Uh, no.
What is so special about their process that it must remain sacrosanct? When a board member doesn’t understand the right that the organization is supposed to protect, what’s the point of keeping him and creating an impression that his views are legitimate?
So that the politicians in Washington who seek an favorable rating at election time from the NRA know that the NRA has a real process that's grounded in a legitimate and coherent manner rather than just doing the bidding of a seething flighty mob of loudmouth pitchfork wavers.
I think it's necessary to keep firearms owners together in the best possible manner so that we can consolidate political power: For years we've been talking about how the liberals will 'divide and conquer' the RKBA by going after our different elements: First the NFA owners, then handguns, then the semi-automatics, then all centerfire rifles, then when only the Fudds are left, the last duck guns.
What you propose to do is the anti-gunners work for them by secularizing each segment of firearms ownership by kicking out someone that doesn't follow your doctrine. Your idea weakens the movement. I propose that we address the problem by convincing others that we're all in it together. We must hang together or surely hang separately.
That's why the NRA has elections rather than just appointing bishops and cardinals.
If you don't believe this, go start a new organization called 'Red-Blooded Americans For Assault Weapons and High Capacity Drum Magazines, Incorporated' and see how successful you are at it. Can you name two congress-critters who would seek your endorsement?
Put down the pitchforks and torches and work within the established system. Otherwise, you might as well stay true to your uninfringed Constitutional beliefs and just illegally convert your semi-autos to unregistered machine guns, build homemade suppressors, and bury them all in a cosmoline-filled drum out on Federal land marked with GPS coordinates.
The NRA, like other organizations has bylaws, which in effect are their version of a Constitution. They specify the methods of nomination and election of board members. IMHO they should be changed, right now the unelected managers have too much power, but until they are, they must be followed. Same as the Constitution.