Posted on 05/13/2012 9:07:15 PM PDT by Vigilanteman
It is given that many, if not most, Freepers are bummed out that the likely GOP nominee may very well be the most liberal candidate of the entire field. Other than the bomb throwers and sabatouers, however, most of us feel he is still better than the abject disaster currently in the White House. How much better, of course, remains a matter for debate. However, rather than throw our mud at each other as some of the Paulistas are doing, why not channel that anger into a complete reform of the GOP voting process?
(Excerpt) Read more at elections.nytimes.com ...
That formula needs to be reversed. Every November, 538 electoral votes are allocated, mostly on a winner-take-all system, as is determined by the states. Limited government advocates in the GOP respect the rights of states to determine said allocation on whatever basis they wish. But overall allocation of delegates should put more weight on states which actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP and less on those which potentially could do so.
The formula which I propose would award each state or territory a minimum of electoral votes which they have or would have if they were a state. This is the concession to fairness for large population states like New York or California which seldom actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP in November.
After that, allocation will be based on actual performance over the last five election cycles in delivering electoral votes to the GOP. Territories without actual electoral history will be calculated as if they gave half their electoral votes to the GOP.
Recent election cycles would count for more than older cycles, 50% for the most recent, 40% for the next most recent, 30% for the third most recent, 20% for the second oldest and 10% for the oldest cycle. Multiply the result by 2.5, thereby giving a MINIMUM of 2.5 times as much weight to past performance as to population. If a fractional delegate results from the formula, always count it as a full delegate. This will encourage states to consider a congressional district system, such as is used in Maine and Nebraska, to earn additional delegates.
There would be bonus delegates (as there are now) given to states which have a GOP governor (1), GOP senator (up to 2) and each house of the state legislature (2 in the case of Nebraska which is unicamerial). Bonus or penalty delegates would be awarded for states holding later primaries (+10% for primaries May 1 or after, +5% for primaries April 1 or after, -5% for primaries in February and -10% for primaries those before January 31) and for proportional (+10%) versus winner-take-all (-10%) systems.
Let's work through a few examples just to show how this would work.
Texas: 38 electoral votes and perfect record in the last five election cycles. Thus, 38 + 2.5 x ([(32x10%)+(32x20%)+(32x30%)]+ [(34x40%)+(34x50%)]) = 38 + 2.5 x (19.2 + 30.6) = 38 + 2.5 x (49.8) = 163 delegates. Remember, the fraction counts as full delegate. Texas also gets a bonus of 1 for the governor plus 4 for both U.S. Senators and houses of the legislature, or a basis of 168 delegates. Finally, add 20% bonus for the May primary (10%) and proportional system (10%) or 168 x 1.2 = 201.6 delegates or 202 total versus 155 under the present system.
California: 55 electoral votes plus total wash-out for performance in the last five election cycles. No bonus delegates for governor, senators nor houses of the legislature. 10% bonus for primary after May 1 is negated by 10% penalty for winner-take-all system, so 55 total delegates versus 172 under the present system.
Florida: 29 under the present system plus electoral votes actually delivered in 1992 (25 x 10%), 2000 (25 x 30%) and 2004 (27 x 40%). Multiply performance delegates by 2.5 = 52 which, added to the 29 is 81 plus 1 for the GOP governor, 1 U.S. Senator and 2 for both houses of the legislature = 85. Then minus 20% (10% for winner-take-all system and 10% for January primary) = 68 versus 50 under the present system.
American Samoa = 3 electoral votes plus 2.5 x (2.25) or 5.625 rounded to 6 performance delegates. 1 delegate for GOP legislature (1 of 2 houses) minus 10% penalty for winner-take-all system. Net 9 delegates, or exactly the same as the present system.
Iowa: 6 electoral votes plus 7 delivered in 2004 for a performance bonus of 2.5 x (40% x 7) or 7. Add 3 since the GOP controls the governor's office and one house of the legislature and U.S. Senator. 10% bonus for proportional allocation is negated by 10% penalty for January caucus. Thus, 6 + 7 + 3 = 16 delegates versus 28 awarded under the current system.
Pennsylvania: 20 electoral votes plus total wash-out for performance in the last five election cycles. 4 additional delegates for GOP governor, one U.S. Senator and both houses of the legislature. 5% bonus for April primary and 10% bonus for proportional system = 24 + 15% = 27.6 delegates rounded to 28 delegates versus 72 delegates under the present system.
As you can see, my suggested system actually apportions delegates on a basis closer to each state's actual value in November. Pennsylvania would have been able to increase their delegate total by about 25 bonus delegates (2.5 x the 10 congressional district average the GOP presidential ticket would have won had the system been in place) or 53 total had our asshat state GOP chairman not blocked our Senate Majority Leader's bill to change our electoral vote allocation system to the district system used by Maine and Nebraska.
Feel free to add your comments. But one of the prices for going into November unified should be exactly this: awarding more delegates to states which actually deliver electoral votes in the fall.
He is the same as Obama. Count me as a saboteur if you wish. Romney came up with socialized healthcare and will not reduce the debt. So it makes no difference if he wins or Obama wins. A Romney win has one disadvantage though - it strengthens the RINO hold on the GOP. If he loses, there is a chance that the RINO grip on the party can be weakened. Of course, Obama has to be kept in control by the members in the Congress.
The same liberals in the party who put romnutts up as the republican candidate also control everything else in the party.The open primaries are the start of their power and that will not change.Just look at the early states that get the ball rolling in the republican primaries.Its a joke.The republican party is a joke and a cruel one at that.
The same liberals in the party who put romnutts up as the republican candidate also control everything else in the party.The open primaries are the start of their power and that will not change.Just look at the early states that get the ball rolling in the republican primaries.Its a joke.The republican party is a joke and a cruel one at that.
I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that the reason that the RINO wing has such a strong grip on the GOP is because the Marxist faction totally controls the Democrat Party (former natural home of modern RINOs) to the point that they now have nowhere else to go?
Just ask yourself which supreme court nominee was easier to stop? Was it Kagan? Or Harriett Meyers?
Then try to tell me that there is no difference between a hard-core Marxist Democrat and a Republican RINO. Such a view is as stupid as it is defeatist.
Actually, you probably should give excess weight to swing states like Ohio, FL, and VA.
You have to win swing states to carry and election.
Think about it: which would the Body Politic, (i.e., the interlocked Liberal Agenda Media (LAM), Democrats and RINOs), find easier to attack, marginalize and ignore?
1.) A single topic attack on them?
OR
2.) A multi-topic attack on them?
Now that their 80 + year Keynesian Rule of us has finally run out of money, we Financial Conservatives know that we have circled the prey and stand ready to attack.
AAHHHHHHRRRRLLLLWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Necessary to our attack is the attack from as many other types of Conservatives as possible. The more “hot-button” attacks, the better. Multi-pronged beats single-pronged attacks every time!
Presently the arrogant Democrats either ignore all Conservatives, try to marginalize us as “A vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy,” or accuse us of being villains, mainly through the Court of Public Opinion which is owned by the Liberal Agenda Media, (LAM).
My overarching point is that politicians come and go, political parties come and go, but the thinking that supports the idea that it is SANE to spend more money this year than was taken in as income last year remains entrenched in the policies of the Body Politic, which is the inter-dependant linkage of the LAM, Dems, RINOs, and most importantly you and I as voters.
Support and vote for who you want to, but before you do look into the eyes of your children and grandchildren and tell them that because of you voting or not voting, THEY will have to work a large part of each of their work days for the rest of their lives to pay back principle AND interest to the owners of US Federal Government Bonds that WE sold to give us OUR “Entitlements” of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obama”care,” Unemployment payments to workers out of work, Food Stamps, Housing assistance to Illegal Aliens, Free Hospital “Emergency” Medical and Dental care to Illegal Aliens AND their extended families who continue to live permanently in Mexico, Aid to Dependent Children, No child Left Behind, Federal Aid to Education of Young Socialists, “Free” Student loans to future Federal politicians and bureaucrats, etc., etc., etc.
BTW, to put all of this into perspective, if you are now paying the very low rate of only 10 % Personal Federal Income Tax, then you are currently working every one of your workdays at 10 % X 8 hours = 0.8 hours X 60 minutes = 48 minutes of EVERY work day for The Federal Plantation located at 1600 Plantation Avenue, in the District of Corruption, USSA.
Those 48 minutes per work day feed the Federal Beast for only 60 % of each year, forcing the current Sheriff of Nottingham Timmy Gee to sell more Federal Bonds that HE says that YOUR grandchildren’s descendants will be more than happy to pay off.
Did I just describe a “Bond Bubble?” Obviously not as I am just a marginalized, and ignored member of “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.”
Yep, Hilly said it before she became Obama’s Secretary of Statements. She knew that eventually we would conspire to replace The Body Politic with a system that works.
You know, the one our Founding Fathers came up with, and clearly specified in THE US CONSTITUTION.
May God Bless America, again. (This time let us not be allowed to take His blessings for granted).
____________________
First Bachmann wins the Iowa Straw Poll. Then Romney wins the early count of the Iowa Caucuses, and within a shake of a lamb’s tail Santorum wins in the late count.
Now an FR article predicts that Ron Paul will have the majority of voting delegates from Iowa.
If Paul’s plan to cut 1 TRILLION dollars in year-to-year Federal spending, AND abolish 5 Federal Departments are the main reasons for Iowa Delegates to thaw out their opposition to Paul, then it might later be said that “as Iowa goes, so goes the Nation.”
BTW, “T” is for Texas, Tampa and those of us who are TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!”
_____________
Here are some more reasons to vote for Ron Paul in the remaining Primary elections:
1.) It will drive the Liberal Agenda Media (LAM) and their Rove-style political consultants NUTS!
2.) It will deny statistical support to Romney.
3.) It could result in an OPEN Convention in Tampa.
4.) It would irritate the snot out of the GOP-E.
5.) It will put the GOP-E on notice that we think that their RINO Party has done NOTHING since we sent 89 TEA Party men and women to the US Congress in 2010.
6.) An OPEN Convention is our ONLY chance of a successful DUMP ROMNEY campaign.
7.) A superb, true “Dark Horse” Republican Nominee needs an OPEN Convention to replace Romney.
BTW, did I mention the sheer joy of watching the GOP-Endorsers publicly eating crow?
___________________
What the Liberal Agenda Media has never figured out, is that the 2012 National Election will be the last National Election where Campaign topics other than the National Debt will be debated again.
IOW, when the grim reaper of financial reality forces Federal Politicians in “both” parties to pay the US Bond owners before payments to our Entitlement recipients, it will terminate discussion on the main topics that we chatter about so far in 2012.
This National election is all about the money, your grandchildren’s descendant’s money.
Ron Paul is to old and to disliked as being different from what most voters picture a US President to look and sound like to win the Nomination.
HOWEVER, Ron Paul as an Anbody-but-Romney candidate in Tampa is our last, best chance to have an OPEN Convention in Tampa, and for that alone he deserves our Primary voter support.
Paul has soldiered on through this entire Primary Campaign. Let us help him establish a beachhead on the Shores of Tampa!
My Favorite Dark Horse was R Sc US Senator Jim DeMint, but I have been told by those in the know that Jim will not run for POTUS.
Fortunately, there are many other great potential nominees who would be far more acceptable to us than any of the Primary Candidates so far, but a “Dump Romney” action requires an OPEN Convention.
For those who object to Paul as a Nominee, then treat him as a tired old political soldier who will, with our help, win the Battle to achieve an OPEN Convention in Tampa.
THEN the delegates can win the War, and choose the best Nominee to solve our National Debt Problem.
Remember, this election is all about the money, your grandchildren’s descendant’s money - - - - .
What is the best way that you can use your Primary vote to help the financial future of YOUR descendants?
I’m not really sure how much water this holds. New York didn’t vote until April 24 and California has yet to vote. How is it that the first and third most populous states that are blue could not be counted in your assumptions, considering the other two candidates were pretty much done by the 24th? I’m not suggesting that your theory is flawed, but there isn’t much quantitative evidence to support it. Also, it might not be such a grand idea to have some votes count more than others unless you can accept some lost opportunity or unintended consequences. The system is skewed enough to where people perceive it as crooked, and instead of embracing the crookedness full throttle and skewing it to a result one set of party bosses want instead of another set, it might be better to make it more fair and transparent.
I’d can the open primary and then go about getting rid of the caucus before I’d resort to this plan.
I just want to add something else to my earlier comment. Rick Santorum lost because he can’t deliver Pennsylvania. And if you can’t deliver that, even when it is your home state, you shouldn’t even be in the race. So, unless we think we can win the general election by also skewing electoral votes, this plan is more likely to backfire than it is to gain anything meaningful in the long run.
Right now you have 50 states with 50 different ways of selecting and placing delegates. While the national sets the general requirements which includes number per congressional district and super delegates loosely based on party membership or the number of party votes cast for the president in the previous presidential election.
The latter number of delegates waxes and wanes on turnout for that particular election. Also some states list the delegate’s name and affilation while some don’t and some don’t list the delegate at all on their primary ballot.
Then too you have different filing dates. Some states require filing three months ahead of their primary while others perhaps two weeks.
Some don’t even hold primaries but hold caucuses.
On the other hand, putting a lot more weight on delegate allocation to states which actually deliver for the GOP will cause those states to consider no only how they select delegates, but how they allocate electoral votes, probably in a way which would maximize their potential for more delegates.
Under the current system, states which almost never vote GOP (New York, California) have an outsized influence in the selection of the nominee.
Losing big in Pennsylvania would likely have been a career ender. Bowing out gracefully when he did ensures he will start 2016 as a top tier candidate.
I also disagree on your backfire comments for the reasons stated in my previous post. Nonetheless, I commend you for at least being willing to engage in an honest discussion of the process (the intention of this thread) rather than descending into a pouty whiny "Romney = Obama" screed as others have done.
The entire setup for nomination needs to be changed.
I've made a specific proposal for discussion purposes. Tweak it. Explain why it is or isn't a good idea. Or give specifics on what you would change.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mine was merely a broad comment on the subject. I don’t particularly care how Democrats choose their Presidential candidate, but the GOP needs to frankly toss out the entire current method and start from scratch. I’m not addressing whether or not your specific comments have merit or not. One method I would pursue is that any candidates would have to be drafted to run (meaning Joe Blow or Gov. King Rino can’t just throw their hat in because they feel like it or have the big bucks). Names submitted before a super-gathering and pre-eliminated (something akin to what’s done in Utah political primary conventions).
Once the candidates are set in stone, the manner with which the order of the states vote needs to be thrown out. No more IA-NH-SC nonsense. The first two states aren’t reliable GOP states for President and have no business being virtually make-or-break for the candidates. From there, the byzantine method of how delegates are awarded needs to be also summarily tossed. It needs to be simple, clear-cut, and easy for NON-political people to understand. I consider myself a political expert and I cannot fathom this current system in place. Add to this that at both those pre-primary convention and the primary votes that they must be closed affairs. No “Independents” or Democrats crashing the party.
On top of that, no nominating candidates who merely manage to obtain a string of pluralities and are overwhelmingly unpopular to the base (you know whom I’m talking about) and merely getting a simple majority of the delegate votes isn’t enough to get the nomination, either. I would say 2/3rds of the delegates at the party convention MUST agree to the nominee. If they cannot agree, candidates that previously participated in the primaries or even new (drafted) names be put forward.
As an example... let’s say Willard gets to just, say, 60% at the Convention and cannot get above that figure. He is then tossed out of contention and new names put forward. A group of delegates put forth the name Scott Walker of Wisconsin and submit it to a vote, and 75% of the delegates agree. Walker is then made the Presidential nominee.
Your response to my comment was;
“Under the current system, states which almost never vote GOP (New York, California) have an outsized influence in the selection of the nominee.”
My comment simply outlined the problem and offered no solutions .I anticipated most of the commentary on this thorny issue would be all over the place because most don’t know how delegates are selected and some don’t even know what they do.
You are right on with the weighted vote given states which rarely carry a Republican presidential candidate. The problem that this method tries to address is having states with populations the size of cities in those states selecting the candidate rather than the rest of the country having its say.
But the point is that weighted delegate vote is not the only problem.
I, too, like the way which Utah runs their political primary conventions. What's not to like about a system which sent a RINO like Bob Bennett packing and gave us a firebrand conservative like Mike Lee? OTOH, I think the system works well for Utah because it is a small state with a very high level of political activity. Everybody knows everybody else and all that.
I wonder how it would work in a big state like Pennsylvania where the population and political interests are far more heterogeneous.
Maybe my proposal would be a stepping stone for moving us in that direction. All things considered, I agree that money plays an over-sized role in selecting nominees. But even worse is the over-sized role played by a mostly monolithic media and states with big populations which have a near zero chance of voting GOP in November, New York and California being the poster boys.
Then you have the attention whores like Iowa and New Hampshire. They are a lesser problem, in my opinion, because they are at least somewhat in the swing state status. But they do have an over-sized influence on the media coverage and perception of momentum.
Great chart! Thank you!
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.