California Republicans Limit Their Primary To Those Registered In Party

Fox News ^ | Monday, February 4, 2008 | Casey Stegall

[Moral Hazard]

About 34 percent of voters in California are registered Republicans, and are the only voters allowed to cast ballots in the Republican presidential race on Tuesday.

...

Political consultant Hal Dash said the decision to exclude independent voters could play to the Democratic Party’s advantage by allowing Democrats to argue that the GOP doesn’t want them.”Why would you want to shut the door at the beginning when you have the opportunity to be able and welcome some numbers? If I was the California Republican Party, I’d want anybody I could get given their shrinking numbers,” he said.

[deport]

Do you prefer the WTA statewide as opposed to the WTA in each CD and statewide for at large delegates?

[gruna]

As I said, I prefer winner take all. I don’t prefer gerrymandering, however, no matter how it’s done, and that’s what has happened on the Republican side, and not on the Democrat side.

[gruna]

It should not be necessary to force what makes sense. All states should be winner take all, or none should be. I prefer winner take all.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
“Well, you go to the polling place, you request a Party’s primary ballot. I don’t believe you have to be registered in that party to request it.”

Here in MendoLand, we were informed by the county clerk that we would have no polling place and would have to vote absentee. The ballots that arrived in the mail allowed me to vote only according to my registration. My wife is registered Independent and she can vote for any of the liberal party candidates, such as the Dem P&F or Green candidates, but not the Rep.

I’m for closed primaries. She is not, because she feels that she has the right to defeat McC and will not listen to my arguments. We will both vote our conscience in November.

Michael Frazier

[DoughtyOne]

I’m not sure what the WTA stand for, so let me answer your question like this. I think it will answer your question.

Let’s say I’m a candidate and I only have so much time or finances to spend. This being the case, I start thinking about what my serious downsides will be if I don’t campaign for a certain state. If I go to Missouri and win, I can win 15 electoral (just an example, I don’t know it’s actual delegats / electors) votes and the other candidate won’t win any. That makes Missouri (or any state that does give 15 electoral votes) as important as California. Why waste time in California if a smaller effort can garner the same plus / minus impact?

California has 54 electoral votes. I think you can look at nomination delegates in about the same manner.

What happens if I don’t campaign in California? I may lose a few districts. Is that devistating? I don’t think so. If won districts achieve a portion of the overall electoral votes or delegates, I only stand to lose a portion of them.

If I go campaign in the state and work my arse off, I can only expect to win about two thirds of the districts at best. One third will generally agree with the alternative. If more agree with the alternative, it makes my benefit of working in the state even less.

Without going to California, I could probably expect to win 40%. By going I would probably at best only win 60%. What’s the spread then?

If I win 40% I would get about 21 electoral votes, or a comparative of delegates. If I win 60% I would get about 32 electoral votes, or a compative of delegates.

The spread is on 11 electoral votes. Anotherwords any state that gives out 11 or more electoral votes, suddenly becomes as important as California to me. Why should I go to California and work my butt off, when I can expend the same amount of effort in three states that give me all of their 12 electoral votes. 11 electoral votes or 36? Hmmm, where should I spend my time?

Now, if all of California’s 54 electoral votes or the comparative delegates are mine if I win, suddenly California becomes as important as four plus 12 delegate states. All of a sudden the state becomes a must. I cannot afford to let the other guy make a clean sweep in the state.

That’s why I think it is important to have all the eggs go to the winner.

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, then I think we’re in agreement. Sorry if I misunderstood your point.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
While I support closed primaries, I don’t see any real value in winner take all when it comes to electoral votes.

The uninformed and spiteful believe that California is a giant blue state when, in fact much of the state is very conservative. Divying up electoral votes by district would, at the least show the rest of the nation that the blueness is mostly in San Francisco, LA, and some places on the coast. At best, it could deny Osama Obama or the Hildebeast a portion of our electoral votes.

There is a movement to do just that and both the GOP and DemocRAT parties are against it.

Michael Frazier

[Myrddin]

Florida is a closed primary state.

That's what the law says. That isn't what happened. Poll workers permitted some people claiming to be "independents" access to Republican ballots.

[deport]

Thanks for you reply.

WTA = winner take all

Essential that is the process for ‘electoral college’ votes except in ME and NE.

CA varies that somewhat for the Primary delegate selection process in that it is winner take all by congressional district for each districts three delegates and winner take all statewide for the at large and bonus delegatges. So in effect a candidate could come in an work for delegates in selected CDs that he may have a good shot at winning.

I guess it just depends upon how one wants to structure the process and campaign.

Take care.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Michael. I know some people do support it. I can’t sign on to it.

[Myrddin]

I am a firm believer in winner take all.

Don't you find it depressing to perpetually be in the minority? Winner take all leaves the RATS with all the California electoral votes.

[DoughtyOne]

WTA - Winner Take All (Duh! That was difficult wasn’t it. Well evidently LOL.)

Thanks for the explanation. That’s about what I thought, although I didn’t know exactly how it worked, multiple delegates per district and all.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, I do find it disconcerting. I find it even more disconcerting to note that our presidential nominee only comes to the state once or twice for very short periods, mostly to attend big fundraisers so they can spend the money in other states.

The result is that conservatism is almost never sold inside the state by the titular head of the Republican Party.

I refuse to think of this state as unwinable.

Good family values and fiscally responsible policies sold from the top of our nation party leadership, would aid our state reps, governor races etc.

It really is a poor stituation.

BTW, I don’t think the party leadership in Ca. is against splitting the electoral votes.

[deport]

There is a movement to do just that and both the GOP and DemocRAT parties are against it.

---

Doesn’t ME and NE currently split their electoral votes up by CD and the at large [senator] delegates go to the statewide winner?

[Myrddin]

I would prefer an approach that awards electoral votes in a WTA within each Congressional district. That way the candidates can't get away with just focusing on a few large cities. I always felt disenfranchised as a conservative voter in San Diego when LA and SF were able to tip the statewide WTA to the RATS. I'm still convinced that B-1 Bob lost his seat because illegal alien "motor voters" went for Sanchez. The RATS won't do anything about the illegals stuffing the ballot box.

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
“Doesn’t ME and NE currently split their electoral votes up by CD and the at large [senator] delegates go to the statewide winner?”

Sorry, I don’t know the answer to that, but it sounds reasonable to me.

Michael Frazier

[DoughtyOne]

I understand your thoughts on the state dynamics. I heartily agree on the issue of Dornan, and am still angry at the party leadership for cutting him adrift.

“ANY” election tampering is reason for a new election. Dornan deserved the right to have a new election and the party installed Sanchez instead. Then her sister won later on based on the fact that her sister was already an office holder.

The RP leadership has a lot to answer for.

[deport]

Thanks.....

Yes they do, just a rhetorical question.

[Jabba the Nutt]

What happened when you went in to vote? I’m now very curious as to the rules in CA. One poster said his wife is registered Independent and could vote in any o the left party primaries.

[DoughtyOne]

Here's the deal.

You can only vote for the candidates of the party in which their records show you are registered.  You are not allowed to cross over.

Independents can vote for Independents, Republicans for Republicans and Democrats for Democrats.  There is no crossover and no same day registration.

If you have just reregistered, you will have to fill out a provisional ballot.  Even if you have the confirmation card and your new ballot booklet for the proper party, you have to fill out the provisional ballot if their records don't show you registered for the updated party.

Provisional ballots are set aside and verified with the registration rolls at a later date.  I'm not sure if they are counted same day with and are only verified later.

Hope this helps.  I appreciate you asking the question.  This applies to California, and others may be interested.