Comments about a third party are spot on.
Any political organization that tosses 40-60 percent of its constituents aside is asking for division. Furthermore, it is the more conservative group that leaves the more liberal bunch almost every time. Economic disaster is usually a hugely effective catalyst for change.
I fearlessly predict the Pubs are finished this time around if they ignore the conservatives. Sort of like the Whig Party in the U.S. and the Liberal Party in the U.K. They may stay around for a while in some form or fashion, but they will no longer function as a viable governing alternative.
“...Any political organization that tosses 40-60 percent of its constituents aside is asking for division. Furthermore, it is the more conservative group that leaves the more liberal bunch almost every time. Economic disaster is usually a hugely effective catalyst for change.
I fearlessly predict the Pubs are finished this time around if they ignore the conservatives. Sort of like the Whig Party in the U.S. and the Liberal Party in the U.K....”
- Zakeet
What is really sad is that this tail wagging the dog situation is entirely avoidable. We are a conservative party with a conservative platform.
Two years ago I wrote a post here at FR titled “Coming Sequel to the Romulan-GOP Schism & The irony of Romney celebrating Scott Brown’s election”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2452795/posts
“We are trying to avoid dealing with a major problem and if we do not confront that problem NOW, we will have another disaster like we did in the last presidential election and like the one we had in 1996. IF the Republican Party wants to avoid another schism, we MUST require a run-off election in the presidential primaries when ANY presidential candidate “wins” without a majority of the party’s votes.
It basically panned out as we knew it would...”
The thing that didn’t hold true is the list of conservative candidates. But the thesis of our party splitting our conservative votes over multiple candidates, thereby being in danger of electing the ONE liberal in the race turned out as predicted.
Some cynics pointed out that the elections are state by state and obviously held on different dates thereby making a run-off implausible...
That doesn’t matter. Each state could be required to hold their elections as they always do and if no candidate got a majority - then they should be required to have a run-off between the top two candidates by vote.
In such a scenario we would not have had Dole, McCain and Romney would certainly lose as well.
The Party elites ignore such calls because they betray our platform and would lose their corrupt little racket. We should have DEMANDED it.
I’m no lawyer and do not know the minute details of how to promulgate a run-off requirement but I am confident that a private political party can make it a requisite if it so desires.
It is preposterous that every election the nominee should end up being the candidate who is most despised by the majority - absolutely offensive to any sensible human being.