Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Open Primary Question (We don't need another John McCain)
Vanity ^ | 090409 | me

Posted on 09/04/2009 2:20:59 PM PDT by Artemis Webb

Does anybody know if there is any effort going on to reverse the open primary system that gave us John McCain?

According to Wikipedia the following states have open primaries:

* Alabama * Arkansas * Georgia * Idaho * Indiana * Michigan * Minnesota * Mississippi * Missouri * North Dakota * South Carolina * Tennessee * Texas * Vermont * Virginia * Wisconsin

I've run a google news search and come up with blanks.

(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: alabama; arkansas; georgia; idaho; indiana; michigan; minnesota; mississippi; missouri; northdakota; openprimaries; southcarolina; tennessee; texas; vermont; virginia; wisconsin
If we get stuck with another limp wristed RINO afraid to go on the attack I'm going to have drink a bottle of Cabo Wabo and leap off a cliff.
1 posted on 09/04/2009 2:21:00 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I apologize for the ping but you strike me as the most likely person to know the answer to this question.


2 posted on 09/04/2009 2:22:41 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

Thank you for addressing this major problem.


3 posted on 09/04/2009 2:22:53 PM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

Don’t just a few states have an actual voice? That needs to change.


4 posted on 09/04/2009 2:23:26 PM PDT by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

Arizona doesn’t need him now either.


5 posted on 09/04/2009 2:24:27 PM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

If you want to REALLY make sure no more McCainiacs get nominated, starte getting active NOW.

Run for local Republican Committee positions, be willing to get out there and walk the streets, stuff envelopes, man phone banks and contribute money for CONSERVATIVE Republicans.

Throw solicitations from the RNC in the garbage where they belong.


6 posted on 09/04/2009 2:24:36 PM PDT by ZULU (God guts and guns made America great. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

I agree about the RNC. They are a worthless organization void of ideas. They are just a bunch of suits there to collect a paycheck.


7 posted on 09/04/2009 2:27:03 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb


8 posted on 09/04/2009 2:28:09 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle (http://www.conservatives4palin.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

Eschew Juanabies.


9 posted on 09/04/2009 2:30:09 PM PDT by Paladin2 (Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

This is a question for Michael Steel . . . and he better be working on changing just who chooses the Republican presidential candidate!


10 posted on 09/04/2009 2:31:55 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
"This is a question for Michael Steel"

Don't get me started on that waste of space. :)

11 posted on 09/04/2009 2:34:32 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb
The problem isn't open primaries. The problem is that both parties have increasingly squashed their entire primary seasons into a couple of "big" multi-state days.

"Super Tuesdays" warp the entire process. When you shove everything up front, one bad day will kill a campaign. Money becomes more volatile -- big donors want to back "the winner," however poor a candidate he may be; rather than wasting their money on a loser who may nevertheless be the best person for the general election.

The accelerated primary season also means that there's no such thing as real debate in these campaigns anymore. The "debates" are incredibly stupid, because the candidates' strategies are necessarily geared toward killer soundbites.

There's simply no time for a good candidate to develop and emerge over a period of 3-4 months, with : it's all over by February.

What the Republican Party leadership really needs to do, is to begin a serious process of recruiting a few really serious candidates -- and the sooner the better. I'm talking about a return to old real "smoky back room" stuff that the primaries were designed to do away with.

The Party has a responsibility to ensure that its candidates are viable -- which means, in part, that they're acceptable across a broad-enough range of the party that the candidates themselves can settle down to real issues.

The primaries would still sort these guys out, of course -- supposing that they can be spread out more evenly between March and June, with big states coming later. To HELL with that idiocy of letting Iowa and New Hampshire decide who's viable and who's not.

Another needed reform has to do with the assigning of delegates. The "winner take all" approach is also a disaster. The Republicans have got to come up with a way so that good candidates still have a chance after a mediocre primary.

12 posted on 09/04/2009 2:43:25 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; Artemis Webb; All

What I favor is a system (closed), but would stipulate:

The states which voted most heavily in favor of our Republican Presidential candidate in the last election get to VOTE 1st, 2nd.. in the Presidential Primaries next go round.. The states which voted least % Republican in the General Election last time get to vote LAST next go round in Republican Primaries. (That way there is a reward for voting Republican), and we then know that heavily Democratic States will ~NOT~ be determining OUR Candidate (Hence probably a more conservative nominee~)!


13 posted on 09/04/2009 2:47:39 PM PDT by JSDude1 (www.wethepeopleindiana.org (Tea Party Member-Proud), www.travishankins.com (R- IN 09 2010!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Another needed reform has to do with the assigning of delegates. The “winner take all” approach is also a disaster”

To me, that is the real problem, not so much the “Super Tuesday" and the quashing of the primaries together. After all, the Dems had Super Tuesday too, yet the fight for the Dems nomination went right on to the bitter end. We've got to do away with winner takes all, otherwise our primaries are could keep churning out idiots like Juan McCain.

14 posted on 09/04/2009 2:53:17 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
That's a reasonable approach ... though I'm not sure that I'd welcome shifting undue electoral influence to small states like Nebraska or Utah, any more than I like it happening in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Moreover, I suspect that the states would quite reasonably object to having different primary elections for the different parties. Far more cost-effective for them to stipulate a date and go with it.

That's a problem, of course, because that drives the states toward wanting earlier dates in order to "be relevant." TO fix that, both parties would have to agree on the "spread it out" strategy ... not impossible, as I suspect the Democrats are just as displeased with the current system as we are.

I think closing the primaries to non-party voters would have the desired effect.

15 posted on 09/04/2009 2:55:11 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
After all, the Dems had Super Tuesday too, yet the fight for the Dems nomination went right on to the bitter end.

Yeah, because there were two candidates who had rabid followings with deep pockets. More commonly, though, they're probably more prone to picking bad candidates with this system than we are. JF'nK being the perfect example -- he had it all sewn up early.

16 posted on 09/04/2009 2:57:22 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

I favor an open system, to enable the voice of the independent, that is not winner take all. Also, I think the states that failed to deliver in the prior election should lose a portion of their delegates. It is rediculous to allow solid democratic states like NY, Mass, and California to have such a large influence on the ultimate candidate.


17 posted on 09/04/2009 3:09:39 PM PDT by snap54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: snap54

What if we lined up all the states from smallest to largest, in terms of electoral votes, and had primaries every Tuesday beginning in March for 25 weeks.

The first Tuesday would be the 2 smallest states, then every week the next 2 until almost close to the convention, where New York and California could be the last 2.

It would make for a true buildup of support for the best candidate. Maybe there would be 3 or 4 candidates at the end who would still have a shot.

Maybe it could help keep the candidate with monstrous war chest from “buying” the nomination.

What do you think?


18 posted on 09/04/2009 3:50:09 PM PDT by AlexisHeavyMetal1981 ("Super" Tuesdays produce false results)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AlexisHeavyMetal1981

Your idea is so simple and logical that there is no chance of it happening. :)

Next time try to come up with something complicated and deeply flawed. The RNC will probably love it.


19 posted on 09/04/2009 3:59:19 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

Withold money to the RNC until they close all GOP primaries.


20 posted on 09/04/2009 4:19:15 PM PDT by Mogollon (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

Personally, I don’t have an answer for you...but I can affirm that Virginia’s primaries are open. Even though I am not affiliated with any political group, unless you count the RLC, I generally vote in the Virginia Republican primary.


21 posted on 09/04/2009 5:11:21 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 (May God save the American Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb
A good place to see the future regarding open vs closed primaries would be California. Currently CA primaries allow only registered GOP voters and unaffiliated voters to vote in GOP primaries. The grass root conservatives want only registered Republicans to vote in the primaries. While the CA GOP leadership wants open primaries. What happens in CA could impact nationally the debate of having open vs closed primaries.
22 posted on 09/04/2009 5:20:30 PM PDT by yongin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yongin

Thank you for that information.


23 posted on 09/04/2009 5:24:33 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

Here’s how I think primaries should be organized:

My suggestion is basically to hold the first primary in the state that has the highest percentage of GOP votes in the last election, the 2nd primary in the 2nd highest, and so on. 2 primaries a week for 25 weeks, with the last primaries being the suckup-to-the-democrats. And the democrats could easily have their primary schedule the same way, if they wanted.

This way, if a state is 60% republican, there is still incentive for them to get out the vote for 61% republican so they can bump up their state in the primary schedule.

Also: Rotate all the states (even the big ones) through an early schedule so that everyone gets access at some point to the front line.

OR

Let each state bid when they want their primary to take place. The earlier the primary, the fewer the delegates they control according to some logarithmic or steep curve formula.

18 posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:55:08 AM by Kevmo (We need to get rid of the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party. ~Duncan Hunter)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1962610/posts?page=18#18

Second thing is the order of the primaries should be determined by the percentage of republicans in the last vote. The higher the %pubbie, the sooner the state appears on the primary schedule, with a mix of big & little states and our staunchest republican states get to go FIRST.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965735/posts?page=862#862


24 posted on 09/04/2009 8:52:29 PM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

I just got a call from the RNC.

Normally they try to keep me on the phone for a while, asking me for money, no matter how many times I’ve said I won’t send them a penny.

I told her that they should close the primaries and then maybe I will send money. I had to explain that the open primaries are what gave us the curse of John McCain.

She hung up in a hurry. I wonder if closing the primaries is out of the question?

She was under the impression that only registered republicans can vote in republican primaries.


25 posted on 10/07/2009 9:58:47 AM PDT by Califreak (If it's Astroturf, why are you trying to mow it?(sign seen at a town hall meeting))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson