused the Romney camp to preemptively replace delegates to ensure they have support on the Rules Committee.

It's enough to make your blood boil. Please call your state's Rules Committee delegates here and ask that they oppose the "compromise" on Rule 15, oppose the changes to Rule 12, and support the full Minority Reports on the Rules.

UPDATE: Delegations we should be focusing on include the following states: North Carolina, Oregon, Indiana, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The problem with the proposed changes is simple ~ they replace the diffuse representation system so typical of American politics and business with Democratic Centrism, a system more appropriate to a Politboro in a Communist state.

That's where that business was invented.

An alternative that can look rather like Democratic Centrism is called Party List Voting. There your party is organized in such a way that NO ONE votes for a particular representative. They vote FOR A PARTY, and then the party picks the winners according to its proportion of the total vote.

So, say, have you thought of emigrating to Denmark or Israel?

Or simply votes in Communism ~ which is what was asked for by Boehner yesterday when those amendments to the rules came up.

So, you can vote for Obama, and he's a commie, or you can vote for this other guy, and he looks like he has given his blessing to communism.

What is the next reasonable step for us to take? Is it more important to have freedom or just stand there and take a beating?

The problem with the proposed changes is simple ~ they replace the diffuse representation system so typical of American politics and business with Democratic Centrism, a system more appropriate to a Politboro in a Communist state.

Okay, so in this "diffuse representation system", who are these "diffuse representatives", and how, exactly, are they selected?

When I vote for someone to hold a local office, I expect I'm voting for the candidate I want in that office. When I cast a vote for a state office candidate, I figure I'm voting for that particular state official. And when it comes to the presidential primaries, I figure I'm voting for a particular presidential candidate.

But it sounds like some folks think a better system is that rather than actually voting for the presidential candidate, I'm really just voting for some lower level party official who may or may not support the guy for whom I thought I was casting my vote. And I have absolutely no clue who the "diffuse representatives" are that supposedly are representing my vote at the convention. Why should these "grassroots activists" be able to trump my vote by doing something different at the convention?

Personally, I'd be much happier with just direct vote tallies for primaries.

Okay, so in this "diffuse representation system", who are these "diffuse representatives", and how, exactly, are they selected?

But it sounds like some folks think a better system is that rather than actually voting for the presidential candidate, I'm really just voting for some lower level "grass roots" party official who may or may not support the guy for whom I thought I was casting my vote. And I have absolutely no clue who the "diffuse representatives" are that supposedly are representing my vote at the convention. Why should these "grassroots activists" be able to trump my vote by doing something different at the convention?

Personally, I'd be much happier with just direct vote tallies for primaries.

Since you don't directly vote for President ~

Originally, before passage of the 17th amendment, you voted for your members of the state legislature and they voted for your senators!

The original design is representative democracy.

Personally I have no problem understanding the term "Presidential Preference Primary" ~ and given the exigencies and contingencies of political life, you really don't want to tie a delegate to voting for a dead guy, or someone who quit the campaign either.

Your state is being represented at the National Convention by delegates you elect, or who you gave recommendations to.

If you want the other system you'd best hurry because there are very few states around anymore that lock in Democratic Centrism as a guiding principle!

Since you don't directly vote for President ~ Originally, before passage of the 17th amendment, you voted for your members of the state legislature and they voted for your senators! The original design is representative democracy.

Yes, but in a representative democracy, the representatives themselves campaign publicy for office, explain themselves to voters, etc.. You are voting for people about whom you actually have some relevant knowledge. That's sort of the entire principle of representative democracy, right? And I don't recall anyone running and saying "hey, I want to be a presidential delegate, vote for me!"

So (the question you didn't answer) who are these people acting as delegates? Their names weren't on my ballot when I voted in the Presidential primary. I voted for Newt.

That's true, although there are a great many situations where the candidate isn't dead, and I think delegates should be legally bound at least on the first ballot to that candidate.

But then the question is who should select the delegates who may have to make a different decision if their candidate drops out, dies, or we have to go to a second ballot? Because I have no effing clue who those people are. As I said, the name on my ballot was Newt. So it seems to me that if I trusted Newt's judgement enough to support him as the nominee, then the best proxy for that with delegates is Newt picking his own delegates as the people most likely to mirror his thinking, and therefore best represent the intent of my vote.

But instead, some faceless party functionary who may disagree with both me and Newt on a ton of issues, who I don't know from Adam, is just going to make his own choice as a delegate? That's not representative democracy -- that's just a self-perpetuating political oligargchy of a professional political class.

The problem arises from states that split the delegates after the primary. Some of the lesser candidates, who refuse to withdraw from the primary after the winner has secured more than enough delegates to secure the nomination, are simply looking for a floor fight. That’s what we saw yesterday.

Ron Paul had been shopping around for enough delegates from one state to take this to the floor of the convention. There were battles in several states that received local coverage and should have received national coverage. Some of those states were WA, CO, Wisconsin and of course, Maine.

The goal was not to win anything, but to disrupt the convention, display disunity and hopefully to highlight the differences that the Libertarians have with the GOP, immigration, abortion, gay rights and foreign policy. Actually, the only thing that the Paulers have in common with the GOP is the economy and small government.

These political parties who hold the primaries are private entities ~ they are not the government.

Nobody is claiming that the parties don't have the right to set their own rules as private entities. The debate is over what those rules should be.

If you look carefully at your ballot next time you'll see "vote for a delegate for" so and so. Mine always have. Maybe some states are different.

Sure, but who are these delegates, who chose them to be the the ones who go, and what are their beliefs/stances on the issues? If that isn't disclosed (and it isn't), then you're essentially forced to cast a vote in complete ignorance of the person to whom you are giving your proxy. That's a stupid rule, and it should be changed.

Well, I feel a bit differently about that. If Ron Paul is running on a ballot, then he should get to pick his slate of delegates, whom he presumably picks because they reflect his views. If he gets a qualifying percentage of votes sufficient to get his delegates, then those people should get to go to the convention, and be Paul's representatives on the floor. Same with any Tea Party candidates who don't have enough votes to win, etc..

That's representative democracy, as far as I'm concerned. And if they want to make noise, I think that's fine, even if it may not be the best move strategically for the party. Of course, I also think it is reasonable for the party to set convention rules regarding thresholds, etc., that make it so that very small minorities can't throw a monkey wrench into the actual process.

If some jackwagon who has one lousy delegate can gum up the works with endless roll call votes, etc., that's a bad system also.

The deal is the political parties make a claim that they'll represent your interests and intentions. They then do various things including identifying the delegates who will vote at a convention.

Been going on a long time. If you don't like the way the delegates vote, then vote for a different party.

Or, like I suggested, emigrate to Denmark or Israel ~ they really do do it differently than we do with a whole 'nuther set of assumptions. They still have representative democracies ~ they just get there in incomprehensible ways. But, like I said, it'll be different.

And, when it comes to the GOP-e the only thing it has in common with Republican voters is......... well, what is it?

The Paulistas have less in common I'm sure, but what is it the GOP-e offers Reublican voters? Which of their interests is it pledged to defend? Their candidate this time doesn't even have Free Speech on his agenda ~ and his big sister says he's a baby killer from way back and unlikely to change.

Quick Eva, you are losing me ~................ BING BING BING.................. well, there you go ~ off into a political wilderness.

The deal is the political parties make a claim that they'll represent your interests and intentions. They then do various things including identifying the delegates who will vote at a convention.

Been going on a long time. If you don't like the way the delegates vote, then vote for a different party.

So what if it has been going on for a long time -- does that make it any more right? The rules for primaries weren't handed by by Moses, nor are they based on any discernable constitutional principle. A state party is certainly permitted to have the final word on how it will select canddiates for state races. But likewise, the party at the national level has the right to set the rules for how candidates at the national level will be chosen. And if some state party organizations choose to disenfranchise ordinary voters by letting insider delegates vote however they want, regardless of what citizen voters said, then the national party has every right to ignore those votes.

This is a bunch of whining from the semi-professional activist class who believes their opinions should count for more than the votes of ordinary citizens. Screw them. If I cast a vote for a candidate, in my case Newt, I have every right to support rules that ensure that vote actually goes to that candidate, or, if that candidate withdraws, he (rather than some delegate whom I've never met and know nothing about) has my proxy.

Or, like I suggested, emigrate to Denmark or Israel ~

No thank you. Perhaps you should emigrate if you don't like the rules set by the national party for the nomination of national candidates. I've served my country in the Marines, in combat. I've earned the right to support changes to party rules that protect the votes of ordinary people, with ordinary lives, who cast their votes expecting they'll actually go to the person for whom they voted, without being filtered by "grassroot activists" who think they know better.

Those countries have voting methods more to your liking BTW. So, if you want to stay here, learn to enjoy misery.....

You keep making this same argument, as if the rules are permanent and can't be changed. In fact, they can be. that's what some folks are so puset about.

Well, I plan on staying no matter what. After all, those rules have been in place for decades. Not surprising, really, since it is in the self-interest of power-hungry "grassroots" people (i.e., the local political class)to want to trump the votes of the citizenry with their own opinions. They care more, see, so they should be able to override my vote with their own opinion.

However, it now appears that those rules are being changed to some extent, so it would be decidedly odd if I chose to emigrate now.

Now, the National Committee is made up of state committee chairmen ~ it's not an independent body. These guys are all from the real party ~ the one at the state level. The RNC is just a tool ~ it has no independent existence. It is not the master.

And here I thought the "real party" was the average registered Republican. Instead, I find it is the cigar-smokers in their conference rooms who want to keep the real power in their hand.

In any case, you are wrong. The Republican National Committee is a legally independent entity. The members come from states, but the organization itself is legally distinct. But look, if the states actually have all the power, then what are some people so upset about with the rule changes?

Noncompliance with the rules doesn't affect the existence of your own state party but it might well mean you get fewer votes at the convention than you would otherwise get.

The proposed changes were considered entirely too draconian. That's where I come in with the idea of creating a NEW RNC unaffiliated with the current RNC. It would do the same thing as the RNC but in a much more open and honest matter, and only Conservative ideas and individuals would be tolerated ~ so, on to determine who or what is a Conservative.

BTW, the guys in the smoke filled rooms who are elected officials or registered candidates ARE the party. The voters ARE NOT the party ~ never were ~ nobody even thought they should be ~

When a state nominating convention is held it is the case in some states that all registered voters willing to attend that convention get a vote and they get a chance to directly meet with the candidates.

The RNC rules are the sort of thing that relate to whether or not your Republican organization meets the standards they believe should be met to be a Republican organization. The rules on delegates concern whether or not the RNC is going to accept your delegates. Noncompliance with the rules doesn't affect the existence of your own state party but it might well mean you get fewer votes at the convention than you would otherwise get.

Who is the "you" and "your" here? I'm an individual voter. If delegates from my state aren't going to represent my vote, why should I care how many of them there are?

BTW, the guys in the smoke filled rooms who are elected officials or registered candidates ARE the party. The voters ARE NOT the party ~ never were ~ nobody even thought they should be ~

I think a lot of rank and file Republican voters believe that it is their votes that should matter in the primary.

That might work out just fine for professional political types, or those who have a job that permits them to act as a full-time pol. For the rest of us, we read, pay attention, and vote. And I don't think we should lose our voter just because we don't want to hang out with a bunch of political wankers for a few days.

You seem to believe that the votes/opinions of activists should count for more than the votes of other voters, which is sort of the same rationale propelling groups like OWS. I don't.

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.