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 ...
Nothing like slamming fellow freepers to start off your article to freepers.
It is possible, vm, that some are operating on principle. I know it's not a media-approved thing in America today, not even with the Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaugh's of the world, but it is nonetheless another reason for not supporting Romney.
I respect the right of the individual to vote for the third party candidate of their choice or abstain for voting for the president altogether.
Hell, if I didn't live in one of the handful of key swing states, I would seriously consider such options myself.
What I don't respect is the hyperbolic crowd who declares they are going to sit on their hands and not even help elect conservatives down ticket or, even worse, vote for ObaMao to teach the GOP a lesson. That worked out really well in 2008, didn't it?
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
I live in Ohio which is a swing state.
You distinguished 2 groups: those who support Romney and those who are bombthrowers and saboteurs.
Last I knew, FR was still a primarily conservative site and launching attacks on conservatives for not selling their principles doesn’t seem like a very conservative thing to do.
Just because most people can see the obvious that a Romney RINO is still, at least marginally, better than a naked Marxist thug, that does not mean that you have to support the RINO.
I choose to. You choose not to.
Your choice doesn't make you a bombthrower and saboteur any more than my choice makes me a sell-out.
You become a bombthrower and saboteur only if you choose as some people have clearly done. Case in point: the rabid Paulistas who shout others down. Not all supporters of Ron Paul, only the most rabid who shout others down.
Feel better now?
1. Restore the hallowed GOP convention rule that was (I believe) in force from the time of Abraham Lincoln's first nomination or even Charles Fremont's until we came within a sliver (about 12 delegates) of stopping Nixon in 1968 with Reagan as the only other viable choice. In 1968, Nelson Rockefeller had more votes than Reagan on the first and only ballot but that was Nelson Rockefeller's ceiling and about half of what he needed to be nominated. He was hated by most delegates and party activists. Reagan was governor of what was then far more Republican California and was a younger and even MORE charming version of his magnificent self. Restore the requirement of 2/3 of the delegates to nominate. Then we will never have to worry about voting for a paleoPaulie to cause an open convention.
2. Republicans in many states are registered by public authorities and the lists are maintained by them. In other states like Illinois and many Massachusetts trashbag strongholds, NON-REPUBLICANS get to vote in Republican processes. Put a firm and final end to this. If the government authorities will not register party members, then the party itself may be forced to do so. Without getting into fine details, require six months between dropping a Demonrat registration and registering Republican and require the unaffiliated to register Republican at least one month before they participate in the GOP nominating process. Any state party that refuses loses its entire representation. The SCOTUS ruled forty years ago that for nominating convention processes including choosing delegates, PARTY RULES prevail over governmental legislation or regulation.
3. The requirement that candidates be pre-drafted to run and not merely farm the steers and queers of Wall Street for zillions in unidentifiable superpac cash and toss their hats in the ring regardless of track record or lack of principles (whoever can I mean?) sounds good but needs a lot more thought and specificity.
4. Require that (like papal election conclaves) the party PLATFORM ("The policy" at conclaves) be argued and enacted FIRST and only then does the convention move on to the nomination of candidates and that the final nominations not be official until the nominees formally swear to govern according to the enacted platform. This is a superb leadership principle.
4a. Explanation of #4 by analogy: Imagine, as is reasonable, that communists who had wormed their way into the papal household under the relatively politically clueless Pope Paul VI, were well aware of the lifelong anti-communism of Albino Cardinal Luciani who was elected as Pope John Paul I and murdered him by poison in the hope that his successor would be a political airhead and more manipulable. The second 1978 conclave is held, is driven by Poland's veteran anti-nazi and anti-communist primate who had been imprisoned by both nazis and communists Stefan Cardinal Wycinski who proposes a policy of retaliation against the soviets as the primary policy of the next papacy and Karol Cardinal Wojtyla as the pope to carry it out. Upon election, JP II fired the entire papal household staff in case anyone doubts what happened to JP I. While JP II had to survive two public attempts to assassinate him: one by a "traditionalist" schismatic priest at Fatima using a kitchen knife and the second far more serious attempt by heavy caliber handgun in Vatican Square by Mehmet Ali Agca (a Turkish fascist recruited and paid by the Bulgarian KGB acting on orders from the soviet KGB run by future soviet dictators Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov and Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev). The GOP, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, is subject to the election schedule in the constitution and does not get opportunities for makeovers in the event of non-immediate disasters.
5. Abolish caucuses altogether for the choice of delegates. If someone wants to be a delegate, they must run in primaries. If the state does not fund the primary, then the party must do so. Any state whose delegate process is other than by closed primary loses its entire delegation. Only in the even of death or disability may a delegate be replaced by his/her alternate moving up and the candidate's state vacancy committee choosing and qualifying a new alternate.
6. Establish these changes and see how they work, before any further but unnecessary changes.
7. No one becomes a delegate by virtue of holding public or party office. Every potential delegate must actually run for selection.
Just for the purposes of this discussion, I decided to list the states by order of their voting preference in a 20-year period (counting 6 Presidential elections between 1988-2008):
“Perfect 6 (voted GOP all years in the period)” (13 states)
Alabama
Alaska
Idaho
Kansas
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Wyoming
“5 out of 6” (6 states)
Arizona (all but 1996)
Georgia (all but 1992)
Indiana (all but 2008)
Montana (all but 1992)
North Carolina (all but 2008)
Virginia (all but 2008)
“4 out of 6” (7 states)
Arkansas (all but 1992 & 1996)
Colorado (all but 1992 & 2008)
Florida (all but 1996 & 2008)
Kentucky (all but 1992 & 1996)
Louisiana (all but 1992 & 1996)
Missouri (all but 1992 & 1996)
Tennessee (all but 1992 & 1996)
“Half/Average (equal to 3 elections won by Dems nationally and 3 by GOP)” (3 states)
Nevada (against GOP in 1992, 1996, 2008)
Ohio (against GOP in 1992, 1996, 2008)
West Virginia (against GOP in 1988, 1992, 1996)
“2 out of 6” (2 states)
New Hampshire (voted GOP only in 1988 & 2000)
New Mexico (voted GOP only in 1988 & 2004)
“1 out of 6 (hostile to GOP Presidential candidates)” (11 states)
California (last voted GOP in 1988)
Connecticut (last voted GOP in 1988)
Delaware (last voted GOP in 1988)
Illinois (last voted GOP in 1988)
Iowa (last voted GOP in 2004, and before that not since 1984)
Maine (last voted GOP in 1988)
Maryland (last voted GOP in 1988)
Michigan (last voted GOP in 1988)
New Jersey (last voted GOP in 1988)
Pennsylvania (last voted GOP in 1988)
Vermont (last voted GOP in 1988)
“Rotten Zero (viscerally opposed to GOP Presidential candidates)” (8 states + DC)
District of Columbia (never cast a vote for GOP for President)
Hawaii (last voted GOP in 1984)
Massachusetts (last voted GOP in 1984)
Minnesota (last voted GOP in 1972) — current longest record for voting against GOP Presidential nominee
New York (last voted GOP in 1984)
Oregon (last voted GOP in 1984)
Rhode Island (last voted GOP in 1984)
Washington (last voted GOP in 1984)
Wisconsin (last voted GOP in 1984)
Now this exclusively address their Presidential preference and doesn’t go into their votes for Governor, Senator, Congress, legislature, etc.
In listing this, I would obviously tend to give more credence to those who’ve voted the most for the GOP and least for those that haven’t. I’ll mention the “Big 3” early primary/Caucus states...
As you can see, South Carolina does deserve considerable credibility on picking a nominee as they have been consistently pro-GOP (not since 1976 have they voted Democrat, and before that, 1960). Not necessarily an argument that it deserves the definitive first position in early voting states, but at least it can make the case.
Now look at New Hampshire. It has only voted twice for the GOP candidate in the period covered (1988, which ended the period when it was a more GOP-leaning state Presidentially, and as of this year, lasted voted GOP in 2000 (and only by a slim plurality, with normal Gore voters getting peeled off to Nader) and didn’t even stick with the incumbent in 2004, even as Dubya got a slightly higher % of the vote). In other words, I wouldn’t even call NH a swing state with that record (and voted for the Democrat in 2008 with over 54% of the vote, higher than the national average - McCain carried not even a single county, a first for a GOP candidate in the state since at least the 19th century - even Bob Dole & Barry Goldwater carried at least 1 county). Clearly it is a reliable Democrat state. It has no business being a determining factor for a GOP Presidential candidate and should be swiftly jettisoned as an “early state.” What’s the worst that can happen ? They vote Democrat as they have in every election, save 1, beginning in 1992 ?
Iowa is even worse. Aside from 2004, when GW Bush won by a plurality, it lasted voted GOP for President way back in 1984. It voted 54% for the Democrat in 2008, higher than the national average. It should have even lesser of a say than New Hampshire.
We see Texas staring out at us as a “perfect 6” state, but how often has it even figured as a major player in deciding the nominee ? Democrat New Hampshire is make or break for the GOP nominee, but reliably GOP Texas isn’t ? There’s something seriously wrong there. Texas, as the largest reliably GOP state, should have an equally BIG say.
Anyway, just a few points to augment yours.
Your “draft” idea is interesting but I fail to see how Romney (or anyone with that much establishment support) would have failed to get himself so drafted whatever the process is.
If you want to stop one RINO from getting a plurality over 2 or 3 Conservatives the best way is a preferential ballot. The best way under the current rules would have been the loser in third place dropping out while there was still a chance but despite his anti-Romney rhetoric he obviously didn’t give a damn who the nominee was if it wasn’t himself.
Your idea of having conservative states vote first is a good one. Probably more likely to be considered by our unimaginative party leaders. IA and NH going first every time is total BS that can’t be justified, I don’t think they even try to they just whine they need the tourism every 4 years.
The OP’s idea of giving Republican states significantly more delegates I don’t like much. Many of us are stuck in states where we are outnumbered. Giving Texas 4 times as many delegates as Cali despite the about same # of Republicans would be grossly unfair and unrepresentative. (McCain 4.5 Mil votes in TX 5 Mil in CA)
I would base the state’s number of delegates on it’s number of Republicans, using the results of the last POTUS election would be fine with me. So if CA got 50 delegates, Texas would get 45. Florida would get 40. Illinois would get 20. ect. smaller states would get a little boost so they matter and DC and the territories would get a minimal number just so they’re represented.
Another idea, strict proportional allocation of delegates. If there are 20 delegates in the state and you get 10% of the vote you get 2 delegates, period.
No more winner take all or any of these silly caucus states that Ron Paul is manipulating. That way if Romney won about 40% he’d have about 40% of the delegates. No way he’d get a majority.
I really think every state should have the same process whatever it is. We’re political junkies and this arcane nonsense makes our heads hurt. And the haphazard and heavily spaced scheduling is absurd. The state parties need to be dictated to and given the method and date when they will hold the primary. No 50 states doing whatever they want. Don’t play ball and your delegates don’t get seated, period. I guarantee you they will all play ball in due course. Sorry Iowa.
I don’t know about the 2/3 rule. The wreaked havoc with the rats when they had it. Today with the conventions being on TV that could lead to a very embarrassing debacle. I could see maybe a 55% threshold to prevent someone from squeaking in but not as high as 67%.
I’d support three changes, to the nomination process. All states should use primaries, not caucuses. Delegates should be awarded proportionally, not using a winner-take-all system. That would prevent a candidate (usually a RINO) from winning all of a state’s delegates, with less than a majority of the vote. Superdelegates should be banned. This year, Illinois will have 17 delegates who will be appointed by IL GOP leaders. They’ll probably support the same candidate (probably Romney). All of the delegates should be chosen because of primary results.
I’m with you on all those.
Your argument is wrong. If Romney is elected, the establishment will continue selecting their nominees. However, if his chances are sabotaged (even if it means Obama wins), the establishment will not only learn a lesson but will also lose its grip over the party.
I understand your frustration with Obama and share it. Perhaps, we can control it by voting the right people into the House and the Senate.
May God bless you and yours!
Thanks! May you and all of yours be blessed now and forever!
Just ask yourself which supreme court nominee was easier to stop? Was it Homer Fortenberry (1968) or Herod Blackmun (a Nixon "Republican" all-time disgrace)? Abe Fortas for Chief Justice or Sandra Day O'Connor? We can all play the same game. Also recall such GOP-nominated giants of judicial conservatism as Sandra Day O'Kennedy, David "Swish" Souter, Earl Warren, Lewis Powell, John Paul Stevens, and (who could forget?) William Brennan. Those are far closer to the kind of baby-killing, gun-grabbing, family destroying elitist schlubs that Robamney would nominate (who would then be brainlessly rubber-stamped by many GOP senators as "our nominees"). Nice try, no cigar!
Oh, and the difference is that the GOP can not be destroyed by Obozo. Only a sorry POS elitist BUYING the GOP nomination like the Massachusetts trashbag can do that. Either Obozo or Robamney will gleefully destroy what is left of the republic. That, for the time being is a fait accomplis because of Robamney's nomination shopping spree.
Whichever of these two is elected needs to be utterly destroyed. Flat. Black. Glows in the dark. No honeymoon. Rule or ruin are the only alternatives. If the GOP does not want an internal civil war of a sort that will make Goldwater vs. Rockefeller look like a tiddleywinks contest, a war requiring the absolute destruction of current GOP financial structures ($ and a snobby way of life being the only things that these corruptocrats in GOP drag care about), it needs to keep social revolutionary POS Robamney from being nominated and, absent that, from being elected.
I will give you a far better and more accurate reason why RINOs control the GOP. All too many members of the party's majority conservative wing are gullible enough to back any POS so long as he/she has the GOP label. If conservatives would determine to make the nomination worthless for any RINO, the RINOs will go away and we prevail not only in the party but usually in the nation as well.
This is EXACTLY right! That is what happened to Arlen Specter. We need to drive out every one of them and they can go to the Democrat Party.
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.