Skip to comments.The Michigan Republican Party is trying to decide: Caucus, Convention, or Closed Primary?
Posted on 07/12/2011 8:52:32 AM PDT by jenk
There is discussion as to what Michigan should do:
1)Close the primary and there are numerous suggestions as to how to qualify voters. Registration as R's, allowing only R's to vote for the Republican Pres. nominee--down to calling our open primary a closed primary by simply asking to have either a Dem or R ballot (which is what we do now.)
2)Hold a convention
The arguments against all are numerous.
The caucus argument seems to be losing steam because of the difficulty to organize it in very small and very big counties.
The convention argument is gaining steam, but personally, I think it is unfair, considering that if I come from a small county, but have a lot of Republicans who may be against the establishment, that they would not be able to vote, since we can only send 4 or 6 delegates to a convention, and a large county could vote with numerous delegates for the establishment.
I believe we should close the primary, so that only registered Republicans can vote for the Republican, and the grassroots works to register R's, making the arguments on the street level.
What say you?
I’m not sure of the best route, but I like the fact that there’s no “open” primary.
I’m worried about Dems going heavy for Mitty in open primary states, since they have no POTUS race (at least yet).
I wish Ohio had a closed Primary. If I had a choice in it that is what I would opt for. Needing to go and charge your affilation 30 days prior makes a lot of sense in the general you can vote for whoever.
1)there is no way we can stop the Democrats from picking our candidate, so we must have a convention.
2)It will disenfranchise Independents
3)If Independents can vote for Republican, then Dems will just register as independents.
4)If we make Independents register as Republicans, they won't and the nomination goes to Romney
Michigan has an open primary, I hear ya.
As long as its closed, I don’t care much any way.
I prefer a closed primary. I still think Iowa’s caucus system is crazy, yet it is the KO of the primary....
Convention would be the best way to ensure Mitt doesn’t win. He won’t be the 2nd choice of anyone and a convention is the best way to throw the Ron Paul and Herman Cain votes to Bachmann. He won Michigan in 2008 and will be run as the “favorite son”. It is an important and early contest.
I voted for Hillary here in Indiana’s 2008 open primary as an “Op Chaos” operative. McCain had already captured the R nomination by that point.
If you want to get rid of grass roots folks go to a caucus system. In Mn it is a total sham. Party elites decide everything
I’ve always been opposed to having to register with a party to vote but these days I think it might be a good idea. When there isn’t a democrat primary challenger, it frees up a lot of democrats to step on the GOP primary.
Open primaries are one of the dumbest ideas in politics. Why should Democrats choose the Republican candidate? Or vice versa? It’s just a feel-good sop to the self-righteous independents who feel they are superior because thay can’t articulate a political philosophy, they wear their ignorance like a badge of honor.
good to know, thanks
uh, Oakland county has upwards of 80 delegates, and they are always pro-Romney, pro-RINO.
It would takeover 20 small counties to measure up.
And what of the argument that if say, the country folks would be more apt to vote non-establishment, and are more conservative? won’t that be unfair to just send 4 people to vote and leave them out?
Convention. Less costly and you get people who are activists and know the issues.
that is partly my argument, if we are making folks register as republicans to vote in Republican primary, then it would stop a lot of Dem crossovers, because say what you will about inner city liberal democrats, about the last thing you could get them to do is register as a republican.
I make an observation though, that a lot of comments here are based on affecting one particular candidate (Romney), and that's a shortsighted approach for a long term solution.
The solution should reflect the majority opinion of all Republicans in the state...no Dems, no "Independents" (whatever that means) and no rigging it to benefit or hinder individual candidates that may be running in 2012.
This system, if you change it, will most likely be used in 2016, and there is no idea who is going to be in that race.
what do you say to my post #16?
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.